Sectarianism, Sectarian Conflict and Inter-Sectarian Dialogue Among Muslims

 

 

Question and Answer Session with Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

September 05 13

Q1. The basic cause of what seems to be the endemic sectarian disputes and conflicts among Muslims is the obvious fact that there are literally dozens of Muslim sects, each of which claims to be the single ‘authentically Islamic’ sect and considers the rest to be ‘false’ or ‘deviant’.  Each sect claims that its understanding of the Quran and Prophet’s Sunnah alone is authentic, and that the interpretations of the other sects are wrong. How, then, is one to decide among these rival claims to ‘Islamic authenticity’? And if, as one thinks, there is no human solution to this quandary, is it that sectarian conflict simply cannot be eradicated?

A1. According to a Hadith report, Muslims will be divided into seventy-three sects, and only one sect will remain on the right path. However, no sect has the right to claim that it is on the right path or that it is what is called the firqah-e-najiyah—the sect that will receive salvation. Those who have differences with other sects have only one right—that is, of peaceful persuasion. If persuasion does not work, then they can do Dua or supplication to God. That is all.

No one can claim that their interpretation is the right one. It depends completely on God to decide this—only God knows who is on the right path. We only have the right to engage in discussion, but we cannot resort to excommunication. Issuing Fatwas of Takfir, branding others as Kafirs, is a completely un-Islamic practice.

It is not anyone’s duty to know whether he is on the right path. A person’s duty is to follow the Quran and Sunnah according to his knowledge. The real position is known only to God, and God will declare this in the Hereafter, not in this world.

Q2. The Quran says: “Have nothing to do with those who have split up their religion into sects.” (6:159). Now, those who call themselves ‘Muslims’ are split up into dozens of sects. So, does this Aayat mean in this context?

A2. This Quranic verse is not a legal statement. It does not describe the legal position of those sects. It only shows a kind of resentment. The concept of excommunication is not permitted in Islam. If there are sects that according to someone’s perception have deviated from the Quranic teaching and still call themselves Muslims, he does has no right to issue a fatwa of excommunication against them. He must accept these sects as Muslims. In relation to those Muslims who have deviated from the right path of Islam, you have only one right—that is, of Tabligh, which means here to make them aware, with the help of reason, of their deviation, and to try to make them return to the right path. If you find that they do not accept your advice, then you should do dua for them. But you cannot take any action against them.

It is not right to not regard as Muslims those who follow other sects. There is a consensus among Muslim scholars on this issue. Imam Nawawi has mentioned this in his commentary on the Sahih Muslim: “La nukaffiru ahdan min ahl il-Quiblah”. It means that anyone who performs Salat or prayer by making the Ka‘aba as his Quiblah or direction of prayer will be legally accepted as a Muslim, and no one has the right to declare him a kafir.

Q3. While efforts are being made (few though they may be) to promote dialogue, harmony, peace, love and goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims, there are very few serious and well-meaning efforts to promote such dialogue and goodwill between the different Muslim sects, i.e., intra-Muslim or inter-Maslaki dialogue—between, say, Shias and Sunnis, or, between the various Sunni groups (e.g. Deobandis, Barelvis, Wahhabis, and so on). What is the reason for this?

A3. The success of dialogue depends upon the spirit of dialogue. If the participants in the process of dialogue possess the true spirit of dialogue, then it will be useful, otherwise not. I have participated in several dialogues. Based on my experience, I can say that Muslims are completely incompetent to engage in dialogue. Muslims only know how to debate. They don’t know what dialoguing is. And there is great difference between debating and dialoguing.

Dialogues do not take place only between Muslims and non-Muslims. They do happen among Muslims also. But Muslims are devoid of the dialogue spirit. They want to impose their concepts on others. They don’t know the concept of dialogue, which is based on sharing and understanding. According to my experience, by and large Muslims are debaters and not dialoguers.

Q4. Since each Maslak or Muslim sect assumes that it alone represents the ‘true Islam’ and that the interpretation of Islam of the other Maslaks is ‘false’, how is it possible for the leaders/scholars of these different Maslaks to genuinely dialogue with each other and to work for the benefit of Muslims in general?

A4. The phenomenon you have mentioned is called Ghulu (extremism), and Ghulu is prohibited in Islam. First of all, we have to eliminate Ghulu among Muslims. Then alone can attempts to do this sort of dialogue be successful.

Q5. Given that each madrasa (and this is true of many mosques, too) is associated with one or the other rival Maslak, and that in the madrasas students are taught to refute the other Maslaks, can one expect the Maulvis who come out of these madrasas and who claim to represent Islam to genuinely want to promote love, harmony and dialogue with other Maslaks—instead of condemning, sometimes even hating, the other Maslaks and their adherents?

A5. This phenomenon of refutation and condemnation of others is completely wrong. Moreover, this phenomenon is due to the degeneration of Muslims. First, you will have to bring about reform in Muslim thought, and then alone any kind of movement to bring about unity can be possible.

The phenomenon of sects among Muslims is the same as that which was prevalent among the Jews during the time of their degeneration. These sects are founded on the claim that they alone are right and that others are wrong. These sects are phenomenon of the Zawal or decline period. On account of this psyche, they are not ready to accept others as right, because if they accept others as right, they will be proving themselves wrong—and this kind of self-confession is like opting for death. 

Q6. Given that in many cases, madrasa-trained clerics are trained to refute the other Maslaks as allegedly deviant (gumrah) and false (Baatil), rather than to relate to them with love and goodwill, do you think they are at all the right people to expect to engage in inter-Maslak dialogue? If they aren’t the right people, then who do you think can do this sort of work?

A6. These people are quite incompetent to enter into inter-Maslak dialogue. Only modern educated Muslims can carry out this task. This job cannot be done by traditionally-educated Muslims.

Q7. Throughout Muslim history, starting soon after the demise of the Prophet, there have been fierce sectarian conflicts, including violent wars. In other words, such sectarianism is definitely not a new phenomenon. How do you account for this? Why have Muslims, historically and even now, not been able to settle their sectarian differences amicably or learned to accept them amicably? Is there something in Islam or Muslim culture that prevents this?

A7. It is not a phenomenon of Islam. Rather, it is a phenomenon related to the degeneration of the Muslim Ummah. And this kind of phenomenon is also widespread among other ummahs, too—for example, Christians and Jews. The only difference is that the Christians and Jews, on account of their modern education, have become tolerant. Muslims are still living in the intolerant culture due to lack of modern education among them.

Q8. Do you personally identify with any particular sect or Maslak? If so, which one?

A8. I do not identify with any firqa or Maslak. I only follow what I find in the Quran and Sunnah.

Q9. There are relatively few Muslims who are just Muslims, plain and simple. The vast majority define themselves or are defined by others as ‘Sunni Muslim’ or ‘Shia Muslim’ or ‘Deobandi Muslim’ or ‘Barelvi Muslim’, ‘Hanafi Muslim’, etc. How do you look at this phenomenon?

 A9. There is a difference between Islam and Muslims. Muslims are subject to degeneration, while Islam is not. There are ample verses in the Quran and Hadith that condemn this kind of sectarianism. Not a single verse confirms sectarianism. We may try to bring about reform among Muslims, but there is no guarantee that Muslims would forever become safe from degeneration. The criteria of Islam are the Quran and Hadith, and not Muslim practice. This question that you have raised arises only when one is unable to differentiate between Islam and Muslims. If one knows that Islam and Muslims are different, this question will not arise.

Q10. At one time, Christians were probably as sect-ridden as Muslims are. They fought and killed each other on sectarian grounds, each sect claiming to represent ‘the true’ Christianity. How, in your view, did they learn to manage to agree to disagree and learn to live relatively harmoniously (except in some places like Ireland)? What lessons can Muslims learn from the Christian ecumenical movement that seeks to promote harmony, love and goodwill between Christians, transcending sectarian differences?

A10. Christians are divided into many sects, but modern education has saved them from extremism. One of the qualities promoted through modern education is tolerance. In this regard, Christians are benefitting from modern education. Muslims are very backward as far as modern education is concerned. Muslim schools, colleges and universities are sectarian institutions and not liberal institutions. This is the reason for the difference between Christians and Muslims on the question of dealing with sectarian divisions.

Q11. When Shia-Sunni or other such sectarian violence breaks out, pitting Muslims against each other, some Muslims react by saying that this violence is the handiwork, not of Muslims but, rather, of what they brand as the ‘enemies of Islam’, ‘anti-Muslim forces’, etc., who, they allege, are ‘conspiring’ to ‘divide and rule’ Muslims. What do you think of this argument? Is it a means to deny Muslims’ own responsibility for this violence, and to blame others for their own blunders? Or, is there some truth in this allegation?

A11. This kind of interpretation by Muslims is entirely wrong. Muslims themselves are responsible for all these internal clashes. The reason is that the Muslim ulema never adopted the Dawah method. They always adopted the method of condemnation. All Muslim books on this subject represent this kind of negative mind. I don’t know of a single book on this subject which was prepared with a positive mind. These books have made the Muslim mind very antagonistic toward other sects. We have to prepare other books on this subject, with a positive mindset. Then, after a long effort, it may be possible to bring about change among Muslims in this regard.

Q12. Several of the few efforts to promote intra-Muslim dialogue that I am aware of take the form of promoting ‘Muslim unity’ simply in order to combat what are termed as ‘enemies of Islam/Muslims’. What do you think of this approach? Does it address the fundamental issues that divide the Maslaks? Does it address the basic question of how to relate to Muslims of other Maslaks with love and compassion? Is it long-lasting and effective?

A12. This kind of approach is totally wrong. It is also useless. No purpose can be served by this kind of ‘dialogue’. The “Unity Against the Enemy” theory is a wrong theory. In fact, there is no enemy of Islam. Muslims frequently make mention of Islamophobia among non-Muslims. But this is wrong. Muslims are themselves obsessed with “enemy-phobia”. Muslims must come out of this mentality of enemy-phobia. Only then will they be able to do any positive work.

Q13. In many parts of the ‘Muslim world’ (e.g. Syria, Iraq, Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc.) Sunni-Shia violence has become acute. How do you account for this? Is it only due to religious reasons? Or are there political, economic and other factors?

A13. According to my study, there are no political or economic reasons for this. The basic reason for this phenomenon is that for a long period a large number of both the Shia and Sunni Ulema have been declaring each other as kafirs. As a result, this has become a matter of belief among many Sunnis and Shias. That is, each thinks that they have to only hate the other and to have no other relations with them.

Q14. What practical efforts would you suggest for promoting inter-Maslaks harmony and also to enable Muslims to reach out with goodwill (rather than with the intention to counter or to convert) to fellow Muslims of other Maslaks?

A14. We have to be realists. We have to know that in the present situation it is not possible to establish harmony at a mass level. The only possibility is to reach out to individuals. It is possible to change the heart of individuals, but it is not possible to change the entire community. At present, the method that is adopted is gathering a crowd and addressing it from a stage. This is not going to yield any result. The right method is to approach individuals, organize a team and then enter the community. It seems to be a long process, but only this method will work in such cases.

Q15. Whether with regard to how Muslims relate to people of other religions or of other Muslim Maslaks, some might argue that many Muslims are narrow, bigoted, self-righteous, supremacist and fanatic, lacking open-mindedness and tolerance and so are incapable of genuine dialogue. Do you agree? If so, what do you think are the causes for this?

A15. I completely agree with this impression about Muslims, and it is a reality. The difference is that others ascribe it to Islam, but I ascribe it to Muslims’ degeneration and backwardness in modern education.

Q16. When people like you say and write that Islam teaches tolerance, many others might question this claim by pointing out how many of those who claim to know Islam well (such as many madrasa clerics) relate even to fellow Muslims of other maslaks in an extremely intolerant way, branding them as kafirs, etc., and even in some extreme cases, justifying their killing. Such people claim so-called ‘Islamic’ grounds for this behaviour.

 A16. These Muslims are confused between Islam and Muslims. They fail to differentiate between the two, and this is the reason for what you have described. All these things mentioned in the question have no relationship with Islam at all. Rather, they have entirely to do with the Muslims’ degeneration. Those who seek to justify this sort of behaviour through Islam are wrong. They try to justify their wrongdoings.

Q17. Critics of those who claim that Islam teaches tolerance might ask that if Muslims are unable to love and accept even fellow Muslims, although of other maslaks, how can they accept and love non-Muslims? How would you respond?

A17. I agree with this point. But again I will say that this is not a phenomenon of Islam.

Q18. Please shed some light on the role of Arab petro-dollars in spreading anti-Shia, anti-Sufi and narrow-minded Wahhabi or so-called ‘Salafi’ sectarianism in the 'Muslim world' and how this is linked to the political interests of the Arab dictators, the Saudi monarchy, and dominant Western powers.

A18. At root, this has nothing to do with petro-dollars. It has been happening since long before petro-dollars came into existence. Many books have been written on this subject. The concept of firaq-e-batilah (false sects) is very old. What we see among Muslims now is an expression of this concept.

URL: https://newageislam.com/interview/sectarianism,-sectarian-conflict-inter-sectarian/d/13371