Shiites’ Allegiance; Proactive Strike

Shaikh Fawzi Alsaif Editor

From time to another, Shiites’ allegiance topic is raised. It is claimed that Shiites’ allegiance and affiliation are not for their home nations; but for their sect, religious leaders and states have the same doctrine. What is the worth of this? What are the purposes and motives?
In the beginning, it is important to explain the different types of affiliations for human beings. Race, language and family are some affiliations that every human being is born with and cannot change.
Doctrine or religion, nation or land and the governing political system are other types of affiliations. However, those three are optional changeable regardless it is permissible or not.
Moreover, the first three types are preceded on the other. However, some people precede religion or sect over the rest in the second group.
It is necessary to clarify that: Is allegiance for the nation? or for the governor of the nation?
 Every individual is connected to his/her home nation and is obligated to defend it. However, there are types of relationships between the governor and the individual; either religious as the legitimate Imam, contractual as in elections or compromise. Therefore, considering these types as one is unacceptable.
 Political opposition to the governor does not necessarily mean disloyalty to the nation! It is obvious that the nation is permanent and the governor is changeable. In USA, UK and France, many of their citizens opposed the War Plan in Iraq and demonstrated against it, but no one accused them of disloyalty to their nations. Perhaps, this opposition was necessary to save their nations; thus, why Shiites were obligated to be loyal to Saddam who killed and expelled Shiite religious leaders.
And why Arabs and Muslims had to be loyal to some systems which were installed by colonists claiming that it is required to be loyal to their nations?
 The right relationship is the one in which both parties are committed to their duties and grant the other party its rights; whether religious or contractual.
 So, why is this issue raised against Shiites particularly? What are the goals?
 Here are some of the goals:
 Some claimed that Shiites have political movements that made the political systems question their loyalty; therefore, they have to make actions that would regain the political systems’ confidence in them!
Opponents to this idea argue that it is a type of stereotyping and false generalization. No one holds the responsibility of the consequences of others actions whether from Islam’s perspective or from another perspective.
Individuals who were responsible of bombings, massacres or acts of terrorism shall bear the consequences of their actions alone, and their sects or parties should not be held the responsibilities of some individual actions. Shiites are not different from others, and they must be treated the same way.
 Some say that Shiites are connected to foreign religious leaders; therefore, their allegiance is not for other states!
Christians including the Arab ones in the whole world refer to the Pope of the Vatican, who travels to them from time to time, but no one accused them of being disloyal to their home nations.
Muslims who follow the Shafi’ei and the Maliki doctrine refer to AlAzhar in Egypt, Arab and Pakistani Muslim Salafis refer to religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, and so on.
All Christians and non-Shiite Muslims are not questioned in their allegiance to their nations for referring to religious leaders in other states. Thus, why are Shiites not treated the same?
 Some Shiites believe that this claim is just for obstruction to keep them behind; working on proving their allegiance which would not be ever trusted.
 Other Shiites believe that Muslims World is going through a new phase in which rights are claimed. So, this situation is a proactive strike to prevent the Shiites from raising the issue of sectarian discrimination, and gives legitimacy to the policy of alienation and marginalization of Shiites who are “allied” to Iran. Based on this, any futuristic Shiite movement for claiming their rights is disloyalty and Iranian involvement. Thus, Shiites’ integration in their home nations and participation in power are no longer allowed to be argued because they are simply traitors, and integration would grant them religious freedom, equal opportunity, equality before the law and fair political participation.