The arrest in May this year of two auxiliary police officers in Singapore, for terrorism-related offences under the Internal Security Act (ISA), serves to highlight the danger of sectarianism, which often has deadly consequences.
One of the arrested men was reported to have had the intention to fight against the Shi’ites in Syria. This is a case of sectarianism having gone to the extreme. While not all hate speech is uttered by individuals who wish for physical violence to be perpetrated on the objects of their hate speech, we must ask ourselves if anti-Shi’ite hate speech may be one among many factors that encourage would-be terrorists to take action against Shi’ites.
THE IMPORT OF ANTI-SHI’ITE HATE SPEECH
Traditionally, the Sunni majority of the Malay world was not anti-Shi’ite. The distinguished mufti of Johor, Habib Alawi bin Tahir Al-Haddad (1884-1962) even granted permission (ijazah) to a senior Shi’ite cleric, Ayatollah Mar‘ashi Najafi from Iran to transmit hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad). This shows that Habib Alawi respected Shi’ites.
In Singapore, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) was established with the cooperation of Sunnis and Shi’ites. For example, it was pointed out by Imam Habib Hassan Al-Attas, head of the Ba’alwie Mosque, the legal adviser during the formation of MUIS in 1970 was the prominent lawyer, Mr Mohamed Javad Namazie, a Singaporean of Persian origin and a Shi’ite.
The official position of MUIS, the Muslim religious authority, is that Shi’ites are a part of the Muslim community. In its fatwa, MUIS declares that its position is like that of the worldwide Muslim community that the Shi’ites are a part of the Muslim ummah.
Today, however, Singapore is certainly not free from hate speech directed against Shi’ites that is becoming more prevalent around the world. Hate speech refers to speech that attacks an individual or group on the basis of their racial, religious or gender identity. Such speech may take the form of writings, gestures and conduct that incite prejudice or violence against the members of a particular group.
Anti-Shi’ite hate speech can be readily found on social media. A public Facebook group, Melayu Singapura Tolak Syiah (Singapore Malays Reject Shi’ism), with 1,814 members, often demonises Shi’ites. Comments on YouTube and other social media refer to Shi’ites as deviant (sesat), apostates (murtad) from Islam, and even mock them as monkeys, and satanic. Offline, Singaporeans are also exposed to publications, many from Malaysia, that present distorted images of Shi’ism and contribute to antagonistic views towards Shi’ism.
The hatred that we see here is not too different from the sentiments expressed by Abu Musab Zarqawi (1966-2006), the Jordanian-born leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. In a 2004 letter to Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi refers to Shi’ites as “the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom”.
Furthermore, the influence of trends in Malaysia and Indonesia cannot be understated. Malaysian Shi’ites have been facing persecution for several years. Hostile views about Shi’ism are often presented during Friday sermons and in the state-controlled print media. In Indonesia, Shi’ites have been victims of hate crimes and have suffered loss of life and property.
A BUDGET OF LIES AND UNTRUTHS
Anti-Shi’ite hate speech is supported by assertions about Shi’ism that are simply untruths. For example, Shi’ites are said to have their own Qur’an. This continues to be repeated by anti-Shi’ite propagandists despite the fact that evidence of the existence of a Shi’ite Qur’an has never been produced. It is also said that Shi’ism is a religion created by a Yemeni Jew more than 1,400 years ago in Arabia in order to split the early Muslim community.
A director of one of the state religious departments in Malaysia reportedly stated that Shi‘ites are “fanatics and a threat to national security”. This idea was repeated on various occasions by Malaysia’s state-dominated media, although Malaysian security itself had never produced such evidence. The same director is also reported to have said that for the Shi‘ites, “the blood of the followers of other faiths is lawful and it means that adherents of the followers of Sunnah Wal Jamaah could be killed.”
While it is true that there are legitimate doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam that can be discussed in an open and scholarly manner, the anti-Shi’ite literature originating from Malaysia and elsewhere generally presents a distortion or caricature of Shi’ism and attacks that caricature.
WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE OF SINGAPORE MUSLIMS AGAINST ANTI-SHI’ISM?
Sunni Muslim scholars in Singapore are remarkably silent on these distortions and hardly any attempts have been made by them to correct the false image of their co-religionists. More, therefore, needs to be done on the part of the religious authorities as well as other individuals and groups concerned with the growing sectarianism among Singapore Muslims.
Several measures need to be taken by the Muslim community. What is required is a long-term campaign of education to create more understanding about Shi’ism among the Sunni majority. This would include organising intra-Muslim dialogues that bring Sunnis and Shi’ites together and allow them to discuss theological and other religious issues that, if submerged or misunderstood, serve to divide them. To be more specific, the following needs to be done during such activities.
Distinguishing facts from fiction
Sunnis who are ignorant of Shi’ism tend to have a distorted image of Shi’ism that comprises a combination of lies, half-truths and misunderstandings. These need to be discussed so that Sunnis begin to have a better understanding of Shi’ism.
An example is the claim that Shi’ites believe that Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) should have been the prophet of Islam, not Prophet Muhammad (saw). Such untruths can be dispelled by simply referring to the books of the Shi’ites themselves.
There are some issues concerning Shi’ism about which there is ignorance on the part of Sunnis. For example, Sunnis have seen on social media the practice among Shi’ite men of bloody self-flagellation during the annual commemoration of Imam Husayn’s martyrdom on Ashura, during the month of Muharram. This has been condemned by Sunni Muslims as a reprehensible act. Indeed it is, but it is not realised by many Sunnis that the official teachings of Shi’ism do not condone this practice. In fact, more recently it had been suggested by some Shi’ite leader that more constructive and progressive practices such as donating blood should replace the self-flagellation.
There are yet other issues with Shi’ism about which Sunnis have misunderstandings. For example, Sunnis often point out that the Shi’ite practice of taqiyah, that is, dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution, is tantamount to deception and lying. Such Sunnis do not know that taqiyah is permitted, under certain conditions, among Sunnis too.
Sunnis often complain that Shi’ites criticise the companion of the Prophet and transmitter of hadith, Abu Hurayrah. Shi’ites consider him to be an unreliable transmitter of hadith. Shi’ite condemnation of Abu Hurayrah is seen as a sinful act by Sunnis. Here, Sunnis can be seen to have a lack of understanding of their own tradition. In fact, Abu Hurayrah has been a controversial figure among some Sunni circles too. It had been noted by both Shi’ite and Sunni scholars that although Abu Hurayrah had accompanied the Prophet for less than two years, he had narrated considerably more traditions than Abu Bakr, Aisha, Ali or any other of the Prophet’s companions. No less a person than the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) has been reported in Sunni sources to have chastised Abu Hurayrah for fabricating hadith. During the reign of the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid [r.170/786 -193/809], there was a debate at his court about the reliability of Abu Hurayrah, with people taking positions in favour of and against Abu Hurayrah. There were also discussions in Egypt in the 1950s about the reliability of Abu Hurayrah as a transmitter.
Not part of Sunni tradition
It is also very important that Sunnis in Singapore are taught that to be anti-Shi’ite is not part of Sunni tradition. In fact, the virulent anti-Shi’ite views that are trafficked in nowadays are generally found to have their origins in certain extremist Salafist groups. Both Sunnis and Shi’ites have been victims of the more extreme among the Salafis.
It is important to educate Sunnis about those aspects of Sunni tradition that demonstrate our closeness to the Shi’ites. A good example of this is the great Ottoman thinker, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi [1877-1960]. Nursi was a Sunni Muslim theologian and reformer and was completely devoted to the ahl al-bayt, the five members of the prophetic household. To just cite one example, according to Nursi it can be said that if a person loves God, he/she would follow God’s beloved and his practices. Following God’s beloved means loving the ahl al-bayt. Elsewhere, Nursi says that loving the ahl al-bayt is to love the Prophet and, therefore, God. Loving the ahl al-bayt – Ali, Hassan, Husayn – will augment the love of the Prophet, and becomes a means to love God.
Take the Amman Message seriously
The Amman Message, calling for tolerance and unity among the Muslims of the world, was first issued on 9 November 2004 (27 Ramadan 1425 AH) by King Abdullah Al-Hussein of Jordan. Supported by Sunni religious authorities such as Shaykh Al-Azhar Shaykh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi, Shaykh Qaradawi and the prominent Shi’ite cleric, Ayatollah Sistani, the final draft of the Amman Message asserted:
Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mazahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Zahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate is impossible and impermissible.
Hundreds of leading Muslim scholars from 84 countries and heads of state endorsed the Amman Message, including Singapore’s Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs.
THE NEED TO BE BOLD
Many Muslim countries miserably failed to live up to the ideals expressed in the Amman Message. Indeed, some blatantly violated its spirit by encouraging the demonisation of Shi’ism and the persecution of Shi’ites. In the case of Iraq, on the other hand, violence against Sunnis was encouraged. The Amman Message is an expression of the spirit of religious pluralism that defines the understanding and practice of Islam that is now in danger of erosion due to the narrow-mindedness of the religious establishment and the willingness of politicians to sacrifice religion for material interests.
We know today that sectarianism is one of the drivers of terrorism as well as other forms of extremism to be found in the global Muslim community. We also know that Muslims have been recruited by ISIS to fight ‘infidels’ and deviant Muslims, including Shi’ites.
Our religious authorities, scholars and activists must take a bolder stance and deal seriously with the problem of sectarianism among Singapore Muslims. Sunni scholars ought to play a prominent role in speaking out against sectarianism. This needs to go beyond making general statements now and then about the necessity for Muslim unity. They should directly address the demonisation of and hate speech against Shi’ism. ⬛
Professor Syed Farid Alatas is Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore. His areas of interest are historical sociology, the sociology of social science, the sociology of religion and inter-religious dialogue.
