Shias - Sunnis / We had a better vision

[Admin]

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/89857-W ... ter-vision

We had a better vision

By Harris Khalique
January 13, 2016
Print : Opinion

Side-effect

The writer is a poet and author
based in Islamabad.

At a time when it is feared that a sectarian conflict within Muslims may rise due to the renewed tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East over the past few weeks, it is imperative for us in Pakistan to understand our own history and culture better, and pre-empt the tensions between followers of different Muslim sects from turning into a widespread violent conflict within our country.

I say ‘widespread’ because persecution of minority Muslim sects and non-Muslims in Pakistan by some fringe but powerful outfits has already been going on for many decades. But it has not turned into a riot between communities.

Before coming to the founders of Pakistan and how they viewed faith and the matters of the state, allow me make another point which makes South Asian Islam certainly different, if not unique, in its history and practice from other parts of the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East. Across the Muslim world including South Asia, no one denies the existence of differences between belief systems and varied interpretations of religious history among followers of not only different sects, but also among different schools of thought within the same sect.

However, it is the Muslim experience of conversion and practice over a millennium mainly in the Indo-Gangetic plain and also in its immediate surroundings and circles of influence – from Kabul to Chittagong and from Srinagar to Cape Comorin – where the major differences between Muslim sects were relatively better understood, accepted, tolerated and reconciled. If I may say, with some caveats, that what the Arabs couldn’t resolve among them when it came to their sharp ideological, theological, tribal and political differences spread over 1400 years, we in South Asia could do to an extent by being more tolerant and inclusive.

The followers of various mystic orders of Islam particularly the Chishti Sufis as well as the rise in the following of the Barelvi school of thought within the Sunni practice during the nineteenth century contributed majorly to creating an inclusive society. The two mainstream Muslim sects of Sunni and Shia Islam besides Ismailis and smaller sects and sub-sects were brought together in spirit by Sufi Islam with all its shades from the Sunni, Shia and Ismaili denominations as well as taking followers of other faiths around them into their folds.

Besides, it was common among followers of the Barelvi school of Sunnis to believe in the first four Caliphs who the Sunnis follow and the twelve Imams who the Ithna Ashari Shias follow at the same time. Also, in the nineteenth and the early twentieth century, one must recognise that the more orthodox schools like Deoband or the Ahle Hadith in South Asia refrained from declaring others non-Muslim even if their discourses included detailed discussions on the shortcomings or weaknesses in other belief systems in their view.

It was the increased influence of Arab countries in the latter half of the twentieth century that not only further widened the gap but also concretised exclusionary positions. Among the Shias of South Asia, few would believe in the Vilayat-e-Faqih and most were Najafis. A major change came about after the revolution in Iran and the rise of the clergy in that country forming a theocracy. `

Undoubtedly, there were issues between the sects and there were major differences between interpretations of eclectic religious clerics of different statures over long periods of our history, ranging from Noorullah Shustri to Shah Waliullah to Ataullah Shah Bukhari, et al. They were seen to be representing conservative positions taken by the followers of the two mainstream sects. But when it came to Muslims at large in twentieth century South Asia – whether we like the idea of Partition on communal lines or not, hold thw All India Muslim League responsible or blame the Indian National Congress for its policies culminating in Partition – the most popular leader of the Muslims was Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

Jinnah came from a minority sect and a minority province. His being born into a Shia Imami Ismaili-cum-Khoja Ithna Ashari family of Kathiawari-Sindhi origin never bothered his millions of followers of the day in British India. Of course, the dominant majority of his followers came from completely different ethnic backgrounds and religious sects. On the other hand, while the intent is not to cast any aspersions on his intellectual ability or outstanding leadership, it is interesting to note that the leader of the Indian National Congress happened to be a high-caste Kashmiri Brahmin coming from the largest province of India, Uttar Pradesh.

When Shorish Kashmiri once asked Jinnah about him being Shia or Sunni, the founder of Pakistan responded with such wisdom and clarity that Shorish, a critic of Jinnah at the time, was first bamboozled and then converted. Jinnah said that his sect was the same as that of the Prophet of Islam, so was he a Shia or a Sunni? It is obvious that Jinnah’s vision was crystal clear unlike what people think. He wanted a modern welfare state where universal humanistic values of Islam would be cherished. He was clear on the state not being a theocracy.

I don’t mind reiterating what I and many other people have said before because it is important at times to repeat yourself loudly in order to be heard, in order for others to get that registered what is being said and in order to contribute towards making this society a liveable one.

The name of the party, ‘All India Muslim League’, was proposed by the spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslims Sir Sultan Mohammed Shah Aga Khan III, who was also made the first president in its founding meeting in Dhaka in 1906 hosted by Nawab Khwaja Salimullah. Later, after the creation of Pakistan, it was Aga Khan III and the Nizam, the ruler of Hyderabad Deccan, who provided resources to the new state for survival through its initial years. As mentioned earlier, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah – the founder of Pakistan – was born in a family that largely, if not entirely, practised the Ismaili faith.

Fast forward to 1940. The Lahore Resolution, which asked for the autonomy of the Muslim majority provinces, was drafted by Sir Zafarullah Khan, who was a prominent figure of what was termed the ‘Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’ of India at that time. The community was later ex-communicated from Islam and declared non-Muslim by the parliament of Pakistan in 1974. Sir Zafarullah also served as the first foreign minister of Pakistan – appointed by Quaid-e-Azam. Moreover, if the founder of Pakistan wanted theocracy (even after he had clarified he didn’t want one but still his one speech about creating a laboratory for Islam in Pakistan is interpreted differently by different people) why did he appoint Joginder Nath Mandal as the first minister for law and justice in Pakistan? The Quaid was surrounded by so many lawyers, jurists and clerics then.

It was a deliberate choice on his part as he was a constitutionalist and a lawyer first and foremost. Mandal also looked after the portfolio of labour and then later became responsible for Kashmir affairs before being disappointed and leaving Pakistan after the adoption of the Objectives Resolution. This happened after the death of Quaid-e-Azam.

In short, Pakistan was created for Muslims of all hues, and to safeguard the economic, social and political interests of the Muslim-majority provinces of British India including minorities living there. It cannot be a theocracy if you go by the vision of its founder. It has to be an inclusive and pluralistic state and society where religion must not determine the business of the state, leave alone a particular sect (or sects) seen to be dominating the state.

Provincial autonomy and realisation of the rights of minorities were the bases for creating the country according to the 1940 Resolution – nothing else. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was neither Ibn Saud nor Ayatollah Khomeini.

Email: [email protected]

[kmaherali]

However, it is the Muslim experience of conversion and practice over a millennium mainly in the Indo-Gangetic plain and also in its immediate surroundings and circles of influence – from Kabul to Chittagong and from Srinagar to Cape Comorin – where the major differences between Muslim sects were relatively better understood, accepted, tolerated and reconciled. If I may say, with some caveats, that what the Arabs couldn’t resolve among them when it came to their sharp ideological, theological, tribal and political differences spread over 1400 years, we in South Asia could do to an extent by being more tolerant and inclusive.

The followers of various mystic orders of Islam particularly the Chishti Sufis as well as the rise in the following of the Barelvi school of thought within the Sunni practice during the nineteenth century contributed majorly to creating an inclusive society. The two mainstream Muslim sects of Sunni and Shia Islam besides Ismailis and smaller sects and sub-sects were brought together in spirit by Sufi Islam with all its shades from the Sunni, Shia and Ismaili denominations as well as taking followers of other faiths around them into their folds.

There is related thread about Sufism and inclusive socities at:

http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... ght=sufism pluralism

[Admin]

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2007/10/11/40254.html

Gaddafi sees Muslims as Shiites ‘by default’

Thursday, 11 October 2007
Gaddafi is known for his controversial ideas (file)
Gaddafi is known for his controversial ideas (file)
Tweet
[Pin It]

By DUBAI (AlArabiya.net)

Libyan leader Moamar Gaddafi has said all Muslims are Shiites, dismissing as ignorance the classification that divides Muslims as “Persian Shiites and Sunni Arabs”.

Gaddafi insisted "Muslims are all 'Shiites' of 'Ahl al-Bayt.'" The word "Shiite" originally means "follower" and "Ahl al-Bayt" refers to "Mohamed and his descendants”, in a speech he gave at a religious ceremony commemorating Lailat Al-Qadr (A night that Muslims believe all their prayers are responded to and it falls at an odd night during the last ten nights of Ramadan).

Gaddafi also reiterated that all Muslims follow Sunnah -- the prophet's teachings and the origin of the word "Sunni”, according to Jamahiriya Arab News Agency (JANA).

The Libyan leader, known for his controversial ideas, stressed that the only triumph the descendants of the prophet achieved was the Fatimid Empire in North Africa and that the North African identity is basically Shiite and the culture is Fatimid.

Shiite customs, he argued, are prevalent in this region, including Libya, till present day. Mourning on the day of Ashurah is the most significant example. Ashurah, the tenth day of Muharram (the first month of the Islamic calendar), is when Al-Hussein ibn Ali, the prophet's grandson and a very revered Muslim figure for both Shiites and Sunnis, was martyred in the City of Karbala, now in Iraq. Shiites revive his death annually in major festivals.

For Gaddafi, Egypt is the heart of the Shiite Fatimid Caliphate whose culture still dominates the entire African continent and Lebanon.

Gaddafi has previously called for founding what he called "The Second Fatimid Caliphate" in North Africa to ease the tension between Sunnis and Shiites: "A nation that will unify Arabs and Berbers under one identity will save the region from disintegration."

Gaddafi further launched a scathing attack on the "historical fallacies circulated by the ignorant who do not know that Shiites are Persians and Sunnis are Arabs."

[Admin]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/04/in-ov ... ew-fatimid

In Overture to Iran, Qaddafi Declares North Africa Shi’ite and Calls for Establishment of New Fatimid State

April 6, 2007 10:54 am By Robert Spencer

Qaddafi backs what appears to be, especially in the wake of the British hostages affair, the strong horse. From MEMRI:

On March 31, 2007, Libyan leader Mu’ammar Qaddafi called, in a speech in Niger to Tuareg tribal leaders , for the establishment of a second Shi’ite Fatimid state in North Africa, after the model of the 10th-13th century empire that ruled North Africa, Egypt, and parts of the Fertile Crescent. In his speech, Qaddafi denounced the division of Muslims into Sunni and Shi’ite as a colonialist plot, and rebuked the Arab League members for “hating Iran.”

At the beginning of the month, on March 1, 2007 — the eve of the anniversary of the coup that brought the Libyan Free Officers to power — Qaddafi gave a speech in which he denied the existence of a non-Arab Berber people (this also being a colonialist plot), provoking protest among Berbers and supporters of minority rights in the Middle East and North Africa.

The following are excerpts from Qaddafi’s speeches:

“Colonialism”¦ Has Begun to Group the Arabs Against Iran and Iran Against the Arabs”

–¦ Today there is a divide [in the Islamic world] that we must acknowledge, and we must know who is deepening it. Perhaps it is colonialism, the enemy of Islam, the enemy of the Arabs, the enemy of the Persians, that is deepening it”¦

“They have divided Islam into two Islams, and there came to be Shi’ite Islam and Sunni Islam. This is a forbidden innovation [bid’a]”¦ When did Muhammad say: ‘I have brought you Shi’ite Islam and Sunni Islam?…

“As a consequence of this, they have now begun to group the Arabs against Iran and Iran against the Arabs, and then Shi’ites against Sunnis and Sunnis against Shi’ites.

“Are we Muslims, or are we Shi’ites and Sunnis?! For whose benefit is this? It is for the benefit of the ‘other’ that we are speaking about, for the benefit of the enemy, for the benefit of colonialism.

[…]

“The Fatimid state arose in the beginning of the 10th century, and it formed an umbrella over North Africa, and under its banner all of the tribal, denominational, political, and ethnic differences fused, and they all became one single Fatimid identity, which lasted 260 years and extended as far as the Arab East.

[…]

“Now people say to us that the Shi’ites are in Iran and that Shi’ite means Persians, and Sunni means Arabs. This is a lie. This is deceit. Those who say this are ignoramuses who do not know history.

“To the contrary, the first Shi’ite state arose in North Africa. The Fatimid state was the first Shi’ite state”¦”

“In North Africa”¦ go anywhere and ask them about their customs and traditions. They are all Shi’ite customs and traditions.

“[They include] the celebration of the ‘Ashura, the sorrow on the ‘Ashura and the remembrance of the ‘Ashura and our lord [sayyidna] ‘Ali; the very extensive stories about our lord ‘Ali, and being the party of [tashayyu’ l-] our lord ‘Ali.

“[The North Africans] do not know Mu’awiya [‘Ali’s rival and the founder of the Umayyad dynasty]. From Egypt to the Atlantic Ocean, there is not a single person named Mu’awiya. They are all named ‘Ali, Fatima, Khadija, Hassan, Hussein, etc.

[…]

“When we come to religious authority”¦ have [people] not gotten themselves into a mess and said that the Sunnis are against the Shi’ites and the Arabs against the Persians? Who holds to this view? It is the foreign occupation and the Zionist settlement that brought this.

[…]

“North Africa is Arab and Shi’ite”¦ The Shi’ite Fatimid state arose in North Africa, and not in Iran. We want to revive it once again. We direct a renewed call to all of the forces in the first Fatimid state to revive [it in] a modern, second Fatimid state — on the condition that it be free of all of the sectarian conflicts and [the debate about] the Imamate and [religious] rule [hakimiyya] and the sophistry of old”¦