Sunni, shia, alawite, druze, shafi, hanbali, hanafi, wahabbi, and the list goes on and on. Is that really how normal people see each other through the lens of separation? Before engaging with each other people dont search for sectarian identification cards as in a security check point. Families, all over the world, keep themselves occupied with family affairs. They are least bothered about tiny details for which some lunatics are ready to spill blood.
Why then are muslims being constantly provided with gallons of those very sectarian medicines which keep people at others throats?
The sectarian card is a political tool similar to the atomic weapons. The poison from it infiltrates into nations like a chain reaction from a radioactive explosion. The scars from the sectarian blast carries on through the DNA of a nation until it is humiliated in the world stage as a nation desperate for outside help.
Such is the case now in the Middlea East. Iraq is torn into 3 bloody horror pieces along the sectarian fault lines between sunni, shia and kurdish populations. Syria’s Assad is using the concept of sunni threat to keep the shiite alawites under his control while he butchers the freedom fighters.
For long, few tribal monarchs sold the Iran revolution as a “shia” threat to take over their lands especially where the shias make up a considerable portion of the population. Sheikhdoms being incapable of defending their royal houses from a popular revolt resorted to the tool most favored by despots, foreign help.
The western backing for petty tribal heads is headed for another major disaster. The useless and expired milk products need to go. Time has arrived for fresh produce. Thanks to the revolutions in the Maghreb and Yemen young Arabs are rediscovering their traditional obsession with fierce independence and liberty of thought. Two concepts which are forcefully denied to them by the tribal monarchs.
Article below throws light on the changing balance in the equations of Middle East politics and Political Islam.
From Crescent Online:
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s opposition to the US proposal made through Qatar at the UN, to militarily intervene in Syria using Arab proxy forces is the beginning of a new political era in the Middle East.
On September 25 the British installed monarch of Qatar called for an Arab-led intervention in Syria. Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani told the 193-member General Assembly that he wants Arab nations to act in unanimity and intervene in Syria as they did in the 15-year civil war in Lebanon. No surprise here that the Qatari tribal chief never made such a request to liberate Palestinians from the clutches of Israeli apartheid.
Hamad’s bid to do the dirty work to secure Israeli and US interests in Syria was immediately rejected by the newly elected President of Egypt. In an interview with PBS television’s Charlie Rose ahead of his much anticipated speech in the UN General Assembly, President Morsi said he is “against foreign intervention by force in what happens in Syria, I do not condone this and I think that it is a big mistake if it happens, Egypt does not agree to this.” Morsi said that the Contact Group comprising Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey could help end the 18-month conflict in Syria.
Egypt’s opposition to foreign military intervention in Syria and US inability to intervene directly due to its declining military and economic power has left primitive regimes in the Arabian Peninsula politically and militarily exposed, vulnerable and isolated.
Egypt’s emergence as a counterweight to US-backed despotic regimes in the Arabian Peninsula is likely to help decrease sectarianism in the Muslim Ummah. Even if Egypt ends up opposing the Saudi-Israeli-US axis purely for nationalist reasons and on ad-hoc basis, the overall effect in extinguishing the fires of sectarianism in the Muslim Ummah would be positive.
Since Egyptians follow Sunni jurisprudence, this will disarm the US and Israeli sectarian card used through the Saudi tribe. Even though Iran, Turkey and Egypt have different views on the outcome in Syria, they may compromise in order to neutralize the bigger problem coming from the sectarian Saudi proxy regime.
It cannot be ruled out that if Egypt and Turkey were to agree to the elimination of the illegitimate rule of al-Saud, Islamic Iran and the current Syrian government will make strategic compromises in Syria. Both Ankara and Cairo have to make clear through action that they are willing to help rid the Ummah of Saudi fitna.
It remains to be seen if the Islamic leadership worldwide will seize this unique opportunity to strike a strategic alliance and eliminate the main problem of the Muslim Ummah, the British installed al-Saud family that is now in open alliance with imperialism and Zionists against the interests of Muslims.