The Washington Post has gone beyond political correctness, outrageously trying to delegitimize Iraq’s Shiites, labeling their political coalition as “Islamist.” The term befits murderers like al-Qaeda and Hamas, not democratically elected political parties who have Shiite members. Here’s the Post:

The partial election results, which did not include Sunni-dominated areas of western Iraq, suggested that the Islamist Shiite alliance that dominates the current government had done well and could win an outright majority in the new assembly. In the Shiite southern heartland, the Shiite alliance also appears to have won a decisive victory.

Why are the Shiites labeled “Islamist” here? Let us remember what the term means, from the man who put the word on the map, Daniel Pipes:

Islamism is not so much a distortion of Islam, but a radically new interpretation. It politicises the religion, turning it into a blueprint for establishing a coerced utopia. In many ways, its programme resembles those of fascism and Marxism/Leninism.

This week’s [9/11/2001] events mark not the outbreak of a new problem but the heightening of a two-decade-long pattern of Islamist violence. That violence is a truly global phenomenon, affecting such varied countries as Algeria, Pakistan, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Philippines. Islamists constitute a small but significant minority of Muslims, perhaps 10 to 15 per cent of the population. Many of them are peaceable in appearance, but they all must be considered potential killers.

So by what evidence are Iraqi Shiites lumped into the “Islamist” camp? What are Iraq’s Shiites guilty of?

Yes, there was the infamous terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr, but Iraq’s top Shiite, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, pressured al-Sadr to give up control of the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf. The city is quiet now and under the control of the elected government. I was at first worried about Sistani, believing him to be a potential ally of Iran’s crazy mullacracy.

There’s no evidence to date of some grand conspiracy for Iraqi Shiites to become politically subservient to Iran’s dictators. Sistani put his blessing on democratic elections. Millions of Shiites have voted 3 times. In fact, Sistani has vowed not to impose Sharia (Islamic law) on his country. So far, he has kept his word.

Sunni/Wahabi/al-Qaeda violence has specifically targeted Iraq’s Shiites, but they have showed enormous restraint. They have not reacted with violence. Iraqi Shiites have shown great courage, determination, and social maturity, waiting to vote instead of plotting revenge.

An aid to Sistani insisted on January 7 that Sunnis will be included in a national unity government “irrespective of how their parties fare in the polls.” Even after their huge win in Iraq’s January 30 elections, Shiites continue to be adamant that Sunnis will be included in the drafting of the country’s permanent constitution.

It is downright disgusting for the Washington Post to label all Iraqi Shiites as terrorists. While Shiites have kept their word, adhering to the democratic process, the Post throws words around recklessly.

Most read articles on netWMD:

• Can Arabs Be Democrats?
• Poll: Most Americans Support Staying in Iraq
• Iraq: The Joy in Voting, Not Shared by the Left
• Iraqi Beacon
• China: Putting Lipstick on the Pig (Tiananmen II)
• Organization of the Islamic Conference Vows to Fight Extremism
• Iran Nukes: Enough Bending Over Backwards?
• Ahmadinejad: Holocaust Denier; Says Jews Should Move to Europe
• Ramsey Clark: Smoking Crack
• Joe Lieberman and George W. Bush: Stay the Course in Iraq