Hamed Mohammed: Dr. Ali Mohiuddin Al-Qaradaghi, President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, affirmed that the destructive Zionist-American-Iranian war has harmed the world in general and the Gulf in particular, and therefore he strongly condemned it. At the same time, he considered that the Iranian attacks that targeted the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Jordan, and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq deepened the state of anxiety and distrust in Gulf-Arab-Iranian relations, and left negative psychological and political effects on the Gulf, Arab, and Islamic peoples, especially since the Gulf countries were not a direct party to the war, but rather announced from the beginning their rejection of military escalation and their refusal to allow the use of their lands or airspace in any operations against Iran.
In an exclusive interview with Al-Qaradaghi said that the attacks targeting civilian areas in the Gulf states represent a continuation of Iran’s misguided policies towards its Arab and Gulf surroundings, noting that the region had hoped that Tehran would capitalize on recent developments to rebuild trust and enhance regional stability, instead of pursuing policies that exacerbate tension and division.
The head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars discussed the reasons for the failure to reach a unified Arab and Islamic position on the issues of the nation.
During the dialogue, the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars discussed the reasons for the failure to reach a unified Arab and Islamic position on the issues of the nation, considering that political and sectarian divisions and regional rivalries have weakened the Islamic world despite its enormous human and economic potential.
He also touched on the repercussions of regional interventions on the unity of Arab societies and the opportunities for national reconciliation, in addition to the transformations that have made the Palestinian issue transcend its national framework to a broader Islamic and humanitarian dimension, stressing that the essence of the conflict remains linked to land, rights and justice, and is not a religious conflict with followers of other religions in the sense that we are fighting the Jews for their religion, but rather for their aggression and occupation.
Here is the text of the dialogue:
Have Iranian strikes against the Gulf Cooperation Council countries contributed to deepening historical differences?
Certainly, we have clearly affirmed our condemnation of the Zionist-American aggression against Iran, and at the same time we condemned the Iranian attacks that targeted the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Jordan and others, especially since they targeted civilian areas, even though the Gulf countries were not a party to the war.
Tehran, through its intense attacks, has demonstrated its pursuit of policies that increase tension and instability in the region.What happened is a grave mistake and a continuation of Iran's flawed approach and policies toward its Gulf and Arab neighbors. We had hoped that Iran would learn from the lessons of the past, especially after its interventions in the affairs of several Arab countries and the resulting bloodshed and destruction, as happened in our sister country Syria and elsewhere, and that it would use this war to rebuild trust with its Gulf and Arab neighbors. Unfortunately, developments have taken the opposite turn, and the same policies toward the region have persisted.
It appears that most of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries are keen to achieve cooperation and build stable relations with Iran. However, Tehran has shown through its severe attacks that it is pursuing policies that increase tension and instability in the region, under the pretext of American bases. But there are American and even Zionist bases in countries neighboring Iran that it has not attacked, and it has also attacked energy facilities and airports, which are not military bases.
Why does the path towards a unified Arab and Islamic stance on the central issues of the nation seem fraught with challenges?
Unfortunately, the Muslim world today is experiencing a profound state of division and fragmentation. These differences are not limited to the Sunni-Shia divide, but extend even within the Sunni community itself, particularly regarding policies and disagreements between regimes and governments. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Muslim populations yearn for unity and see it as a choice that serves their common interests.
The problem lies in the despotism and dictatorship prevalent in most Arab regimes, which prevent their people from uniting. When the Islamic Revolution erupted in Iran in 1979, the masses across the Muslim world welcomed it with enthusiasm and a degree of optimism, believing that the establishment of a regime under the banner of Islam might contribute to strengthening the unity of the Muslim world in all its diversity, including its Shiite component. However, what transpired later, according to many, was that Iran moved towards exporting the revolution and Shiite ideology to several Arab countries, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon, as well as to Africa. This contributed to deepening divisions within the Muslim world instead of strengthening its unity.
This reality has created two trends within the Islamic world; the first looks to the necessity of preserving the unity of the nation and prioritizing the common interests, regardless of the differences, and the second sees that Iranian policies, especially what happened in Syria in terms of killing and destruction, have deepened the state of division and weakened the chances of Islamic consensus.
It is dangerous to let emotion lead some to support the Zionists against Iran; this is a grave sin. It is also wrong to support Iran in its attacks on Muslims in the Gulf and elsewhere.
On a personal level, I have spoken with a number of Iranian leaders and officials over the years, emphasizing that this approach is not in the interest of the Muslim world, nor even in the interest of Iran itself. I stated clearly that what was needed was to exert pressure on the Syrian regime to find solutions, not to contribute to complicating the crisis, the killing, and the destruction. I also discussed this matter with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (may God have mercy on him), and together we stressed the necessity for Iran to prioritize the general interests of the Muslim world over any sectarian or factional considerations, but this has not been achieved. We have also repeatedly emphasized that Iran is required to be a source of support and stability for the Gulf states, not a source of anxiety or fear. Some countries have begun to view Iranian policies with suspicion due to historical and political factors that cannot be ignored.Conversely, it is equally dangerous to allow emotion to lead some to support the Zionists against Iran; this is a grave error. It is also wrong to support Iran in its attacks on Muslims in the Gulf and elsewhere. What is needed is a balanced stance that differentiates between issues, giving each side the criticism or support it deserves based on facts, without resorting to emotional bias or conflating the issues.
Islam taught us that the scale of truth is objective and not personal or emotional. Truth is more worthy of being followed. God Almighty said: “And let not the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear God. Indeed, God is Acquainted with what you do.” [Al-Ma’idah: 8]
In light of the divisions and conflicts that the region has witnessed over the past decades, are there still opportunities for national reconciliation and rebuilding the unity of Arab societies, as is being proposed today in the Syrian case?
Yes, based on my experience of over fifty years studying and following political affairs, I believe that most political systems are responsible for the state of division, fragmentation, and instability within society. Most countries and regimes bear a significant responsibility for what happens within their societies.
The criminal Ba'athist regime under Bashar al-Assad and his father Hafez al-Assad worked to entrench divisions among the components of the people.
In the Syrian case , for example, the criminal Ba'athist regime under Bashar al-Assad and his father Hafez al-Assad worked to entrench divisions among the various components of the population, whether ethnic, sectarian, religious, or ideological, according to the principle of "divide and rule." However, when a state adopts a comprehensive national project and strives to embrace all components of the population without discrimination, the chances of reconciliation and stability become much greater. As the saying goes, "God restrains through authority what He does not restrain through the Quran."
The success of any unity or national reconciliation effort, as is hoped for in Syria, will be a testament to the success of the political leadership, while failure will reflect shortcomings in the management of the state and societal affairs. Hence the importance of regimes bearing responsibility for the destinies of their people and their homelands.
Why has the defense of causes like Palestine shifted from its Arab nationalist framework to a broader religious and Islamic dimension?
In my view, this issue has all these dimensions; it is the issue of all Palestinians , the issue of all Arabs, the issue of all Muslims, indeed, the issue of all fair-minded people. Everyone should work towards it.
However, the Islamic dimension is the primary and most influential driver, as history reveals many aspects of this transformation. When the Crusaders occupied Jerusalem and the Levant during the time of Saladin, they ostensibly waged war with a clear religious motive, raising the banner of the cross and declaring war in the name of Christianity. But Saladin acted with great wisdom; he did not present the conflict as a religious war against Christians, but rather as a battle to liberate the land and restore rights. Therefore, he did not use the term "Crusades," but rather called them "Wars of the Franks," so as not to transform the conflict into a religious confrontation with all Christians. From this perspective, the issues facing the Muslim world today, foremost among them Palestine, carry an Islamic and humanitarian dimension, but they are not a war against Judaism or Christianity as religions.
The conflict is related to the occupied land and the injustice and genocide suffered by the Palestinian people, and is not a religious conflict in the sense of being against the followers of a particular religion.
I recall here an important statement by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin when he visited Qatar, in which he clearly stated: “Our conflict with the Jews is a conflict over land. Even if my own brother were to occupy my house, I would fight him.” This statement encapsulates the essence of the issue. The conflict is linked to the occupied land and the injustice and genocide suffered by the Palestinian people. It is not a religious conflict in the sense of being against the followers of a particular faith, but Islam is the driving force. In this context, Islam constitutes a motivating element and a moral and ethical impetus for defending rights and dignity. Hence, what is happening in Gaza is seen by many as a model of steadfastness and defense of land and identity within the framework of a national and humanitarian liberation struggle, in which the Islamic dimension is present as a fundamental driving force capable of resilience, sacrifice, and selflessness. The experience of Gaza in steadfastness, resilience, sacrifice, and selflessness has proven that it is true faith that has made this possible; it would not have been possible without true faith behind it.
What has the state of division and disunity within the Islamic world led to?
There is no doubt that disunity is one of the most prominent reasons for the weakness the Muslim nation is experiencing today. The Holy Quran clearly links discord and failure in more than one place, as in the Almighty’s words: “And obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not dispute, lest you lose courage and your strength depart; and be patient. Indeed, Allah is with the patient.” [Al-Anfal: 46], and His words: “…until you lose courage and dispute…” [Al-Imran: 152]. This is a clear principle; whenever disagreements and divisions intensify, this is directly reflected in the strength of the nation and its ability to influence.
The Islamic nation comprises nearly two billion Muslims worldwide, possesses enormous economic capabilities, and enjoys a strategic geographical location.
Unfortunately, this weakness is not due to a lack of resources. The Muslim world comprises nearly two billion Muslims and possesses enormous economic potential, in addition to its strategic geographic location and control over some of the world's most vital maritime passages and straits. It also possesses significant human and scientific resources that could make a real difference if the political will and a shared vision were present. If Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, Malaysia, and others were to succeed in working within a genuine Islamic cooperation project, it would be possible to build a powerful military, political, and economic force on the international stage.
We hope for this, and I say here that this unity cannot be achieved except under the auspices of nations that believe in the project of Islamic unity and the Palestinian cause. Therefore, we must exclude the countries that cooperate with and believe in the Zionist role, for they are the ones who hinder and undermine it. God Almighty says: {If they had gone forth with you, they would not have increased you except in confusion, and they would have spread discord among you, seeking to cause you strife. And among you are those who would listen to them. And God is Knowing of the wrongdoers.} [At-Tawbah: 47]. Let us not be swayed by emotion by the notion of a unified Arab and Islamic nation, for this is virtually impossible at present.
Tags:
asiawest
