Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 4 - 10 October 2007 Issue No. 865
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/865/sc1.htm Sectarian strife has captured media attention in the wake of the US occupation of Iraq, becoming a regional concern amid plans to forge a "new Middle East". Does present Sunni-Shia conflict find its root in the annals of Islamic history, triggered now by instability and change, or is it the outcome of imperial agendas or the arrogance and ignorance of meddling foreign powers? Rift in history Gamal Badawi* reviews the origin of the division between Sunni and Shia Islam -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Muslims split into Sunnis and Shias because of a dispute over their rule following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. On the same day as his death and before he was buried, the leaders of the muhajirin, those who had migrated with him from Mecca, and the ansar, his supporters in Medina, met in the gathering place of Beni Saida and devised the system of the caliphate to succeed the prophet in ruling the nation. Following thorough discussions, they selected Abu Bakr Al-Sadiq as the caliph, or successor, to the prophet. Click to view caption Illustration: Fathi -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The system of the caliphate is one that was devised; it was not divinely revealed, nor was it decreed by the sunna, the prophetic tradition. The prophet did not appoint the individual who would succeed him, and did not specify the means by which a successor should be chosen. Only the fundamental basis of selection was determined, that being shura, or consultation, among Muslims to select their ruler. It is on this point regarding political thought that there exists a dispute between the Shia sect and the Sunni masses. The Shia view rests upon narratives that say that the prophet bequeathed the caliphate to Ali Bin Abi Taleb during his final pilgrimage. Yet the companions of the prophet, the Shias claim, rejected this bequest and concealed it due to their resentment of the Hashemite family and its head, Ali Bin Abi Taleb. Ali was late to the meeting because he was busy preparing the prophet's corpse for burial. Perhaps the companions' selection of Abu Bakr was a surprise to him, which might explain his failure to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr. Early historians traced this neglect to another reason, however. This was Ali's solidarity with his wife Fatima in her dispute with Abu Bakr over her right to her father's inheritance. Yet this rift did not last for long -- following Fatima's death, Ali pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr and stood by his side as a supporter and trustworthy advisor. There is no evidence that he competed with Abu Bakr for rule in the caliphate. And if there had been a prophetic bequest of the caliphate to Ali, he would not have hesitated to declare so. Failure to speak up and demand his rights would have contradicted with Ali's ethics and the courage and initiative he was known for. Ali's position regarding the caliphate of Abu Bakr was the same as that regarding Omar and Othman. Shia documentary sources such as nahj al-balagha (the way of eloquence) do not mention that Ali revealed a bequest to him when they were chosen as caliphs. When Omar included him in the shura council for the selection of the new caliph as Omar was dying, Ali did not argue against this on the basis of wording in the damm (rallying) speech of the prophet. Rather, he agreed to participate in the shura council, although he rejected the conditions it placed. Following the death of the caliph Othman, Ali accepted his own selection without referring to phrasing by the prophet decreeing him the caliph. Such phrasing did not even surface during the warring that broke out between Ali and Muawiya. Ali never relied upon any Quranic or prophetic text to justify his right to assume the caliphate. He rested only upon the Muslims having selected him, and this approach was also taken by his son Al-Hassan following Ali's death. The selection of each of them was made on the basis of the Muslim public pledging allegiance to them, an approach that the Sunnis still hold onto in contrast with the Shia approach of the imam assuming responsibility through inheritance and a bequest from the previous imam. The Sunnis argue that if the notion of a bequest and a statement were accurate, the companions would not have been able to conceal it without committing a grave sin. The Shias have not refrained from placing such an accusation on the companions, and in fact place the greatest blame on the "mother of the believers", Aisha, the prophet's wife, and her father, Abu Bakr Al-Sadiq, together with Omar Bin Al-Khattab. The Shias forget that the Quran is witness to their loyalty and integrity. The idea of Shia sectarianism developed from a purely political starting point. It did not turn into an issue of belief until a later age when the intellectual arena became filled with currents the Shias found to be fertile means for spreading their ideas and attacking conceptual constants in Islam. The Shias then split into further sects, including the Imamis (the Twelvers), the Zaydis, and the Ismailis. The massacres of Karbala, in which Al-Hussein Bin Ali was killed, were undoubtedly among the most heinous crimes committed in history. They led to the outbreak of Shia revolts and the formation of militias that attempted to wreck the foundations of the Umayyad, and then Abbasid, rule and to forcefully wrest power from it. Yet the swords of the Umayyads and Abbasids met them, and they fled far. In Morocco, the Ismaili Shias succeeded in establishing a Fatimid state that was transferred to Egypt and created an empire that defeated the Sunni Abbasid state. In the manner of the Ismailis, Shia statelets were established whose intellectual components drew from the esoteric batani current, which disguised itself in Islamic cloaks with the goal of destroying the Islamic state. The Shias thus became a doctrinal sect with philosophical fundaments different from those of Sunnis. Some tended towards excess and granted Ali divine characteristics and considered the imams infallible, placing them in a status that conflicts with the belief in the singular unity of God. The gaping difference between Shias and Sunnis has widened; it is no longer merely a political dispute over rule but rather has sunk deep into doctrinal fundaments that are difficult to address through mere good intentions and feelings of love and fraternity. And yet despite this, the deep-rooted difference between Sunnis and Shias cannot serve as justification for the massacres unfolding between them in Iraq. The concept of citizenship can surely unite them, along with a deepening of the culture of pluralism and acknowledgement of the right of everyone to practice their beliefs without becoming a target of aggression. The writer is former editor-in-chief of Al-Wafd newspaper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
