How to approach Islamic Unity

I would like to discuss the two ways we adopt in dealing with our common causes related to the movement of the supreme objectives in our life, whether in dealing with the question of unity at the level of the sect, the region, the nation, the party …etc, or in dealing with other critical issues such as facing the political, military and economic challenges imposed on us internally, regionally, or internationally.

First: the dreaming way. This way deals with projects and great objectives from an emotional perspective. It mainly consists of being given to romantic dreams and fantasies that fly the person up to a world of pure magic and fiction. The absolutist thinking that naively underestimates all the problems hindering the achievement of one’s goal characterizes the dreaming way. It depicts these problems as simple and innocently considers that time alone is able to resolve them or that the popular and enthusiastic atmosphere is capable of reducing most of them. The followers of this way believe that the sought-after project safely faces no difficulty and they quickly respond to those who question the seriousness and the pragmatism of their project by accusing them of pessimism, defeatism and hostility. Under certain unstable circumstances, those people might act driven by their enthusiasm and impulsiveness. Considering that such circumstances favor such precipitancy and hasty actions, they achieve great and positive results in proportion to how far they get. And so, they are encouraged to continue with the same impulsiveness considering that the desirable results they have reached represent the conclusive proof on the successfulness of their way and the realism of their experience… Consequently, they consider that the attempts of those who tried to discourage and frustrate them did not set from a realistic and comprehensive state but from the traditional education the latter had received which drove them to think it is the only way to act. And if they fell prey to some hardships or if they were defeated, they offer one and only one explanation to that which is the unexpected circumstances and the unjust powers they cannot face at the moment, but that they can face tomorrow or after tomorrow. As for how is that? They reply: we will think about that in the future because the issue is to keep the train moving, and it is not important to think how it is moving. One of the defining characteristics of this way is working on stimulating the public through fervent speeches, inciting slogans, and pompous festivals … etc which make people applaud to the eloquence of this speaker, the zealousness of that leader, and so on and so forth… Thus, to them, the cause remains a goal searching for a road and a role searching for a field…

Second: the realistic way This way approaches the ultimate goal in view of reality’s given facts and data. For each phenomenon has its own reasons in reality; each goal has its means, phases and horizons; and each reality has its own circumstances, which are limited in time, space and people. Therefore, those who adopt this way of thinking study their project on the basis of its surrounding environment, the conditions that should be fulfilled, the people who will pursue it internally and externally, and the problems that face it on all levels. Then, they make sure to put a plan that takes into consideration all these factors together. The plan actually could succeed sometimes and fail some other times. However, they do not give in as it fails or try to blame others for its failure. They rather embark on investigating the reasons of its failure so that they can adjust it and develop it in a way to grant them success in reaching the practical results eventually. The followers of the realistic way adopt the path of accurately analyzing things, people and reality. They make sure to face their mistakes bravely and be as far as they can be from the mentality of showing off and naively simplifying things. Moreover, when this category is driven by its enthusiasm, it deals with it as a part of the plan and not as a moody or accidental state. This is why actually those people have a clear vision of what is ahead of them. They think in a realistic way that seeks to achieve objectives based on known facts and not on dreams, hastiness, improvisation, and the different sorts of metaphysical interpretation of things. This realism provides those people with awareness, patience and calmness in confronting problems and challenges; and with courage to admit their mistakes and deal with them with more self-criticism that aim at correction. These are the two ways governing the human being’s practical reality. So, where do we stand from these two ways in our aspiration to achieve Islamic unity?

Between the dream of unity and the prison of seclusion:

Unity is perhaps the human being’s greatest dreams in any society suffering from partition, especially if this partition was an incidental situation imposed by certain historical, political, cultural and even social and economic circumstances. However, this dream quickly collides with the elements of partition that turn into an emotional complex inside the human being who gets torn up between two opposite ideas. The first pulls him towards the complex that drags him into seclusion, which makes him eventually imprisoned inside himself. And the second pulls him towards the dream that makes him rise up to comprehensiveness and absoluteness. Hence, the human being becomes a victim of confusion. He can no longer distinguish between what is reality and what is a dream. So, when it is the dream that succeeds in steeling his attention and capturing his consciousness, we find him walking towards achieving it with his gazes nailed to the skies, seeing not the problems and obstacles spread on the ground. Therefore, we often see the dream ends up thrown down in front the pressures of the reality of seclusion. But why did all of that happen? The problem may be that the human being is regarding the big dream as a general consideration instead of living it as an independent experience away from the climate of his seclusion. It could be that the person is looking at the dream as one of his private matters and is not reaching the state of comprehensiveness but through his seclusion, which makes his enthusiasm for seclusion exceeds his enthusiasm for generality, based on the emotional state created by the experience. In this context, we can say that unity did not set from an intellectual or a spiritual vision of the base that it should be founded upon. Nay, it set from an individual state that had lived cruel reactions produced by the problems of partition. But the absence of the vision and the depth of the partition mentalities at the level of the different personalities acting in the scene lead to more bad consequences in the present and the future, which makes the picture towards which the dreamer of unity aspire, a gloomy and frustrating picture that does not encourage him to make compromises in favor of the general cause. This is actually what we have seen when the idea of regional unity rose in a country of multiple nationalities and confessions, or when the idea of Arab unity rose in a region of varied zones, or when the idea of Islamic unity rose in a place of different sects. Unity here was a dream searching for a horizon with no problems of partition and pluralism. But the treatment always came from the wrong idea suggesting that pluralism is the problem which consequently meant that getting through with it is the end of the problem and progressively paved the way for this adherence to the idea of unity - perceiving it as the solution - without studying the issue profoundly. This might actually drive us away from unveiling and understanding the true causes and reasons behind the problem which might, in return, be subject to individual impacts acting within the internal reality, away from the cause of pluralism and unity, in the nature of the issue in question. We might discover, eventually, that unity was not a deep intellectual and spiritual state, but rather a hasty emotional and sentimental one. Whereas pluralism and partition represented the depth of the experience to which all the human being’s quotidian affairs and social relations are connected which hasten the defeat of unity in front of the elements of partition. This is what we have seen in various political actions aiming at unity. We have seen the masses pursuing their cause with one loud and promising cry, but they soon retreated, which means that the great dream was only a terrifying nightmare embodied in reality’s problems and difficulties.

Unity in the light of reality:

Those are some of the ideas that I have tried to shed light upon in this issue so that we could later deal with its details as we observe and study reality. Throughout the life of Muslims, the idea of Islamic unity went through a long history of reform calls upheld by reformers. The latter used to discuss with the nation Quranic verses and prophetic traditions calling for unity by holding fast to the cause of Allah, being united under his Message and abandoning conflicts and disputes for they waste powers and capacities. However, this did not succeed in changing the reality of partition the least bits in spite of the enthusiasm that fervent speeches and emotional sermons raised in the souls of people. This enthusiasm came down gradually until it finally disappeared and each party regained its position unharmed. So, why did that happen? Part of the reason might be that the call for unity was actually a reaction and not an action. It could be that the actors were living a complicated psychological state in the reality of Muslims; and this leads in fact to irrational conflicts, resentment and fights, like when Muslims slander and torture each other away from any rationalism, objectiveness or faith. Under the impact of negative consequences, they become engaged in the struggle and they become an easy prey to any violator, occupier and infringer. So, the actors used to face all of this with rebellion - an emotional state that wishes to get rid of the problem at any price and in no time. The blame for the failure in the call for unity was either cast upon the shoulders of the ignorant and backward people who are not aware of their real problems and who are not looking at the horizons of the future wisely, or upon colonization, the policy of which is already known: divide and rule! And they might be pleased with such justification for it implies that they had assumed their duty properly. As a matter of fact, we notice that this way of calling for unity, which is not carefully thought out and considered, might create within people a tendency to back away when they discover that it is not serious or realistic. When people start feeling afraid of being lost, they quickly recapture their confessional defenses and positions with great passion and zealousness, exactly like a baby rushing to the lap of his mother seeking refuge from the frightening and ambiguous reality surrounding his existence. This actually strengthens the spirit of division more and more, and puts everything in a state of regression. This divisional climate is in fact reinforced by the fact that some people who are fanatically devoted to their confessions accuse those who work towards achieving Islamic unity of deviating from the path of religion because they are pursuing unity, as if unity was a crime that meant deviation.

A realistic view to the disadvantages of the perfect call

If we wanted to stop at the features of the perfect call for unity and in particular at the negative points in its practical method, we find that the latter are only present in the call that flies in the sky and does not act on the ground. One of the simplest self-evident things we must be aware of is that the complicated history, Muslims had lived, of bloody problems and backward methods cannot be canceled by some rhetorical speech or swift action. Indeed, the residues left deep in the souls, such as feelings, thoughts and complexes create a psychological barrier vis-à-vis the second party, and change the person’s way of thinking making him abandon the pattern of interpretive judgments in understanding religious laws and beliefs - which leaves space for a different interpretation, considering the different opinions in comprehending the same issue - to adopt the pattern which insists on accusing the other party of having no relation with Islam. Accordingly, the sect turns into a distinct religion that is independent from any other religion. And so, the attachment to Islamic figures - whether negatively or positively - becomes one of the elements that define the Islamic personality labeling people as Muslims and non-Muslims. In fact, if you closely examine the way things are taking place currently, you will find that confessional sorting has turned into a state of sectarianism resembling tribalism in its thoughts; emotions; positions; political, social, and cultural attitudes. Besides, this state now has its own particular interests in the confrontation between parties, which made the narrow-minded personalities deviate progressively more from the line of unity. And after the split used to be concentrated on ideas and holy issues, now it became focused on the so-called privileges of this party or that. Hence, the relation between sects has become like the relation between states. Each sect has its own region and internal affairs that others are forbidden from messing or meddling with. Like so, the situation on the ground has become too tensed to the extent that any conflict or difference of opinion can start a war. Furthermore, at the regional and international level, political issues now have an active role to play. Under political considerations, sects have become one of the tools that cause the situation to explode here, or to shed light on something there, through the policy of terrorization that turns into a kind of mutual fear raised by this issue or that. As a result, the political situation turns into a state of sectarianism, and the political disagreement keeps on developing until it becomes a sectarian conflict, without really knowing the nature of relation between this and that, but through the individual susceptibilities that many people try to label as sectarian. This is a glimpse of how things have developed throughout history and this is how the Islamic personality has ended up enclosed inside the box of sectarianism to the extent that the human being no longer interacts with the spirit of Islam insomuch as he interacts with the rancor and weakness of his sect. And the question is: how can we neglect or try to forget all of this in the movement of Islamic unity? And can we make any step forward under such circumstances? This might not be the whole reality, but we feel that it occupies the greatest part in the Islamic scene. Disregarding it would actually be like ignoring the main problem and running away from dealing with its real reasons; and so, we would be escaping the problem instead of finding a solution for it. This is what we considered a sort of idealism in figuring out the solution. Indeed, being engrossed in that which is hidden or unseen when facing difficulties and complications; telling Muslims they should show ardency for their Islam and be united before their enemy; waiting for the adequate circumstances and depending on the factor of time to achieve the desirable results; all of these are not radical factors in treating the problem. Our reality has become deeply rooted in sectarianism for it specifies enemies and friends based on the standards of the sect and not the standards of the religion. Even more, if a certain political party has agreed with a certain sect on realizing the latter’s interests in confronting another sect, this political party becomes a friend for the said sect even if it was the enemy of the other. And if so, where would be that one enemy? And how can we picture this ardency for Islam if I don’t consider the other Muslim as Muslim? Consequently, persecuting him won’t be considered as contradictory with Islam and defending him as defending the dignity of Muslims. And will time carry for us anything else but a confirmation for such ambiance, since things are moving in the way of achieving those results? We don’t want to be pessimistic by raising these particular points, but we want to tackle the subject from a realistic perspective. It might be good for us to consider that any action aiming at achieving unity must start by taking care of the base upon which unity must be founded, in order to discover whether it is large enough to embrace the line of unity or not. And it might not be hard for us to discover that Islam is that base. Nevertheless, how can we find out whether unity is a positive move within it or not, and whether pluralism is a negative one or not? Maybe Muslims are not far from being compliant with Islam, but in an emotional way only. Lots of people consider that it has no meaning in the movement of life, and that it only represents a self-consciousness state that has no effective action in reality. This is why, to people, Islam has become this gloomy picture of worship and moralities on the one hand, and this social confused picture on the other. Thus, the question of unity becomes related to the individual side as an idea and to the social side when we talk about belongingness. Like so, we face pluralism outside the framework of the intellectual and practical problem in what we disagree about. Accordingly, sectarian sorting out means nothing to us in the movement of life because then we can get together under any other political or social line, without harming the intellectual belonging as to the nature of content, and become practically integrated under any other title at the regional or national level, or at any other level. This way, the title of Sunnites or Shiites becomes meaningless as to what concerns the reality of people, because such title has nothing to do with anything that is outside the person’s soul. Being a Sunnite or a Shiite is only a title that defines people common sectarian adherence in the human and social issue (1). Perhaps, this is what made meeting under the framework of Islam means nothing to lots of people. To them, it is like meeting under any other title related to the objective circumstances of the movement of the personality or of the movement of life such as regionalism, nationalism or partisanship. So, any other title could precede over the title of Islam as a unifying cadre according to the political climate prevailing in this country or that. If the political climate was setting from a patriotic or nationalistic state, Islamic unity became connected to that state either positively or negatively. And if it set from a sectarian state at the level of religion, the issue could take a political dimension gathering Muslims to face others. As for when it sets from a sectarian state at the level of confession, unity becomes a problem for those who uphold sectarianism, because it turns into an element that weakens the personality and privileges of the sect in the system that moves according to those individual bases of the sectarian community. In the light of what has been just mentioned, the Islamic state turns into a dependent state instead of being an independent one; and so, the real question becomes a question of covering differences keeping them out of sight, as much as needed by the political situations in the nation. Maybe this traditional understanding of Islam is what makes Muslims be that frozen in reaching an understanding as to the things they disagree upon, because they have no clear idea about what the conceptions of commitment and piousness could mean. To them, commitment is fanaticism, closure is piousness and being as far as one can be from the other Islamic party is loyalty to the genuine Islamic line… in addition to the absence of any open view that enables them to look at things from a wider perspective. So, we see them stopping at a word here and an action there facing history, with its advantages and disadvantages, through their sectarian individual inclinations that make the attachment to the historical personality an attachment to the self and not to the idea. Thus, being loyal to it - considering the different appellations and roles they give to it - is often done at the expense of the idea. This mentality was hence able to create lots of complications on the ground due to the negativity that this party raises against a certain name and vice versa… Like so, people forget religion, fate and future for the sake of the pompous and meaningless words that excite the souls at the level of the cause they defend or carry. They are not ready for any discussion, dialogue or investigation into the background of the situation, the word or the personality. The story is the story of the internal fire that works toward spreading fire everywhere, so that to relieve a certain complex here or to treat an individual situation there; and that is the story of the narrow horizons that take care of trivialities and forget about the important issues. Those are some thoughts and meditations on reality - the problem, the understanding and the course. But what about the solution, and how can we search for practical steps to reach the desirable results? It might be better for us to adopt a practical thinking in order to find the solution. We notice that there are three horizons for unity in view of the problem’s different horizons. In fact, we come inside across psychological barriers of negative emotional aspect, intellectual problems within the details of the general Islamic conceptions and religious laws, and some political problems under the framework of the confessional reality that works toward distributing political positions, the thing that gives unity an emotional, intellectual and political aspect. And it is natural that treatment’s means, tools, fields and personalities differ accordingly with the variance of unity’s climates - as a problem and as a solution.

PART II