Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Shia Sunni Dialog: Why and How
By: Abdul Malik Mujahid
Shia-Sunni violence has been on the rise in the last few years, particularly in Iraq and Pakistan. Every month, it seems, scores of Shias and Sunnis are killed in a vicious tit-for-tat between extremists on both sides. Many of the victims are killed as they pray within mosques.
These incidents belie the reality of Shia-Sunni coexistence and cooperation. In Iraq, it is estimated that up to 30 percent of marriages are between Shias and Sunnis; victims of violence between the two groups frequently attend each other's funeral prayers; one group often helps the other's victims after an incident.
This silent majority must come together through dialog to defeat the terrorists who have been responsible for these killings.
Seven reasons why a dialog between Shia and Sunni is needed:
Theological differences between Shia and Sunni are old and are better left for God to judge, as He knows best and has said in the Quran that He is the final judge of religious disagreements. The killing of Shias or Sunnis will not resolve these disputes.
The principle of "no compulsion in matters of faith" is not just limited to Muslim-non-Muslim relations, but also applies to Muslim interpretations of Islam as well. This instruction of God serves as a guideline for the Muslim community to not impose one's interpretation on others. That is why throughout history, not only have Hanafis and Shafis worked with each other despite differences, but Shias and Sunnis have lived and worked side by side with each other as well.
When human beings sit down and talk to each other, they learn to respect each other.
Dialog allows parties to understand each other better by allowing participants to acquire direct knowledge about beliefs instead of relying on propaganda and stereotypical images.
Dialog will isolate the extremist fringe. It is a major sin to kill a human being. Killing a human being is like killing the whole of humanity. By talking to each other, Shias and Sunnis will be able to save lives, which is like saving the whole of humanity.
Revenge is not justice. Killing in revenge is unjust, inhuman, and un-Islamic. Retribution through the state, which the Quran sanctions via capital punishment does not amount to individuals taking the law in their hands or killing an innocent person in revenge. The call for, "an eye for an eye," does not mean an innocent eye for an innocent eye.
Even if some Shias and Sunnis consider each other enemies, the Quran asks us to be just even toward one's enemy "O you who believe! Stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do."
Some considerations for dialog:
The Shia community like Sunnis is diverse. There are many differences between one Shia group and another. This is why it is important that dialog between Sunnis and Shias becomes a movement and a process throughout society instead of everyone waiting for one high powered dialog to yield some results at the leadership level. Here are some preliminary thoughts on how a dialog between Shias and Sunnis can be beneficial for each side.
Goals of dialog:
Although I consider dialog a process that is beneficial to all, it is necessary that everyone involved recognize some of its tangible benefits. The following are a set of achievable goals for Shia-Sunni dialog.
Developing an agenda of common concerns
Identifying issues of conflict
Issuing joint Fatwas against the killings
Isolating extremists on each side
Preventing a potential conflict or mediating an existing conflict
Education to clarify stereotypes about each other
Setting up joint task forces to deal with outstanding issues
Who should participate in the dialog?:
Imams and caretakers of Masjids
Students of Madrassas
University students
National level religious leadership
Shia and Sunni media persons
Shia and Sunni businesspersons
Mechanism of dialog:
Dialog is a process that should occur at all levels of society. In the 1960s in Pakistan, when Shia-Sunni clashes were far less significant, city officers used to convene joint meetings of Shia and Sunni leaders to chalk out Muharram plans so no confusion would result in rioting. These government-arranged dialogs helped keep conflicts at a minimum. Considering the current level of mistrust, it will be beneficial if civil society takes initiatives for dialog at all levels of society.
Private Dialog: Host roundtable discussions initially at the top leadership level that should later expand to include:
working on different committees.
Public Dialog: Shia and Sunni both use public forums and media to speak to each other's audiences.
Visiting each other's Masjids to enhance confidence and to demonstrate that they are not supportive of the extremists who isolate each other.
Shia-Sunni Dinners: Masjids and social associations should invite Shia and Sunni friends to eat with each other publicly.
Publicity of dialog:
Publicity of the dialog will generate hope and confidence in it and will empower those in dialog vis-a-vis the extremists. Media should facilitate self-criticism and introspection by the religious leadership. Those leaders who participate in dialog should be recognized through interviews, reports, and documentaries. Investigative reports should be aired and published about the truth behind sectarian propaganda. It is important for society to honor those Shia and Sunni leaders who take initiative and demonstrate leadership in participating in dialog. Sunnis, being members of the majority community, have the higher level of responsibility towards initiating and participating in dialog.
Sponsors of Dialog:
Funding always facilitates the beginning of a process in civil society. Every task requires time and money. While participating organizations and individuals can take care of their own costs, it would be very rewarding if some individuals and businesses came forward with funds to sponsor and host these dialogs. American Muslims can start a dialog in North America where there is no conflict in the Shia-Sunni community and then inspire and sponsor dialogs where it is needed the most.
Beyond Dialog:
Considering that Shias and Sunnis live side by side in the Muslim world, they are not unknown to each other, and considering that most of them have nothing to do with the current extremism which is responsible for the killings and violence, it is important for the moderate majority to come up with a few initiatives which are beneficial for Shia-Sunni harmony. These could be communicated in the print form or in any other media. They should discuss the following themes and/or use the methods outlined here:
Khutba points which can help harmony
What type of political/religious rhetoric can hurt at personal level
What is common between Shias and Sunnis
Common Hadith between Shias and Sunnis
What is hate speech
Islamic teachings of tolerance
A Shia-Sunni security force, jointly safeguarding each others houses of worship will be a significant blow to the extremist agenda
Conclusion
Shia-Sunni conflict and sectarian terrorism is tearing our community apart.
The Quran, Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, the Kaba and the five pillars of Islam are common to Shias and Sunnis. That is why no one in Islamic history has stopped Shias from performing Hajj, although the Kaba has always been in the control of Sunnis. Even today, when those currently in charge of the Kaba are part of a predominantly Salafi establishment, some of whom maintain extremely negative views of Shias, Shias like other Muslims are free to perform Hajj. Shias, by the same token, since the 1979 Iranian revolution, are ordered by Imam Khomeini to pray behind Sunni imams instead of praying separately.
This mutual recognition gives us hope that a dialog can bear fruit of peace and harmony between both the communities.
Shia-Sunni violence has been on the rise in the last few years, particularly in Iraq and Pakistan. Every month, it seems, scores of Shias and Sunnis are killed in a vicious tit-for-tat between extremists on both sides. Many of the victims are killed as they pray within mosques.
These incidents belie the reality of Shia-Sunni coexistence and cooperation. In Iraq, it is estimated that up to 30 percent of marriages are between Shias and Sunnis; victims of violence between the two groups frequently attend each other's funeral prayers; one group often helps the other's victims after an incident.
This silent majority must come together through dialog to defeat the terrorists who have been responsible for these killings.
Seven reasons why a dialog between Shia and Sunni is needed:
Theological differences between Shia and Sunni are old and are better left for God to judge, as He knows best and has said in the Quran that He is the final judge of religious disagreements. The killing of Shias or Sunnis will not resolve these disputes.
The principle of "no compulsion in matters of faith" is not just limited to Muslim-non-Muslim relations, but also applies to Muslim interpretations of Islam as well. This instruction of God serves as a guideline for the Muslim community to not impose one's interpretation on others. That is why throughout history, not only have Hanafis and Shafis worked with each other despite differences, but Shias and Sunnis have lived and worked side by side with each other as well.
When human beings sit down and talk to each other, they learn to respect each other.
Dialog allows parties to understand each other better by allowing participants to acquire direct knowledge about beliefs instead of relying on propaganda and stereotypical images.
Dialog will isolate the extremist fringe. It is a major sin to kill a human being. Killing a human being is like killing the whole of humanity. By talking to each other, Shias and Sunnis will be able to save lives, which is like saving the whole of humanity.
Revenge is not justice. Killing in revenge is unjust, inhuman, and un-Islamic. Retribution through the state, which the Quran sanctions via capital punishment does not amount to individuals taking the law in their hands or killing an innocent person in revenge. The call for, "an eye for an eye," does not mean an innocent eye for an innocent eye.
Even if some Shias and Sunnis consider each other enemies, the Quran asks us to be just even toward one's enemy "O you who believe! Stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do."
Some considerations for dialog:
The Shia community like Sunnis is diverse. There are many differences between one Shia group and another. This is why it is important that dialog between Sunnis and Shias becomes a movement and a process throughout society instead of everyone waiting for one high powered dialog to yield some results at the leadership level. Here are some preliminary thoughts on how a dialog between Shias and Sunnis can be beneficial for each side.
Goals of dialog:
Although I consider dialog a process that is beneficial to all, it is necessary that everyone involved recognize some of its tangible benefits. The following are a set of achievable goals for Shia-Sunni dialog.
Developing an agenda of common concerns
Identifying issues of conflict
Issuing joint Fatwas against the killings
Isolating extremists on each side
Preventing a potential conflict or mediating an existing conflict
Education to clarify stereotypes about each other
Setting up joint task forces to deal with outstanding issues
Who should participate in the dialog?:
Imams and caretakers of Masjids
Students of Madrassas
University students
National level religious leadership
Shia and Sunni media persons
Shia and Sunni businesspersons
Mechanism of dialog:
Dialog is a process that should occur at all levels of society. In the 1960s in Pakistan, when Shia-Sunni clashes were far less significant, city officers used to convene joint meetings of Shia and Sunni leaders to chalk out Muharram plans so no confusion would result in rioting. These government-arranged dialogs helped keep conflicts at a minimum. Considering the current level of mistrust, it will be beneficial if civil society takes initiatives for dialog at all levels of society.
Private Dialog: Host roundtable discussions initially at the top leadership level that should later expand to include:
working on different committees.
Public Dialog: Shia and Sunni both use public forums and media to speak to each other's audiences.
Visiting each other's Masjids to enhance confidence and to demonstrate that they are not supportive of the extremists who isolate each other.
Shia-Sunni Dinners: Masjids and social associations should invite Shia and Sunni friends to eat with each other publicly.
Publicity of dialog:
Publicity of the dialog will generate hope and confidence in it and will empower those in dialog vis-a-vis the extremists. Media should facilitate self-criticism and introspection by the religious leadership. Those leaders who participate in dialog should be recognized through interviews, reports, and documentaries. Investigative reports should be aired and published about the truth behind sectarian propaganda. It is important for society to honor those Shia and Sunni leaders who take initiative and demonstrate leadership in participating in dialog. Sunnis, being members of the majority community, have the higher level of responsibility towards initiating and participating in dialog.
Sponsors of Dialog:
Funding always facilitates the beginning of a process in civil society. Every task requires time and money. While participating organizations and individuals can take care of their own costs, it would be very rewarding if some individuals and businesses came forward with funds to sponsor and host these dialogs. American Muslims can start a dialog in North America where there is no conflict in the Shia-Sunni community and then inspire and sponsor dialogs where it is needed the most.
Beyond Dialog:
Considering that Shias and Sunnis live side by side in the Muslim world, they are not unknown to each other, and considering that most of them have nothing to do with the current extremism which is responsible for the killings and violence, it is important for the moderate majority to come up with a few initiatives which are beneficial for Shia-Sunni harmony. These could be communicated in the print form or in any other media. They should discuss the following themes and/or use the methods outlined here:
Khutba points which can help harmony
What type of political/religious rhetoric can hurt at personal level
What is common between Shias and Sunnis
Common Hadith between Shias and Sunnis
What is hate speech
Islamic teachings of tolerance
A Shia-Sunni security force, jointly safeguarding each others houses of worship will be a significant blow to the extremist agenda
Conclusion
Shia-Sunni conflict and sectarian terrorism is tearing our community apart.
The Quran, Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, the Kaba and the five pillars of Islam are common to Shias and Sunnis. That is why no one in Islamic history has stopped Shias from performing Hajj, although the Kaba has always been in the control of Sunnis. Even today, when those currently in charge of the Kaba are part of a predominantly Salafi establishment, some of whom maintain extremely negative views of Shias, Shias like other Muslims are free to perform Hajj. Shias, by the same token, since the 1979 Iranian revolution, are ordered by Imam Khomeini to pray behind Sunni imams instead of praying separately.
This mutual recognition gives us hope that a dialog can bear fruit of peace and harmony between both the communities.
Comments on this journal
Like i said before its only radical extremists, be they modernists or traditionalists, that view the world through the dichotomy of good and evil.
Sipah-Sahaba
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
Lashkar-e-Tayyaba
Dawat-e-Irshad
Just so we are clear, are these orgs Deobandi? If so, Deobandi ideology seems to be a good kin of Wahabism.
Ok you just ignored everything i stated about the origins and purpose of the Sipah e Sahaba and replied with a 'no its not". Do you expect me to accept your "no its not" as a credible argument? Like i said Deobandis are not the same as Wahabis. Whereas one can make the argument that belligerent attitudes towards differing opinions is inherent to the Wahabi ideology the same claim cannot be made in regards to the Deobandis. Before you start blindly labeling groups i suggest you study them first.
At least your honest about your Manichean outlook. You and the terrorist are obviously two sides of the same coin.
Show me a case where the minorities have been violently dealt with in Pakistan and I'll show you Wahabi/Deobandi Sunnis behind it. Groups inspired by the Wahabi/Deobandi ideology are the primary terrorists. I've met a couple.
Shias, being a minority, have no need to initiate any violence.
No, the underlying issue is that some of the Wahabis/Deobandis cannot stand more dynamic forms of Islam and so resort to bloodshed. It is as simple as that. The argument often used about Shia landlords etc. being the CAUSE of the emergence of sipah-sahaba in the Jhang district is nonesense. Unemployment, maybe. Iranian revolution occured a long time ago. These groups have nothing to do with whatever 'perception of threat' (what a cowardly rationale, but it's often used in history) may have existed back in the day.
You ignored the example of the Northern Areas where these same terrorists groups cannot stop from engaging in violent attacks. Their ideology is inherently retarded.
Secondly, again, I?d like to point out your rhetorical inaccuracy of using the term ?Wahabi? to label any sunni terrorist outfit. As I?ve stated before, Deobandis and Wahabis represent two completely different perspectives of Sunnism. The danger in labeling any sort of group resorting to arms ?Wahabi? lies in the fact that it undermines the cause of these groups. Wahabis, due to their historical origins have been associated with belligerent attitudes and violence. Therefore any sort of Wahabi violence is deemed to be the result of their inherent nature. However truth is that Wahabis aren?t the only ones in the Sunni world resorting to violence. This is clearly demonstrated with the example of the Deobandi terrorist outfits that exist on the Indian subcontinent. Also if we take Iraq as an example we find that sufi groups, namely, The Sufi Jihadi Squadrons of Shaykh ?Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani have started to mobilize an armed resistance to what they perceive as a foreign threat. To write these groups off as Sunni fundamentalists or Wahabis is to undermine the legitimacy of the groups no matter how legitimate their cause is. The underlying issue here is that there is the Sunnis in the region perceive a real threat and have thus spawned movements to counter the threat. These movements aren?t the result of belligerent Wahabi aspirations.
?Shias, being a minority, have no need to resort to violence.?
If your trying to imply Shias take the violence perpetrated against them lying down without retaliating this is inaccurate as their have been many attacks, though smaller compared to the sunni attacks, perpetrated by organized shia groups, mainly, splinter Tehrik-I Jafferia groups. Also less frequent attacks doesn?t mean that Shias would not actively take part in inciting more violence if they were capable of doing so.
Sipah-e-Sahaba and an entire list of other Wahabi/Deobandi terrorist outfits were encouraged as part of a larger internal and external Pakistani strategy of the 80's and 90's.
Wahabi fundos were funded primarily by Saudi Arabia which had severe bowl movement seeing a revolution take place in Iran - which Khomeini called the first step toward a pan-Islamic revolution. Saudis wanted to stop any such movement leaving the borders of Iran.
In any case, the instigators of the terrorist acts in Pakistan are almost always Wahabis. Shias, being a minority, have no need to resort to violence. Wahabis see violence as a legitimate means. Heck, they are the first people to advocate this.
After Pakistan cut off the jihadi orgs from going into Indian Kashmir, most were temporarily settled in the northern areas which are predominantly Shia. Naturally these Wahabis took it upon themselves to screw the locals with their own brand of a demented faith. Today, the whole region is in turmoil.
?history has been wrought with accounts of Shia persecution and not vice versa. This is undeniable?
This is totally inaccurate. Like most of your argument the above mentioned statement is based on pure speculation. Iran was once a Sunni dominated region it was slowly converted to Shism by the Safavid Dynasty by means of coercion. This means that the overwhelming majority Sunni population of Iran was oppressed and forcibly converted.
?"The dominance of Shi'ism was further assured by the violent suppression of Sunnism. The Safavids ritually insulted the memory of the first three Caliphs and violated the tombs of Sunni scholars. Sufi shrines were destroyed; Isma'il desecrated Naqshbandi tombs, and suppressed the Khalwatiya, Dhahabiya, and Nurbakhshiya orders. 'Abbas I later seized the Nimatullahi khanaqas and turned them over to youth organizations. The pilgrimate to Mecca was deemphasized in favor of ritual visits to the shrines of Shi'i imams. The persecution of Sunnis and Sufis continued sporadically throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries until Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi (d. 1699), the head of the Shi'i 'ulama, completed the suppression of Sunnism and expelled the remaining Sufis from Isfahan. However, despite persecution, individual Qalandaris, committed to a wandering life, rejecting all worldly connections, remained an important spiritual influence." The History of Islamic Societies, Ira Lapidus, pgs 242-243
And about sunnis in Iran, I would quote some more texts here to prove you wrong but its kinda late. Go to amnesty?s website and type ?Iran and Sunni?. You?ll see a bunch of articles of the Iranian government engaged in programs of oppressing sunnis and denying them basic rights. Remember the Kurdish and Arab minority in Iran are sunni.
Also your argument is inconsistent. On what grounds are you undermining the plight of the Sunnis in Iran while amplifying the plight of the Shias in Bahrain? Further, to use Saddam Hussein as an example of a sunni administration oppression shias is another inaccuracy in your argument. Saddam Hussein was a secular Muslim and his program of oppressing Shias was propelled by political motives not creedal ones. He also persecuted the Kurds and they are Sunni.
So contrary to what you state, the undeniable fact is that BOTH groups oppressed one another whenever they were capable of and was in their political interest to do so.
1. Sipah e Sahaba (SS) was a reactionary movement which was born out of Sunni fears of a unified and aggressive Shia population.
2. The Shia threat was perceived due to active programs of proselytizing Sunnis, the exploitation of Sunni peasants by Shia land owners, and the unified political effort to exert Shia influence over Pakistani society by TJ.
3. No terrorist organization exists solely for the purpose of killing but exists to counter a perceived threat.
In a political climate where the Shia identity was reenergized due to the success of the Iranian revolution Sunni groups in Pakistan viewed this as a potential threat to their Sunni identity.
SS and TJ both had perfectly rational goals but both engaged in organized acts of terrorism to further their cause. Right now I?m looking at a list of about 15 ?tit for tat? incidents of violence which were carried out by both groups against mainly civilians from Pakistani news sources from between the years of 1997-2001 (would u like to see the list?). So your statement that there aren?t Shia organizations perpetuating terror and bombing masjids is totally inaccurate. Further both of these organizations TJ and SS aren?t the result of some sadistic ideology of killing but serve the sound and just goals of countering a perceived threat and solidifying the rights of its constituents.
that point ends the debate, as far as I'm concerned
I'd hate to ever debate against Mehnaz
Moreover, I would like to add, that I think it is a misnomer to call this situation 'Shia-Sunni' violence. I think it is rather 'Shia-Salafi' violence, since most Sunnis do not buy into propoganda, preach hate, or perpetrate violence.
So, Umer, are there examples of Shias bestowing injustice upon Sunnis? I am sure there must be, but it is very very rare. You cite Iran, and Im sure that there are examples of unfairness towards Sunnis, which is unequivocally wrong, but are Sunnis in Iran being murdered/torched/raped/and blown up in terrorist attacks? Mostly, it is their complaint that they are being treated as 'Second class citizens' like in this article news.bbc.co.uk and that is a far cry from bloody violence and wholesale slaughter. Note that the person making the complaint is a Sunni member of Iranian Parliment, that should speak for itself. Nonetheless, it is an issue that must be addressed, since injustice is not the way of Imam Husain.
Also note, that even Shia majority countries like Iraq and Bahrain have never ever seen its majority population have any governing powers. Both countries have harbored massive persecutions against its majority population (although Iraq much more than Bahrain), whereas the minority, Secular Sunni i.e. Saddam Husain in Iraq or the a monarchy like the Kalipha family of Bahrain have taken control and been unjust. This is a noteworthy point worth investigating.