Emboldening the dividing lines...Side-effect

Something that happened in the 1920s is a watershed event in Islamic history that has come back with renewed vigour to haunt and divide Muslims today. But let me come to that later.
Just like among followers of any great faith, different schools of thought and different sects among Muslims not only practise multiple jurisprudences, they subscribe to divergent views of history.
In terms of religious beliefs, spiritual hierarchy or political rule – be it the caliphate or the imamat – differences exist from as far back as the passing away of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). There are sub-sects within Sunnis and Shias and sects that are neither Sunni nor Shia. There were rationalists and traditionalists, Sufis and Salafis, Ismailis and Sufris. In the course of history, all have either competed or conspired against each other or fought wars to establish their intellectual, economic and political domination over the others. Even the most revered caliphs and imams were martyred.
While there were those who incited hatred among various sects and professed exclusionary orthodoxy, there were others who challenged them with a more universal and inclusive interpretation of their faith. Muslim blood was spilled – in large amount – in internecine warfare but their mosques, shrines and places of worship were largely, if not entirely, saved from each other’s wrath. A major exception perhaps is Imam Hussain’s tomb, which was either not allowed to be visited by people or destroyed and rebuilt continuously during the earlier history of Islam by both the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphates. The reasons were obviously political.
For many years, believers from most of these sects continued to congregate for the Hajj pilgrimage. In normal times, they wouldn’t mind saying their prayers in each other’s mosques. I can recall the same happening in my childhood when, after playing cricket until sunset, boys belonging to different sects

went to the same mosque in our neighbourhood. They would then together take pride in their piety and tease those, again belonging to different sects, who did not go to the mosque with them.
Along the crests and troughs of their chequered history, Muslims have lived and survived together for 1400 years in the erstwhile empires and modern nation states of today where they mostly dominate in terms of numbers – from Morocco to Indonesia. They collectively own land, rivers, seas and, above all, the most precious natural resources including oil. Since their fates are intertwined and their very survival is dependent on each other, peace returns soon after every war. The ordinary communities of people born into different sects across these countries – who do not want to fight each other until forced to do so by circumstances created by clerics and/or political forces belonging to different sects – go back to tolerating, accepting, engaging and trading with each other.
In the past few hundred years, the Subcontinent witnessed interfaith and sectarian strife at different times, for instance during the reigns of Sultan Sikandar Lodhi and Mughal emperors Jehangir and Aurangzeb. But shrines considered holy and places of worship for different Muslim sects remained as they were. After the arrival of the British, the two most famous movements among the majority sect of Sunnis, the Deobandis and the Barelvis, gained significant following. The Barelvis revered tombs, shrines and mausoleums while the Deobandis considered them to be a deviation from the true teachings of Islam.
The Ahle Hadith, who are close to the Salafis in their beliefs and practices, were also found mostly in the Subcontinent and were even more stringent when it came to visiting shrines of Sufi saints or paying respects at graves. Darul Uloom Deoband was established in 1866 and played a key role in the independence movement of India. Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, the political arm of the Islamic scholars of Deoband, stood for Indian nationalism and opposed the idea of creating a separate state in those provinces of India where they constituted a majority. Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madani’s statement on the independence of India and creation of Pakistan is worth quoting here. “All should endeavour jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam.”
Whatever their religious beliefs were, including the rejection of visiting or performing rituals at different shrines, neither the Deobandis of the old school nor the Ahle Hadith of those times could think of desecrating Dargah Nizamuddin or Dargah Ajmer Sharif. Although there have been attacks on some of the tombs of Sufi saints and that of Hazrat Abdullah Shah Ghazi in Pakistan in recent years, the two shrines I mentioned in India and the major shrines in Pakistan – along with hundreds of others across the Subcontinent – flourish to this day. Whether some consider it right or not, a vast majority of Muslims visit these and similar shrines all over the Muslim world – from North Africa to Middle East to Central Asia to South Asia and beyond. Some of the most sacred shrines for them are the mausoleums of those belonging to the family of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh), including those who were martyred or those who lived and struggled in the face of adversity.
The tomb of Bibi Zaynab in Syria, attacked recently by rockets, is one of the most visited and most revered places for Muslims. Bibi Sakina’s tomb had also been attacked some time back. Attacks on mosques and Imambargahs, and the gunning down of those praying or assembling for religious events have already caused thousands of deaths – from Iraq to Pakistan. I also object to these places being referred to as ‘Shia shrines’ by a part of the international media. All sectarian divides withstanding, aren’t these people whose tombs are hit considered holy by all Muslims, even by those who do not believe in going to their mausoleums?
In the recent history of Muslims, it all began in 1925. That was the year when, in the Arabian Peninsula, the graves and tombs of the immediate family and the closest companions of the Prophet (pbuh) were razed because, according to the faith professed by the powerful elite and their followers, visiting and praying at these sites were detrimental to the true teachings of Islam.
This happened amidst strong protests from all over the Muslim world to which no heed was paid. This could be done because, barring a couple of countries, all Muslim populations were under European colonial occupation. The Ottomon Empire had ended as well. Here, one may well be justified to ask why it would take more than 13 centuries for true Muslims to erase important historic legacies of the last of the greatest faiths in the name of that faith itself.
This is not 1925. Most Muslim countries where Sunnis and Shias live in varying numbers and the different sub-sects of Sunnis, whose beliefs differ from each other, are independent. But they also suffer from weak state structures and fragile democratic processes. Chaos and violence that already exist in many places will spread like wild fire.
The attacks on the tombs of the granddaughter and the great granddaughter of the Prophet (pbuh) after bomb attacks on people and processions in the precincts of Imam Hussain’s tomb over the past few years will contribute to drawing of fresh battle lines within Muslims. If the whole of the Muslim world erupts in sectarian warfare, who will benefit and who will lose?
Email: harris.khaliquegmail.com