More than what it appears to be
Historians relate an anecdote with Hazrat Rabia Basri, a Muslim mystic, according to which she used to roam about in the streets of Basra with a bucket of water in her one hand and a burning torch in the other. When demanded an explanation for this deed, she replied, “I want to pour water into hell and set paradise on fire, so that these two veils disappear and nobody shall any longer worship God out of fear of hell or a hope of heaven but solely for the sake of His eternal beauty.”
It is heartrending to see that Muslims have created multiple veils of sectarianism where each sect claims to be the right one. The more distressing fact is that political and personal rivalries are camouflaged as religious for gaining legitimacy of subsequent actions. The case of Iranian and Arab rivalry is not different in this regard. Iranian detestation for Arabs is not only for religious reasons, but also for personal reasons and vice versa. The conflict between the two competing theologies is centuries old. It’s about opposing identities, nationalisms, ethnicities, and above all hegemony in the region.
The execution of Saudi Shia cleric Sheikh al-Nimr and his associates has escalated new tensions between two countries in the region. The justification of Saudi provocation remains ambiguous. Although he was an advocate of democracy and Shia minority rights in Saudi Arabia, yet he didn’t pose a credible threat to the Saudi political system. It seems that Saudi Arabia is aimed at eliminating even the slightest element of nuisance in order to preserve its authoritarian political system. Moreover, it has sent message across borders regarding its determination to fight counter political and religious forces in the region.
This repressive and oppressive pattern of politics is not new in the Middle Eastern region. Arab states have been dominated by authoritarian regimes since their liberation from European colonial masters. The artificial boundaries that were drawn by the Europeans legitimised authoritarian rules in these states. European colonisers drew boundaries while ignoring the ethnic composition and demographic realities of the region. The division and dispersion of different tribes, clans and ethnic groups in different states created a heterogeneous fabric in these nations. Consequently, authoritarianism remained the only viable option to keep these groups together. The political forces have remained unsuccessful in changing the dictatorial form of rule over the years. Minorities have long been suppressed in the name of national interest and political stability. The assimilation of multiple identities into one national identity remained an unachievable goal. That’s why the Arab identity is more prominent as compared to the national identity of the respective states in the region. Moreover, the traditional and cultural links between different groups across borders have always provided an external dimension to every intrastate and interstate conflict in the region. ISIS operating in Levant, Saudi-Iranian tensions, Yemen and Syrian crisis, Lebanon’s weak nation status, and chaos in Libya and Iraq are all manifestations of this phenomenon. The opposing alliances formed in the region in the wake of current tensions draw attention to Shia-Sunni schism in this regard.
The overwhelming reaction of Iran towards the issue could be understood as reinforcing its independent Shia identity vis-à-vis Sunni identity in the region. It has surely fuelled the current wave of instability that is originally initiated by Saudi Arabia’s provocative response towards Sheik al-Nimr’s advocacy. Both countries have seized the opportunity to exhibit their power by forming rival alliances with likeminded political forces in the region. It is the harsh reality that these antagonistic political forces have a larger stake in conflict than in peace in the region. In this scenario, the attainment of peace remains nothing but an illusion.
With Iran’s improving relations with the West and Saudi Arabia’s initiative to form a military coalition of thirty four Islamic countries to fight terrorism, the Middle Eastern region seems to be at the crossroads of renewed political dynamics. The exclusion of Iran and Iraq from the union politicises the entire idea of “Islamic” union. If the real intentions are to fight terrorism in the region, then OIC is already present as an appropriate platform for this purpose. OIC remains the representative organisation of all Islamic countries, yet its practical achievements are non-existent. It should have been made operational instead of forming a new coalition of selective Muslim countries. However, at the moment, the coalition is nothing more than what Hussain Shaheed Surhwardy said years ago while referring to the efforts of Muslim unity as “zero plus zero plus zero is after all equal to zero”.
The concerns of states that are already considered to be part of this new coalition including Pakistan have started to emerge. It also shows the difficulties it would face in implementing its agenda in future. Pakistan has historically enjoyed good relations with Saudi Arabia and gained economic concessions. It is not advisable to displease Saudi Arabia, which is already anguished over Pakistan’s refusal to participate in Yemen conflict. It is equally wise not to derail relations with Iran as its strategically important neighbour of Pakistan. For Pakistan, a delicate balancing act is the need of the hour.
Iran n Arab problem is 1500 years Old.
Not new.
As far as my understanding is concern , the new paradigm of big powers has shifted to Middle east ,and CARS.Iran is the police man of Middle east and technologically advanced than the rest of the states of the Middle east.More over ,after decades of sanctions Iran, is struggling to maintain its status quo in the region. if big powers for the sake of peace play their roles ,the crisis would go no longer even for seconds.
informative article! actually KSA fears the advancement and knowledge development of Iran, its great threat to regional hegemony
The only comment i’d like to give is that, when you don’t know much about Islam then please do not quote nonsense on the name of Islam. The example you quoted about Rabia Basri, is nonsense and is against the teachings of Islam. Prophet Mohammad(saw) himself prayed for Jannat. And the only way to unite the Muslims is to bring them towards Quran and Sunnah-(Sahih Ahadith) only. – It is the Fiqh, Maslak, Silsila etc that cause Firqa – by the way for your information, Rabia Basri was a deviant sufi and a cause of firqa. If you want to eliminate Firqas then obey Allah and his Messenger ONLY. – And please stop preaching the nonsense secularism, because nowhere in the world has secularism worked. Besides what you are teaching is Sickularism not Secularism.
Angry, vituperative, intolerant comments like the above are exactly what is wrong with Muslims today. A person does not have to be a Muslim scholar to write about a religion he/she loves. Readers should have the courtesy to read what they say. The story about Rabia Basri is quite beautiful, actually. Sufism is about the spirit behind the faith. It can be construed differently depending on the listener, as in the example above.
Comments are closed.