Sunnis & Shi’ites: Just a Question of History?

Hashemi Rafsanjani speaking at the closing ceremony of the 27th International Islamic Unity Conference

“Who the first caliph was is a historical question,” said Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani at the closing ceremonies of the 27th International Islamic Unity Conference in Tehran. “It brings us no benefits and is a useless exercise.”

Rafsanjani’s words should be noteworthy for a variety of reasons. The question of who was the legitimate successor to the Prophet Mohammad was the dispute that originally separated Sunnis and Shi’ites shortly after his death in 632 AD. Since then, the two sects have had an uneasy and sometimes violent relationship. Moreover, Rafsanjani is not a free agent expressing an independent view. He served two terms as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is a Shi’ite ayatollah and, although his influence has diminished, still has a good amount of influence behind the scenes.

As with its predecessors, however, this conference session was largely ignored by the Western media and even most of the media in Islamic countries, even though 58 countries sent around 300 representatives to Tehran to attend it. The conference is essentially a “feel good” forum for pronouncements about Islamic unity, which are mostly forgotten shortly thereafter. The delegation has no real power and cannot make executive decisions.

However, this conference deserved more attention from the media, not because of the pronouncements themselves, but for its subtext and timing.

Too Easy

The theme of the conference, which was held from January 17th to January 20th, was “The Quran as the basis of unity in the Muslim world”, an uncontroversial choice given that Sunnis and Shi’ites agree on a single Arabic version of “The Book”, rather than different versions or translations. Translations are allowed, but relying on them to settle a dispute or offer evidence is not. Uncontroversial and easy, but too easy. Various Islamic sects and sub-sects have fought over the interpretation of the text and relied on different and sometimes contradictory verses to justify their beliefs. In addition, as a rule, most Muslim sects do not consider the Quran as the sole source of Islamic law. For example, the Wahhabi sect, dominant in Saudi Arabia, and its offshoots, including the Taliban and Al Qaida, are notable exceptions.

With this contradiction in mind, Rafsanjani went on to say that “there is no rational reason” to allow discussions around the issue of ritual cleansing or praying to result in a “split”, adding that “neither the Quran nor the tradition [of the Prophet] justify this”. “It is only natural that human beings should have disagreements,” he said. “A thinking man chooses his own way based on his beliefs and knowledge and might come to disagree” with another. “Differences of opinion can be very beneficial,” he stated, and “independent thinking (Ijtihad) is what makes the Islamic revelations complete”.

Rafsanjani is not naïve, but his subsequent statements reveal the urgency that he, and other attendees, feel about current sectarian conflicts, from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. “What is today dangerous and unfortunately has spread in the Islamic world,” he said, “is fighting and violence over differences in opinion, with serious consequences for both sides.”

Complete Madness

“The destructive results of this fight are approaching complete madness,” Rafsanjani added. “An 8-year-old girl in Afghanistan puts on a suicide vest to blow up people because she had made some promises to her brother.” But, he said, “Islam is the religion of mercy and equality”.

Fear of the spread of sectarian wars was a subtext running throughout the conference, regardless of the sectarian affiliation of the speaker. “The Quran give us the name Muslim,” said Asif Luqman Qazi from Pakistan, a Sunni. “The Quran or Sunna [tradition] never mentioned Shia or Sunni. We are all Muslims.”

Current conflicts in the region were not directly triggered by sectarian fights. The wars in Afghanistan started as resistance to the occupying Soviet forces. Saddam Hussain of Iraq did trust the Shi’ite Arabs and the Sunni Kurds in equal measure. He was determined to maintain his power, and did not advocate religious cleansing for its own sake. The civil war in Syria started as part of the “Arab Spring” and calls for democracy. Now, however, Syria is becoming more nakedly sectarian, with conflicts spilling into neighboring countries more and more as each day passes.

Iranian leaders are very much aware and afraid of this trend. They have played their own part by supporting their fellow Shi’ites in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, but their actions have been more defensive than aggressive. Before 2001, they came close to war with the Taliban at least partly due to their brutal treatment of Afghani Shi’ites, but the current government of Afghanistan, run mostly by Sunnis, enjoys Iran’s modest support.

Rafsanjani summed up the situation from the Iranian point of view: “Two years ago, we were happy for the Islamic Awakening,” referring to what others have called the Arab Spring. “People rose up to take their destinies in the own hands and away from international monopolies. It was so pleasant to see people gathering in streets in peace and overthrowing tyranny and dictatorship. But what happened? These movements turned into civil strife and people are at each other’s throats.”

Sunni or Shi’ite, no established government wants to see instability among its neighbors, especially when this instability can seep through its own borders. The future of Afghanistan is a big question mark and the order in Iraq, which seemed to be slowly settling in to some sort of equilibrium, has once again been disrupted.

The Usual Suspects

Insurgent groups were of course not invited to the conference. During discussions, these insurgents, including the Taliban and various Al Qaida affiliates, were labeled as “heretics”. The usual suspects, including the United States and Israel, were burnt in effigy. After condemning heretic groups, the head of Lebanon’s Hezbollah Political Council, Amin al-Sayyed, said that “the USA and the Zionist regime, by creating conflict in Syria, are trying to move the world public opinion away from Palestine”.

Rafsanjani generally avoided this kind of tirade, but could not resist it altogether, albeit indirectly: “The enemies have set us up against each other,” he said, “...and they are the only ones that would benefit.” He did, however, offer one positive lesson that the West has to offer: among Muslims, he said, the differences are in the detail, but “European countries have been able to form a union and help each other despite serious disagreements.”

There were calls for unity regardless of sect. But one expression was markedly absent: religious tolerance. The conference consisted of mainstream Muslims, Shi’ite or Sunni, but there were no representatives from sects such as the Sufis, who suffer repression in many countries. Although nobody expects non-Muslims to be invited to a conference on Islamic unity and the Quran, tolerance for non- Muslims cannot be separated from tolerance for other kinds of Muslims.

It was rather bold of Rafsanjani to ask the question “who was the caliph?” But it was irrelevant and counter-productive. It would have been much more courageous if he had asked for tolerance for every religion, regardless of “the manner of ritual cleansing or praying”. Is the persecution of Baha’is, for example, a “useful” exercise?