Stop accusing each other

The latest round of Muslim infighting, between Shiites and Sunnis, was remarkable, as it involved one of the most respected - yet controversial - Sunni scholars: the Qatar-based Egyptian Shaikh Yousuf Al Qaradawi. The reaction from Shiite scholars to Qaradawi's accusations that Shiites were trying to "invade" Sunni societies was furious.

The problem with these toxic exchanges is that they poison ordinary people's minds and do no good to Muslims as a whole. On the contrary, they only benefit the enemies of Islam.

The shaikhs made a mistake by accusing each other's sect of "deviation" from true religion, especially Qaradawi who accused the Shiites of attacking the Sahaba - the close followers of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Inflaming religious hatred among Muslims is just a pretext for factional and sectarian civil wars in the region.

After Qaradawi's remarks in an Egyptian daily known for its interest in sectarian and factional tensions - especially between Muslims and Copts in Egypt - hackers attacked the website of Shiite scholars on the web. Later on, hackers also attacked some Sunni websites.

In fact, nothing justifies the statements made by the Sunni shaikhs: There are no Shiite preachers going around in Egyptian cities and villages, for example, persuading Sunni Egyptians to become Shiites.

So why the toxic exchange now? It is politics, and shaikhs should not have used religion in a political struggle. Especially at a time when Islam is a target and scholars are calling for dialogue with "others". Surely, fellow Muslims at least deserve to be engaged in a dialogue.

Shiites are living along with their Sunni fellow Muslims in most Gulf countries for decades without any major problems. We started to hear this sectarian language of Shiite and Sunni only after the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

American rhetoric

The international media - superficially, ignorantly and, not to mention, conspiratorially - followed the American rhetoric about the Shiite majority oppressed by Sunni minority in Iraq. I remember Arab media carrying reports (translated from English) about Shiites visiting Karbala and Najaf in southern Iraq after the invasion, as if they never did before.

Occupiers in Iraq gave power to Shiites, and some Sunni states in the region started warning of a "Shiite crescent" - a term first used by Jordan's King Abdullah II and by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. That meant Iran, Iraq, Iran-allied Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Sunni countries in the Middle East were angry that Shiite rule in Iraq would reinforce Iran's regional influence at the expense of the Arab world. Israel did not spare any effort to scare those moderate Arabs about Iran and its "potential" nuclear capabilities (while forgetting to mention its own nuclear arsenal). But nobody asked the simple question: who helped the Americans invade Iraq and change it under occupation? Was it not some pro-American, Sunni countries in the region?

Then, if the shaikhs want to support their politicians in attacking Iran and its regional policies, they should have made that clear, and kept religion out of it.

Some might be convinced that Iran, or even Syria, are more of a threat to the region than Israel. It is up to them to repeat American and Israeli rhetoric, but the problem is that shaikhs are religious leaders, and even if they talk politics ordinary people take their word seriously.

One of the new ploys to "deconstruct" the region is to ignite sectarian and factional struggles within traditional societies. Under the disguise of minority rights and fighting oppression, foreign powers with interests in the region advance that trend to keep the whole region weakened and under control.

Religious leaders should stay away away from such political wrangling and focus on their role of preaching tolerance and basic human values, and not pour more oil onto the flames.

Dr Ahmad Mustafa is a London-based Arab writer.