He was asked to prove his patriotism, and when he inquired how, they told him to burn his fingers. He burned nine, and the fire went out. He asked if that was enough, and they replied, “No,” because he had not burned the tenth finger.
This illustrates that those with ill intentions cannot be satisfied with proof of patriotism, whether one is Sunni, Shia, or communist. Treason knows no sect. We witnessed acts of treason during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, committed by traitors from various affiliations. This can occur in any society.
Those who demand that members of a particular group prove their loyalty to their homeland, rather than to Iran, fail to understand that such a demand is unrealistic. Nothing is easier than declaring loyalty to one’s homeland and hostility toward others.
The truth, however, lies hidden in the heart. Logic allows a person to lie if telling the truth would endanger their life. Thus, the silent one may be more loyal to their homeland than the one who writes articles or composes poems in praise. Moreover, no segment of society should be exempt from proving its patriotism, even if such a demand is unreasonable. Belonging to a sect, tribe, gender, or ethnicity does not guarantee absolute loyalty to the homeland, nor does its absence imply disloyalty.
It is best to avoid such unreasonable demands and assume that everyone is loyal to their homeland unless proven otherwise, in which case they should be condemned and held accountable. Kuwait has previously witnessed several cases of political allegiance to foreign powers, which were handled wisely, with some individuals deported to the countries they had pledged loyalty to.
These individuals later realized that their allegiance was misguided and made significant efforts to return to their homeland. Historically, those loyal to Iran solely as a religious authority have been a minority. The Najaf religious establishment traditionally held the greatest influence and received the Khums (religious tax).
Iran’s influence grew after the Khomeini revolution, blurring the lines between political and sectarian loyalties. This confused, increased controversy, and a higher likelihood of mistakes, along with the mistaken belief that Iran was the motherland that would elevate the status of Shiites in their own countries and protect them in times of need.
In reality, this was entirely wrong, leading to the exposure of cells, gangs, and groups that intended harm. The dilemma these individuals refuse to acknowledge is that Kuwait, as a homeland and a nation, is like health. We only appreciate its value after losing it. Many experienced this during the months of the Iraqi occupation.
A homeland is like a mother; it’s worth becomes clear only when it is lost. Those who declared, openly or secretly, their allegiance to Iran, for any reason, are merely tools used by Iran to betray their own countries. The well-known Iraqi politician Izzat Shahbandar, a Shiite activist and former leader in the Dawa Party, said he fought with Iranian forces in the 1980–1988 war and lived in Iran for a year and a half. He described the experience as one filled with humiliation and contempt for Iraqis.
Shahbandar went to Iran to fight against his own country, but, as he recounted in a YouTube interview, he and his fellow Iraqis were insulted, spat upon, and had their passports thrown in their faces. They were denied services and privileges granted to Iranian citizens, and even their children were refused admission to schools. The Iraqi Shiite cleric Ahmed al-Qubanchi, from a prominent Najafi family, also fought with Iran against his homeland, Iraq. He emerged from the war paralyzed in one arm. Because of his reformist views, which displeased Iran, he was arrested and imprisoned for years. His past and military service did not protect him; instead, Iran treated him as an act of “betrayal.”
email: [email protected]
