Political Sectarianism’s Spookiness: Down with Sunni and Shi‘i Sectarians

Abu Dharr

 

In the beginning of Islamic history, there were Umawis (Umayyads) and today there are Saudis. In the beginning it wasn’t the khulafa’ and now it isn’t the Ikhwan. For some of us who cannot relate the past to the present or vice versa, let us remind them, if a reminder is any help, that the Saudis have put the Ikhwan on their terrorist list. In other words, the scheming Saudi family has criminalized the Ikhwan, for the same reason and purposes that the Umawis outlawed the Shi‘is, criminalized the Khawarij, and proscribed any scholar or movement that questioned their legitimacy.

If we the Muslims had our political thoughts correct we would easily see the similarities between the Umawis and the Saudis on one flank as they were and are at war with the Shi‘is and the Ikhwan on the other. One of the principal reasons why this political clarity is muddled is the element of sectarianism — both Sunni sectarianism and Shi‘i sectarianism. Sunni sectarianism swells into proportions verging on ignorance from a root problem that fails to identify, clearly and publicly, the political deviation and ideological aberration that was set into historical motion by the Umawi usurpation of power and succeeding dynasties since that time, barring a few exceptions. Shi‘i sectarianism sprouts into proportions verging on ignorance from a root problem that fails to identify, clearly and publicly, the political temporary solution and ideological measure to keep the Muslim population together (most of whom are steeped in a jahili ‘asabiyah) after the Prophet’s passing on — from the khilafah of Abu Bakr to Imam ‘Ali. This grey area (the legitimacy of the khilafah and the illegitimacy of monarchies) that has turned into widespread Islamic ignorance (both Sunni and Shi‘i) has become the troublemaking area of anyone who holds a grudge or harbors hostility toward Muslims (both Sunnis and Shi‘is). The two incapacities: Sunnis discovering who the Umawis were, and the Shi‘is discovering who the khulafa’ were, are causing confusion and chaos throughout Muslim lands. Feeding on this general ignorance are the jumping mad extremists and fanatics, both Sunnis and Shi‘is. Immediately identifiable on the Sunni side are most Wahhabis and Salafis; on the Shi‘i side are the Hujjatis and Shirazis. And the cure can only come from within. A Sunni does not meet the requirements to remedy Shi‘i mistakes and misunderstandings. Similarly, a Shi‘i does not meet the requirements to rectify Sunni mistakes and misunderstandings.

This very wide gap of historical, religious, ideological, and political ignorance has flung the doors of fitnah wide open for Sunni-Shi‘i religious bigots and Zio-imperialist military diehards to suck the life out of Muslims everywhere.

What has this combined Sunni-Shi‘i unfamiliarity with each other done to both of them? What has it done especially to the ruling decision-makers in Arabdom? In the first instance, current rulers in Arab countries have gone from hypocritical enemies of Israel to its introverted friends on their way to becoming its affable allies. Can anyone believe that the Egypt of the 1950s and 1960s has gone from a pompous enemy to becoming a poodle pal of the Zionist beast? Who could have imagined that an Egypt, with a population of 100 million, ganging up with the diminutive mortal enemy of Muslims — the Zionist butchers of Palestinians — to strangulate the two million poverty stricken Palestinians in an open air prison called Ghazzah!? Even an imagination running wild could not have predicted, a generation ago, that there will be Arabian officials who will go public with their alliance with the Zionist slaughterers of babies and killers of kids with smiles on their faces and will salute an apartheid Israel in their statements! The official Arabian system that began with the Umawi usurpation of power and allegations of legitimacy is winding down with the Saudi capitulation to those who are most ruthless in their hostility to committed Muslims. The Umawis’ official policy of condemning Imam ‘Ali and the Prophet’s household from the minbars has morphed into public policies that are saying the Yahud have a right to settle in and establish their (Zionist) state in Palestine. The Umawi-cum-Saudi rulers are blowing hot-and-cold saying that resistance to Zionist Israel is terrorism. Even the Palestinian Authority that was conceived in Oslo and Madrid by Arabian officials and midwifed by Zio-imperialism is begging for international recognition of statehood on about a fourth of geographical Palestine. The 14 centuries of official metamorphosing from Umawi to Saudi peaked with the Oslo agreement that had half the world’s nation-states, who were hitherto resistant to recognizing Israel, come out accepting Israel as a bona fide nation state; among them were China and India. The Umawi affinity with Byzantium lives on in official Arabdom as Egypt and Jordan made their peace with the Zionist colonizers. And now the Arabian-Gulf goofballs are preparing the stage for their official recognition of the Zionist creature — with Bahrain leading the way. Their Iblisi rationalization: we can’t be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves! As the 14-century old Umawi regime is surrendering to the American sponsored Zionists in Palestine, a 14-century old resistance is coming of age — the spirit of resistance and championing the rights of the oppressed. History is at a turning point. In less than a generation we may very well witness the rise of those valiant spirits who gave their lives as they stood their ground against the combined forces of Byzantium and the Umawis come back to life and win in the final confrontation in this historical battle. The resistance and fight against Zionism and its backers and benefactors is the prospect of the Palestinians, the anticipation of the Arabs, sunniness of the Sunnis, the sureness of the Shi‘is, marvel of the Muslims, and the optimism of the oppressed.

The nation-states, particularly Egypt and Jordan, who were promised economic prosperity for signing the Oslo and Madrid agreements are worse off now than they have ever been. Their normalization of relations with the Zionist colony in Palestine has put them deeply in debt and marginalized them so much that you may count them as banana republics. Opposite them was tiny Lebanon (total population a mere 4 million) — a country divided into many sects and denominations, a den of spies, dotted with nightclubs and casinos to serve as a playground for the immoral Arabians. In this Lebanese polyglot of religions and classes, the Shi‘is were at the bottom of the totem pole. Then came the attempted Israeli occupation of Lebanon in the 1980s. What was to follow was a manifest miracle — a core of dedicated grassroots Muslims, with values of human equality and principles of universal justice. They emerged and blew up the US marine barracks and the US embassy and forced the protectors of Israel to flee from Lebanon. Then came a long war of attrition against the Zionist occupiers of Lebanon that culminated in the Zionist Israelis dragging their tail of defeat out of southern Lebanon. At a time when sons of PLO officials were busy transacting business deals, the sons of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon were transacting divine deals. A leader of Hizbullah and sons of the leaders of Hizbullah gave their lives in exchange for Allah’s promise. When the dust began to settle, many agents of the Israeli war machine were exposed and some of them fled to Israel where they eventually were treated like the rest of the Palestinians and Arabs. Then came 2006, and Israel and the US confidently talked about a “New Middle East.” And a New Middle East did indeed emerge but it was not the one Tel Aviv and Washington had envisioned. It turned into a New Middle East after 33 days of Israel’s unrelenting but failing warfare with Hizbullah. The resistance movement emerged at the center — head and shoulders above the historical remnants of Arabian officialdom from Manama to Morocco. Hizbullah today has catapulted into the only fighting force in the area along with the Islamic Resistance front. If war ever breaks out we may very well witness for the first time in our tortured contemporary history Hizbullah gallantly liberating at the very minimum northern Palestine with the potential of moving onward to liberate al-Quds (Jerusalem) — the eternal capital of the Prophets (a). And so it was: the Lebanese underclass of poor Muslims became the center of attention and the only force to be reckoned with in the Eastern Mediterranean. And the Umawi voice can be heard through the loudmouths of Arabdom who call Hizbullah a “terrorist organization.” Finely-tuned Muslims can recognize the voice of Mu‘awiyah in the statements of Bani Saud. The Saudi princes and royals are pointing fingers at Hizbullah saying that it gets its support from Iran. Look who is speaking! They get their support from Israel and America. And what is wrong if a Muslim gets support from another Muslim for the goal of putting Palestinians back in their homes and territories? We are now in front of two camps: one of them says the liberation of Palestine is a legitimate goal (the Islamic Resistance) and the other says that the Zionist colonization of Palestine is legitimate (the Gulf Arabian officials).

Arabian official mouthpieces are poisoning the airwaves with sectarian accusations flying left and right saying that Hizbullah is Shi‘i. In the meantime we want to ask them: who are your allies? Aren’t they Israel and the US? And in your sectarian vocabulary are Israel and the US Malikis? Or Shafi‘is, or Hanbalis? Or Hanafis?

The Umawis and the Saudis who hijacked the word “Sunnis” became conscious of their Sunni-ism when they began puffing their Cuban cigars and sipping their Johnny Walker!

And they should not think — they who are in denial of Allah’s power and authority — that Our giving them rein is good for them: We give them rein only to let them exacerbate their sin; and shameful suffering awaits them (3:178).

Muslim Unity is Not an Illusion — It is an Obligation

By Abu Dharr

Nationalism is a sickness. Racism is a plague. And sectarianism is a cancer. These are the three major illnesses that afflict the Muslims — from the time the first Islamic country came into existence in Arabia over 14 centuries ago up to this very day. Here, we shall try to make a diagnosis of sectarianism, setting aside much of its history.

The words Sunni and Shi‘i have made their way into the political parlance of current events. You may want to review the news items and news commentaries of the Islamic world before the Islamic Revolution in Iran to find out how scarcely the words Sunni and Shi‘i figured into political articles and ideological books then. Now, though, you will find these words tucked into geopolitical analyses and sociopolitical studies about Muslim countries — ranging from the political right to the political left. Even Muslim writers are towing this highbrow line of thought! This “Sunni-Shi‘i” characterization of diplomacy and wars appears to be the fad of the near future.

We neither have the time nor are we straightaway interested in butting intellectual heads with writers and thinkers whose ideas are molded by the high god of Zionism and imperialism. Our immediate concern is with those Muslim writers and journalists who have shacked themselves in the sectarian fleapit.

To begin with, any rational Muslim will tell you that the Muslims of the world, excluding the enlightened ones, will consider themselves either Sunnis or Shi‘is. Ask them: was the Prophet (pbuh) a Sunni or was he a Shi‘i? And you will get an assortment of answers. Not much success there…

Then ask: is your definition of a Sunni or a Shi‘i a definition that brings all Muslims together? Does your definition exclude the other (Sunni or Shi‘i) from being considered an “equal Muslim”? Here, you will have him/her begin to think (quite an accomplishment; as many of these Muslims have inherited their identities without thinking about who they are).

Then ask them: as we all agree that the Qur’an is our ultimate reference, can you produce for me one ayah that substantiates your (hereditary) definition of who a Sunni is? Or who a Shi‘i is? If your interlocutor remains calm and honest, he will confess that there is no ayah in the Qur’an that validates his conventional definition of his own Sunni or Shi‘i assumptions.

Then ask: are there fanatic Sunnis and fanatic Shi‘is around? Can you identify them for me? What makes them fanatics? Is thereany ayah in the Qur’an or is there any consensual hadith, which is compatible with the Qur’an, that explains such fanaticism? If your interlocutor is open, reasonable, and candid he will begin to rethink his inbred beliefs.

All of these questions and similar ones are not meant to demean any Muslim as much as they are meant to reject and rule out the bigotry and the bias that many Muslims have toward each other — precisely the components of today’s sectarianism.

Say good-bye to your friend and take a moment to spend with yourself. Look at the Muslim world and observe how sectarianism has been manipulated by those who have power and wealth; inside the house of Islam and outside of it to wreak havoc on hundreds of millions of poor Muslims who just two generations ago were faintly aware that they are Sunnis or Shi‘is!

It would be asking too much to expect a Sunni to pray like a Shi‘i, or to expect a Shi‘i to pray like a Sunni; in other words, there is not enough maturity in both the Sunni and the Shi‘i Muslims to come to the point where they both exchange recognition of the other in practical terms. Pray like each other. Fast like each other. And perform the rituals of Islam like each other. It is because of this inability that we have Muslims at psychological distances from each other. This is where sectarianism begins.

Okay. Let us move on. If the average Muslim considers the “other” Muslim incorrect in the way he performs his rituals we end up fostering a form of bias and in some cases intolerance and discrimination. Case in point: when was the last time you saw a Sunni scholar give the Friday khutbah in a Shi‘i masjid, and vice versa? Has there ever been a Shi‘i scholar who led the prayers in al-Masjid al-Haram in Makkah, or al-Masjid al-Nabawi in Madinah? Has there ever been a Sunni scholar who led the jama‘ah prayers in Mashhad, or al-Najaf or Karbala’? And even if this was ever to occur, it should not be for public consumption or a showcase event. It should be done with a mass public Muslim recognition of the equality of the Islamic madhhabs (schools of thought). These narrow-minded-cum-mean-minded fiqhi variances attributed to the respected Islamic faqihs, and not to the Prophet (pbuh) himself, is what has kept us from assuming and resuming our socio-political responsibilities.

Taking this to another level, both the Sunni and the Shi‘i historical developments metastasized into bigoted and sectarian drifts. In the Sunni sphere there are those Wahhabis and Salafis who go to the extent of labeling the Shi‘is as kafirs. In the Shi‘i sphere there are those Safawis (Safavis in Persian) and Hujjatis who consider Sunnis to be outside the pale of Islam. Both of these represent the deadly outcome that comes from our initial inability to identify ourselves as equal Muslims (regardless of madhhab) and more importantly to express that by unifying our masjids in a way that it really does not matter whether a particular prayer leader prays according to a madhab other than mine.

There are larger fish to fry than to be sinking into the pits of circular arguments pertaining to ritualistic performances. There is a hadith from the Prophet (pbuh) that says, “Allah does not take into consideration your outward show; rather He takes into consideration your internal reality.”

The fanaticism in the Sunni context has taken a major blow — a potential knockout by the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Saudi tribal regime and the financial clout it has, or should we say had, throughout the world. Many Muslims are waking up and looking at an ugly and disgusting Saudi regime that is beginning to disintegrate due to its role in the war on populations in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc, not to mention its crimes against individuals who are its own citizens from Jamal Khashoggi to the hundreds of ‘ulema’ whao have been rounded up in a humiliating manner, thrown into prison, and either forgotten about or awaiting a kangaroo court to sentence them to long terms in prison or to put them on death row. Islamic activists, writers, scholars, and observers are speaking out against the tyranny and the lackey regime in Arabia that takes its orders from Zionist henchmen and imperialist bosses.

The fanaticism in the Shi‘i context is brewing beneath the surface. Our brothers and sisters in the Islamic Republic of Iran have been riding a crest of well-deserved successes as costly as they have been over 40 long years… But they have to begin to address the cancer of sectarianism in their midst; two scholars, among others, who did just that were the late Ayatullah Mutahhari and Dr. Ali Shariati. Their lessons, articles, and books on this subject, as far as this writer knows, do not circulate; this, in and of itself, proves that the sectarians do have sizeable clout within the Islamic Republic.

Our brothers in the Islamic Republic of Iran have shown the rest of the Muslims a very commendable character of civility and courtesy. Their efforts at bringing the Muslims together are admirable. Their bypassing of the ritualistic issues that divide the rest of the Muslims within the house of Islam is laudable. But we would be naive to make believe that Shi‘i sectarians are negligible and of no influence. Like all nations, Islamic Iran has its share of nationalists and even racists. But that does not concern us as much as the sectarians who can bring the Islamic Revolution to a halt, stifle the Islamic Republic, and reverse most if not all the progress of the past four decades. We dread a day in the future when the sectarian clout reverses Walayah al-Faqih and turns the clock back to the “negative/passive anticipation” of the Imam in occultation. Forewarned is forearmed.

O you who are faithfully committed to Allah [His power and authority]! Be on guard concerning Allah [His power presence and overriding authority] as is due to Him, and do not die except as Muslims [surrendering to His dominance] (3:102).

Rethink history: undo sectarianism

by Abu Dharr 



 Sectarianism exists on both sides of the divide. It is imperative to understand the root problems to overcome it, urges Abu Dharr.

Sectarianism is a hard nut to crack. This is so because each sectarian today (and this applies equally to Sunnis and Shi‘is) is calcified within centuries of self-righteousness that feeds on the other’s self-unrighteousness as it is perceived from each side of the sectarian divide. To illustrate this simple fact we shall take those two words that for sectarians justify their superiority. One of them is the word Ahl al-Bayt. In the “Shi‘i” sectarian understanding of history this refers to a select line of descent from the Prophet (pbuh). And here we have a variety of “Shi‘i” schools of political thought that identifies a line of the Prophet’s (pbuh) progeny who are the only Ahl al-Bayt, or the only ones qualified to stand in for the Ahl al-Bayt heritage. We shall spare ourselves the details that are to be found in this area between and among those who belong to the assorted narratives that fall under the title of Shi‘i. This type of transmitted understanding cannot comfortably accommodate the Prophet’s (pbuh) statement, “Salmanu minna Ahl al-Bayt: Salman is one of us — Ahl al-Bayt.” Salman [the Persian] was not from the Prophet’s lineage of descent.

On the other hand we have sectarians who come from the Sunni calcified traditions belonging to generations of Muslims who absented their minds from the political realm altogether. They speak highly of some sahabah while either barely mentioning other equal sahabah or neglecting some others of them altogether. Possession of power or lack thereof seems to have influenced such sectarians who belong to this narrative of history. In the course of Islamic history there were sahabah who took issue with other sahabah and in the trickle-down of information about such events the ones who had no power had no sahabah aura to them. Who can deny the fact that Abu Dharr is a sahabi? But because power did not play to his advantage as he took issue with the financial and economic privileges and refractory of certain other sahabis he does not occupy a prominent position within the pantheon of sahabah. Others who were in the mold of Abu Dharr in his and later generations do not fit the honorific of sahabah or tabi‘een. To name a few: ‘Amir ibn ‘Abd Qays, Kumayl ibn Ziyad, Zayd ibn Sawhan, al-Hasan al-Basri, and the list goes on.

If this is straining your memory of history, who is it that offers Imam ‘Ali, Imam al-Hasan, and Imam al-Husayn the honorific of sahabah? Sectarianism has made it impossible for some sahabah to belong to Ahl al-Bayt and for some from Ahl al-Bayt to be identified as prominent sahabah! Many committed Muslims of conscience and action have been shunted by this sectarianism that lives on. Power figures in the Umayyad regime capitalized on this sectarian dichotomy and got away with the unspeakable: they destroyed the Ka‘bah, they laid waste to Madinah, and they even killed with their own justification the Prophet’s (pbuh) grandsons. That justification for murder and mayhem has not been exposed and repudiated by today’s Muslims simply because the sectarian construct survives up until this very day, making it unlikely for Qur’anic common sense to prevail. As a result, powerless people lived in fear. The dynasties were not concerned with Allah’s (swt) power and authority as much as they were concerned with their political survival and any sectarian slant that served their purpose.

Why should anyone with a Qur’anic and Prophetic mind be unable to see Umayyad and ‘Abbasid power-mongers pursuing their own agendas and giving them an air of legitimacy by invoking whatever blank sanctity to their version of events? The tragedy of Karbala in particular should be an eye opener and a call to freedom of conscience and thought away from the sectarianism that surrounded it — by friend and foe alike. In plain language the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid rulers were dunya-centered. In lay language: they were in it for the money and for power. The Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said,

Ma al-faqru akhsha ‘alaykum; wa lakin akhsha ‘alaykum al-dunya, an tunafisuha kama tanafasaha al-ladhina min qablikum, fa-tuhlikukum kama ahlakat-hum: It is not poverty that I fear bearing down on you; [rather] fear that the dunya [the desire for wealth and material possessions] will bear down on you; [I fear that] you will compete materialistically as those in times past did. At that time the dunya will ruin you as it ruined them.

It is this dunya that has brought us to where we are today: no din priorities, no hot-pursuit of knowledge, no soul-clinging to justice, no intra-Islamic tolerance, and no self-confidence resulting from altruism.

Even during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) the Quran was revealed to adjust and correct committed Muslims. Listen and learn,

[Hence], O you who are securely committed [to Allah’s power and authority], when you embark on a [military] task in Allah’s cause, use your discernment, and do not — out of a desire for the fleeting gains of this worldly life — say to anyone who offers you the greetings of peace, “You are not a person of commitment,” for with Allah there are gains abundant… (4:94).

There was in the time of Allah’s Prophet (pbuh) those who thought they were committed Muslims and wanted people to think that they were committed Muslims. But Islamic commitment is ascertained by behavioral evidence and a transparent social character. After our beloved Prophet (pbuh) passed away the revelation of the Qur’an ended and it is left up to us — the carriers of this meaningful Qur’an — to examine and evaluate policies and politicians in particular. You will notice that during the Prophet’s (pbuh) lifetime when revelation was still in progress there were numerous ayat to evaluate military efforts. Look at Badr’s evaluation in Surah al-Anfal, Uhud’s evaluation in Surah Aal ‘Imran, and al-Khandaq’s evaluation in Surah al-Ahzab, etc. In this close reading of the Qur’an we observe how Allah (swt) reconstructs those critical times and retraces what they did from a position beyond their “selves” and their “lives”. If in that process they made mistakes, He points them out,

…[remember what you felt] when they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when [your] eyes became dim and [your] hearts came up to [your] throats, and [when] most conflicting thoughts about Allah passed through your minds… (33:10).

All this and much more for those who follow Allah’s words carefully and thoughtfully is in the Qur’an concerning that first and unique generation of committed Muslims. But none of this was meant to give them a halo of infallibility; even they knew that they were not self-righteous and holier-than-thou.

Sectarianism has made it impossible for some sahabah to belong to Ahl al-Bayt and for some from Ahl al-Bayt to be identified as prominent sahabah! Many committed Muslims of conscience and action have been shunted by this sectarianism that lives on.

It is a sad comment to say that the Umayyad and other dynasties were to use the qualities of that humble generation around the Prophet (pbuh) with all its imperfections yet with all its selflessness and sacrifices to legitimize their usurpation of power and then cast that into the sectarian mold that we still suffer from today. From here on in, it was the regimes and dynasties that would evaluate and assess individuals and people. When committed Muslims were wrong in the time of Allah’s Prophet (pbuh) the faultless Qur’an would tell them directly and objectively that they were wrong and that they had to correct themselves. And with the Prophet’s (pbuh) leadership they did.

But when errant regimes and dynasties took over the leadership of Muslims they began to use opinions of some live-and-let-live scholars to justify their credibility and rationalize their legitimacy. Facilitating this whole process was the sectarian divide. The opposition to dynastic and autocratic rulers came from many who initially identified with Imam ‘Ali. So they had to be labeled. And labeled they were. Money and power back then acted like money and power do today. Establishments and governments can label the most honest person around as a weirdo, a goof-ball, or as may be more understood in today’s political climate an anti-Semite — and lo and behold that tag sticks like white on rice! This happens to almost all opposition forces in history. In our time we have the pejorative of “socialist” or “communist,” we have the derisive of “subversive” or “radical,” and in the Islamic sphere we have the derogative “Shi‘i” or “Ikhwani” just to name a few. But it should be clear to the discerning.

We know that this exposition may have touched on some raw nerves. But we have no choice but to speak the truth with the kind heart of brothers who seek justice,

There has now come to you an admonition from your Sustainer, and a cure for all [the ill] that may be in men’s hearts, and guidance and grace to all who are committed [to His power and authority] (10:57).