Sectarianism In Today's Muslim World

Sectarianism In The Muslim World In The 21st Century
by Chandra Muzaffar

There is no single universally endorsed definition of Sectarianism. But there is a certain understanding of the term, which has gained widespread acceptance. Sectarianism refers to differences between sub-divisions within a larger group, often accompanied by feelings of bigotry and hatred, rooted in discrimination that sometimes leads to open friction and physical conflict.

Differences between sub-divisions within the Muslim world (the Ummah) have always existed, in fact from the very dawn of the Ummah. These differences were never solely about theological or cultural issues. It was a conflict over power and authority immediately after the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 that evolved into a Sunni-Shia confrontation that climaxed in the terrible tragedy of Karbala in 680. Power and authority and control over wealth and resources have been at the base of much of the sectarianism in the Muslim world in the past. This is also true of the 21st century.

The bloody conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Yemen bear testimony to this. As do the conflicts in Bahrain and Lebanon. Even in Pakistan issues of power and authority cannot be divorced from theology in Sunni-Shia conflicts. However, because of the vested interests involved, the power or resource dimension of a conflict is almost always hidden from public scrutiny by both the elites and the media. What are highlighted are the theological aspects. Thus, in the case of the five year old Syrian conflict most people are not even aware that Syrian government opposition to a proposed gas pipeline from Qatar through Turkey and Syria and onto Europe which would have potentially reduced Europe’s dependence upon Russian gas is one of the reasons why there is such determination on the part of regional and Western actors to oust Bashar Al- Assad. What is dramatized instead is the so-called Shia (Alawite) oppression of the Sunni majority in Syria.

It is not just in relation to the Sunni-Shia chaos. Ethnic and /or nationalist rhetoric is also sometimes employed to conceal and camouflage the real situation. For instance, instead of dealing with the actual reasons that contributed towards the killing of 2,297 pilgrims in the 2015 haj stampede - 464 of whom were Iranians - a leading Saudi cleric has contemptuously described Iranians “as the children of Magi” alluding to their pre-Islamic identity. This is part of a larger attempt to make Arabs suspicious of Persians.

Indeed, the targeting of Persians by the Saudi elite has been going on since the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979. It is significant that before the Revolution the Saudi elite had no problem with either the Persian character of the Iranian monarchy or its version of Islam. The elites in both countries were on excellent terms, underscoring yet again that it is vested interests allied to power and not ethnicity or religion that explain the sectarian stances of various Muslim leaders.

If the interface between power and theology is a recurring theme in the sectarianism that has riddled the Muslim world for so long, is there anything that makes 21st century or contemporary sectarianism any different from its previous embodiments? For one thing, it is more widespread. But that is not what makes it unique. It is the active and direct involvement of actors external to the Ummah, which makes it different. Starting with the diabolical game of some Western powers of pitting Arabs against the Turks in the Ottoman Empire, which contributed to its eventual collapse in 1920, this fuelling of sectarian sentiments has continued right up to the 21st century.

Witness the role of US, British and French intelligence services and of course their media in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and Lebanon as they go all out to project the turmoil in these states as a Sunni-Shia conflict without making any attempt to bring to the fore its underlying causes. There is no need to emphasise that it is in their interest to paint the tragedies unfolding in these states as sectarian wars. This is why there is even talk in some circles of dividing states like Iraq and Syria along sectarian lines. When states are divided it makes it easier for external powers to control and dominate the region, which has always been their goal.

There is a state in the region itself, in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) that is also pushing for such an agenda. This is Israel. For Israel its security is guaranteed when it is surrounded by weak, divided and powerless entities.

This has been its strategic calculation vis-à-vis Lebanon for decades. This is why it also sought through its protectors, the US and Britain, to dismantle the Iraqi armed forces after the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 since it knew that it is the armed forces that had all along preserved the unity of the Iraqi state. This is also its aim in Syria today where it hopes the armed forces representing the different religious tendencies in Syria will be defeated thus paving the way for the disintegration of the state along sectarian lines. Is it any wonder then that the Israeli media is full of stories of sectarianism in the Muslim world?

Faced with these challenges from within and without, how have Muslim governments chosen to address the question of sectarianism? Of their responses, the one which is noteworthy is the AMMAN Message initiated by the King of Jordan and endorsed by almost all heads of state and government in the Muslim World, apart from a respectable array of Islamic scholars. The Message not only articulates the principles and practices that all Muslims, regardless of their doctrinal school or sect, subscribe to but also pleads for mutual respect and a sincere commitment to the wellbeing of the entire Ummah and indeed the human family. Unfortunately, very little has been done by Muslims everywhere to give meaning and substance to the Message.

It is obvious why the AMMAN Message was not translated into reality. The vested interests that thrive on sectarianism within and without the Ummah are overwhelmingly powerful. They are deeply entrenched in the structures of power at the regional and global level.

But their power is eroding. In WANA, Tel Aviv and Riyadh, the two actors who are determined to pursue their sectarian politics to advance their agendas, have been forced to concede ground in recent months.

The implementation of the Iran nuclear deal is a case in point. At the global level, the US has not been able to impose its proposed trade pacts upon Asia or Europe. In Asia in particular, it has had to come to terms with China’s growing economic clout. Similarly, US military power has discovered its limits. In WANA, in Ukraine, and in the South China Sea, for a variety of reasons, it has not been able to throw its weight around.

The decline of US global power means that its proxies and agents who have exploited the politics of sectarianism for so long will have no protector any more. Of course this does not mean that sectarianism will disappear from the Muslim world. Muslims will still have to harness their resources from within to immunise themselves from the bigotry and exclusiveness that have influenced a segment of the Ummah in recent decades. Nonetheless, the impact of external actors would have diminished - for the wellbeing of theUmmah.

________________________________
Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). This paper was presented at the Second International Seminar on Islam Without Sectarianism organised by the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) at the Concorde V, Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, on 10th September 2016

Another embarrassing failure for election pollsters!

Election polling is facing yet another reckoning following its uneven-at-best performance in this year’s voting.

2020 is another embarrassing failure for election pollsters
A big embarrassment for an already shaky field.
By W. Joseph Campbell

Although the outcome in the 2020 presidential race remained uncertain the next day, it was evident that polls collectively faltered, overall, in providing Americans with clear indications as to how the election would turn out.

And that misstep promises to resonate through the field of survey research, which was battered four years ago when Donald Trump carried states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where polls indicated he had almost no chance of winning. Prominent, poll-based statistical forecasts also went off-target in 2016.

Those failings deepened the embarrassment for a field that has suffered through—but has survived—a variety of lapses and surprises since the mid-1930s. Many of those flubs and failings are described in my latest book, Lost in a Gallup: Polling Failure in U.S. Presidential Elections.

Criticism was intense in some quarters November 4. Politico’s widely followed “Playbook” newsletter was notably scathing. “The polling industry is a wreck,” it declared, “and should be blown up.”
Many surprises

While that assessment seems extreme, especially given polling’s resiliency over the decades, the poll-driven expectation that former vice president Joe Biden would lead Democrats in a sweeping “blue wave” went unfulfilled. Biden may still win the presidency, but it will not be in a landslide.

Biden’s overall polling lead, as compiled by RealClearPolitics.com, stood at 7.2 percentage points on the morning of Election Day. A little more than 24 hours later, his lead in the national popular vote was almost 3 percentage points.

Pollsters often seek comfort, and protection, from critics in asserting that preelection surveys are not predictions. But the nearer they are to the election, the more reliable polls ought to be. And a number of individual preelection polls were embarrassingly wide of the mark.

A notable example was the final Washington Post/ABC News poll in Wisconsin, released last week, which gave Biden a stunning 17-point lead. The outcome there was still undecided Wednesday morning, but the margin surely will not be close to 17 points.

Indeed, the polling surprises were many and included Senate races such as those in Maine, where Republican Susan Collins appears to have fended off a well-financed challenger to win a fifth term, and South Carolina, where Republican Lindsey Graham rather easily won reelection despite polls that indicated a much closer race. Graham declared after his victory became clear, “To all the pollsters out there, you have no idea what you’re doing.”

It appears that Republicans will keep control of the U.S. Senate despite expectations, fueled by polls, that control of the upper house was likely to flip to the Democrats.
Polling problems are not new

The 2020 election may represent another chapter in the controversies that have periodically surrounded election polls since George Gallup, Elmo Roper, and Archibald Crossley initiated their sample surveys during the 1936 presidential campaign. The most dramatic polling failure in U.S. presidential elections came in 1948, when President Harry S. Truman defied the pollsters, the pundits, and the press to win reelection over the heavily favored Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey.

The surprise this year is not remotely akin to the epic polling failure of 1948. But it is striking how polling missteps are so varied, and almost never the same—much as Leo Tolstoy said of unhappy families: Each “is unhappy in its own way.”

Factors that gave rise to this year’s embarrassment may not be clear for weeks or months, but it is no secret that election polling has been confronted with several challenges difficult to resolve. Among them is the declining response rates to telephone surveys conducted by operators using random dialing techniques.

That technique used to be considered the gold standard of survey research. But response rates to telephone-based polls have been in decline for years, forcing polling organizations to look to, and experiment with, other sampling methods, including internet-based techniques. But none of them has emerged as polling’s new gold standard.

One of polling’s most notable innovators was Warren Mitofsky, who years ago reminded his counterparts that there’s “a lot of room for humility in polling. Every time you get cocky, you lose.”

Mitofsky died in 2006. His counsel rings true today.

W. Joseph Campbell is a professor of Communication Studies at the American University School of Communication.

Big Tech made more money during pandemic!

 As Covid-19 surges, the world’s biggest tech companies report staggering profits

Despite anti-trust investigations and a recession, Big Tech is doing great.
By Rani Molla
Vox, Oct 30, 2020

Despite a pandemic that’s shocked the entire economy and impending antitrust lawsuits, Big Tech is doing rather well. Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook raked in a huge amount of money last quarter: $38 billion in profits on nearly $240 billion in revenue. For the most part, this represents growth over what these companies made last year, despite the worst recession in the United States since World War II.

These numbers are striking not just for the tremendous amount of money these four companies are making but also because Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook seem to be defying this moment in history. Earlier this month, a long-awaited congressional report accused the companies of anti-competitive behavior, and some politicians are asking that they be broken up. Meanwhile, unemployment is double the rate it was in the beginning of the year, and numerous industries are struggling to stay afloat.

But as many of us have been stuck at home, Big Tech’s services have been more important than ever, becoming the primary way many of us interact with the outside world. So what’s been bad for restaurants, airlines, and countless other industries has been good for the world’s biggest tech companies.

In the quarter ending September 30, Amazon’s profits rose nearly 200 percent from a year earlier. Google’s profit grew about 60 percent and Facebook’s 30 percent. Even Apple, whose profits were down slightly, brought in a healthy $12.7 billion in profit.

Revenue was up for each of these companies. Amazon, which has seen its dominance rise especially sharply during the pandemic as people’s shopping habits shifted online, saw record revenue of $96 billion, a 37 percent increase compared with last year.

As a result of these earnings, Big Tech’s stocks are at or near all-time highs. This is a notable milestone, since Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple stock all took a big hit back in March. But unlike many other companies still suffering from that blow, these four companies’ stock prices have now more than recovered. On average, their market cap is up about 50 percent since then. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up about 5 percent (Apple is included in the index, helping buoy the whole average).

These massive numbers don’t mean much to the average person, since many Americans don’t have a real stake in the stock market. Instead, shareholders are the ones who benefit — as well as the companies themselves, who are able to reinvest these profits to become even bigger and make competition even harder. As the government ramps up its antitrust cases against Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook, their outsize profits are going to become more important.