In recent days, we have been hearing a similar discourse from some professors, academics, journalists or commentators:
“Iran is Shia, so let's not support it.”
This sentence, which at first glance seems like an ordinary opinion, is actually a reflection of a much more dangerous mentality. Because this approach forces us to evaluate the issues not on the basis of justice, oppression and truth, but on the basis of sect.
A simple question should be asked here:
Those who say that Iran should not be supported because it is Shiite, but are the US and Israel Sunni?
If the issue is sectarianism, it should also be said to which sect the powers that have carried out the world's greatest occupations and committed the greatest atrocities belong. If the issue is justice, then this divisive language based on sects has no meaning.
Throughout history, the easiest way to divide Muslim societies has been to fuel sectarian disputes. This is precisely the purpose of the propaganda carried out on the Shia-Sunni divide: To pit Muslims against each other.
However, when we look at Islamic history, we see a much stronger common denominator beyond sectarian debates: Love for Ahl al-Bayt.
Imam Shafi'i, one of the great Islamic scholars, was once asked the following question:
“Are you Shia?”
Imam Shafi'i's answer is a quote that has gone down in history:
“If loving the family of Muhammad (peace be upon him) is Shi'ism, then I am a Shi'ite, as witnessed by mankind and jinn.”
This saying actually captures the essence of the matter. Love for the family of the Prophet is a value that transcends sects. This love is not a point of separation, but a point of commonality.
The constant emphasis on sectarianism by some figures today is an attempt to turn the issue into an identity conflict by detaching it from its geopolitical and humanitarian dimension. However, a Muslim's first question when looking at an event should not be “Shiite or Sunni?”.
The question is this:
Is there persecution or not?
If there is oppression, it is not a matter of sect, but of conscience and humanity to oppose it.
Today, Turkey should look at the issue from this perspective. Turkey's position is not to be a party to sectarian disputes, but to stand on the side of justice and independence in the region.
To put it bluntly, Turkey's participation in the line drawn by the US and Israel in this geography is neither in line with its history nor with its regional interests. Turkey should maintain its independent stance and stand in solidarity with the countries in the region.
Therefore, it is not a sectarian issue, but a geopolitical and conscientious choice.
It is both historically and strategically more consistent for Turkey to be on a closer footing with regional powers that stand against the policies of the US and Israel rather than in favor of them.
Because the issue is not a Shia-Sunni issue.
It is a choice between independence and dependence.
Producing politics over sects is the favorite method of imperial powers. Because as the sectarian debate grows, real issues are not discussed. Occupation, exploitation, balance of power and regional calculations become invisible.
Therefore, the language used by public speakers is very important. If an academic, a teacher or a journalist constantly emphasizes sectarianism, one must question who this discourse serves.
It should not be forgotten that as sectarian strife grows, it is not the Muslims who win, but the global powers that want to design the region.
So it is clear what needs to be done:
It is not to pay heed to provocative rhetoric and to evaluate the issues on the basis of justice, independence and truth, not sectarianism.
Because justice has no sect.
You have no oppression.