Iran-Saudi tensions do not have roots in sectarianism
It is welcome news that Prime Minister of Pakistan is visiting Iran and Saudi Arabia to defuse tension between the two brotherly Muslim majority countries. The first milestone to cross would be re-establishment of diplomatic ties. Secondly, balancing of powers and interests of the two in all avenues of tension, including Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. This will be a key high profile visit by a head of government after escalation of tension. Last week Foreign Minister of Indonesia visited both Iran and Saudi Arabia. I hope Pakistan Foreign Ministry has contacted Indonesian embassy to get briefing about this visit so that the Prime Minister can build on it. Pakistan Prime Minister may also be preparing ground for the upcoming visit of Chinese President to the two countries expected shortly as reported by Iran Daily. China and Pakistan have been working closely to stabilise South Asia and improve economic links with Central Asia and Middle East.
Pakistan and Turkey are neighbours of Iran but are considered close to Saudi Arabia. President Erdogan’s harsh criticism of Iran of interfering in the internal affairs of Saudi Arabia did not help in the matter. This dents their credibility in the eyes of Iranians as neutral arbiters. It would have been better if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stopped at Tehran first before proceeding to Riyadh. Malaysia and Indonesia are considered more neutral countries and should be engaged in the process. Recent terror incident in Jakarta, claimed by Islamic State, makes them stakeholders in the stability of Middle East and global fight against terrorism.
Majority of Western media and some Muslim opinion makers are labelling Saudi-Iranian tensions as a sectarian feud. I do agree with that as there is a millennium long history of struggle for cultural dominance between Persian Iran after the rise of Arabs at the advent of Islam. Arabs conquered Persian Empire within first 60 years of its emergence. Even the assassination of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (RATA) was considered a conspiracy of Persian slaves that came to Medina. One of the alleged co-conspirator was a former governor of a Persian province enslaved by Arabs and was killed by son of Umar in a rage. This act was condemned by Hazarat Ali (RATA) and demanded that son of Umar should be prosecuted for taking the law in his own hands. But Hazart Usman (RATA) granted him a pardon without proper legal proceedings which became a cause for tension between these two and exploited fully by Persian slaves. They were the first ones to create a movement called Shian of Ali (friends of Ali). Some historians view the Iranian adoption of Shia sect as an effort to differentiate from Arabs, who were majority Sunni, as well as her affinity towards sufism which is a key component of its message. So it is a struggle between Persian and Arab nationalist ambitions as pointed out by the terms and symbols used by diplomats. For instance, the statement of Saudi Foreign Minister when the tension escalated was to warn Iran not to interfere in Arab affairs. This conflict will still be there if all of Iran was Sunni because Iranians consider themselves one of the oldest original civilisations of the world along with Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians and South Americans.
Another factor to consider is the differences in Arab and Persian Shia. Not all Shia scholars, especially Arabs, believe that the early political decisions should continue to cause division. For instance there is a movement in Iraqi Shia scholars that early political decisions about caliphate should not continue dividing the ummah. Secondly, doctrinal differences exist between Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali even though they are all Sunni. Doctrinal differences are always present in almost all religions, for instance Protestants/Catholics in Christianity, and have been used by ambitious politicians to further their own agendas.
The Shia-Sunni colouring of the political struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia is mostly a creation of the West in which Iran and Saudi Arabia went along because both these nations like to use political Islam for their dominance of the region. For them religion is a potent force to get recruits to sacrifice at the altar of political and strategic gains. Larger Muslim community does not believe in this sectarian conflict and is angry at both these nations.
It is important that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) takes active role as a platform to defuse tensions among its member countries, create balance of power and protect interests. One of the agenda items on the visit of Prime Minister should have been to explore ways and means to engage OIC in these crises. OIC has to also take some initiative in initiating a dialogue between sects to create a better understanding and reduce misunderstandings.
