Dear Readers:

Welcome to October 2013 issue of Salaam.

Thanks for your encouragement and support.

Pushpa Anbu SVD editor

Victor Edwin SJ managing editor

Editorial: REBUILDING A BEAUTIFUL WORLD TOGETHER

Islam and Christianity: Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

DIALOGUE A NEW WAY OF BEING HUMAN - Tom Kunnunkal SJ

MILAP initiative: shared responsibility for a harmonious India – Victor Edwin SJ

“Mysticism in East and West – The Concept of the Unity of Being: A Christian-Muslim Symposium - Heike Stamer

Transformation through Interfaith Dialogue - Herman Roborgh S.J.

Maulana Azad and Education - Irfan Engineer

Shia Doctrine and Sectarian Rivalry in the Muslim World Today - David Pinault

The parable of the loving Father - Victor Edwin SJ

Iftar Party at St. Xavier's School, Delhi - Santosh Benedict SJ

Editorial

REBUILDING A BEAUTIFUL WORLD TOGETHER

In so many ways, our world is beautiful. But in so many other ways, it is also an ugly and violent world. Our great multi-dimensional human self is being made to shrink to view everything from the economy of money and profit. Money is fast becoming the sole currency for all human transactions. So, the only question we seek an answer for: what profit will it bring to me? When mixed with power and ably supported by arms capable of great destruction, you have a powerful weapon to make many kinds of coercive and unjust decisions. Politics is entering into all sectors of life. It is a sacrilege that it has also been allowed to enter into the sacred domain of religion, lured by the short term interests it will provide to key functionaries.    

The quest in the minds of many good-willed persons across all religious traditions is to find effective ways to contribute to rebuild our planet earth and make it once again beautiful, a spiritual quest.        

                        

Faith, human and divine, has been providing the underpinning and motive power for many great human endeavours. We humans are meaning seekers and meaning makers. As a nation, we have sought God with a relentless desire for countless centuries. Human history is filled with inspiring deeds of light, produced by men and women who dared to see beyond the limiting borders of self and had set larger goals and targets by accessing their deeper connections and capabilities. Such faith has produced many miracles of life, several of which were indeed very spectacular, be they in the realm of sport and adventure, in war or peace, in science and technology or in arts and architecture or in inspired sacred writings and actions by spirit-filled persons.  

The United Nations, while searching to find a solution for the great violence in the world, brought together the spiritual and religious leaders of the world to New York in August, 2000. The reason: in a survey it found that more than 80% of the people had a faith or belief system to power their lives. In spite of the giant progress that we have made in modern times and more so, in the recent decades, there is clear evidence that many are still searching forsomething more from life than what we have so far been able to master and use. We are moving from the Information and Communication Age to the Wisdom Age, inspired by the wisdom of the Spirit. As a result, spiritual is in. We are more than just body, mind and heart. We have also a spirit. There is growing acceptance of the fact that we are all connected beyond the global internet connectivity we already have. We are divinely rooted in God and cosmically linked to our deepest human resources. It is the great tragedy of life that most of this vast resource, human and divine, is not used by us and so we live lives of scarcity.

 The three-word mantra invitation from life:

     Discover  the aadhaar and foundation for life and living, both natural and super natural.

     Connect with these immense resources, found in the many faith traditions and so connect with persons across borders and boundaries

     Live the New and abundant life that it opens before you. The current economies, based on money, arms, technology and domination and control of others, have not produced peace and wellness of life. So, discover and live the economy of communion.

The present edition of Salaam presents many articles, which open the doors to build a new world through dialogue. Is Islam for dialogue? Yes, says Maulana Wahiuddin Khan and provides several Quranic quotes to prove it.  Victor Edwin reports the MILAP initiative that brought several scholars, searching for shared responsibility to promote union of minds and hearts. Tom Kunnunkal seeks an affirmative answer from Christians to the question: Are only a very select few called to engage in dialogue or is it a Christian imperative for all?  Herman Roborgh  explores ways to be a transforming presence in a milieu when the majority belong to another religion. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad’s liberating views  open new windows on how education can provide personal and societal transformation. David Pinault provides insights into the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims and the political interventions that aggravate the confrontation.   

Read, get inspired and discover a new way of being a Muslim or Christian!

Islam and Christianity

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Islam and Christianity have a common origin that is the Semitic tradition. Both are Semitic religions. Although the advent of Christianity was about six hundred years before that of Islam, there are great similarities between the two religions. There is much common ground between Islam and Christianity.

The Quran is the authentic text of the religion of Islam. In regard to the Muslim-Christian relationship it is worth mentioning that there are frequent references to Christianity in the Quran. For example, Muhammad and Ahmad are referred to in the Quran five times, while Isa and Masih are mentioned thirty-six times, and Maryam (Mary) is referred to thirty-four times. This shows that Islam gives special regard to Christianity and desires that Muslims develop high respect for it.

The Quran praises the Christian community in these words: “We gave him the Gospel and imbued the hearts of those who followed him with compassion and mercy.” (57:27). In another verse the Quran mentions the Christian community in these words: “The nearest in affection to them are those who say, ‘We are Christians.’” (5:82).

In Chapter 61, the Quran enjoins the Muslim to follow the method of the Christians: “O believers, be God’s helpers, as Jesus, son of Mary, said to the disciples, ‘Who will be my helpers in the cause of God?’ The disciples said, ‘We shall be God’s helpers.’”(61:14)

Greater than this is that according to the Prophet’s tradition, all the Muslims believe in what is called “the second coming of Jesus Christ”. According to Muslim belief this coming is not just for the sake of coming, it is for the sake of performing a great role. It is the final role of the history of mankind. At that time, Muslims are required to follow Jesus Christ and by joining him, they must fight against dajjal, the great deceiver. This belief is common among all Muslims.

According to a saying of the Prophet of Islam, in the later period of history, two religious communities will emerge as the greatest communities in terms of number. By seeing the above references from the Quran and the Hadith, it can be said that Islam wants that Muslims and Christians should join together in the later period of history for the cause of Allah, and they must eliminate evil by joint effort. According to the Islamic teaching, this is the greatest mission of both the communities.

Interfaith Dialogue

We are living in an age of information – the age of the knowledge explosion. Today, everyone wants to know more and more about everything, including religion. The result is that today on the subject of religion, people are far better informed than ever before.

At the same time, we are living in a world of differences – of multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic societies. To remove these differences people fight amongst themselves, not realizing that differences cannot be removed. A reformer has rightly said that Nature abhors uniformity. This means that ‘difference’ is a part of Nature and it exists in every aspect of life including religion. What we need to do is simply learn the ‘art of difference management’ rather than the art of difference elimination. Who has the power to remove all differences?

How do we manage differences? In ancient times, people used to take a confrontational course whenever differences arose. They knew only one way to settle disputes, and that was war. But democracy put an end to this way of settling matters and introduced the culture of dialogue leading to peace.

We should also understand that difference is not a curse, but rather a blessing. History shows that difference of opinion leads to dialogue, and dialogue results in intellectual development, which is a boon for everyone concerned. Difference of opinion also leads to high thinking, which is the sole key to all kinds of human progress.

In the realm of religion, today, differences are managed only through meaningful and positive ‘inter-faith dialogue’ between people of world religions. The aim of dialogue is to seek peaceful solutions to controversial matters, in spite of differences. There may be differences in religion and culture, but there is absolutely no difference or discrimination made between people in terms of respect and honour.

The principle of dialogue is that the parties should present their viewpoints supported by arguments, while remaining ever ready for give and take — a pre- requisite of a successful dialogue — rather than insist on all demands being unconditionally met.

Dialogue in Islam

Dialogue or peaceful negotiation, is the path prescribed by Islam. Islam is based on the principle of dawah, which is another name for peaceful negotiation. Violence is totally forbidden in Islam. There is only one exception to this ban and that is when it is engaged in self-defense. This can take place only at the time of external invasion, and such action is the prerogative of an established government. Non-governmental organizations have no right to wage a war in the name of justice or even in self-defense.

The Prophet of Islam started his mission in Makkah in 610 A.D. This mission was to communicate his ideology to people by talking to them, listening to their objections and trying to convince them of his viewpoint by means of arguments. One of the initial Quranic verses revealed to him was that the ideology given by God to the Prophet should be spread by him among the people (93:11) The Prophet’s ideology was based on monotheism, whereas his Arab contemporaries believed in polytheism. It was but natural, therefore, that his mission should become subject to bilateral negotiation.

He would communicate his point to people, listen to their responses and then give them further explanations. In this way his mission became a practical demonstration of what we now term dialogue. To make this dialogue fruitful, the Quran lays down certain meaningful guidelines: “Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in a way that is best.” (16:125)

This verse shows that your conversation with others should be carried on in the best and most gracious way, hence, any bickering with other parties has to be avoided. After listening to their objections, the point should be made in such a way that appeals to their minds. That is, it should not end in mere debate, but should be result-oriented. The conversation should not appear to be between rivals, but should aim at mutual understanding.

The Quran makes this quite explicit: “Good and evil deeds are not equal. Repel evil with what is better; then you will see that one who was once your enemy has become your dearest friend.” (41:34)

This verse of the Quran tells us that no one is Mr Enemy. Everyone is potentially Mr Friend. This is so because everyone is born with the same nature. From this Quranic principle, we learn that the beginning of any dialogue should not be marked by any sign of despair about the possible outcome. The right approach is to display a hopeful attitude and at the very outset to suppress any tone which would suggest low expectations of success.

Common Word

In this regard, another verse of the Quran is as follows: “Say, ‘People of the Book! Let us come to a word common to us that we shall worship none but God.’” (3:64)

We learn from this verse, what should be the subject of discussion when a conversation is being held between two parties? That is, the beginning of a dialogue should not start with a controversy. Instead, a common ground should be sought on which the discussion should begin. The sequence of the discussion, therefore, should be from agreement to difference of opinion and then back to agreement.

In Islam, the formula for social peace, social harmony and interfaith dialogue is based on peaceful coexistence as has been given in the following verse of the Quran: “To you, your religion, and to me, mine.” (109:6)

In other words, the principle of dialogue given by Islam is, “Follow one and respect all”, or the method of ‘mutual respect’. As per the teachings of Islam, while respecting others, we have to welcome differences wholeheartedly without any reservation. It is hatred, which has to be eliminated and not difference of opinion. People may have their differences in belief, religion, culture, etc., but while following their religion, they have to have mutual respect for others and discover a common bond between them, which shows them that all are human beings.

The following is another relevant verse: “Do not revile those [beings] whom they invoke instead of God, lest they, in their hostility, revile God and out of ignorance.” (6:109)

We gather from this verse of the Quran that, when dialogue takes place between two parties on a controversial subject, it is essential that an amicable atmosphere be maintained. If both parties set about arousing animosity and people on both sides are engaged in spreading antagonistic feelings, such an unfavorable atmosphere will be created that no fruitful dialogue can take place.

It is a fact that the result of dialogue is not solely dependent upon the atmosphere of the immediate surroundings, but depends rather upon whether the external environment favors or disfavors it.

Another principle of dialogue is supported by the tradition of the Prophet of Islam concerning the via media arrived at in drawing up the Hudaybiya Peace Treaty. This treaty was signed only after long negotiations between the Prophet of Islam and the Quraysh. It is a matter of historical record that the conclusion of this treaty was possible because the Prophet unilaterally accepted the conditions laid down by the Quraysh.

The principle of dialogue derived from this Sunnah of the Prophet is that both the parties should present their viewpoints supported by arguments, while remaining ever ready for give and take — a prerequisite of a successful dialogue — rather than insist on all demands being unconditionally met.

In practical matters, Islam advocates flexibility to the ultimate possible extent.

We learn from a number of examples throughout Islamic history that Islam not only lays down principles of dialogue, but gives also practical demonstrations. In the Makkan period of his mission, the Prophet of Islam repeatedly practiced the principle of dialogue. For instance, once the Quraysh sent their leader, Utba ibn Rabiyya, as their representative to the Prophet of Islam so that an atmosphere of peace might be arrived at through negotiation on the subject of mutual differences. The traditions tell us that Utba heard the Prophet out patiently and with full attention. Then he conveyed what he had said to the Quraysh. Similarly, at the invitation of his uncle, Abu Talib, representatives of the Quraysh gathered at the Prophet’s home and held negotiations there peacefully on controversial matters.

This principle of peaceful negotiations can also be witnessed in the negotiations held at Hudaybiya between the Quraysh and Prophet of Islam that continued for about two weeks, culminating in the treaty of Hudaybiya. This event, without doubt, is a successful example of peaceful negotiation. Again, in the presence of the Prophet of Islam, tripartite talks were held between representatives of three religions – Islam, Judaism and Christianity, in the Prophet’s mosque in Madinah. This historic event, which took place in the sacred place of worship, shows the importance given to peaceful dialogue in Islam.

Such examples, which are many in number, relate to the golden age of the Prophet and his companions. That is why the practice of dialogue in terms of bilateral negotiation enjoys the position of an established principle in Islam.

In Conclusion

It becomes clear from the above discussion that the method of Islam is that of peaceful dialogue. The Quran tells us that the way of peace is the best way. (4:128). There is another verse, which tells us that the way of negotiation and arbitration should be adopted in controversial matters. (4:35)

There is a tradition of the Prophet to this effect: “Do not desire or seek confrontation with the enemy, but rather ask for peace from God.”

The objective of Islam is to bring about divine revolution, to invite people to worship God, to strive for a society in which spiritual, ethical, and human values are cherished. Islam advocates an atmosphere where peace, tolerance, love and well-wishing is the order of the day — an atmosphere where controversies are resolved without the use of violence. This is the desired world of Islam and such a world can be established only through peaceful dialogue. The truth is that Islam is based on monotheism, with regard to God; and on peaceful dialogue, with regard to methodology. This is the essence of Islamic teaching. No other way is possible in Islam.

DIALOGUE A NEW WAY OF BEING HUMAN

 Tom Kunnunkal SJ

We live in a multi-cultural and multi-religious world.

We live in a world that makes us feel good. We also live in a world that is not at ease. Many, in our world, experience a lot of tension and fear about what could happen that would cause them injury, even serious injury or death. We live in a modern world created through knowledge and technology, a world of great  abundance. Side by side, we also find many, both the rich and the poor, experiencing lack or absence of inner peace and hence a scarcity mentality. Adding more items to the many items we already have will not help us to find a solution. We need a new mindset, a new relationship, a new connection, a new way of being human. God in his wisdom has created a beautiful world. One great reason that the world is so beautiful is that it is so diverse. We see it well illustrated in Nature. We see it in every human being as well, so uniquely different from every other, with no duplicates. It does not take much imagination to realize how quickly we will get totally bored with a world and its peoples if everything and everyone looked the same and behaved the same way. That will be an insufferable hell on earth. So we thank God for diversity. We thank God for the diverse, multi-religious and multi-cultural India we have. Each community and its peoples have made so many significant contributions to create the beautiful India we have. This is also the strength of India. Therefore, inter-faith dialogue must remain a non-negotiable constituent of the new India we want to build together. We then see Dialogue as a planned effort to sustain and take forward this beautiful India. That is why we need to resist strongly any attempt to make India a mono-cultural, a mono-religious society.

What are the stumbling blocks?

Religions were meant to promote togetherness and communion and not to divide people. I find a fundamental cause for division in the three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which share a common Abrahamic spiritual foundation. Each makes the claim that they have the truth and the whole truth and that God has made a special revelation to them alone.  God’s saving presence in the world and the way God reveals Self to us humans is a mystery. God is beyond any borders and boundaries that we humans create. Can truth be proprietary to any one group or religious tradition? Obviously, only God can claim to be the sole and ultimate proprietor of all truth. But God shares His truth with all of us and to some of His saints and prophets, He shares more specially and deeply.

Restoring the integrity of God’s world, a world corrupted by our human actions, can only be a joint venture, by persons of all religious traditions. Why do I say that? Such a huge cosmic project cannot be successfully achieved, by any single group. Christians and Muslims, forming nearly 40 percent of the world population, have a major share of that responsibility.

Dialogue is an effective strategy to recreate God’s beautiful world. It is a strategic instrument for this re-creation and for the fashioning of an alternate human society. If we see dialogue as an opportunity to convince the other of our truth and show them their error, we will surely fail, as we have numerous records of such failures in the past.  Today’ world is an inter-connected world, with many wide open spaces in all sectors of life that are accessible to those who wish to do so. While this “open space” is expanding greatly in many sectors of life, there is a growing tendency to shrink within narrow borders, whether as a philosopher, a scientist or a believer in a particular religious tradition.

In the present state and conditions both globally and in India, the invitation is that we seek strategies to create an alternate universe, a new human community, the India without borders, as envisioned by the Constitution. 

ISA, founded 33 years ago, is a small organization but with a large objective. It works to build harmonious relationships between Muslims, Christians, Hindus and other faith traditions. Specifically it aims to provide opportunities for Christians to have an experience of Muslim life. Listening to several of our Muslim brothers and sisters talk of how their Islamic faith is guiding and directing their practical life and decisions will provide great inspiration to us, Christians.  

We are all pilgrims seeking to find God in our human hearts. The invitation is that we join hands and travel together as fellow pilgrims. Commitment to integral human liberation can become the meeting point for all religions. The invitation is to develop a culture of dialogue in our life. It will demand that we respect all that the Spirit of God brings about in our human history, including the multiplicity of religions. While engaged in dialogue, we remain rooted in our own religious identity. We have beautiful instances of many persons from different religious traditions (true of many Christians and many Muslims) who have successfully built bridges of understanding with other faith traditions. There is enough evidence that those who approached followers of other faith traditions with preparation, knowledge and respect, have often found that a fruitful dialogue is indeed possible. We accept the mystery of God who is in constant dialogue with all whom He has created and in imitation of God, we are also invited to engage in dialogue with others.    

MILAP initiative: shared responsibility for a harmonious India

Victor Edwin SJ

Asad Mirza, Muslim Outreach Officer with the British High Commission (New Delhi) invited a number of religious leaders, students and research scholars on religious studies to discuss the importance of Interfaith dialogue from the perspective of our responsibility towards building a more humane and inclusive India as citizens and religious believers.  At the outset a few leaders from different religious communities spoke on the need of interfaith dialogue. This was followed by a short fruitful discussion. This short note highlights both the salient points of the presentations and significant features of the discussion.

Rev. Dr M.D. Thomas, Director, Institute of Harmony Studies, New Delhi spoke on harmony between one and the many. He stressed that ‘plurality’ and ‘difference’ is a positive reality. It needs to be nurtured and shared. Drawing on from his experience of working with people of different religions, Dr Thomas noted that it is rewarding and mutually enriching when one becomes a bridge-builder between different religious traditions.  He emphasized the focus of interfaith relations is to remove some of the human made borders that alienate one from other. He laid out three beautiful biblical images: human person as image and likeness of God, Man/woman temple of God, and all are children of God. That enables human person to build a harmonious world.  It should be mentioned that there was a tinge of syncretism when he used the image of brooks (tributaries) gushing towards the river and the river flowing towards the sea. Such images have its limited value.  In a deeper theological sense this image does not honor ‘difference’ and specificity of each religion.

Janab Iqbal Mulla, the assistant secretary of Jamaat-e-Islami insisted on the necessity of interfaith meetings. He said such gatherings give a learner an opportunity to clear the prejudices he/she has about the faith of others.  He said that the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad are God’s gift to the whole humanity. Interestingly he touched upon a very relevant issue between Christians and Muslims: religious freedom.  It appears that he seemed to have in mind the freedom to worship in a particular way. The impression this present writer gathered was that he was not taking about the ‘freedom to choose a religion according to one’s conscience’. It is important that this issue should be reflected upon in depth and see whether Indian Muslims and Indian Christians could give a response that is born of our living together in harmony for centuries. The West may have another experience.

Swami Nikhalanand Saraswati, the director of Chinmaya Mission called for a deeper experience of God in order to live a life of honesty and integrity. He observed that the knowledge of God and knowledge of Ethics come from God and found in the Vedas. If God does not reveal, man and woman cannot have the understanding of who God is and what should one do or not do.  In other words, human cannot have access to the mind of God through his intellect.  Some Indian systems, it should be noted, do recognize the human ability to discern which is good or bad /what should be done and what should not be done. Swami Saraswati noted that God is the final goal of every path.

Rabbi Ezekiel Isaac Malekar, Rabbi of the Delhi Synagogue stressed that humanity is the true religion and tolerance for differences and respect for human rights are essential aspects of living in a plural society.  He also emphasized that we need to highlight the commonalities between religions with a sufficient and proper understanding of differences in interfaith fellowship. He advised his listeners that reading the holy scriptures of various religions will help one to respect the diverse religious beliefs.

Prof. Akhtarul Wasey who chaired the proceedings emphasized that plurality is God’s design for the world. Indian Muslims have learnt to live in harmony with the majority Hindus in India. Muslims are in India for the last fourteen hundred years and have fully participated in the ups and downs of this great nation.  The secular democratic setup of India gives Muslims freedom to practice and propagate their faith.  He also stressed that the era we live in is an era of dialogue. We are not living in an era of debate and polemics, he said.

Interestingly, in the discussion followed after these presentations, a number of issues that affect everyone were highlighted.  It is worth mentioning them here: abuse of women and children, moral degradation of youth and human rights violations were noted as major challenges of the present day Indian society. The participants felt that they should face these issues jointly as concerned citizens and religious believers. The change for good must start from me and from my family as the first step, affirmed the participants. Working together for change in society is only the next logical step.

To sum up: this meeting was something special in a sense; it did not stop with waxing eloquently about the religious teachings of each religion. It brought to the awareness of the participants common responsibility for the good of the society at large. It went much deeper to say that we need to change ourselves, first. This change that comes from within will produce the critical mass that is needed for societal change. Secondly, meetings such as this remind everyone that our future is a shared future. The harmony of this shared future is ensured when everyone does his/her bit to build that shared harmonious world. Except Dr Thomas and the present writer there were no other Christians in the meeting. Often this been the case, it would be profitable if many Christians participate and share and learn from such initiatives. It will be an eye opener for many Christians and discover that there are a lot of kingdom builders, out there, among people of other religious traditions. Is not our future a shared future?

“Mysticism in East and West – The Concept of the Unity of Being: A Christian-Muslim Symposium

Heike Stamer

A Muslim-Christian symposium on the topic: “Mysticism in East and West – The Concept of the Unity of Being” was held on 20^th – 21^st February 2013 at the Jesuit Centre Loyola Hall in Lahore. The symposium was a step towards bridging the divisions between doctrinal interpretations and creedal assertions in Pakistan.

The inspiration for the symposium emerged from conversations between Fr. Christian W. Troll, S.J. (a visiting Jesuit priest and Professor of Islamic Studies in Germany) and Ms. Heike Stamer (a scholar engaged in research for a PhD on religious minorities in Pakistan) at the Jesuit Centre in Lahore. Fifteen scholars, mostly local, were invited to present papers. One half of the speakers was Muslim and the other half was Christian.

To enable both Christian and Muslim speakers to participate in a discussion concerning the ‘Unity of Being’ (waḥdat al-wujūd), which has been a specific issue in Islamic theology for centuries, the subject of the symposium was opened up for a discussion about God’s immanence and transcendence.

In order to enable serious scholars to engage in a frank and open discussion, the symposium was not open to the public. But a complete record of what was presented – including the gist of the discussion that followed the presentation of each paper – would be made available by means of the proceedings which will be published from Lahore.

Topics shared

The papers that were presented at the symposium reflect an interesting mix of viewpoints expressing a deep and broad grasp of the subject. The Muslim speakers – as well as some of the Christian speakers – tackled a variety of topics on the subject of Islamic mysticism, such as the monistic views of Ibn ‘Arabī’ and the criticisms he subsequently encountered. Other papers defended the argument for waḥdat al-wujūd through a presentation of the Akbarian (Ibn ‘Arabī), Suhrawardian (Shaykh al-Ishrāq al-Suhrawardī) and Iqbālian (Dr. ‘Allāma Muḥammad Iqbāl) schools of thought. Others again recalled the historic debates on the two conflicting concepts of waḥdat al-wujūd (unity of being) and waḥdat al-shuhūd (unity of witnessing), terms that reflect the views of major intellectuals like Aḥmad Sirhindī and Shah Walīullah from the Sub-Continent of India and Pakistan.

A unique contribution was a consideration of the tension between panentheism and pantheism. While the concept of pantheism as "All is He" can be problematic for the traditional Islamic understanding of Unitarianism and for the philosophy of monotheism (falsafa-e-tawhīd), the doctrine of divine oneness, panentheism, is more acceptable because of the inclusion of the word "in" in the phrase "All is [in] Him".

Christian speakers presented topics such as Merkabah Mysticism (based on the Old Testament), the Christ mysticism of the apostle Paul (d. ca. 67 AD), and the mystical poetry of the Spanish priest St. John of the Cross (d. 1591 AD).  Intellectual discussions during the symposium were enhanced by the beauty of mystical renditions of the subject of the symposium, the ‘Unity of Being’, from the mystical poetry of Bulleh Shah and Mīr Dard, both renowned poets from the Sub-Continent.

Evaluation and Outlook

Feedback from the participants was positive and enthusiastic. New insights were gained and speakers found that they had benefited especially from the group discussion of their own papers. Within the course of two days, participants in the symposium had grown closer together and developed new friendships. No religious or sectarian divisions had emerged and the atmosphere remained friendly and polite throughout the entire duration of the symposium.  In fact, the participants had taken positive steps towards reconciliation in a region marked by intolerance and suspicion.

Transformation through Interfaith Dialogue

Herman Roborgh S.J.

Interfaith dialogue does not just happen.  What often passes for interfaith dialogue could be simply an exchange of information about religion rather than an experience of deep listening and learning about another faith tradition.  At least, that was my experience while living in Pakistan where the tiny minority of Christians was in daily contact with the vast majority of the Muslim population. Conversations about religion sometimes even led to the strengthening of existing prejudices rather than to a change of attitude; sometimes merely to discussion and debate rather than to a willingness to adopt new ways of thinking.

If interfaith dialogue is to be authentic, it must lead to some form of personal transformation.  How was my life transformed through interfaith dialogue in Pakistan?  The first challenge was the search for a suitable way to engage in interfaith dialogue – the struggle to find an entry point.  The change in me was to realize that I needed to move away from my own perspective and allow myself to understand another faith tradition from the other’s point of view.  Eventually, this led to Arabic classes together with Muslim brothers and sisters in order to understand more deeply their traditional approaches to the Qur’an.

The next step in my personal transformation was the realization that my fellow Muslim students of Arabic were not as focused on interfaith dialogue as I was.  I had to understand and to accept this situation.  Several of my Muslim friends may have been hoping that I would just leave Christianity and embrace Islam. Instead of avoiding these new relationships, I decided to continue along the path of dialogue, wherever it would lead me.

Gradually, these experiences did lead me to certain questions about my motives for being in Pakistan.  Had I been sent here to spend time with Christians or with Muslims?  How could I best help the Christian community?  Was it enough to provide them with Church services?  Was my role simply to listen to their complaints, many of which could have been met with a small gift of money?  It gradually dawned on me that I might be able to contribute something more precious to this small Christian community in Pakistan by encouraging them to be more understanding and accepting of their Muslim neighbours.  But this would inevitably challenge them to change some of their basic attitudes and assumptions. 

Encounters with other faith traditions have led me to investigate my own faith tradition according to the mediaeval dictum: fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding).  For example, who is Christ if he is also the respected and beloved Prophet of Islam?  What is the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross if Muslims can find their way to God without acknowledging Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection?  What is the meaning of Redemption and Salvation in Christ?  What is the Bible when all Muslims have no doubt that the Qur’an is the literal word of God?  Whence the need for a deity if Buddhists can live well without reference to God? Why do some religions need a hierarchical priesthood when Muslims and Buddhists (and some Christians as well) can manage quite easily without religious intermediaries?  How can Christians like me claim to be leading a life of prayer when Muslims pray five times a day – even in public places? 

Moreover, questions of justice and peace have become sharper for me in the light of interfaith encounters.  Can any religious Scriptural tradition claim to be devoid of references and even instigations to violence?  Can any one religious tradition provide the complete solution to the question of war and conflict between nations?  Can any one religion honestly promote justice without collaborating with other religious traditions?

Interfaith dialogue is an invitation to seek clarity about issues that concern the whole of humanity.  It is not limited to friendly relations between people (even though such friendly relations are the beginning and the guarantee of on-going dialogue), nor is interfaith dialogue concerned simply to find commonalities between the various religions.  While these are all useful goals, another aim of interfaith dialogue is to gain a deeper insight into one’s own ideas and convictions, whatever these may be.  Ultimately, all interfaith encounters that are authentic must involve the readiness to experience some form of profound and on-going personal transformation.

Maulana Azad and Education

Irfan Engineer

Sachar Committee has well documented the educational backwardness among Muslims at all levels – literacy rates are much below the national average, dropout rates are higher among the Muslims and therefore, their numbers in graduation and post graduation are much lower. Various reasons are being attributed for this backwardness.  However, the varied analyses emanate from basically two perspectives. The first perspective blames either Islam as a religion which is against secular education or blames Muslims as a community for lack of interest in getting their children to schools. The second perspective takes a closer look at the structure of the education system that tends to keep the minorities, dalits, adivasis outside the system. The first perspective is pushed by people with communal attitudes or subscribed by those who form quick and lazy opinions. While the second perspective is subscribed to by educationists, or those who are engaged with the problem of educational backwardness.

Reasons for educational backwardness among Muslims:

Poverty is the biggest contributing factor behind the educational backwardness among the Muslims. There is great diversity among the Muslim community along linguistic and regional lines, sectarian lines and caste biradaries. Those Muslim biradaries or communities that enjoy higher incomes, are educationally more forward. The Bohras, Khojas and Memons for example, are more forward than, say, mehtars, bagwans or telis. Upwardly mobile biradaries like Ansaris and Qureshi have increasingly taken towards educating their children and some of them are doing well and even becoming professionals. The awareness and thirst for education has particularly increased after the demolition of Babri Masjid and the riots that followed the demolition. Education is seen as key to secured jobs and professions that cannot be destroyed during riots. Muslim girls have been topping in SSC and HSC exams. The image of a domestic worker arguing with the principal of a convent school with high fees to admit her child when we had gone for a fact finding mission is still fresh in my mind. She told the principal that she would forgo her meal one time and undertake extra work to pay the fees of the school but not to keep her child out of the school gates.

Poor Muslim families are forced to send their children for earnings or apprenticeship so that s/he can start supporting the family. There is high rate of child labour among Muslims in zardosi, carpet, bangles and other industries. Many Muslim children have high skills, but no formal training and no certificates, which forces them to remain on low survival incomes lifelong. Low income means the next generation too would be labourers. There is no inter-generational asset transfer and the community continues to decline. Communal violence ensures that the meagre assets generated through hard work get destroyed without adequate compensation and without rehabilitation of the victims. Some members of the tiny middle class within the community slip into poverty and doing small odd jobs when their small trade or business is destroyed in violence. About 75-80% of Muslim families live off small labour jobs.

Muslims are forced into ghettos on the outskirts of towns and cities or rural areas. These ghettos have poor infrastructure like approach roads, adequate water, sewerage, electric connections, banking institutions and educational institutions. Lack of schools within ghettos leave the option of seeking admission in schools that are far away increasing the cost of education and in cases of lack of proper approach roads, making it even more difficult. Schools situated far away from Muslim ghettos also increase the security risk, particularly after communal violence and for girl students. Parents in such situations withdraw their children from school leading to high dropout rates. Sachar Committee Report (SCR) finds that higher the proportion of Muslims in a given locality, poorer is the infrastructure in the locality. There is inverse relation between the proportion of Muslims in a given locality and the infrastructure that has been provided by the state.

The fourth reason is discriminatory attitude of school managements towards Muslim children at the time of admission. Ghettos also exist in our minds, which often informs us that Muslims should study in Urdu medium schools, even though Urdu is not their mother tongue. They are less preferred as common attitudes are that they would not be able to do well in their studies or continue. Alien environment in the schools, which include imposition of religious prayers that are against the creed of Islam and rituals like Saraswati Vandana, teaching of Geeta, surya namaskar and other such rituals dissuade Muslim children from continuing their education.

Last but not least, Muslims are less represented in all walks of life, including the political processes. Often they are less than one-third the number warranted by their proportion in population. Needy parents have no one to approach to or seek guidance and testimonies from. Good schools under the Muslim management are too few and far between. Muslim trusts wanting to establish educational institutions are not readily helped by the state by allotting land or coming forth with grant-in-aid or even for granting recognition. The community is least networked and it lacks social capital which is necessary for promotion of education among the community.

The problem lies with the nature of political leadership of the community as well. The political leadership of the community represents the interests of the upper-caste converts, or ashrafs and the tiny section of upper-middle class. It is more engaged on issues of identity and resisting any change in the Shari’a laws even within Quranic framework. The political leadership find a sympathetic ear within the corridors of power in perpetuating the medieval interpretation of Shari’a laws and Islamic jurisprudence which is discriminatory towards women and against Quranic spirit. Having sympathetic ear on the issue of Muslim Personal Laws helps the political leadership to gain legitimacy. The political leadership of the community, with honourable exceptions, has not emphasised the issue of promotion of education or addressed livelihood issues of the community.

There are too few good primary and secondary educational institutions mostly in urban areas and members of Muslim community are less preferred and not inclusive enough. The Indian state too has realized that India cannot really progress if a large section of its population remains backward and uneducated. Therefore Sachar Committee was appointed and some half hearted measures have been taken like the PM’s New 15 point programme which partly attempts to address only one of the problems listed above – poverty. The programme includes provision of scholarships, hostel facilities, education loans and merit-cum-means scholarships. But the programme faces triple jeopardy – lack of adequate funds, lack of motivation among bureaucracy and lack of proper policy to address real problems of the community. Due to lack of space, we are not going into the details of the causes of failure of the programme to promote education. Poverty is only one small cause that the State however inadequately attempted to address. The net result is low figures in achievement on the educational front.

Maulana Azad’s vision on education:

If Maulana Azad had succeeded in persuading the Indian State to adopt his policies, the scenario would have been different today. For him, appropriate education policy of independent India was even more important than the industrial policy. Maulana Azad, being the first education minister of the independent India wanted to lay a strengthen and democratize our education system. He worked for democratizing of education in order to universalize achievement and thereby break the dominating structure of hegemonic hierarchies of caste and class. His 4 objectives were

1)      Removal of illiteracy through universalization of elementary education up to secondary level and drive for adult education, including education for women

2)      Equalizing educational opportunities in Indian society regardless of caste, community and class

3)      Three language formula

4)      Sound primary education throughout the country

Azad viewed “Every individual has a right to an education that will enable him to develop his faculties and live a full human life.  Such education is the birth right of every citizen. A state cannot claim to have discharged its duty till it has provided for every single individual the means to the acquisition of knowledge and self-betterment.” ... “regardless of the question of employment the state must make available to all citizens the facilities of education up to the secondary stage.”

For Maulana Azad, education was a crucial tool to inculcate the citizenship among the people who just emerged from colonial rule and hierarchical structures like caste and gender. Citizens needed to imbibe the values of equality and needed to be sensitized on the religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity of the country. In order to achieve universal primary and secondary education, according to Maulana Azad, India needed to allocate at least 10% of its budget for education. The allocation for education in budget was at best 6% and often times, merely 2 to 3%. Maulana Azad wanted a substantial portion of the educational budget to be spent on primary and secondary education and adult education, including women. This would mean expanding and strengthening schooling in every village and kasba and equal access to all – Hindus or Christians or Muslims. The schools in India would teach values of equality and justice, and sensitize the younger generation to the diversity. Maulana Azad laid emphasis on teaching of values drawn from all religions.

The Indian state not only gave less importance to education, but substantial portion of its budget on education was allocated to creation of higher institutions like IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, JNU and the rest, mostly based in the four metros and accessible to the relatively richer class who could afford costly tuitions in competitive entrance examinations in English language and after schooling in expensive public schools. The doors of these elite institutions were not entirely closed to those from poorer backgrounds and marginalized sections like the SCs, the STs, the OBCs, women and minorities but the barriers were so high that numbers from these sections entering these institutions was more of an exception rather than a rule. Expenditure on these islands for elite education was at the cost of expansion of primary and secondary school networks.

Conclusion:

Islam lays much emphasis on education. According to Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, Ibn Abbas narrated that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: "A single scholar of religion is more formidable against shaytaan (the devil) than a thousand devout persons". The first and most crucial obligation on Muslims is to acquire knowledge and secondly to practice, teach and preach this knowledge. No man becomes a true Muslim without knowing the meaning of Islam, because he becomes a Muslim not through birth but through knowledge and deed. Islam lays emphasis on rationality. However, the Muslim religious and political leadership has ignored this obligation. Perhaps Maulana Azad was inspired by his understanding of Islam in spreading knowledge and education.

Education is one instrument that can help members of a community to take part and contribute meaningfully to the collective social life of the community. Education helps imbibe values necessary for harmonious and peaceful collective life, as well as for the environment and nature, for the development of frontiers of knowledge and new understanding. Education can help us to be better informed of our long term and sustainable interests, i.e. enlightened self-interest. Education can also help us build and develop skills that are necessary for livelihood and to contribute to the community.

Education is a continuous process in the life of all individuals. We get educated through our struggles for survival, and through our interaction with other human beings and through interaction with nature and through varied experiences. Some minimum education is acquired by all individuals from the family and the members of extended family and community. However, meaningful education takes place through institutions of learning, like – schools, colleges, research institutes, universities, seminaries, institutions imparting professional and vocational knowledge and skills. Access to quality education, professional courses and higher education is always limited to the privileged elite. It is the structure of education system in India that has not included Muslims and at the same time lay the blame on the community. If we do pursue the dreams of Maulana Azad, the whole nation would be benefited. Let us pursue the dream with urgency.

Shia Doctrine and Sectarian Rivalry in the Muslim World Today

David Pinault

Recent events in Syria have highlighted the increasingly sectarian nature of politics in today’s Middle East.    A pair of explicitly Shia entities—Iran’s Islamic Republic and the Lebanese Hezbollah—support Bashar al-Assad’s regime,  which is dominated by Alawites, members of a sect that has its roots in Shia history.  Many of Assad’s most ferocious opponents are militant Sunnis (some affiliated with al-Qaeda) who are backed by sources in Saudi Arabia, a country whose Wahhabi Salafist ideology is fervently anti-Shia.

To gain perspective on this struggle, it’s helpful to know the historical origins of Islamic sectarianism.  Shiism arose in the seventh century because of a political dispute over leadership of the ummah (the community of believers) after the prophet Muhammad’s death in 632.  Most Muslims (those who ultimately became known as Sunnis) supported the principle of election in selecting the caliph (the prophet’s successor).  But a minority insisted that the caliphate should be reserved for Ali ibn Abi Talib (Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law) and for the offspring of Ali and his wife Fatima.  Such individuals were known as Shi‘at Ali, “the adherents of Ali.”  These Shias resented those Muslim leaders who tried to block Ali’s bid for the caliphate. 

Ali did manage to take power and rule as caliph for five years, only to be murdered in the year 661.  Further tragedy befell his descendants.  According to Shia sources, Ali’s elder son Hasan was poisoned by order of the reigning caliph.  Thereupon the title of Imam passed to Hasan’s younger brother, Husain ibn Ali.

The term Imam is important for understanding doctrinal differences between Sunnis and Shias.  All Muslims use the term to mean “prayer leader,” someone who leads a congregation in worship.  But most Shias (especially those belonging to the Ithna-‘Ashari or “Twelver” denomination, which is by far the numerically largest form of Shiism, as well as the state religion of the Iranian Islamic Republic) also use the term Imam in a more restricted sense, to refer to the rightful spiritual leader of the entire ummah.  Twelver Shias insist the Imam must be from the prophet’s immediate bloodline, and that he is both ma‘sum (sinless, perfect, and divinely protected from error) and mansus (chosen by Allah as leader, thereby avoiding the vagaries of any human electoral process).  The first such Imam, say Twelver Shias, was Ali; the third was his younger son, Husain.

In the year 680, at the urging of Shia partisans in Kufa, Husain (together with a small group of family members and personal attendants) set out from Arabia to Iraq to organize a rebellion against the reigning caliph, Yazid ibn Mu‘awiyah.  But Yazid’s soldiers intercepted Husain near the river Euphrates at a site called Karbala (which today is revered as Shiism’s foremost pilgrimage site).  Not wanting Husain to become a martyr and a rallying point for further Shia resistance, Yazid ordered his soldiers to force Husain to surrender.  So the soldiers besieged Husain and his family, preventing them from reaching food or water.  Husain and his family suffered torments of thirst under Iraq’s pitiless desert sun.  Shia preachers recount these sufferings in vivid detail during annual Muharram observances (Muharram is the Islamic month in which the siege of Karbala occurred). 

Finally, Husain chose death rather than surrender.  On Ashura, the tenth day of Muharram, Husain died in combat against Yazid’s forces.  This effectively put an end to Twelver Shia hopes for reclaiming the caliphate. But it was precisely this political failure that generated the rise of Shiism as a distinctive theological tradition within Islam.  Shia theologians argued that Husain had foreknowledge of what would happen at Karbala but voluntarily sacrificed himself for the good of the ummah.  In exchange, Allah granted Husain the power of shafa‘ah (intercession on behalf of sinners).  Preachers I encountered in Pakistan and India recounted legends to the effect that Fatima continues to lament her martyred son even while she resides in paradise; but she is comforted whenever mourners gather here on earth to remember the Karbala Martyrs.  Husain will exert his power of shafa‘ah on behalf of anyone who joins his mother in mourning and sheds tears in remembrance of Karbala.

Such mourning rituals are referred to by the term matam.  During Muharram, preachers recount the sufferings of the martyrs, with the express purpose of moving their congregations to tears and loud wailing.  Each year, in the days leading up to Ashura, Twelver Shias hold processions in which they chant nauhajat (lamentation-poems in honor of Husain and the other Karbala Martyrs) and mark time by rhythmically slapping their chests.  In countries such as Pakistan and India, many matami guruhan (Shia lamentation associations) go further, arranging public processions in which hundreds of men perform zanjiri-matam (self-flagellation involving knives, flails or chains). 

This ritual bloodshed is both controversial and popular.  Theologically, matam earns practitioners intercession; but from a sociological perspective, it’s worth noting that, wherever possible, Shias tend to perform such rituals publicly.  One gains access to Husain’s favor by having the courage to stand up and be identified as a Shia via conspicuously distinctive rituals.  (Under Saddam Hussein’s secularist-Baathist regime, public Muharram processions were prohibited; but since his fall from power, Iraqi Shias have fervently embraced the public performance of self-scourging.) 

Nevertheless the bloody forms of matam generate widespread revulsion.  Spurting blood is normally classed in Islamic law as najis (ritually polluting), and the extravagant weeping and displays of grief associated with matam offend Islamic notions of decorum and self-restraint.  Of course it is precisely this offensive quality of matam that makes such rituals socially useful, as a means of defining and demarcating a minority community and safeguarding it from being absorbed by a dominant majority.

One other distinctive Ithna-‘Ashari practice should be noted in this context: veneration for the twelfth Imam.  Ithna-‘Ashari Shias believe that in the ninth century, Muhammad al-Muntazar, the twelfth Imam, was on the point of being murdered by the reigning Sunni caliph.  Allah intervened, however, and protected the Imam by causing him to enter al-ghaybah (occultation): he became invisible and hidden from his persecutors.  The twelfth Imam is still alive but will return as al-Mahdi (“the one who is divinely guided”) to usher in Judgment Day, fill the earth with justice, and execute intiqam (vengeance, retribution) against all those who have made Shias suffer. 

The history and rituals noted above are worth knowing because they figure in the increasingly fierce sectarian polemics linked to the Iranian Islamic Republic’s bid for leadership of global Islam.  The regime in Teheran, fully aware of the widespread hostility to Shiism among Sunni populations, has pursued a policy—dating back to the reign of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—of downplaying its Shia identity in international pronouncements directed to the general Muslim public.  Hence Iran’s support for the militant group Hamas; hence Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s frequent televised appearances featuring maps of Palestine and photos of Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock.  Support for Palestinian militancy constitutes an attempt to gain popularity among Sunni Arabs by focusing on shared objects of revulsion: Israel; Zionism; America.

Saudi-based Wahhabi Salafists, eager to derail Iran’s drive for leadership, have been reminding Sunnis of precisely those sectarian differences that are most likely to keep anti-Shia sentiment alive.  The first of these (and one that Sunni informants referred to angrily, in interviews I conducted in Yemen and Pakistan) involves the centuries-old Shia practice called sabb al-sahabah (“reviling the Companions”).  Shias to this day fault those companions of Muhammad who blocked Ali ibn Abi Talib from the caliphate; particular blame is focused on the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar.  Since Sunnis revere these two figures as “rightly guided” Muslim leaders, this is a particularly sore point.  Partly because of this issue, Shias are sometimes derided with the term Rafidi (rejectionist, renegade), a pejorative that recurs in present-day anti-Shia polemics.

Sectarian polemics have also arisen in intra-Palestinian politics (despite the fact that almost all Palestinian Muslims are Sunni).  Members of Fatah have taken to taunting their rivals in Hamas by calling them “Shia”—a derogatory reminder of the support given Hamas by Teheran.

Sectarian battlelines are also evident in Syria, where the government (as noted above) is dominated by Alawites, who are also known by the unflattering name “Nusairis.” This name is derived from Muhammad ibn Nusair, a ninth-century preacher who (according to Muslim hagiographers) claimed divine status for the Imam Ali and the rank of prophet for himself.  Thus the Nusairis constitute one of a number of ghulat (“doctrinal extremists”),  Muslims whose veneration of the first Imam is so heterodox that they have been spurned as heretics.  Nusairis today prefer the title “Alawite” to emphasize their devotion to Ali (a figure revered by all Muslims) rather than their historical derivation from a doctrinally suspect medieval preacher.

Nusairi-Alawite teachings reflect a mix of Muslim, pagan, and possibly Christian influences.  Their belief in tanasukh (transmigration of souls) is linked to a moral system of reward and punishment: the evil are reincarnated as dogs and snakes; the souls of the righteous are lifted up to the heavens and granted a place among the stars.  Syrian Alawites I met in Tartous and Hosn Suleiman years ago described Allah as “unknowable and invisible, a great secret.”  They added that “Ali is the means by which God manifests Himself to us.”  My informants acknowledged that their liturgies include the ritual drinking of wine (which has led orthodox Muslim critics to condemn this sect for its alleged influence by Christian practice). 

Despised for centuries by Sunnis and mainstream Twelver Shias alike, the Alawites remained an impoverished minority at the margins of Syrian society, taking refuge in the rugged hill country known as the Jebel Ansariyah.  This began to change during France’s dominion of the region in the twentieth century, when many Alawites enrolled in the French colonial forces.  In the post-colonial period, it was precisely the Alawite-dominated military that took power and allowed the Assad family to assert its control. 

It is understandable that the Assads, as members of a sect rejected by other Muslims, embraced Baathist ideology, with its emphasis on pan-Arab secularism rather than Islamic identity as a means of achieving national and regional unity.  Nevertheless Alawites remain keenly aware of the stigma of ghuluww (doctrinal extremism) that still adheres to their sect.  Hence in 1973 Hafez al-Assad (Bashar’s father) cultivated a relationship with Musa al-Sadr, a prestigious Twelver Shia mullah and the head of Lebanon’s Higher Shia Council.  Assad succeeded in getting from al-Sadr a fatwa (religious decree) to the effect that the Alawites do in fact constitute an orthodox community within Shia Islam.  This hasn’t prevented Sunnis from continuing to loathe them as heretics; but it does testify to the Alawites’ desire to be accepted as members of the Islamic ummah.

Competition between Sunnis and Shias has also become manifest recently in the realm of religious conversion from one denomination to another within Islam.  A current arena for such competition is Yemen.  The target: a segment of Yemen’s population known as the Zaydis.  Zaydi religious teachings, although historically derived from Shiism, occupy a doctrinal position that shares features of both Sunnism and Shiism.  Zaydis I interviewed in Sanaa (Yemen’s capital) a few years ago acknowledged that since the abolition of Yemen’s Zaydi Imamate in 1962 and the subsequent diminishment of Zaydi political power, many young Zaydis are ideologically adrift and uncertain of their own communal identity. 

Saudi-funded missionaries have succeeded in converting some Zaydis to Wahhabi puritanism.  Other Zaydis, however, are drawn to Iran’s Khomeinist propaganda.  Government sources in Yemen accuse Iran of funding the Houthi rebels in northern Yemen’s Saada province, along the Saudi border (the Houthis are militant Zaydis whose leadership comes from the family of Badr al-Din al-Houthi).  The Houthis deny that they are funded by Teheran, and they repudiate the claim made by many Yemeni Sunnis that Houthis have secretly converted to the Twelver Shiism that is Iran’s state religion. 

But Zaydis I met in Sanaa told me that Houthis take inspiration from Iran and Hezbollah and that they like the feeling of joining a worldwide movement, a universal struggle against what are perceived as satanic forces at loose in the world. 

This movement alarms anti-Shia ideologues.  A Sunni mosque-leader I met in Sanaa referred angrily to what he called Teheran’s use of Yemeni “pawns” as part of an Iranian “conspiracy to rule our country from afar.”

Yemen, it seems, offers a storm-warning of what is to come: increasingly polemicized competition between Sunni and Shia ideologues for the leadership of global Islam.

Courtesy: POPOLI