By Soroor Ahmed, TwoCircles.net,
Syria was under the rule of an Alawite dictator, Hafez-al-Assad, between 1970 and 2000. Alawites are not Isna Ashari Shias (Twelver Shias) but are considered as a breakaway group of this sect. However, in 1974 Imam Musa-al-Sadr, a leader of Twelver Shias, accepted them as Shia Muslims.
In spite of being ruled by an Alawite, Syria had a good relationship with Sunni Muslim world, even Saudi Arabia. The proximity increased during and after October 1973 Arab-Israel war.
The then Saudi King, Shah Faisal, played an active role in supporting the frontline countries taking on Israel––Egypt and Syria––and threatened to use oil as a weapon. And after Egypt betrayed the larger Arab cause a few years later Ba’athist Syria remained the lone frontline friend of Israel in the Muslim world.
Like Syria, almost the entire Arab world was ruled by the unelected leaders, some of them benevolent and others cruel or eccentric.
While Saudi Arabia was then not so strongly tilted towards the United States as now, Syria was obviously in the then Soviet Union camp. Yet the two countries had a workable relationship and the issue of Sunni-Shia rift or Sunni-Alawite differences hardly became a hurdle in their ties. This notwithstanding Saudi sympathy for Sunnis of that country.
Almost four decades later Saudi Arabia is completely in the American camp while Syria under Hafez’s son, Bashar-al-Assad, continues to be close to rump Russia, now without Communism. Many independent observers feel that Hafez’s son Bashar, had in the last few years, shown some sign of flexibility in comparison to the senior Assad. Yet last year when the wave of change swept the Arab world, the country started witnessing revolt.
In about a year of struggle between the pro- and anti-government forces, according to the United Nations, as high as 7,000 people have died––1000 of them are Syrian security forces, which has a sizeable Alawite presence.
The strange irony is that the Saudi monarchy is playing a key role in assisting anti-dictator movement in Syria. How can an anti-people kingdom play a role in dismantling a similar dictatorship? The ruling aristocracy of this country is adopting double standards. When people’s struggle took place in neighbouring Bahrain or even Yemen it dubbed it as Iran-backed Shia protest and when Bashar-al-Assad is dealing with its people in the similar way the same country is saying that he is doing so because he is a Shia or Alawite. In Bahrain and Yemen Shias are in majority and in Syria Sunnis. It has about 10-12 per cent Alawite population.
No doubt there are historical differences between Shias and Sunnis. Yet what is the urgency now to overplay this Shia-Sunni factor? Why is the Saudi ruling class so much interested in getting rid of Bashar-al-Assad and had hardly any problem with his father, Hafez?
What is more funny is that many so-called experts in Urdu media in India are coming up with this fantastic Shia-Sunni rift in Syria at the height of Iran-Israel face-off. The truth is this is what the United States and Israel actually want.
True Iran has a very good relationship with Syria, but then it has excellent relationship with many Sunni countries and Hamas too. How can one ignore its role in helping Sunni Bosnia when Muslims were being massacred by Orthodox Christian Serbs and Roman Catholic Croats. Iran has a very cordial relationship with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela too.
So how come we start talking of the imagined Shia enclave right from Iran to Syria via Iraq, as the West is propagating. Just north to Iran is Azerbaijan, which too has over 60 per cent Shia population but these western propaganda do not include this country in the Shia enclave? If Shiaism is the binding force then Iran should have ambition there too. Now the West needs to explain this exclusion.
Iran befriended Syria after 1979 Islamic Revolution more because it was the only anti-Israeli frontline country left. All the Arab countries discarded Egypt for befriending Israel and joined hands with Syria. So stating that Iran made friendship with Syria because it was ruled by an Alawite is overstretching the fact.
No doubt the Islamic Revolution of Iran did alarm the Saudi rulers as they started fearing people’s movement in their own country. Therefore, they started overplaying the Shia factor to consolidate their own stranglehold over the people. Fantastic stories of Shia takeover of Saudi Arabia started appearing. What these propagandists could not explain is that if essentially Sunni Palestine and Bosnia could not be taken over by the Shia influence––notwithstanding so much Iranian help––how will Saudi Arabia be run over by the Shia minorities living in the east of that country.
True Ayatollah Khomeini called for Islamic Revolution in other Muslim countries and Shias in the Muslim world naturally got a shot in arm. But that does not mean that he was exporting Shiaism. Part-time experts on Middle East politics––many have cropped up recently––should know that Iran failed to convince a large number of Indian Shias. So when the then President Hashmi Rafsanjani visited Lucknow and Hyderabad during a trip to India in mid-1990s thousands of Shias took to streets protesting against Iran’s stand on several issues related to Shiaism.
The need of the hour is to see the development in proper perspective and do not play into the hands of larger western design. If one opposed the NATO attack on Libya it does not amount to approving the tyranny of Muammar Gaddafi. Similarly, if one opposes the present Israel-US design in Syria it does not mean that one is supporting the present Assad regime.
The role of Israel and the United States in fomenting trouble inside Syria cannot be overlooked. What is tragic is that the Saudi ruling class and their agents in the world have suddenly been reminded that Syria is ruled by an Alawite.
Those not interested in the day-to-day international politics get confused by such propaganda. They tend to forget that when Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) migrated to Madinah he formed an alliance with the Jew and Christian minorities to fight the bigger enemy in Makkah. It is other thing that Jews betrayed him.
When there is need for friendship on the basis of common minimum programme the Muslim world is getting divided at the instance of the western design. After the loss of Egypt and Tunisia, the West wants to compensate the loss. It got one in Libya and is trying to repeat the same in Syria. At the same time it wants to check the growing power of Iran. The Muslim world needs to learn from history.