Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Is Sunni/Shia Unity even worth it?

Rate this topic


Guest Window

Recommended Posts

Guest Window

I might be jaded because of my ex-husband, but is unity within the Ummah even worth it? 
 

Express your views. Do you think unity is worth it? Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

yes, because the strategies of the enemies of Islam includes dividing and conquering. Most of the maraja have enjoined it too so its clear that its also derived from the teachings of the Imams. the more sectarian divisions exist the weaker the ummah becomes. A weak ummah can be easily toppled by enemies and destroyed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

It's absolutely worth it. When it comes to issues of belief, I always liked the phrase of "agreeing to disagree, agreeably." There is no problem with having Shia Mosques and Sunni Mosques and approaching matters of practice and belief differently, but we should unite on those areas where we have commonality in terms of faith and identity as Muslims. 

I've had many good Sunni friends over the course of my life and we were able to have relationships of respect and and love. There will always be reactionaries on both sides. You see this especially on the political front, where the interests of preserving power tend to take precedence over the welfare of the masses. 

Most Muslims I have met in my life from various backgrounds and countries tend to be reasonable people. We shouldn't allow the goals of the elites of many Muslim countries (e.g. corrupt kings, power-hungry military commanders, western lackeys) to skew our view and convince us that these are the goals and desires of most Muslims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
2 hours ago, layman said:

As long as Muslims  really stick to " La illaha illallah, Muhammadur Rasulullah ",  we should try to unite, at least against the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and let everyone follow what they believe in their mazhab.  The Zionist, US and EU, Hindu Nationalists, Chinese Communist Party are targeting muslims, we need unity now, more that ever.  Imamah will grow regardless of what happen to Sunni/Shia/muslim population.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had differences with few prominent sahabahs, but he never unite with enemies of Islam (Abu Sufyan..).

Wallahualam 

I added a few more to your list. The attack is coming from all directions now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Shaheed786 said:

Chinese Communist Party

Salam.

The idea that the Communist Party of China (CPC, not CCP), is oppressing Muslims, is a lie. It is just propaganda spread by the Great Satan to make China look bad. However, we actually find that Muslims such as the Uyghur Muslims are living normally in China. For more information, watch this video:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The thing is, a lot of ordinary Sunnis don’t seem to want political unity with Shias. When the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood promoted Morsi to power in Egypt, the first thing its candidate did was call for anti-Shia “jihad” at home and abroad, e.g., in Syria. In the GCC there wasn’t a lot of grassroots Sunni resistance to the anti-Syrian, anti-Iranian proxy war. Quite a few Iraqi Sunnis sided with ISIS during 2014–15. Look at how many foreign Sunnis willingly volunteered to fight in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and so on. And they still continue to do so. Iran has conditionally supported Turkey as a lesser evil compared to the House of Saud, but Turkey’s Muslim Brotherhood-linked government has been Syria’s primary enemy. Also, while Iran and Hezbollah maintain ties with Hamas, Iran’s partner in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, refuses to deal with Hamas, because Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood is anti-Syria (which among Sunnis tend to translates into “anti-Shia”).

The real question is, Have the returns for Sunni–Shia political unity exceeded the losses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well tbh I’m not gonna lie, we shia always want unity with Sunnis and we always work for it but I think Sunnis do not want that, ofc not all of them, but they are not working so hard for it like us. 
 

Anyway, I agree with majority of brothers and sisters in here, we should do it for the sake of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and his ahlul bayt (عليه السلام)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
13 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Salam.

The idea that the Communist Party of China (CPC, not CCP), is oppressing Muslims, is a lie. It is just propaganda spread by the Great Satan to make China look bad. However, we actually find that Muslims such as the Uyghur Muslims are living normally in China. For more information, watch this video:

 

Wa alaikum Salaam,

I'm sorry brother, but this video is silly. The fact that western powers, chiefly the US, have maligned their rivals using lies, and sided with certain groups when it suited their interests is not anything new. We don't need to even argue that. It's also not an argument for denying the plight of our brothers and sisters in Xinjiang. What the western powers and western press say about issues is not the litmus test for whether they are true or untrue. 

The ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Uighurs are not new either, going back decades and documented since the early nineties. They are also not unique to Uighyurs and Muslims. The Chinese have carried out similar "hanification" campaigns against other ethnic minorities including Mongolians and Tibetans.  To call these campaigns "economic development" is a joke. The evidence is overwhelming. Many Muslim leaders have been scared to call this out, for fear of unsettling their ties to China. 

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/5/14/the-faux-anti-imperialism-of-denying-anti-uighur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Shaheed786 said:

Wa alaikum Salaam,

I'm sorry brother, but this video is silly. The fact that western powers, chiefly the US, have maligned their rivals using lies, and sided with certain groups when it suited their interests is not anything new. We don't need to even argue that. It's also not an argument for denying the plight of our brothers and sisters in Xinjiang. What the western powers and western press say about issues is not the litmus test for whether they are true or untrue. 

Salam, this will be my last post on this topic because this thread is about Shia-Sunni unity, not the Uyghurs.

Just think about this for a moment.

The US is busy slaughtering (and slandering) Muslims, and have been busy doing so for decades. Now suddenly they're best friends? And by the way, the man in the video is in Thailand. If there's anyone who has the greater right to judge on this issue, it's him.

10 hours ago, Shaheed786 said:

The ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Uighurs are not new either, going back decades and documented since the early nineties. They are also not unique to Uighyurs and Muslims. The Chinese have carried out similar "hanification" campaigns against other ethnic minorities including Mongolians and Tibetans.  To call these campaigns "economic development" is a joke. The evidence is overwhelming. Many Muslim leaders have been scared to call this out, for fear of unsettling their ties to China. 

And I'm assuming this is why there are 22 million Muslims in China? And why there are 30-40 thousand mosques? And tens of thousands of Islamic schools?

Muslims culture (including Uyghur culture) is thriving in China, as shown in the video. 

10 hours ago, Shaheed786 said:

Ahh, Aljazeera. No big surprise that you believe in the myth of Uyghur oppression.

Aljazeera is basically a puppet for the West to use to convince everyone that the Middle-East share their views. It's not independent, it's not truthful.

And by the way, if this myth was really true, why hasn't Iran done anything about it? Or even said anything about it? Why has Imam Khamenei kept completely silent on this issue? If there were really Muslims being brainwashed and oppressed by China, surely the Grand Ayatollah would speak up. I haven't seen President Bashar Al-Assad or Sayed Hasan Nasrallah make any remarks about the Uyghurs either. Same with Ayatollah Sistani. 

Quote

Some organizations including Human Rights Watch have fabricated reports on Xinjiang, but their sources are just a small group of extremely anti-China overseas Uyghurs. The baseless accounts in those reports were further hyped up and spread by institutions such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).

(Things to Know about All the Lies on Xinjiang: How Have They Come About? n.d.)

Like I said, this is my last post on this issue because I don't want to go off-topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

At the end of the day most (not all) Sunnis’ calculus rests on whether a particular action directly or indirectly benefits Shias. It is a zero-sum calculation. Sunnis will often feign hostility to the West/Israel but in the end solidly prefer Zionist imperialism to a tactical partnership with Shias. That is why Sunni groups such as Hamas may accept Iranian assistance but at the same time treat individual Shias with hostility and side with Shias’ enemies, as has been the case in Syria. And the Sunnis’ actions make sense. After all, anything that casts doubt on Sunni behaviour or belief, or lends credence to forces that do, is seen as anti-Sunni. So most Sunnis at best will “accept” Shias‘ assistance in order to use it against Shias later on, as in the case of Syria.

Now if most Sunnis were not under the influence of Wahhabi–Salafi hegemony the case might well be different, as in Syria, where most native Syrian Sunnis sided with Assad vs. the foreign-backed Takfiri militants, preferring a pluralistic society to a Wahhabi–Salafi “caliphate.” But Syrian Sunnis’ reactions were a major outlier in the Sunni ummah, as most non-Syrian Sunnis, especially in the GCC, were at best indifferent, equivocal, and/or lukewarm, or, as was more often the case, overtly hostile at worst. Many more foreign Sunnis entered to Syria to fight Assad rather than to support him. And in the vast majority of cases these Sunnis fought Assad because he was seen as a “Shia” or crypto-“Shia” who was aiding Shiite Iran and/or Hezbollah.

These Sunnis were practically always a) hardcore Wahhabi–Salafi or b) under the sway of Wahhabi–Salafi ideology and its propaganda. The point is that in most (not all) cases forging political “unity” with Sunnis means giving aid and comfort to Wahhabi–Salafi forces and their sympathisers. Even plenty of “moderate” and secular Sunnis have sided with the Sunni Islamists against Shias. For example, many Iraqi Baathists served high-level positions in ISIS during the insurgency of 2014–15, on the shared basis of anti-Shia and anti-Iranian policy. The uncomfortable truth for Iran and its supporters is that true cases of Sunni–Shia unity vs. Western/Zionist imperialism and Takfiri ideology are few and far between. Syria was the exception rather than the norm.

Of course, we see plenty of Sunnis (and even non-Sunnis) worldwide echoing Western/Zionist MSM about alleged oppression of Sunni Muslims in Xinjiang, Myanmar, Kashmir, Chechnya, etc. But these same Sunnis never mention the much greater oppression of Shias and other non-Sunni religious minorities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and so on. Where are the Sunni complaints about the decades-long Shia genocide in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for instance? Isn’t that a case of Muslims being oppressed? Clearly, for many Sunnis, some Muslims “are more equal than others,” to paraphrase George Orwell’s Animal Farm. And the blunt truth is that this collective Sunni blindness cannot be pinned on Wahhabi–Salafi propaganda or the Sunni elite alone.

The worst thing about all this is that the Sunnis are often among the loudest in their denunciations of Western/Zionist imperialism. One cannot count the number of occasions on which Sunni and Wahhabi–Salafi Islamists have denounced the evil West/Israel for their crimes. But on almost every available occasion these “Muslims” are equally willing to echo Western/Israeli narratives about alleged oppression of Sunnis in Russia, China, India, Syria, Iran, etc., while saying nothing about the ongoing genocide of Shias, Sufis, non-Muslim religious minorities, and even traditionalist/orthodox Sunnis in much of the world. How very much like Osama bin Laden and his ilk, who pretended to oppose Western/Zionist interests while actually working for them in so many ways.

All this brings me to another point, which may unsettle some here, but holds some validity: there is an obsession, certainly not without merit, with the corrosive effects of secularism on Islamic virtue. I do not doubt that there is much truth in this. There is also a tendency among some here to attribute political or personal motives to all who commit crimes in the name of religion. There is certainly some truth to this as well. But neither of these twin truths reflects some cold realities: that some of the greatest carnage being perpetrated in the world is being committed by Sunni “Muslims” whose motives cannot simply be reduced to mere political vendetta or personal aggrandisement, but to deep-seated religious bigotry. Misguided, but religious nonetheless.

And the hard truth is that in many cases a “Sunni” state ruled by Sunni sharia, under today’s circumstances, would be far worse for Shias and other religious groups than, say, a pluralistic state that accepts and guarantees the rights of these minorities. I say “in many cases” because Iran is an admirable exception to the norm. But unless your Islamic theocracy is modelled on Iran’s, it simply isn’t going to work, much less withstand the pressure of foreign-funded Wahhabi–Salafi activism, which is given unlimited resources by the West/Israel via the GCC and Turkey. So in most cases the least bad option would be a situation like Syria’s, in which the secular state does not favour one religion over another or discriminate against public displays of religious practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
34 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Even plenty of “moderate” and secular Sunnis have sided with the Sunni Islamists against Shias. For example, many Iraqi Baathists served high-level positions in ISIS during the insurgency of 2014–15, on the shared basis of anti-Shia and anti-Iranian policy.

Hi a little correction is that Iraqi Baathists are against all religions due to their communist corebelief although they are pretending that they are Muslim which they follow Islamic rituals  just for fooling naive people anyway they are totally anti shia & anti Iran through pretending that they are patriot sunnis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

@Northwest your post has a lot of a mass generalizations in it. Certainly most Muslim politicians today, regardless of sect, are unfortunately not trustworthy and have not acted in the interests of the ummah. To project this onto the public at large however is inaccurate since they hardly have a real say in the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If the Unity means shia start accepting the caliphate & Sunni's start accepting the Imamate, then this would never happen. Only truth will prevail:

وَقُلْ جَاء الْحَقُّ وَزَهَقَ الْبَاطِلُ إِنَّ الْبَاطِلَ كَانَ زَهُوقًا

17:81

The Unity is possible in waiting, let the truth reveal itself. The unity is possible in peaceful coexistence. The unity is possible in not insulting each others revered personalities. Unity is even possible in maintaining personal view points and keeping the difference of opinions with the hope that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will one day settle down the disputes & differences. 

So yes, in that context, I am pro-unity. I have many Sunni friends and we sometimes discuss sensitive issues. But the aim of discussion is only to convey each others view point. Neither they want me to convert, nor I want them to convert. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

@Northwest your post has a lot of a mass generalizations in it. Certainly most Muslim politicians today, regardless of sect, are unfortunately not trustworthy and have not acted in the interests of the ummah. To project this onto the public at large however is inaccurate since they hardly have a real say in the matter. 

@Mahdavist

I respectfully disagree. To excuse the public is to deny individual and collective responsibility for one’s actions, which contribute to the state of society and the quality of its leadership. Also, it is clear that a religious Sunni government is much worse for Shias and other minorities than a secular yet pluralistic government. For example, while the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood under Egypt’s Morsi was aggressively sectarian, persecuting lay Shias and scholars alike as well as Christians, the current Egyptian regime under the secularist Sisi has consistently treated Shias and other minorities better than Morsi’s did. Assad’s Syria, despite being secularist, treats religious minorities far better than a religious Sunni regime would. The West wants sectarian, extremist rather than secular, pluralistic regimes in place across the MENA, so it consistently supports extremist, Takfiri Sunnis such as the majority faction within the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, al-Qaida, etc. The problem is that Iran, unlike Syria’s Assad, has refused to sever ties with treacherous groups such as Hamas and its parent, the Muslim Brotherhood, even though those groups have consistently acted against Shia and other minority interests, as in Syria. Secular leaders such as Assad and Sisi seem to be much more clear-eyed about the dangers of religious sectarianism than the Iranian leadership. After all, unlike Iran’s leaders, Syria’s Assad, like Egypt’s Sisi, considers the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Northwest said:

@Mahdavist

I respectfully disagree. To excuse the public is to deny individual and collective responsibility for one’s actions, which contribute to the state of society and the quality of its leadership. Also, it is clear that a religious Sunni government is much worse for Shias and other minorities than a secular yet pluralistic government. For example, while the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood under Egypt’s Morsi was aggressively sectarian, persecuting lay Shias and scholars alike as well as Christians, the current Egyptian regime under the secularist Sisi has consistently treated Shias and other minorities better than Morsi’s did. Assad’s Syria, despite being secularist, treats religious minorities far better than a religious Sunni regime would. The West wants sectarian, extremist rather than secular, pluralistic regimes in place across the MENA, so it consistently supports extremist, Takfiri Sunnis such as the majority faction within the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, al-Qaida, etc. The problem is that Iran, unlike Syria’s Assad, has refused to sever ties with treacherous groups such as Hamas and its parent, the Muslim Brotherhood, even though those groups have consistently acted against Shia and other minority interests, as in Syria. Secular leaders such as Assad and Sisi seem to be much more clear-eyed about the dangers of religious sectarianism than the Iranian leadership. After all, unlike Iran’s leaders, Syria’s Assad, like Egypt’s Sisi, considers the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organisation.

You put that your location is Northwest Europe. Doing 'collective action' there is ALOT different from doing them in the ME or Africa. Doing them there carries with it a very high likelihood of death or very long prison time. So when you say it's 'their resposibility', yes I agree with you but the circumstances are different. The main responsibility lies with the people of the US/Europe/Canada/Australia to put pressure on their governments to stop supporting despotic regimes who kill and oppress their own people and loot the wealth of their country for their own benefit and the benefit of their close family members. I don't see many people doing that, and that is the main reason why it still goes on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If unity means for one to be ashamed of their beliefs or for one to compromise their beliefs then that is unity based on batil. 

One should not shy away from their belief in wilaya and bara'ah, and any of the other core beliefs that seperate us from the deviated sects. We should be proud to be the saved sect on the Day of Judgement, insha Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

However, the Imams (عليه السلام) did in fact encourage their followers to visit the sick of the others, attend their funerals, and even to pray alongside them (without the actual laws of congregation applying). 

There is also nothing wrong with unity on the basis of common interests of a mutlisectarian society, such as Iraq, aswell as unity for the sake of common political power amongst the Muslims in the face of perhaps a common enemy or to attain a common political, economic or social goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...