Is the AL-BNP fighting a Shia-Sunni religious war?

Afsan Chowdhury
Published : 7 Nov 2011, 01:31 PM
Updated : 7 Nov 2011, 01:31 PM

As we celebrate Eid through food, prayer and animal sacrifice, we are reminded of the impact of religion and its symbols in our life, spiritual and secular. Yet there are crossovers too such as when religious principles affect secular matters such as marriage and inheritance laws which are a mix of both streams.

Somewhat unnoticed but increasingly obvious is the influence of religion on political behaviour. Can one really explain the hate factor of the AL-BNP relationship without assuming some kind of a pathological source of animosity that is generally noticed amongst religious groups? Is that because our political parties come into being not as facilitators of governance but by-products of conflict not offering reason but hostility?

* * *
The partisans of Bangladesh hate each other almost as if there is an obligation to hate. We know that religious duties are always an obligation and there seems to be little else to explain this phenomenon. It exists beyond explanation just as many matters have to be accepted in religion without explanation. For the two parties, isn't hating each other equivalent to haram?

* * *
In the Muslim majority Bangladesh, the hate pattern has obviously been located in the faith of the Muslims. Since both belong to Bangladesh and are basically the same person, the BNP and the AL are obviously the new Shia-Sunnis of Bangladesh hating each other as they aspire for what is a divine and common goal.

The AL-BNP members hate each other with the same passion a Shia hates a Sunni and there is no space for reason in this mutual hatred syndrome both in faith and politics. Only hate liberates them in the grand quest for political supremacy.

* * *
The Shia-Sunni conflict arose over succession, the right to rule over the emerging Islamic world and some of the reasons are the following:

The sources say that most of the Prophet Muhammad's followers wanted the community of Muslims to determine who would succeed him. A smaller group thought that someone from his family should take up his mantle. They favoured Ali, who was married to the Prophet Muhammad's daughter, Fatimah. They argued that no human could choose the successor of the Prophet and that both God and his Prophet had given signs that Ali was the chosen one. The Shias or the Ali supporters wanted the family members of the Prophet while those who were not the family members of the Prophet wanted that the Arabian elite should determine the leader.

"Eventually, Ali was chosen as the fourth caliph, but not before violent conflict broke out. Two of the earliest caliphs were murdered. War erupted when Ali became caliph, and he too was killed in fighting in the year 661 near the town of Kufa, the present-day Iraq. The violence and war split the small community of Muslims into two branches that would never reunite."

If one looks at the source of hatred, one will see that its politics to rule over a people that determined the great divide. It has led to more killing by Muslims of Muslims over the centuries and continues even now. Theology was the servant of ambition and hatred and is central to this political narrative.

* * *
Fundamental to exclusion in religion including Islam is the application of the concept of heresy, the murtad concept that is no longer being Muslims. Both faith groups — the Awami League and the BNP — exclude each other from being patriots which is a secular application of the Muslim identity. The result is that the other party has no right to claim any space and there is no scope for negotiations either with each other. To discuss the possibility of the other is to discuss the possibility of the murtad being accepted as mumin so it simply can't be done. The believer himself will lose faith if one agrees that the other who is a kafir has faith.

Both can't have faith so both parties completely reject each other or should we say that both have to reject each other for its own sake. So all the calls made to unite and see reason for the sake of Bangladesh really has no meaning to either of the faith groups. They are convinced that the others are infidels and must be destroyed in the name of the state or God which to them has become the same.

* * *
If one looks at the foundational history of both the parties, it seems the main claim of the two contesting leaders is based on their role during 1971 and who announced what. Now historically, there was no legal process which led to the declaration of independence. Bangladesh arose out of the night of the 26th and it was largely a reaction to the attack though by then many were simply done with Pakistan. One can hardly expect a legal gazetted notification of such an edict under the circumstances. There is no evidence that the party got together and decided they were declaring independence. It was largely a matter between the Pakistani army and the Bangladeshi people.

Yet the 'Declaration' issue has become a major bone of contention serving as the first cause of conflict which really is about who has the 'first call on history'. It is not the declaration so much as is the religious sanctity that is achieved. It is like other holy position such as the first to declare or the last prophet of God or in the Shia-Sunni case, which has the right to inherit according to the rules of God. To contest the right of the claim of other is part of the faith and politics.

* * *

Although it is very difficult to find any difference between the two parties the partisans swear by it which is natural because faith is not about reason so neither party needs that. If one looks at the so-called party intellectuals — Sahabas — who foam at the mouth praising their respective leaders without any proof that reason works behind their mouth, one can understand that this is a religious experience for them and so they approach politics with the piousness of a faithful and not the rationality of an intellectual.

* * *
It basically means that our politics is above reason and instead of political analysis we should seek the wisdom of the holy books to understand it. Can we deal with our problems of modern governance issues if our role models are located in the spirit of a 6th century rivalry?

Some of the analogy in this is also about what should be description of the other forces that populate our political world. Like RAB and other supporting agencies that seem to be above law. Well perhaps they are the Kharijites who sprang from this conflict in the same period but later declared themselves neither Shia nor Sunnis. They announced that anyone who disagreed with their interpretation of Islam was their enemy.

How does Jamaat fit into this? It seems that they are a minority force that hangs on to power by playing one big force against another in a land which is not theirs, like the Djimmis — Captives — of the ancient world. In a strange way, they have become the political equivalent of Hindus of Bangladesh, surviving by aligning with one force and pitting through proxy against another.

* * *
So Eid Mubarak to all of you. Have fun and sacrifice appropriate number of animals as you feel fit. While you sacrifice the poor animal, just don't imagine it is the leader of the other party.

———————————
Afsan Chowdhury is a Consulting Editor of bdnews24.com.