Tag: John McHugo

From Ali (RA) to Aisha (RA), from Karbala to the Umayyads and Abbasids, and from the Ottomans to the Safavids, the Shia-Sunni divide still shapes our world. And to discuss this divide, I have the author John McHugo with me to talk about his book, Sunnis and Shia, published by Speaking Tiger. Let's dive in and listen to John McHugo. DaanishIt's a pleasure talking to you, and let me welcome you to my show first. For my basic understanding and for South Asian viewers, could you explain the rift between Aisha (RA) and Ali (RA) in the early days of Islam? John McHugoWell, that is a very interesting question because it goes back to within the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). We do know from the historical sources like Tabari—they were written down maybe 200 years later. Still, they were based on a transmission of what people had said, people who had known the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions—that Aisha (RA) and Ali (RA) did not get on at all. And there is a very interesting story in the historical sources: once the Prophet (PBUH) was leading a caravan in the desert, and the caravan set off without Aisha (RA) realising it had left. Now she travelled in a covered litter on the back of a camel so that people couldn't see she wasn't there. And so what she did was wait in the desert, and eventually a young man came along on a horse, gave her his horse to ride, and led her in the footsteps because they could see where the caravan had gone. And when they arrived at the caravan site that evening with Aisha (RA) on the back of this man's horse and him leading it, of course, as was inevitable, as we say, tongues began to wag, and people wondered, you know, was there something that had happened that shouldn't have happened? And it was a very difficult thing for the Prophet (PBUH). And so what he did was he asked Ali (RA), and Ali (RA) said, “Well, ask her maidservant. She’ll be able to tell you the truth.” But in any case, there are many other women. So if it’s a problem, I suggest—basically, he suggested the Prophet (PBUH) should divorce her. Now the Prophet (PBUH) was satisfied with Aisha’s (RA) innocence, and he announced it, but Aisha (RA), quite understandably, given what Ali (RA) had said, was very upset with him, and the two did not get on well after that. And when the Prophet (PBUH) was dying, and his illness came on him very suddenly, there are different accounts as to how he died. Some accounts say that he was held by Aisha (RA). He died in her arms. Other accounts say he died in the arms of Ali (RA). Now, it’s difficult, you know, for historians to say which of these is true. Virtually impossible. But the important point is that there were two narratives, and you can see from them how the community was divided. Some people were backing Aisha (RA), some people were backing Ali (RA). And you can almost see the genesis here of the dispute between Sunnis and Shia because Aisha (RA), after all, was not just the Prophet’s (PBUH) wife. She was the daughter of Abu Bakr (RA) and Abu Bakr (RA) became the first caliph, the first successor of the Prophet (PBUH). And it was only after the deaths of Abu Bakr (RA) and his next two successors, Umar (RA) and Uthman (RA), that Ali (RA) became caliph. But it seems that Ali (RA) always thought he should become the successor of the Prophet (PBUH). So there you have it in history already. You have a dispute—even if it wasn’t a dispute, because it seems quite clear from the sources that he said, “Okay, I am the rightful successor to the Prophet (PBUH). I’m not going to cause any trouble because I value the unity, peace and harmony in the community.” But nevertheless, he felt that what had happened was wrong, and in that, I think you can see the origins of what became many years later the dispute between Sunnis and Shia. The Caliphate of Uthman (RA) and Political Turmoil DaanishJohn, importantly, the tenure of the third Caliph Uthman (RA) is described as one of the most terrible errors of the early Islamic period. Can you briefly explain his tenure, the allegations against the third caliph that he promoted his own family members rather than the clan, his own tribe? So, how did politics actually work, what sort of politics did the early Islamic period witness during the third Caliph Uthman’s (RA) time? John McHugoI think we have to put it in context. The first two caliphs, Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA), had been very, very close to the Prophet (PBUH). Abu Bakr (RA) had been the first adult male convert to Islam. Umar (RA) wasn’t quite as early as they were, but they were both very close to the Prophet (PBUH), indeed. There was no—Abu Bakr (RA) was proclaimed caliph. Umar (RA) backed him. When Abu Bakr (RA) died two years later, he appointed Umar (RA) as his successor. The problem was when Umar (RA) died, and we’re now, I think, about 12 years after the death of the Prophet (PBUH). The question was who should take over, and a little consultation took place—a shura, the Quranic word for consultation—to determine the successor. The small committee was six people, one of whom was Ali (RA). So he was there. Uthman (RA) was another, and Uthman (RA) had been a great supporter of the Prophet (PBUH) as well. There is no doubting his piety. It was Uthman (RA) after all, who edited the text of the Quran to ensure it didn’t become confused about what was in the Quran and what wasn’t. He had also married two of the Prophet’s (PBUH) daughters, and that, of course, was a very great honour. Now, there’d also been a great political change, because by now the Arab conquests were well underway, and suddenly the treasury in Medina, the capital, was being flooded with booty from the conquered territories. Whoever was the caliph would now be very rich, and the caliph would use the money for the good of the community. But Uthman (RA) had been a wealthy man before he became a Muslim. But his difficulty was: how should he retain control of what was becoming a rapidly expanding empire? It was a bit difficult. You can almost think of it as a bit like the Big Bang that created the universe. You had this empire going out in all sorts of directions. And it was a very difficult thing for the caliph to know how to control it. So he did what most people would have done in those circumstances. He appointed people he could rely on. And who did they tend to be? They were obviously his relatives. That, for instance, is how the very powerful governor of Syria came to power. But many people felt they’d been overlooked. I think it’s a bit too long to go into the differences between the community at the time. DaanishJohn, John, just to interject here. So who appointed the governor of Syria? Was it Umar (RA) or was it Uthman (RA)? John McHugoOh, I beg your pardon. Well, the governor of Syria had died in a—there was a plague in Syria and the first two governors of Syria died, but the third was Muawiyah (RA), and yes, I think you are right, he was appointed by… DaanishUmar (RA). John McHugoI beg your pardon. But he was related to Uthman (RA), and the other governors were removed by Uthman (RA), who then began appointing his own appointees, who tended to be relatives or people close to him personally. Now I don’t think I’ve got time to go into the different splits within the community at the time. You had the Quraysh tribe, which was becoming very dominant. That was the Prophet’s (PBUH) tribe after all. And everyone, I think we’ve so far mentioned in this conversation came from Quraysh. But many devout Muslims did not. They often felt excluded. And Uthman (RA) turned out to be very bad at dealing with disputes and discontented people, even when they had a right to be discontented. What he tended to do was rely on his own authority. “I am the caliph. I am the caliph, you know, who is the successor of the Prophet (PBUH). You must do what I say.” And this didn’t work. The Assassination of Uthman (RA) and the Rise of Ali (RA) John McHugoAnd one day, there was a scene in Medina. A tragic episode because it brought bloodshed into the history of Islam. The caliph’s palace was stormed, and the caliph was killed, and one of the people involved in it was actually a son of Abu Bakr (RA), Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr (RA). This shows that we have a small group of people who were close to the Prophet (PBUH), but didn’t necessarily get along. The strains of this rapidly growing empire made it much harder. And then you had the caliph being murdered. You had calls for justice for the caliph. And, of course, they were led by Muawiyah (RA), a kinsman of Uthman (RA) and the powerful governor of Syria. But when Uthman (RA) died, Ali (RA) thought, “Well, I was always meant to be the caliph. Now I am the caliph,” and he was acclaimed in the mosque. But it was done very quickly, this acclamation of Ali (RA). It was done without any debate. And very soon, you had some of the people who had backed him retracting their allegiance. And before very long, you even had a rebellion in Iraq, which led to the so-called Battle of the Camel. A very famous battle in early Islam, when two other very close companions of the Prophet (PBUH), Talhah (RA) and Zubayr (RA), renounced their allegiance to Ali (RA) and, with the immense moral support of Aisha (RA), went out to fight Ali (RA). Ali (RA) won the battle. Talhah (RA) and Zubayr (RA) were killed. Aisha (RA) retired, spent the rest of her life mourning the Prophet (PBUH), visiting his grave, and retired from politics. But from that moment you had a new caliph, Ali (RA), and he was still not acknowledged by Muawiyah (RA) in Syria and Muawiyah (RA) said, “Give us justice for the killers of Uthman (RA)” and it turned out that these killers were people who were very supportive of Ali (RA) and he found this very difficult to do. So eventually, you had a war between the two of them, a further scandal. It came to an end only when Ali (RA) was assassinated—not by someone acting on Muawiyah’s (RA) behalf, I should say—but from a splinter group of former followers of his who became disillusioned, the people known to history as the Kharijites. They rose in rebellion against Ali (RA). But this is the crucial time when Muawiyah (RA) and, after him, the Umayyad dynasty take control. You have the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs. And not only is Ali (RA) dead now—and he had always believed he was the person who should have led the community—but his two sons. Hasan (RA) felt he had no alternative but to acquiesce. Maybe he was doing the same thing as his father, saying, for the good of the community, “I will wait till Muawiyah (RA) dies,” and Muawiyah (RA) promised to be the next leader. But it seems somebody poisoned Hasan (RA). That may well have been Muawiyah (RA). Then of course, after the eventual death of Muawiyah (RA), you have the whole tragic incident that led to Karbala when Ali’s (RA) other son, Husayn (RA), set out and was massacred—was caught by the court not far from the Euphrates River. And they were almost dying of thirst, and they were massacred by people sent by Muawiyah’s (RA) son, Yazid. So there you have the grandson of the Prophet (PBUH) killed by the forces of the Umayyad caliph. And eventually, if you want to—I don’t want to spend too much time on this history, which is after all a very long while ago—but what it all came down to: people took one side or the other morally, and they thought either the Prophet’s (PBUH) family was always meant to rule. The Prophet’s (PBUH) family were very close to the Prophet (PBUH). The Prophet (PBUH) had said how dear they were to him. Or there were other people who said, well, most of the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) rallied around Uthman (RA) and then they rallied around Muawiyah (RA) after Ali’s (RA) death and we should trust the As-hab, the companions of the Prophet (PBUH)—also known as Salafis, the righteous ancestors—who include their children and grandchildren. In other words, people who might have had personal contact with someone who had known the Prophet (PBUH) and could explain the traditions that the Prophet (PBUH) had established. But the difficulty is: if you were a supporter of Ali (RA) and Husayn (RA) and you think, well, most of these companions sided against Ali (RA), then you didn’t think they were the right people to transmit the legacy of the Prophet (PBUH) and that’s really what led to the dispute which crystallised—took a long while to crystallise—but let’s also say that this was a dispute between two trends. The trends overlapped. It wasn’t a black-and-white thing. “Someone is a Sunni” or “someone is a Shia”—it may have become that much later, but to begin with, it wasn’t. I mean, I’ll give you a very good example of that. When the Abbasid caliphate came into being, the first person offered the caliphate—and we’re now talking about 750 AD—wasn’t a member of the Abbasid dynasty. It was Jafar al-Sadiq, who, for the Shia, is the sixth Imam. He is the direct descendant of the Prophet (PBUH) through Ali (RA) and Fatimah (RA), and two of the founders of two of the four great Sunni law schools—Malik ibn Anas and Abu Hanifah—were among his students, and they all respected each other; they all learned from each other. So there you have a very early significant Shia figure who turned down the caliphate. He said, “I don’t want to rule. I want to study. I want to discern the word of God.” But there you have people who are seen as archetypal figures in the history of the Sunnis on the one hand—Malik ibn Anas and Abu Hanifah—and in Shiaism on the other—Sadiq—who have cooperated, and there have been many such cases throughout history. Jurists vs. Imams: Persecution and Authority DaanishJohn, I want to understand this one more point from you, as you also write in your book about the twelve Imams of Shia and four Imams of Muslims—Sunni Muslims, I mean to say. Shia claimed that all twelve were persecuted first in the Umayyad period, then during the Abbasids. But after reading your book, it becomes clear that even four Sunni Imams—Malik, Shafi’i, Hanbal and the other one—they were also persecuted during the same period. So, isn’t the Shia claim that only their Imams were persecuted wrong? John McHugoI wouldn’t put it quite like that. Incidentally, if I may correct you, you shouldn’t see the founders of the Sunni orthodox law schools—you know, the Hanbalis, the Shafi’is, the Malikis, and the Hanafis—although the word Imam is used of them, they weren’t Imams in the sense that the Shia use it. DaanishCan we call them jurists? John McHugoJurists, I think, is a more appropriate word in this context. First of all, the Shia have come to believe that all their eleven Imams were deeply persecuted. And it must be said that if you were a caliph, the Shia Imam was someone you were a little bit wary of because he was a potential very great political threat. So what the Abbasids did was they kept them in a golden gilded cage. They were made to follow the caliph wherever he was. They were kept in Samarra or Baghdad or wherever, as prisoners, but living in luxury. There was one attempt to combine the two dynasties, but nothing came of it. So you can understand why the Shia say that all their Imams were persecuted. Now the difficulty is that Islam, of course, is a religion. It’s about a pathway to God. If you’re concerned with the spiritual life, Islam is also about politics because it is about how a just society should be created and how a just society should be ruled. You have to be very careful because what is good political leadership and what is scrupulous spiritual leadership may not be the same, and you’ve had the same problems in other religions. Think of the medieval popes in Europe, for instance. If you have the religious and the political together, it becomes very difficult for a man who is spiritual and of good conscience. And what happened was that people like the founders of the Sunni law schools didn’t really want political power. They didn’t even really want to be working for the state. I mean, Abu Hanifah was appointed chief judge of Baghdad, but he had to be flogged before he would accept the office. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, as I’m sure you know, stood out against the caliph during the Mihna over whether the Holy Quran was created by God or God’s eternal speech. And he again was very severely persecuted. So this isn’t such a surprise. Good people throughout history have been persecuted, and, you know, the leaders of law schools and the Imams were all motivated by being close to God and bringing other people close to God. So it’s not surprising that they fell out with the secular authorities one way or another. The Crystallisation of Sunni and Shia Sects DaanishSo, John, how did this—when did this Shia actually become dominant and a completely different sect in the Islamic society? Was it after the death of Husayn (RA), or when the Buyids arrived in the 9th, 8th, and 9th centuries, that it became a different sect? John McHugoYes, it wasn’t after the death of Husayn (RA). Now remember, Husayn (RA) was the grandson of the Prophet (PBUH). You don’t have to be a Shia to venerate Husayn (RA) and his memory. And in fact, last time I was in the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, I looked up at the ceiling and under the dome in the middle of it, you have the names not just of the first four Sunni caliphs—Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), Uthman (RA), and Ali (RA)—but also Hasan (RA) and Husayn (RA). They are revered by both Sunnis and Shias. What happened was that gradually over time, as Sunni Islam—what we now call Sunni Islam—developed through the law schools and the caliph would follow these law schools, he would have, you know, the policy of the state would be justified in terms of the Sharia as interpreted by these Sunni authorities. You also had the Shia doing the same thing, but through the process of following the teachings of the Prophet’s (PBUH) family. To a non-Muslim, the differences between the two are very minor, but of course, if you are a Muslim, they can be very important, and of course, it was also very important to a Muslim—Muslims are meant to be a single community, so who is the leader of that community is very important indeed. So if you think the Shia Imam is the leader, that means you cannot really see the Abbasid caliph as legitimate. And what happened in the time of the Buyids—we’re now talking, we’re now into the 900s—was that the Shia began to write down their teachings as they have come down to us today. And at the same time, there began what we can only call sectarian discord among the people of Baghdad. And so you had a suburb of Baghdad that might be dominated by—you know, might be composed of people from one of the orthodox law schools, tended generally to be the Hanbalis, I think—who would call the Shia idolaters. While in it, the Shia started to develop their own festivals and rituals, which of course included cursing important figures in Sunni Islam like Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA) and Aisha (RA). This practice, known as sabb, is an Arabic word meaning, you know, to curse, to say nasty things about. And of course, this—you found the two groups were upsetting each other, and you had riots. And there was one caliph who tried to put them down by capturing the gang leader of some Shia and the gang leader of some Sunnis, tying them together on a piece of wood and throwing it into the river so that they both drowned together. But unfortunately, at this stage—and this shows you how politics and economics cannot be separated from our story—this was a time of great hardship. The caliph was politically and economically in decline. There was starvation in Baghdad. And so when people are hungry, when people have lost what they feel they are entitled to, lost their means of livelihood, they are more easily turned against each other. And people will find an “other” as they say to blame for whatever has gone wrong. And that’s really, I think, how the dispute—if we call it a dispute, the difference perhaps I would prefer to say—between Sunnis and Shia crystallised into separate sects. The Abbasid Caliphate and Persian Influence DaanishSo, John, could you let me know if my analysis is right? Can we say that the Abbasid caliphate—the entire Abbasid caliphate—they were more inclined towards the Persians than towards the Arabs? John McHugoI’m completely—I’m talking in terms of the culture, heritage, the education, philosophy, everything. I mean to say, were they actually—I think they were inspired more by the Persians than the Arabs. We wouldn’t want to say more than the Arabs, but there was a very, very strong influence. Remember that Baghdad and Basra are the two, you know, the two principal cities of the Abbasids—particularly Baghdad—were Arabic-speaking cities, but they became very cosmopolitan. And of course, when you’re talking about the Umayyads, who were based in Damascus, you’re talking about something that was very Arab and very Muslim. Well, Christians were actually very important because, in those days, of course, Greater Syria was predominantly Christian. But in Baghdad in what was then Iraq, many, many people were not of Arab origin but had converted to Islam. We’re now talking about—Baghdad was founded in 750. A nice round number if you want to remember the date. Daanish756 to be precise. 2nd of September. John McHugoIt depends on when you say it was started or completed. I think it was completed in 758 and started in 756. Right. Okay. But the Abbasid caliphate started in 750. Daanish Yes, they do. Yeah. Yes, that’s right. John McHugoAnd many of the people who supported the Abbasids when they defeated the Umayyads were converts to Islam. A lot of them were Persians. So you are right. There is a very, very strong Persian influence. But I don’t think you can say the Abbasid caliphs were more Persian than Arab. They were very proud of their Arab heritage. But you can just see from some of the names of their viziers, you know, the Barmakids, the famous Barmakids, you know, who came to a sticky end and so on—the names are not Arab. DaanishAnd they were the Buddhists who had come from this area, Central Asia. John McHugoI don’t know whether there were any Buddhists in Iraq in Abbasid Baghdad. But there were certainly people who were the children or grandchildren of Buddhists. Yes. So they were more influenced by the Persians. Right. Much, much more than the Umayyads. And they also took on Persian ideas of kingship. You know, anything to bolster your legitimacy. The Safavids and the Shi’ification of Persia DaanishOne intriguing thing I read about in your book is Persia itself. The Safavids, now, 10th and 11th centuries—when the Safavids came to power, how did they transform this cosmopolitan state into a complete Shi’ite state? John McHugoWell, that is a very long story. We have another very easy date to remember, 1500, because that’s really when the Safavids got going. Now, their origins are shrouded in mist. You know, we do not know much about the history of the tribes of Central Asia. Very little is recorded, and, of course, historians in those days were always writing history from their own point of view. But what does seem to have happened is that Shah Ismail, who founded the Safavids, had devoted followers who saw him as a kind of god-king. Now this is, you know, this is not Muslim—in Islam you do not have god-kings—but the bureaucracy ruling—well, not the bureaucracy wasn’t ruling—but the bureaucracy that was collecting all the taxes in Iran at that time was predominantly Sunni. And there is a theory—and it seems to me to be plausible—that Shah Ismail thought, “Right, I can’t claim to be a god-king but my followers will want me to be something more than just an ordinary Joe. So what I will be is—well, I can prove—” we don’t know how true it is, I don’t know how true it is—but he claimed descent from one of the Shia Imams and therefore descent from the Prophet (PBUH), of course very significant. And he said, “I am a descendant of the Prophet (PBUH). I’m a descendant of the—I think it was the seventh Imam. I am therefore a cut above other rulers.” And of course, he could also say he was a Muslim and tell his followers, “You will now follow me as the descendant of the Prophet (PBUH) and of the Imams.” And he could turn to the people in Iran who collected his taxes and said, “We’re now all going to become Twelvers and stop being Sunnis.” And then he did a very remarkable thing that turned out to be successful. He didn’t have many Twelver teachers in Iran. So he imported them. He imported them from the great Shia schools in Iraq, like Al-Hillah, from the shrine cities of Karbala and Najaf where the shrines of Ali (RA) and Husayn (RA) are, and also very importantly from South Lebanon where there’s an area called Jabal Amil that had been a consistent little island of Twelver Shiism going back to a very early date. And he brought these teachers to Iran, and they instructed the people, beginning, of course, with the Ulama, the religious class, the existing teachers of Islam. And in England, we have an old folk song, I don’t know if you ever heard about it, called “The Vicar of Bray.” And when we had all our changes of religion between Catholics and Protestants and different sects of Protestants, the story of the Vicar of Bray is that he always went with the government of the day, and whatever they said was the true religion, is what he followed. And there is no doubt that a lot of people in Iran would have done that. They’d have done it perfectly happily. People who didn’t would sometimes be executed, sometimes by burning at the stake—something that, of course, was happening to religious dissidents in Europe at exactly the same time. And new schools were set up that taught the new teaching, if you like, which is that of Twelver Shiism, and it took deep root. And that is shown by the fact that, when the Safavids eventually fell, and Sunni dynasties came to power, they didn’t revert to Sunnism—they converted to Shiism sooner or later. DaanishWas there persecution by the Safavids? John McHugoWhen they had to persecute, yes, they preferred not to. No one wants to persecute, but when it is expedient, they certainly do persecute. Yes. Sunni and Shia: Trends, Not Absolutes DaanishJohn, could you explain one thing to me? Just lecture me on this. Iranians, the Persians, are heavily influenced by Maulana Rumi. And the irony of ironies is that Rumi is a Sunni. And how is a Shia state influenced by a Sunni? John McHugoWell, if you remember, I said earlier on that we have really, in many ways, we should think of Sunnis and Shia as trends, not as absolute things, you know, that are in diametrical opposition to each other. You know, we obviously look at the clashes between them, and it’s much easier to write about and to explain the clashes than it is to talk about when they were living peacefully together. And Jalal ad-Din Rumi, of course, lived before the Safavids came to power. A lot of the other giants of Persian literature did as well. Hafez, Saadi—you could list many, many more—and they were all Sunni but they weren’t Sunni in a, shall we say, in a sense that they were very anti-Shia. Rumi, of course, is a great mystic, and he sees a pathway to God for everyone, irrespective of your creed, irrespective of your sect. And it’s important to know that in Iran today, you know, they say that every house has a copy of the poems of Hafez in it. He is the Iranian national poet. And these people were Sunnis more often than not. And they didn’t have to be Sunnis. They weren’t chosen because they were Sunnis. But it just so happened that most Iranians and most Iranian poets and historians and writers generally were Sunnis. And it shows you that the divide between Sunnis and Shia is, as I say in my book, in many ways often much less great than is implied and is generally portrayed by the media. And when there has been a dispute or a war between Sunnis and Shia, it’s generally been because of political matters that don’t actually have much to do with the religion itself. A Way Forward: Collaboration and Courtesy DaanishMy last question before I ask you about your new book is: we have seen, right from the death of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), that the community has been divided into two sects. Is there a way forward for us, the Shia and the Sunnis, to form a common ground and work together for the betterment of the community? John McHugoMost certainly. I mean, I am not a Muslim, and so it is not for me to say how. But as I gave you the example of Jafar al-Sadiq, you know, he was the supreme religious scholar of his day. He wasn’t supreme in the sense that there was some hierarchy of scholars. He was universally acknowledged to be the greatest authority on the life of the Prophet (PBUH), on the traditions of the Prophet (PBUH), on the Holy Quran and so on. And two of his greatest students went off to found Sunni law schools, the Malikis and the Hanafis. And I think the Hanafis are probably the most widespread Sunni law school today. And not just in India, but in Turkey and so on. Now they didn’t fall out. The two Sunnis always had great respect for Jafar al-Sadiq, and he was a good teacher to them; he enlightened them with his learning. And I think that is the kind of example you can see and use today. Of course, like all religions—I am myself a Christian—all religions are grappling with all the changes of the modern world. This applies to all religions and all sects. But I think in today’s world, religions and sects are finding more and more ways to collaborate rather than to be aggressive towards each other. Dialogue includes expressing one’s differences but in a courteous and friendly way, and I think that is the way forward. DaanishJohn, in other words, can we say that Jafar al-Sadiq should be our starting point? John McHugoI think he is an inspiration. It is for Muslims to say where the starting point would be. I was told a very interesting story about a Roman Catholic monk who went to engage in dialogue with some Ayatollahs in Iran. And he said to the Ayatollahs, “Can you explain to me what the Shia perspective is on Islam?” And they said to him, “We would rather explain to you what the Muslim perspective is.” And I think a Sunni would have said exactly the same thing if he’d been asked to give the Sunni expression. This is what one must do. The most important thing is courtesy. I think you have the word Adab in Persian—I don’t know, it’s an Arabic word as well. There’s a great tradition of courtesy within Islam, and I think that courtesy—of including things such as hospitality, breaking bread together, and discussing where one disagrees but courteously—is something Christians need to do most definitely, given some of the conflicts going on within the Christian world as well. You know, this is the way forward. John McHugo’s Upcoming Book DaanishJohn, I do hope that there is some meeting point between the Sunnis and the Shia. Before I let you go, can you kindly briefly explain about your upcoming book, which, if I am not wrong, is about Jews and the relationship between Jews and Muslims? John McHugoIt’s not on the relationship between Jews and Muslims as such, although that comes into it. What I decided to do after writing my last book was to write a parallel history of Zionism and Islamism. Because if you think about it, both of them started off with very, very good intentions. Both of them were intended to bring hope to the oppressed, to the weak, to the persecuted. But what has happened? Well, you don’t need me to tell you about the last two years in Gaza and what happened on the 7th of October, but it made me think: you cannot say this is the fault of one side or the other. What you have to look at is not the people who have suffered but the ideologies that have made it so difficult. And these ideologies have often led to entrenched positions. But at the same time, on each side, you can find people who have worked for peace and reconciliation. Now, if any of your viewers are interested in my book, they can go to my website. If you look up my name on the internet, you’ll come across it fairly quickly. I am currently in negotiations with a publisher, but I hope it will be published by this time next year or shortly in 2027. It will probably be called something like Parallel Roads to Hell: Zionism, Islamism, and the 7th of October 2023. Something like that. I want to stress how good intentions—you know, we have this saying, “Good intentions lead to hell.” And I think two movements that started with good intentions eventually led to hell. Conclusion DaanishAnd John, we will be waiting for your book. Let’s end this intriguing discussion on this very note, and let me hold your book once again so that as many people read it, buy it, read it and understand what Islam actually is and how this divide between the two sects came into being. Pleasure talking once again, John. Pleasure talking to you, and thank you very much for your time. John McHugoThank you, Daanish. I’ve greatly enjoyed this. Thank you.

Diplomat Digital

Finance

Featured

Politics

India

Diplomat Digital

Finance

Featured

Politics

India

Tag: John McHugo

Company

Headlines

Newsletter