Religion and politics are intricately woven together in the
Middle East; this has made the task of separating the two in any action or
activities by a shallow observer a hell of a herculean job. They are so difficultly
intertwined that upon a cursory look or observation one cannot help but to fall
victim of a wrong conclusion. Even, at times, an ardent observer and follower
of the Middle East politics and power struggle are not immune from making such
misguided conclusion that religion is at most the basis of the incessant crisis
in the Middle East with its root cause as a result of sectarianism. To be candid,
religion played its part in the crisis rocking the Middle East but it is never
the basis of the crisis but a humble employee, employed to tactically serve as
a means to an end. The recent faceoff between Saudi and Iran is Reminiscent of
an age long power tussle that can be dated back to the post Muhammad incident
when the rightful person to fill the void created by the prophet demise became
an issue.
- GENESIS OF
THE DIVISION OR STRUGGLE
Prior to the prophet’s death, the migration of the prophet from
Mecca to Yathrib, now Medina created a kind of division between those who
emigrated with the prophet called Muhajirun, and those who received them in Yathrib
now Medinna called Ansar. Though the division then was just as to the identification
not more. But the death of the prophet altered the dynamics of the differences,
especially when who to succeed the prophet between the Ansar and the Muhajiruns
became an issue. The successive installation of the Muhajiruns strained the relationship
between the Ansar and the Muhajirun. The installation of Uthman Ibn Affan (a
Muhajirun) after Umar as khalifa and his death inflamed the existing heated
tension on both sides. While the damage caused by the combustion of the ignited
inflammation hasn’t cool down, Alli took over the mantra and became the Khlifa.
Though Ali himself was a Muhajirun but
it seem he enjoyed a large support from the Ansar than the Muhajirun. His
installation as the new Khalifa gave rise to ambivalence; for the Ansar and
others who had felt marginalized, who felt cheated out of the juicy and elevated
position of the khalifa, it was dreams come true, but for the Muhajiruns, they
became stunned and disgusted by the circumstances of the death of Uthman and
the enthronement of Ali. As a result of this series of confrontation ensued
between Ali and his sympathizers and that of Uthman and his sympathizers. The
confrontation continued until it witnessed the death of Alli; the confrontation
and the communal clash worsened until it got to a point where the divisions
became well spelt out. The supporters of Ali became the shia/Shi’te while those
on the side of Uthman became the Sunni in Islam. Caution;
it is not clear cut if all the Muhajiruns then and present are Sunni and the
entire Ansar or Ali’s supporter are shi’ite.
But for ease of identification, it has most often been used this way and
one must be careful so as not to distort the content of history for the coming
generation.
CONSEQUENCES
OF SECTARIAN LOYALTY
Fast forward to the present time, the traces of what led to the
initial division are still visible in today’s faceoff between the two prominent
sects in Islam, power! Sunni and Shia sects are unevenly distributed across the
Middle East and the world. It is on record that the majority of Muslims in the
world are Sunni with 80%, while Shia is in the minority with 15-20%. Saudi
Arabia boasts of Sunni Majority, while Iran boasts of Shia majority. Both sect profess Islam and are in sync with
the substance of the teachings of Islam; they both believe in the Prophet of
Islam, the Quran and Hadith. Though there are insignificant differences in the
content of their conduct and perception, one of such is as to how the highest
political head in Islam which is the khalifah should be determined and the
qualities the khalifa should possess before he can be made same. This
differences in opinion of who a khalifa should be and the conditions
that person must satisfy before becoming a khalifa and the incidents that
culminated into the proper division of the sect does not go to the foundation
or substance of the teachings of Islam both have embraced and cannot however be
the reasons behind their constant broiling. One would have expected the
teachings of Islam to affect and influence their conduct to the extent of
resolving their differences back then amicably but it did not. What can anyone
do now if not to helplessly surrender to human frailties; at least we are all humans.
It seems those incidents have long being forgotten because both sect have
coexisted peacefully for long until the emergence of Arab Spring in 2010 which
started in Tunisia and systematically spread to the middle east and the
incident of the execution of Nimr Al
Nimr by Saudi Arabia. Not without sectarian coloration; the
sectarian divide which has been quiet for long hangs on a time bomb waiting for
a trigger and the Arab Spring did just that to the sectarian strife. The
protest which started with an agitation against oppression and injustice slowly
developed into a sectarian strife or conflict depending on the sect in power in
the different countries the Arab Spring affected. Due to the animosity existing
between the two sects and the necessary suspicion that arose therefrom; through
the lens of history, the agitation gradually began to shape into a repetition
of age long warfare between the two sects. To preserve power, it became
necessary for the Government to put a stop to the wild spread agitation shaking
the peaceful foundation of the country and to protect the citizen from the
agitators who most likely belong to a particular sect. Since the Middle East
has been defined along sectarian lines, apparently, any action of the
Government against the agitators depending on the sect in power in that region
will be seen as an attempt to protect a particular sect on the one hand and on
the other hand, to oppress, abuse, exterminate or drastically reduced the other
sect agitating for a better treatment. The
resultant consequences of the sectarian cards played by Saudi and Iran which
are suspicion and mistrust has led to the imbalance of the region and the polarization
of same. The result of an ideology where group or sectarian loyalty is promoted
over and above National loyalty within the same country or region anywhere in
the world cannot in any way fasten social trust or communal love, the suspicion
and mistrust that come with such debilitating ideology among people of the same
country or region will no doubt erupt like a volcano and lead to chaos and
pandemonium. The result of such myopic approach is the price been paid by
innocent victims of Yemen and Syria with their lives and the latter crisis that
arose as a result of the execution of Nimr—al Nimr.
- NIMR’S EXECUTION AND CONSEQUENCES
The execution of Nimr –al Nimr by Saudi Arabia solidifies the
age long struggle of the two sects against one another. Nimr al-Nimr was a Shia cleric from Saudi
Arabia's Eastern Province, home to many of the country's Shia minorities who have
long been marginalized by the Sunni government. Though not an active politician,
but was astute and outspoken, he openly, actively and constantly spoke against
Saudi Arabia’s policies of oppression which could incite violence against Saudi
Arabia by its Shia population. NIMR was a Saudi citizen but sides with Iran. Considering
the tenuous relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran Nimr became a threat, an
enemy within the state that could be used by Iran to unsteady the ship of Saudi
Arabia. So, politically, for Saudi Arabia, what seems to be right in the
circumstance is to get rid of him. That opportunity did not come until 2012 when he was accused and arrested for
inciting violence, firing on the police, aiding foreign meddling and in 2014 he
was executed. As a consequence of Nimr’s death, protesters in Iran set fire to
a Saudi consulate building in Mashhad and then to the embassy in Tehran. This
was also followed up by Saudi breaking its diplomatic tie with Iran, other
Sunni majority country within the Middle East and outside did same. The killing
of Nimr- al Nimr as observed by experts in Middle East politics, maintained
that the killing of NIMR –AL NIMR was a ploy by Saudi Arabia towards sympathetically garnering support so
as to continue the unrecognized dominance in the Middle East, particularly her
activities in Yemen and Syria. Vali
Nasr, a scholar and former State Department senior adviser, tweeted that the "sectarian narrative helps Saudi
rulers at tough times: rally Sunnis at home and in region against Shia
challenge." Toby C. Jones, a
Middle East scholar at Rutgers, “The
execution, both its timing and that it happened at all, was very
calculated,". Since the competition for dominance in the Middle East
between Saudi Arabia and Iran cannot be achieved through religion, sectarianism
however has become a tacit and potent political tool to divide the Middle East
for influence and power. In fact, sectarianism has been so potent that
everything done in the Middle East is done through sectarian lines. The silent
fight for supremacy has degenerated into the Sunni government in the region and
her allies sponsoring Sunni rebels or terrorist either to keep a Sunni
government under threat or pressure of the Shia or to overthrow a Shia
government with strong influence in the region. In the same vein, Shia also has
also adopted this same approach. Taking a swift bend from the power for
influence; fear on the one side, desire for liberation and revenge on the other
side may be another factor fueling the tension in the region. The wickedness of
which ever sect is in government to the other sect in the Middle east and the
fear of losing power to the other sect with the attending anxiety of a revenge
may be, in fact is one of the many factors motivating and fueling the actions
of the government of the two major players under scrutiny. Conversely, the
desire for liberation, to rule and pay whichever sect is in government in the region
with the same coin might be the motivating negative energy for the continuous
support for the rebels, agitator or terrorist by whichever sect is on the other
side of the compass. The political complexities underlying the reasons that led
to the destabilization of the Middle East was tied to the want of power and
supremacy not religion but the tool employed to achieve this end has been
allowed to fester on the wings of religion overtime. Though, it is difficult but not impossible to
differentiate between religion and any other thing done in the Middle East simply
because social and cultural activities are defined along religious line but
with non judgmental and unbiased observation, as difficult as it may seem to
differentiate between politics and religion in the middle east, the minutest
detail can be uncovered to the effect that the crisis in the middle east tilt
towards politics and political power play and not religion.
- EFFECT OF THE POWER PLAY ON ISLAM
The continuous crisis in
the Middle East has eclipsed what Islam really is and what it came to rectify. The
senseless political power play between Saudi and Iran has in no small measure
disparaged and disrepute the image of Islam in the sight of many. To say the
least, it is unfortunate that this is happening in the Middle East where it is
absolutely accepted to be the birth place of Islam. To narrow it down, Saudi
Arabia is the birthplace of the prophet of Islam, Iran occupies an enviable
position in Islam. In fact, to some the position of these two countries on
important matters, personally, collectively (as it affects the society) or globally
is the position of the Qur’an as far as they are concerned. Many have seen
these two countries as a symbol and what Islam represents, whatever they do or
say affects the perception and behavior of many. So, how can the incessant
political trickery and gimmicks, taking lives of many not have a toll on Islam?
In fact, it has already started to affect many other Muslims outside the shores
of the Middle East. The crisis in the Middle East and the incident that
followed the Nimr—al Nimr has started to take shape between Muslims outside the
Middle East; it has started to dictate and define the relationship of many
Muslims along sectarian line. Islamic leaders and various leaders of the world
should stand up against this aberration because if this sectarian issue is not
well managed, God forbid, any major crisis between the two sects may plunge the
world into total darkness. Which means any threat against any of the sect in
any of these two countries and any retaliation that arises thereof is a threat
in equal measures against any of the sect in other countries and this will
provoke equal retaliation. The consequences of this will be too huge for the
conscience of the world to bear as it will lead to destruction beyond
imagination. Isn’t this not what the author of the religion of Islam was trying
to forestall when he commanded that national loyalty not sectarian loyalty is
an act of worship. Islam is a religion of peace, the activities of Saudi and
Iran in Syria and yemen negates this saying and it has devastating effect and
consequences on the image of Islam. If the unthinkable happens as a result of
obsession for power, I fear Islam will have no hiding place because it will be
on every body’s lips and thought that Islam that ought to save the world
destroyed the world.
S.A ADEOGUN
No comments:
Post a Comment