A FORUM TO EXCHANGE VIEWS AND IDEAS
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label shia-sunni. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shia-sunni. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
சவூத் குடும்பம் ஏன் ஈரானைப் பயப்படுகின்றது-வெறுக்கின்றது?
Thursday, January 9, 2014
The Prophet (saws) and Muslim unity
The phenomenon and politics of sectarianism
by Zafar Bangash
January, 2014
Sectarianism is projected in some quarters as the greatest challenge facing Muslims when the vast majority of Muslims want unity in the Ummah. Who is stoking the flames of sectarianism?
Sectarian discourse and sectarian induced violence seem to have become major problems facing Muslims today. There are killings in the name of one sect or another in different parts of the Muslim world. Muslims are told that sectarianism is a historical problem that cannot be overcome. Such assertions fly in the face of empirical evidence that posits a completely opposite proposition: most Muslims support unity. For instance, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that two thirds of Muslims worldwide want to “unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate [khilafah].”
While framed in theological terms, sectarianism is essentially a political weapon used by certain vested interests to advance their narrow agenda since they lack a legitimate basis to justify their position or continued hold on power. Like nationalism, sectarianism is also used to whip up mass hysteria. Without justifying it, there are at least some positive aspects to nationalism. For instance, people in one geographical area, ie a country, can be mobilized to stand up against a rival country in the name of patriotism and protecting the “national interest.”
Nationalism’s limitation is that by its very nature it is confined to people living in a certain geographical area. Thus, on the basis of nationalism alone, Pakistanis for instance cannot have the motivation to help the people of Palestine or any other place where there is human suffering. The same applies to other situations. The Afghans cannot appeal to Muslims elsewhere to help them on the basis of nationalism. But, this can be overcome if the discourse is framed in Islamic terms.
Thus, the people of Pakistan can be motivated to help their fellow Muslims in Palestine or Chechnya in the name of Islam. The Pakistanis may not necessarily go there physically — although some have done so — but their sympathies can be aroused and financial donations solicited to help alleviate the suffering of oppressed Muslims in other parts of the world.
The above examples have nothing to do with sectarianism. The people of Palestine and Chechnya follow different schools of thought from those in Pakistan. The common bond between them is Islam. Problems arise when some people — usually rulers of some countries that lack legitimacy — resort to sectarian discourse whose purpose is to create hatred for a particular group or party. Raw sectarianism is often camouflaged by using Islamic terminology.
To understand this better, let us look at Syria. For nearly three years, a war has raged there that can be traced directly to outside forces, primarily the Zionists, imperialists and the Saudis. This can be narrowed further; the imperialists have pulled back somewhat because they have realized that what may replace the current regime led by Bashar al-Asad may turn out to be even worse if al-Qaeda-linked takfiris grab power. The Saudi-Zionist alliance, however, is hell-bent on creating instability and continuing the violence.
The Zionists can hardly appeal to Muslims by claiming to be friends of the Syrian people. No Muslim with even a limited understanding of the nature of Zionism and its oppression and persecution of the Palestinians will accept the Zionists as friends and allies. Enter the Saudis. While they lack legitimacy, they have often used their alleged support for “Muslim” causes elsewhere to polish their ugly image. In the 1980s, they sent thousands of Arabians to fight in Afghanistan. It was not to help the Afghans but to get rid of their own troublesome youth, demanding fundamental rights that were threatening regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Many Arabian fighters returned to create problems for regimes in their home countries once the Afghan war ended.
The Saudis are playing an even more sinister game in Syria. They can hardly claim to be helping the Syrian people to gain their legitimate rights when the Saudis suppress their own people and do not allow women to even drive cars (in Syria, women are allowed to fly planes!). Nor can the Saudis claim that they are supporting the “Sunni majority” in Syria when the Saudi rulers did not support the overwhelmingly Sunni population of Egypt after the Egyptian military overthrew a legitimately elected government last July. Instead, the Saudi regime openly backs the military coup in Egypt. This has left them dangerously exposed in their alleged claim of supporting “Sunni” Muslims.
In Syria, however, the Saudis have played the sectarian card effectively. Accusing the Bashar al-Asad regime of being ‘Alawi (the ‘Alawis are an offshoot of Shi‘ism), the Saudis and their tribal allies in the region have whipped up sectarian tensions and created massive problems in the Ummah. The regime in Syria is neither ‘Alawi, nor Shi‘i or Sunni. It is not a religious-based government at all. There are Sunni ministers in the government as there are Shi‘i ministers. There are Christians and yes, there are ‘Alawis in the cabinet but none of them is committed to any particular sect. There are men as well as women in government but they are all secularists. Their overriding loyalty is to the secularist nationalist Ba‘th party system and their position in it.
The Saudis are using sectarianism in Syria to whip up hatred against the regime, which it wants to overthrow. This is part of its pro-Zionist policy and is also meant to secure an extension of its own existence that looks increasingly shaky given current trends in the region as well as internal developments in the kingdom. There is much discontent in the kingdom with nearly 30,000 political prisoners languishing in horrible conditions in various prisons. The Syrian crisis, however, is a recent phenomenon. The Saudis have used sectarianism as a tool in such places as Pakistan and Lebanon for many years and more recently in Iraq with deadly consequences.
In the backdrop of Saudi-induced sectarianism is fear of the rise of Islamic Iran on the political landscape as a major player. True, Iran is a predominantly Shi‘i country but it has not launched a sectarian crusade to brand non-Shi‘i Muslims as kafirs. Nor has Iran encouraged the killing of Sunnis anywhere. In fact, Iran has tried hard, within its means, to create understanding among Muslims of different schools of thought. The Tehran-based Majma‘ al-Taqrib bayna al-Madhahib al-Islamiyyah regularly brings together scholars of different schools of thought to promote Muslim unity. It can be argued that this has not eliminated sectarian-induced conflicts but it is not for lack of trying. It is a lot easier to create fitnah (sedition) than to establish peace and harmony.
It would be appropriate to reflect on some areas of the Muslim world where sectarian tensions have been running high. Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria immediately come to mind. Add to that Bahrain and we can begin to form a picture that these are countries with populations predominantly of one sect but also with a sizeable population of the other. Thus, while Pakistan is predominantly Sunni, there is also a sizeable Shi‘i population there. In Lebanon’s complex confessional pot pouri, the Shi‘is are more than the Sunnis but with a significant Christian population, the political landscape is more complicated. In Iraq the Shi‘is constitute an absolute majority who were denied basic rights for decades. Unfortunately, since the rise to power of a Shi‘i dominated government, peace has not been restored. Bahrain is overwhelmingly Shi‘i ruled by a tiny minority “Sunni” family clique.
But how does one explain the lack of sectarianism in places like Turkey, Azerbaijan or Kuwait? Turkey has a sizeable Alevi (‘Alawi) and Shi‘i population (about 15%), Azerbaijan is an overwhelmingly Shi‘i country while Kuwait has a sizeable Shi‘i (about 20%) population. Kuwait’s example is instructive because it follows the same Wahhabi ideology that the Saudis subscribe to from whence it emerged in the 18th century yet there has been no sectarian conflict in Kuwait.
We also have the curious phenomenon of sectarian tensions arising in places like Malaysia, Indonesia and South Africa. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world almost all of them Sunnis following the Shafi‘i school of thought. There are only a few thousand Shi‘is there at best. The same applies to Malaysia and South Africa. The question is: why has sectarianism reared its ugly head in these places? The same question may be asked about Egypt where days before his ouster from power, President Mohamed Mursi had indulged in crude sectarian rhetoric. Some Shi‘is were publicly lynched when the Shi‘is in Egypt are no more than a few hundred thousand in a population of some 80 million. It needs recalling that Egypt was at one time a predominantly Shi‘i country under the Fatimids and al-Azhar University was established by them more than 1,000 years ago!
In Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa, Saudi agents have deliberately created a sectarian crisis as part of their attempt to keep the Ummah divided. After all, neither place has a significant Shi‘i population and in South Africa, the total Muslim population itself is miniscule compared to the country’s overall population. There are, however, some maulanas that have close links with the Saudis through such Saudi front organizations as the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) whose representatives frequently visit South Africa disbursing largesse (the US has declared WAMY a terrorist organization).
In both Indonesia and Malaysia, the regimes are behind the anti-Shi‘i campaign although there are also strong voices raised against stoking sectarianism. Leaders of the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) as well as many leading academics and intellectuals have spoken out forcefully against sectarianism and warned against the negative consequences of this campaign.
It is interesting to note that there was no sectarianism in Pakistan until the early-1980s when the Islamic Revolution in Iran succeeded. This was a deliberate policy pursued by the Americans, British and Israelis as well as some segments of the Pakistani establishment. Their aim was to prevent the influence of the Islamic Revolution from spreading into Pakistan. Given strong cultural and linguistic affinities between the two countries, the latter was a natural arena for accepting the revolutionary fervor sweeping Iran. Yet under a carefully crafted policy, promoted by some segments of the Pakistani establishment, anti-Shi‘i sentiments were allowed to flourish. Unfortunately the Pakistani Shi‘is also played a negative role and inadvertently helped the “Sunni” extremists. Those Shi‘i scholars (like Syed Arif Hussaini Shaheed), who were striving to create understanding between the two communities, were eliminated. This not only exacerbated Shi‘i-Sunni tensions but also allowed space for more narrow-minded sectarian Shi‘is to emerge.
When the struggle against the Soviets was raging in Afghanistan, extremist “Sunni” outfits were promoted in both countries to confront the Red Army. This, however, could not remain confined to Afghanistan since much of the ideological indoctrination was coming from Saudi Arabia via Pakistan. Helped by Saudi funds, many madrasahs sprang up in Pakistan and in its tribal belt. The students who emerged from these madrasahs carried the narrow-minded strain of Wahhabi sectarian ideology that denounces every non-Wahhabi a kafir.
Unfortunately some otherwise respectable scholars also lent their weight and prestige to this divisive campaign. The late maulana Abu al-Hassan Nadvi (d. 1999) was one of them as was his close associate Manzoor Ahmen Naumani. Both scholars succumbed to the temptation of petrodollars and despite their learning, embarked on a sectarian crusade that has caused immense damage to the Ummah. While the two Indian maulanas waxed eloquent against Shi‘ism, they never mustered the courage to say a word against Hindu fascism or the mistreatment of Muslims in India that continues to this day.
In a telling episode in the early-1990s, Indian security forces raided Nadvi’s madrasah in Luckhnow following a tip that Kashmiri mujahideen were sheltering there. The security forces broke down dormitory doors, smashed furniture and beat up many of the tullab (students). No Kashmiri was found there. The Indian government offered a mere 200,000 rupees (approx. $4,000) as compensation and the maulana kept mum despite some Muslim leaders in India urging him to take a stronger stand against such acts of state terrorism.
Disturbing as the rise of sectarianism is, there are important voices being raised against it. Last August, a conference in Kuala Lumpur attended by academics and scholars from different schools of thought presented persuasive arguments against sectarianism. Similar efforts elsewhere, for instance in Turkey in November and early last month in Pakistan, point to the fact that ‘ulama and Islamic activists are taking steps to confront the menace. In Turkey, an 11-point agenda was agreed upon while in Pakistan a nine-point agenda was unanimously agreed by ‘ulama that represented major sects — Deobandi, Barelvi, Ahl-e Hadith and Jafari schools of thoughts. The Pakistani meeting was convened under the auspices of the Punjab Auqaf and Religious Affairs ministry in Lahore.
Important as these steps are, more persistent efforts are needed to isolate and thus weed out the extremists that constitute a tiny minority but grab huge publicity because of their violent acts. The government of Pakistan has a major responsibility in confronting the menace of sectarianism otherwise it will tear the fabric of society apart in which there will be no winners.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Respecting differences
by Zafar Bangash
June, 2013
The tendency among some Muslims to insist that their particular understanding of Islam is the only correct way has caused numerous problems. These are compounded by rigidity leading to unnecessary conflict when Muslims should be tolerant of different approaches.
Every Muslim sincerely and consciously commits to the One God — Allah (swt) — the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the last and final messenger for all humanity, and the Qur’an as the revealed word of Allah (swt) to guide humanity till eternity. Problems arise in the Muslims’ selective understanding and application of Qur’anic teachings and the role of the noble Messenger (pbuh) in their lives. This is further complicated by some Muslims’ insistence that their particular understanding is the only legitimate way to interpret and implement Islam in real life. When such attitudes harden into fanaticism, it leads to disunity among Muslims and divisions in the Ummah.
Many different approaches can be identified but the most serious differences exist among those Muslims that are striving to establish Islamic states in their societies. Is there only one way to achieve this? Often adherents of different approaches seem to think theirs is the only correct way and all others are wrong. Our readers know where we stand. Our position is clear from our writings in this magazine as well as from our other works such as the tafsir of the noble Qur’an by Imam Muhammad al-Asi or the books we have produced on the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). But we also take the position that no matter how strongly we may disagree with other Muslims’ point of view we do not exclude them from the fold of Islam or from adding their views to the larger ferment of Islamic ideas.
Denouncing other Muslims as kafirs has regrettably become fashionable among some groups (the takfiris). They go further: based on such denunciation, they think it is permissible to kill the Muslims so identified. Such behavior has no sanction in the Qur’an or the Sunnah and the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). There are a few conditions in which killing others (anyone) is permitted: three of these include engagement on the battlefield, treason, and the murder of an innocent person. In the latter case, the Qur’an stresses forgiveness over revenge.
So how did Muslims end up with this strange takfiri ideology that is spreading like a virus in the Ummah? A closely related phenomenon is that of sectarianism. It is used to create hatred against a targeted group of Muslims to justify acts of violence against them — including killing them. Muslims would do well to identify the forces that are pushing them toward sectarian warfare: imperialism and Zionism. True, different sects have always existed among Muslims but their differences never took on the virulent form it has taken on today. Whose interest does it serve for Muslims to fight each other? Let us be blunt: some Muslims that call themselves Sunnis are busy instigating hatred against other Muslims that carry the Shi‘i label. This is most clearly visible in places like Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain. The launch of this campaign can be traced to the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, a Shi‘i majority country, in 1979. Iran’s success exposed the fraudulent claims of the puppet Arabian regimes to being Islamic. The only way they could undermine Islamic Iran was by playing up the sectarian card.
Regrettably, some Sunni ‘ulama including those that have built a reputation for learning have also joined this campaign. Changes in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon have led them to describe these as the “Shi‘i project.” When a tyrant like Saddam Husain was in power in Iraq, many of these ‘ulama remained silent. Today, they seem to have fallen for the lure of comfortable living under the patronage of petro-rulers and joined their vicious sectarian game. Instead of urging Muslims to confront imperialism and Zionism and their local agents in the Muslim world, they are busy pushing Muslims into the flames of sectarianism.
We have no doubt that committed Muslims will ultimately triumph over the imperialists, Zionists and their munafiq agents in the Muslim world, as promised by Allah (swt) in the noble Qur’an (47:07, 61:13), but before that victory is achieved, Muslims would have paid a terrible price in life and blood. Committed Muslims have an obligation to properly understand the global reality and take the necessary steps to guard against all such schemes aimed at dividing them. Such divisions only serve the agenda of a more and more desperate West, whose policies have failed. Leading Muslim institutions, such as al-Azhar in Egypt, have a responsibility to come out clearly against such attempts at creating divisions and work for social and religious harmony among Muslims. Al-Azhar has a rich history of working to bring Muslims together. The legacy of Shaykh Mahmoud Shaltut needs to be revived and built on. Now is the time to do it.
Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Imam’s life and legacy
June 3rd marks the 21st anniversary of Imam Khomeini’s passing into heavenly company. Amid his many achievements was the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, establishing the first Islamic state in modern times. We reproduce an abridged version of Zafar Bangash’s foreword in the latest book, Imam Khomeini: A Leader of Principle and Purpose, published by Crescent International for the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought.
Three factors are essential for the Islamic movement to bring about change in society: an accurate understanding of the situation in which it operates; clarity about the goal it wishes to pursue; and, the process through which this would be achieved. This is also the lesson we learn from the Sirah of the noble Messenger of Allah (r) when he proclaimed the message of Islam, first in Makkah and later in Madinah. He was absolutely clear about the jahili nature of society in Makkah, indeed the entire Arabian Peninsula and beyond, and refused to compromise with it. He set out to challenge and demolish it and replace it with a system based on Islamic principles and values.
The process for this change was the mobilization of a group of people that were totally committed to bringing change in society regardless of the price they would have to pay. And they did. At the end of the life of the noble Messenger of Allah (r) on earth, Islam had not only spread throughout the Arabian Peninsula, but an Islamic state had also been established and consolidated. It started in Madinah but expanded both east and west ultimately encompassing the entire Arabian Peninsula during his lifetime. The Prophet’s (r) successors expanded the Islamic domain to virtually the entire known world, spreading as far as Central Asia and China and into parts of Europe. This is the model Muslims have followed throughout history.
In the Muslims’ contemporary history, there have been numerous movements that have struggled to bring about change in their respective societies. Some have subsumed their struggle under the label of nationalism while others have openly proclaimed that they wish to implement Islamic laws in society, yet with the exception of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, none of the other movements has succeeded. What sets the Islamic movement in Iran apart from others, such as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon (Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt and Jamaat-e Islami in Pakistan or movements inspired by their thought and method? Numerous reasons can be advanced for the lack of success of these movements — and there are elements of truth in all of them — but it needs emphasizing that no movement succeeds without struggle and sacrifice. It is not in the sunnah of Allah (Â) to not test His faithful servants: this was the case with all the Messengers and Prophets of Allah (Å) and continues to be the case with those that have made a faith-commitment to Allah (Â). He makes clear in the noble Book:
Do people think that when they say, “we make a faith commitment to Allah,” that they would not be tested with trials and tribulations? Lo! We tested those who were before you. Thus Allah distinguishes those that are sincere [in their commitment to Him] and those that merely feign and lie [about their commitment] (29:2–3).
Thus challenges and trials and tribulations are part of the struggle that committed Muslims must endure in order to achieve the goal of implementing Islam in society. Both the Ikhwan and the Jamaat-e Islami were endowed with charismatic leaders although they did not achieve the stature of Imam Khomeini. The Ikhwan and the Jamaat also had well-thought-out programs but because they frequently made erroneous assumptions, success eluded them and continues to do so today.
What we can say with confidence is that Islamic movements cannot gain power by participating in elections organized under the prevalent jahili systems in Muslim societies. The experience of the Ikhwan (in Egypt), the Jamaat (in Pakistan), the Islamic Salvation Front (in Algeria) and many others that operate as Islamic political parties confirms this. Some may cite the successes of Hamas and Hizbullah to assert that participation in electoral politics under existing systems can bring positive results. It needs pointing out that their conditions are rather different. Their lands and societies are under direct foreign military occupation. They are forced to make difficult choices. Should they deal with the external enemy or tackle the internal situation first? The choices facing them are not pleasant and both carry grave risks.
The news of Imam Khomeini’s death on June 3, 1989 was marked by extreme grief both in Iran as well as outside. Millions of people in Iran participated in his funeral procession in Tehran while tens of millions of others around the country were grief-stricken. While an estimated three million people had welcomed the Imam on February 1, 1979 when he returned from 15 years in exile, more than 10 million people participated in his funeral prayers in Tehran in the scorching summer heat. The authorities in Iran had to urge people from outside Tehran not to come because facilities in the capital were stretched to breaking point. The scenes at his funeral, as witnessed on television, were heartbreaking.
What these demonstrated clearly was that the Imam lived in people’s hearts. He had earned their trust and confidence through self-sacrifice and denial of worldly pleasures. He was bold and courageous but above all, he had unshakable faith in Allah (Â) and His promised help. The people knew that he was a leader of exceptional qualities but he lived a life that was very close to that of ordinary people in Iran. They also knew that he had no personal ambitions in life beyond adhering to the commands of Allah (Â) and eliminating injustice from the face of the earth. These are the attributes of a truly great leader. This, however, is only one dimension of his multifaceted personality.
Imam Khomeini came from a deeply intellectual tradition. From a very early age, he was immersed in the study of ‘irfan (gnosis) and mysticism. His interest in fiqh was aroused much later. It was clear even in his early life that he was deeply troubled by the injustices in society and he reflected on the causes of such malaise. He began to raise and discuss these issues at a relatively young age despite being quite junior in the hierarchical structure of the ‘ulama in Iran. But he was careful not to overstep his authority in the presence of senior figures. It was later when he had reached a more senior position that he began to express his views more forcefully, leading to his arrest by the Shah’s regime and ultimately exile from Iran in 1963. Exile, however, did not deter him from speaking out, and thus he attracted large audiences. There was a yearning among people searching for a leader with courage, knowledge and charisma. They found their ideal in Imam Khomeini.
There are many dimensions of Imam Khomeini’s personality. It is regrettable that apart from Professor Hamid Algar, perhaps the greatest authority on the Imam, there have not been many scholars that have paid adequate attention to the Imam’s intellectual contribution in numerous fields. Most Muslims around the world became familiar with the Imam’s writings and works through the pioneering efforts of Professor Algar and through the writings of the late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui in the Crescent International. In Tehran, there is also an Institute established for the Compilation of the Works of Imam Khomeini. While it has done some good work, it is largely confined to literature in Farsi and perhaps some material in Arabic. The English works produced by the Institute are of questionable quality.
What is needed is a team of dedicated researchers to concentrate on the writings and declarations of Imam Khomeini to make the rest of the world aware of them. There is a great deal about his intellectual contribution that is unknown to most people. Unless these works are properly researched, analysed and discussed, the world would remain unaware of Imam Khomeini’s contribution in many fields. Even his widely known achievement — leading the Islamic movement to bring about an Islamic revolution in Iran — is not properly understood; even many Muslims do not understand and hence do not appreciate it fully. Some of it is undoubtedly the result of negative propaganda in the western media, and even within the Muslim world financed and supported by such regimes as those in Saudi Arabia or Iraq under Saddam. The West’s animosity toward the Imam is based on the loss it suffered in Iran. He overthrew the West’s favourite puppet and demolished the Western-imposed exploitative order there. This was a major blow to Western interests. This the West could not tolerate, hence the incessant hostile propaganda and negative portrayal of the Imam. They could hardly be expected to extol his virtues. The Islamic State of Iran continues to be viewed with great hostility even today precisely because it refuses to surrender to the West, unlike other regimes in the Muslim world.
The western media’s hostile propaganda is one dimension of the problem. In fact it is confirmation of the fact that the Imam had embarked on a course that was viewed by imperialism and Zionism, the two leading sources of zulm in the world today, as a challenge to their exploitative and anti-human policies. But what explains the hostility of such states as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq under Saddam? These bastions of Arabism are illegitimate entities that were created by western colonialists to serve their interests. The Imam’s successful struggle against the Shah, who was in the mould of all these other rulers, by bringing about an Islamic revolution exposed them completely. This was especially true in the case of Saudi Arabia whose rulers had wrapped themselves in the mantle of custodians of the Two Holy Cities. Muslims worldwide were forced to ask: how could the custodians of the Haramayn be subservient to the kafirs, especially the US, a sworn enemy of Islam?
The hostile propaganda against the Imam was confirmation that his mission was dedicated to the service of Allah (Â). But such propaganda does not fully explain the lack of knowledge among Muslims and other people about the Imam’s immense contribution in such diverse fields as the understanding of the Qur’an, hadith, ‘irfan, fiqh, theology, Muslim political thought, etc. In any case, we should not give too much credit to the Saudis and their ability to influence events in the Muslim world. What is truly lacking is the will and a well-thought-out plan to study the Imam’s contribution. This is an area that awaits serious consideration and attention.
The Islamic Republic commemorates the Imam’s anniversary each year. Guests are invited from all over the world. Papers are presented and conferences held. The commemoration ceremonies culminate in a huge rally at the Imam’s mausoleum in the Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery. Why has a committee of scholars not been appointed and provided facilities to undertake serious research into the writings and thought of the Imam? It serves little purpose to produce numerous volumes of questionable quality and assume that this is all that is required. True, people continue to have deep attachment to the memory of the Imam more than two decades after his departure from this world but his intellectual contribution is of a much higher order and needs to be addressed at the proper level.
This would provide important lessons for the global Islamic movement. It is through the process of learning from our successes as well as failures that we would be able to better tackle the challenges confronting us.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
SHIA SUNNI UNITY: SHIA SUNNI DIFFERENCES, SHIA SUNNI CONFLICT
SHIA SUNNI UNITY: SHIA SUNNI DIFFERENCES, SHIA SUNNI CONFLICT
The centuries old Shia Sunni differences are the major obstacle to Muslim unity (Shia Sunni unity). The enemies of Islam to their benefit have always fanned these differences. Unfortunately, some so-called Muslim scholars on their payroll have also played a key role in keeping these differences alive.
Although I was born into a Sayyid Sunni family, I did not know of many differences while growing up as a child. Our families always respected Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) and his parents and participated in ceremonies marking the anniversary of his martyrdom (the 10th day of the month of Muharram which is called Ashura) by reciting the first chapter of the Holy Qur'an (al-Fatihah) and other chapters and verses of the Holy Quran and fasted on the ninth and tenth days of that month.
Now when I give lectures on Islam to non-Muslims, one of the questions they always ask me is if I am Shia or Sunni. I ask them if they know the difference. They have no knowledge, other than what has been given to them by the media. So they say Shias are the ones who are the bad guys, the militant version of Islam, and cause all the trouble in the Middle East these days.
These non-Muslim American audiences of mine are surprised to learn that some of the known tyrants like Saddam Hussain and troublemakers like the PLO and Hamas are all Sunni's, just as they are surprised to learn that Tariq Aziz (Former Iraq's Foreign Minister) was Christian and not a Muslim.
This is what I say to them about Shiite. "If Ali ibn Abu Talib (cousin of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) was a Shia, then I am a Shia. If he was a Sunni, then I am a Sunni [i.e., a follower of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)]." In Islam there are five recognized schools of Divine Law: 1) Hanafi; 2) Shafi; 3) Maliki; 4) Hambali and 5) Jafari.
The first four are called Sunni, and the fifth one, who in addition to following sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), also follows those of Ali ibn Abu Talib and consider him as the rightful successor of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), are called Shia. The first four have many major theological differences among themselves and according to a Christian friend of mine, "The only time Sunni's are united is when they are fighting Shias." Shiism started as a political movement (Shia means follower or partisan) to help Ali ibn Abu Talib become successor of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Around every successful popular figure, there are some admirers whose own future interests rest with the rise of their leader. Thus in Indiana, we have "Friends of Lugar Club", who are hoping that some day Senator Richard Lugar will become a US President. Nationally, we now have a "Hillary Rodham Clinton Fan Club" with 4,000 members! Thus, there were the Followers of Ali ibn Abu Talib Club, which later on became a political movement. During the initial battles with unbelievers, Ali ibn Abu Talib, the Sword of Islam, was in the forefront and defeated and killed many of their leaders whose children and grandchildren, even when they became Muslims, always remembered who killed their father (animosity).
Ali ibn Abu Talib was raised by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a child so he knew Islam very well. Thus, when Ali ibn Abu Talib became a judge, his judgments were based on strict Islamic principles, much to the disappointment of many who expected him to be lenient to the rich and powerful. Ali ibn Abu Talib was so well respected and trusted by both Caliph Abu Bakr and Umar, that in difficult cases they asked his opinion.
Nevertheless, I tell my non-Muslim audience that both Shia and Sunni have many things in common. They both believe in One God (Allah), follow the same Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the last Prophet, offer five daily prescribed prayers, perform the prescribed fast in the month of Ramadan, go to Makkah for the Hajj pilgrimage, read the same book of Allah, Holy Qur'an, and pay the poor-due (Zakat).
However, my answers can only satisfy my uninformed non-Muslim audience. The Sunni brothers, misguided by western propaganda, who are ready to embrace non-Muslims (especially the white ones), in the pretext of invitation to Islam, will not do so for Shia. They are ignorant Sunni's. Our job as a missionary should be to invite both groups to the true Islam and not chase them out. There is a movement in the Sunni world to have Shias labeled as disbelievers. I have been told that Shaykh Bin Baz of Saudi Arabia has declared an edict that the meat of the People of Book (Jews and Christians) is permissible for Sunni Muslims to eat but not the meat slaughtered by Shias.
There are scholars on both sides, like Imam Khomeini and Shaykh Shaltut of al-Azhar who have done their best to minimize these differences and bring unity, but it is not working due to the misinformation prevailing in the common masses of Sunnis about Shiism. Thus I am listing their misconceptions of Shia belief and practices. For answers, I have consulted two Shia scholars in America. Dr. A. S. Hashim of Washington and Imam Muhammad Ali Elahi of Detroit.
Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr wrote to me "to ignore and not waste time in responding to such wrong allegations." He also mentioned that "a great deal of money and effort is being spent in the last few years to fan the fire of hatred between Shia and Sunni in the Persian Gulf region with obvious political and economical fruits for powers to-be." However, in the interest of Islamic unity, I must deal with the questions rather than shun them. Please note that Imam Jafar as Sadiq (peace be upon him), founder of the Shia school of law, was the teacher of Imam Abu-Hanifa (peace be upon him).
Misconception #1: Shias have a different Holy Qur'an. They add another 10 chapters to the original Holy Qur'an. Response: Not true. I have checked many times Holy Qur'an kept in Shia homes and mosques. I still find it the same as the original Holy Qur'an. More recently, I took care of an Iranian lady patient hospitalized here. I saw a copy of the Holy Qur'an by her side. I borrowed it from her and browsed through cover-to-cover. In Arabic it was the same as our Holy Qur'an. Of course, since I did not know the Persian language, I can't say much about the translation. It is a sin to even say that the Holy Qur'an can be changed or added to by Shia when Almighty God protects it.
Misconception #2: Some Shia considers Ali ibn Abu Talib as God. Response: Not true. It is disbelief to even think of such a thing. During the time of Ali ibn Abu Talib, some pagan groups called Gholat did consider Ali ibn Abu Talib as Lord. When he found out, they were burned to death.
Misconception #3: Shias have different declarations of faith and they add to the call to prescribed prayer. Response: The declaration to become a Muslim, as administered to non-Muslims, is the same. Some Shia add to themselves, "Ali ibn Abu Talib is a friend of God or Ali ibn Abu Talib is a spiritual leader of God," after the call to prescribed prayer, but not as part of the call to prescribed prayer.
Misconception #4: Shias do not perform Sunnah prayers. Sunnah prayers are non-obligatory prayers performed by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Response: Shias do perform non-obligatory prayers, 36 cycles per day in total, but call it Nawafil and not Sunnah.
Misconception #5: Some Shia believes the Angel Gabriel made a mistake and prophet hood was meant for Ali ibn Abu Talib and not Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Response: Not true. No Shia thinks of such false claims. "Only demented minds think of such questions."
Misconception #6: Shias slander and ridicule the first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) and Prophet Muhammad's wife, Ayesha. Response: Shia considers the first three caliphs as companions and administrators, but not spiritual leaders (Imams). Imam Jafar as Sadiq (peace be upon him), whose mother and grandmother came from the line of Abu Bakr, said of Abu Bakr, "He gave me birth twice." Ayesha is respected by Shias as the "Mother of Believers," as Ali ibn Abu Talib respected her when he sent her back from Basra to Madinah after the Battle of the Camel. If some Shia do slander the three caliphs and Ayesha, they do it out of ignorance and should ask God's forgiveness. (As we have witnessed how Imam Khomeini, The Shia bravely declared death of Salman Rushdie - The author of Satanic Verses who abused the wife of Prophet Ayesha and Shia Leader declared blasphemy, just for his Fatwa the whole western countries became against Iran. See how much price did Shia pay to defend Ayesha - while Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc. etc. as the Sunni government were silent they did not defend Ayesha. Now who loves Ayesha?)
Misconception # 7: Shias combine all five prayers into one prayer in the evening. Response: Not true. In Shia mosques, whether in Iran or the USA, all five daily prayers are performed. Shia do combine noon and afternoon and evening and night, but Shia scholars recommend performing them separately. Such combinations may not be ideal, but better than not praying at all. How can a Sunni who does not pray at all be better than a Shia who combines prayers?
Misconception # 8: Shias do not pay zakat (poor-due). Response: Not true. They not only pay 2.5% left over from savings as zakat, but also an additional 20% as Khums or general charity. However, they prefer to pay directly to the needy rather than corrupt Sunni government.
Misconception #9: Shias practice temporary marriages (Mutah). Response: Temporary marriages (Mutah) was allowed during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and he himself practiced it. Ibn Zubayr was born out of the temporary marriage. Later on Caliph Umar prohibited it due to social reasons as the Islamic world was rapidly expanding. Shias discourage Mutah but do not consider it prohibited. Some do abuse this. As a temporary privilege during travel, it is better than adultery.
Misconception #10: They consider Imams infallible and above the Prophets. Response: Not true. All prophets are born Prophet but as mentioned in the Holy Qur'an about Abraham that after passing the test, a prophet becomes a leader (Imam). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the Prophet (Nabi), Messenger (Rasul) and leader (Imam). Imams are carriers of the message of Islam. Shias consider Ali ibn Abu Talib only as an Imam and not prophet.
With the little knowledge I have, I tried to do my best as a Sunni in defending my Shia brothers in Islam with the hope and prayer to God Almighty that He will "instill love in the heart of the believers" and bring us closer to each other so that we jointly can fight our common enemy, Satan and his followers.
May God forgive my mistakes in this article and this book (Amin).
"Knowledge is better than wealth because it protects you while you have to guard wealth. It decreases if you keep on spending it but the more you make use of knowledge, the more it increases. What you get through wealth disappears as soon as wealth disappears but what you achieve through knowledge will remain even after you."
Dr. Shahid Athar M.D. is Clinical Associate Professor of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, Indiana University School of Medicine Indianapolis, Indiana, and a writer on Islam.
The centuries old Shia Sunni differences are the major obstacle to Muslim unity (Shia Sunni unity). The enemies of Islam to their benefit have always fanned these differences. Unfortunately, some so-called Muslim scholars on their payroll have also played a key role in keeping these differences alive.
Although I was born into a Sayyid Sunni family, I did not know of many differences while growing up as a child. Our families always respected Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) and his parents and participated in ceremonies marking the anniversary of his martyrdom (the 10th day of the month of Muharram which is called Ashura) by reciting the first chapter of the Holy Qur'an (al-Fatihah) and other chapters and verses of the Holy Quran and fasted on the ninth and tenth days of that month.
Now when I give lectures on Islam to non-Muslims, one of the questions they always ask me is if I am Shia or Sunni. I ask them if they know the difference. They have no knowledge, other than what has been given to them by the media. So they say Shias are the ones who are the bad guys, the militant version of Islam, and cause all the trouble in the Middle East these days.
These non-Muslim American audiences of mine are surprised to learn that some of the known tyrants like Saddam Hussain and troublemakers like the PLO and Hamas are all Sunni's, just as they are surprised to learn that Tariq Aziz (Former Iraq's Foreign Minister) was Christian and not a Muslim.
This is what I say to them about Shiite. "If Ali ibn Abu Talib (cousin of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) was a Shia, then I am a Shia. If he was a Sunni, then I am a Sunni [i.e., a follower of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)]." In Islam there are five recognized schools of Divine Law: 1) Hanafi; 2) Shafi; 3) Maliki; 4) Hambali and 5) Jafari.
The first four are called Sunni, and the fifth one, who in addition to following sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), also follows those of Ali ibn Abu Talib and consider him as the rightful successor of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), are called Shia. The first four have many major theological differences among themselves and according to a Christian friend of mine, "The only time Sunni's are united is when they are fighting Shias." Shiism started as a political movement (Shia means follower or partisan) to help Ali ibn Abu Talib become successor of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Around every successful popular figure, there are some admirers whose own future interests rest with the rise of their leader. Thus in Indiana, we have "Friends of Lugar Club", who are hoping that some day Senator Richard Lugar will become a US President. Nationally, we now have a "Hillary Rodham Clinton Fan Club" with 4,000 members! Thus, there were the Followers of Ali ibn Abu Talib Club, which later on became a political movement. During the initial battles with unbelievers, Ali ibn Abu Talib, the Sword of Islam, was in the forefront and defeated and killed many of their leaders whose children and grandchildren, even when they became Muslims, always remembered who killed their father (animosity).
Ali ibn Abu Talib was raised by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a child so he knew Islam very well. Thus, when Ali ibn Abu Talib became a judge, his judgments were based on strict Islamic principles, much to the disappointment of many who expected him to be lenient to the rich and powerful. Ali ibn Abu Talib was so well respected and trusted by both Caliph Abu Bakr and Umar, that in difficult cases they asked his opinion.
Nevertheless, I tell my non-Muslim audience that both Shia and Sunni have many things in common. They both believe in One God (Allah), follow the same Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the last Prophet, offer five daily prescribed prayers, perform the prescribed fast in the month of Ramadan, go to Makkah for the Hajj pilgrimage, read the same book of Allah, Holy Qur'an, and pay the poor-due (Zakat).
However, my answers can only satisfy my uninformed non-Muslim audience. The Sunni brothers, misguided by western propaganda, who are ready to embrace non-Muslims (especially the white ones), in the pretext of invitation to Islam, will not do so for Shia. They are ignorant Sunni's. Our job as a missionary should be to invite both groups to the true Islam and not chase them out. There is a movement in the Sunni world to have Shias labeled as disbelievers. I have been told that Shaykh Bin Baz of Saudi Arabia has declared an edict that the meat of the People of Book (Jews and Christians) is permissible for Sunni Muslims to eat but not the meat slaughtered by Shias.
There are scholars on both sides, like Imam Khomeini and Shaykh Shaltut of al-Azhar who have done their best to minimize these differences and bring unity, but it is not working due to the misinformation prevailing in the common masses of Sunnis about Shiism. Thus I am listing their misconceptions of Shia belief and practices. For answers, I have consulted two Shia scholars in America. Dr. A. S. Hashim of Washington and Imam Muhammad Ali Elahi of Detroit.
Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr wrote to me "to ignore and not waste time in responding to such wrong allegations." He also mentioned that "a great deal of money and effort is being spent in the last few years to fan the fire of hatred between Shia and Sunni in the Persian Gulf region with obvious political and economical fruits for powers to-be." However, in the interest of Islamic unity, I must deal with the questions rather than shun them. Please note that Imam Jafar as Sadiq (peace be upon him), founder of the Shia school of law, was the teacher of Imam Abu-Hanifa (peace be upon him).
Misconception #1: Shias have a different Holy Qur'an. They add another 10 chapters to the original Holy Qur'an. Response: Not true. I have checked many times Holy Qur'an kept in Shia homes and mosques. I still find it the same as the original Holy Qur'an. More recently, I took care of an Iranian lady patient hospitalized here. I saw a copy of the Holy Qur'an by her side. I borrowed it from her and browsed through cover-to-cover. In Arabic it was the same as our Holy Qur'an. Of course, since I did not know the Persian language, I can't say much about the translation. It is a sin to even say that the Holy Qur'an can be changed or added to by Shia when Almighty God protects it.
Misconception #2: Some Shia considers Ali ibn Abu Talib as God. Response: Not true. It is disbelief to even think of such a thing. During the time of Ali ibn Abu Talib, some pagan groups called Gholat did consider Ali ibn Abu Talib as Lord. When he found out, they were burned to death.
Misconception #3: Shias have different declarations of faith and they add to the call to prescribed prayer. Response: The declaration to become a Muslim, as administered to non-Muslims, is the same. Some Shia add to themselves, "Ali ibn Abu Talib is a friend of God or Ali ibn Abu Talib is a spiritual leader of God," after the call to prescribed prayer, but not as part of the call to prescribed prayer.
Misconception #4: Shias do not perform Sunnah prayers. Sunnah prayers are non-obligatory prayers performed by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Response: Shias do perform non-obligatory prayers, 36 cycles per day in total, but call it Nawafil and not Sunnah.
Misconception #5: Some Shia believes the Angel Gabriel made a mistake and prophet hood was meant for Ali ibn Abu Talib and not Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Response: Not true. No Shia thinks of such false claims. "Only demented minds think of such questions."
Misconception #6: Shias slander and ridicule the first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) and Prophet Muhammad's wife, Ayesha. Response: Shia considers the first three caliphs as companions and administrators, but not spiritual leaders (Imams). Imam Jafar as Sadiq (peace be upon him), whose mother and grandmother came from the line of Abu Bakr, said of Abu Bakr, "He gave me birth twice." Ayesha is respected by Shias as the "Mother of Believers," as Ali ibn Abu Talib respected her when he sent her back from Basra to Madinah after the Battle of the Camel. If some Shia do slander the three caliphs and Ayesha, they do it out of ignorance and should ask God's forgiveness. (As we have witnessed how Imam Khomeini, The Shia bravely declared death of Salman Rushdie - The author of Satanic Verses who abused the wife of Prophet Ayesha and Shia Leader declared blasphemy, just for his Fatwa the whole western countries became against Iran. See how much price did Shia pay to defend Ayesha - while Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc. etc. as the Sunni government were silent they did not defend Ayesha. Now who loves Ayesha?)
Misconception # 7: Shias combine all five prayers into one prayer in the evening. Response: Not true. In Shia mosques, whether in Iran or the USA, all five daily prayers are performed. Shia do combine noon and afternoon and evening and night, but Shia scholars recommend performing them separately. Such combinations may not be ideal, but better than not praying at all. How can a Sunni who does not pray at all be better than a Shia who combines prayers?
Misconception # 8: Shias do not pay zakat (poor-due). Response: Not true. They not only pay 2.5% left over from savings as zakat, but also an additional 20% as Khums or general charity. However, they prefer to pay directly to the needy rather than corrupt Sunni government.
Misconception #9: Shias practice temporary marriages (Mutah). Response: Temporary marriages (Mutah) was allowed during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and he himself practiced it. Ibn Zubayr was born out of the temporary marriage. Later on Caliph Umar prohibited it due to social reasons as the Islamic world was rapidly expanding. Shias discourage Mutah but do not consider it prohibited. Some do abuse this. As a temporary privilege during travel, it is better than adultery.
Misconception #10: They consider Imams infallible and above the Prophets. Response: Not true. All prophets are born Prophet but as mentioned in the Holy Qur'an about Abraham that after passing the test, a prophet becomes a leader (Imam). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the Prophet (Nabi), Messenger (Rasul) and leader (Imam). Imams are carriers of the message of Islam. Shias consider Ali ibn Abu Talib only as an Imam and not prophet.
With the little knowledge I have, I tried to do my best as a Sunni in defending my Shia brothers in Islam with the hope and prayer to God Almighty that He will "instill love in the heart of the believers" and bring us closer to each other so that we jointly can fight our common enemy, Satan and his followers.
May God forgive my mistakes in this article and this book (Amin).
"Knowledge is better than wealth because it protects you while you have to guard wealth. It decreases if you keep on spending it but the more you make use of knowledge, the more it increases. What you get through wealth disappears as soon as wealth disappears but what you achieve through knowledge will remain even after you."
Dr. Shahid Athar M.D. is Clinical Associate Professor of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, Indiana University School of Medicine Indianapolis, Indiana, and a writer on Islam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)