**3. Potential Explanations**

### *3.1. Hypothesis One: There Is a Lack of Shia–Sunni Interreligious Peacemaking Because There Is No Need for It*

A potential explanation of the Shia–Sunni dialogue deficit is that the Shia–Sunni divide is simply epiphenomenal. Behind rhetoric and positioning, there is, from this perspective, no fundamental animosity between the two Muslim communities. Therefore, the lack of dialogue across the Shia–Sunni divide simply reflects that such a dialogue has never been needed. From this perspective, focusing on the Shia–Sunni dimension risks enforcing group stereotypes and misleading any efforts for building security and peace. Dialogue or peacemaking initiatives between Shias and Sunnis are therefore fundamentally unnecessary, and that is why we see so little of it.

While we acknowledge that this hypothesis may carry some explanatory weight, it needs to be qualified. Over long time periods and in many different regions of the wider Middle Eastern world, Shias and Sunnis have lived peacefully with each other, intermarriages have not been uncommon, and the social cohesion and collaboration between the communities have been strong and robust. Periods of hostilities have been followed by periods of peaceful coexistence, when the Shia–Sunni divide has been superposed by other, more pressing urgencies. Also, as pointed out at the start of this article, there is close to a scholarly consensus that ethnic and religious identities in general, including the Shia–Sunni identity divide, cannot by themselves explain conflict and lack of peacemaking, thus providing little support for the "ancient hatred" theory (a point made, for instance, by (Salloukh 2017; Sayigh 2017). Instead, conflicts with Shia–Sunni dimensions are, in most cases, the result of identity politics, where authoritarian leaders cynically exploit sectarian differences for their own political aims (Lynch 2013).

Still, even if Shia–Sunni polarization may not be the root cause of conflicts in the Middle East and other parts of the wider Muslim world, it has certainly been a consequence. The levels of violence between actors that mobilized at least partly along Shia and Sunni identity cleavages in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have contributed to increased sectarian tensions between Shia and Sunni communities. Surveys following the Arab Spring (conducted between November 2011 and May 2012) found that a substantial proportion of people in the Middle East themselves were aware of problems related to sectarian tensions. For example, in Lebanon, two-thirds of Muslims perceived sectarian tensions as a big or moderately big problem. This share lay at approximately 50 percent among Iraqi Muslims, more than 40 percent in Afghanistan, and close to 25 percent in Iran (Pew Forum 2013).

Surveys have also found a substantial part of Sunnis to not recognize Shias as fellow Muslims. The most comprehensive study of this was published by the Pew Forum in 2012 ("The World's Muslims: Unity and Diversity"). It involved 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 39 countries with Muslim populations, finding strong evidence for sectarian tensions, although with significant geographical variations. Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region appeared to be most aware of the distinction between Sunni and Shia. In most surveyed countries (five out of seven) in this region, at least 40 percent of Sunnis reported to not accept Shias as fellow Muslims, and in many cases,

an even greater percentage reported that some Shia practices, such as visiting sacred shrines, were unacceptable as parts of an Islamic tradition. In Egypt and Morocco, the dominant view was of Shias not being Muslims, while opinion was closely divided on the issue in Tunisia, Jordan, and Palestine. Whereas Shias were not viewed as Muslims to a substantial extent in several Sunni majority countries, Sunnis were rarely considered as *not* being Muslims in any of the surveyed countries. Only in Iraq and Lebanon—both countries with sizeable Shia populations—did large majorities of Sunnis accept Shias as fellow Muslims, as well as their distinctive practices. These findings can be interpreted as indications that if Sunnis and Shias live together, mutual recognition as Muslims is more likely. On the other hand, outside of the MENA region, the distinction between Shias and Sunnis seemed much less relevant for Muslims. In many Central Asian countries, most Muslims did not even self-identify as Sunni, but rather reported to be "just a Muslim." Similar patterns were observed for Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as Indonesia (Pew Forum 2012).

Due to constraints on data availability, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive answer as to whether sectarian tensions have increased over time. However, it is possible to ge<sup>t</sup> a snapshot at this question.<sup>2</sup> In its Wave IV survey (2016–2017), the Arab Barometer asked respondents about their feelings toward certain groups, including Shias and Sunnis (question 834). This survey was conducted in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, and Tunisia. Thus, unfortunately, no data are available from the two countries with the highest levels of violence with Shia–Sunni dimensions, Syria and Iraq. Still, some important findings can be drawn. The responses indicate that Sunni Muslims in Northern African countries, as well as in Palestine, tend to hold negative feelings toward Shia Muslims. In the four surveyed Northern African countries, the number of self-identifying Sunni respondents per country ranges from 908 in Tunisia to 1146 in Egypt, 1189 in Morocco, and 3300 in Algeria.<sup>3</sup> At least 62 percent of the (Sunni) Muslim respondents in each country reported to be at least "somewhat angry" towards Shia Muslims. Moreover, the percentages of people reporting to feel "very angry" is also substantial. In all these five countries, the number of respondents feeling "very angry" toward Shia Muslims was larger than the number of those reporting to feel "somewhat angry." In Egypt, this share was the highest, with 58 percent of the respondents feeling "very angry" toward Shia Muslims. In Lebanon, the country with the highest share of Shia Muslims in the population, there seems to be much less antagonism, both from Sunnis toward Shias and vice versa, which could lend support to arguments based on intergroup contact theory (Arab Barometer 2018). The Pew Forum and Arab Barometer surveys are the most reliable data sources available that provide information on attitudes between Shia and Sunni Muslims on a cross-country level. In this study, we do not primarily seek to explain these attitudes but instead wish to make use of them to illustrate that decades of sectarian violence and instrumentalization by authoritarian politicians seem to also have contributed to skeptical, if not hostile, attitudes among members of these sects, at least in some countries.

Thus, even if the Shia–Sunni divide may not be a root cause of contemporary organized violence and armed conflicts in the Middle East and other parts of the wider Muslim world, the sectarian dimension has been activated throughout di fferent countries and regions. In fact, it has grown to become the master cleavage in today's Middle Eastern politics, and it also plays an important role in other parts of the wider Muslim world, including countries such as Afghanistan (Seerat 2017), India (Sharma 2016), Nigeria (Sunday 2019), or Pakistan (Rathore 2017). We conclude from this that there is a real need for institutional responses in form of interreligious dialogue and peacemaking across the Shia–Sunni divide.

<sup>2</sup> Polls with comparable questions have not been asked systematically over time. For example, in versions prior to Wave IV, the Arab Barometer did not ask specifically about respondents' attitudes toward Shia or Sunni Muslims. The Wave IV survey is the first study where this was addressed.

<sup>3</sup> In the case of Egypt, the survey only contains the answer options of "Muslim" or "Christian."

### *3.2. Hypothesis Two: There Is a Lack of Shia–Sunni Interreligious Peacemaking Because Interreligious Dialogue Is a "Western" Phenomenon*

Previous research has described the history of the concept of interreligious dialogue and the interfaith movement (Braybrooke 1998; Forward 2001; Halafoff 2013; Marshall 2013; Swidler 2013). Its origins are predominantly Christian and rooted in Western societies: the changing focus in Christianity from proselytization toward a greater emphasis on interreligious dialogue that occurred in the second half of the 20th century is highlighted by different authors as a key driver for the growth of interreligious dialogue (Cheetham et al. 2013; Moyaert 2013). A potential explanation for the lack of Shia–Sunni dialogue is therefore that interreligious dialogue is alien to the Muslim traditions, cultures, and contexts.

The first glance at the empirical record yields a mixed picture. On the one hand, the KAICIID dataset provides information on the religious affiliation of 202 international organizations engaged in interreligious dialogue and peacemaking.<sup>4</sup> Whereas 133 organizations are linked to a branch of Christianity, only 29 organizations are reported as having a Muslim affiliation, 28 to Judaism, 12 to Buddhism, and six to Hinduism. Eight organizations are listed as secular. These numbers support the notion of interreligious dialogue being a phenomenon predominantly rooted in non-Muslim societies. In line with this finding, Bouta et al. (2005) argue that it is difficult to identify Muslim peacebuilding organizations, which they assume to be explained by a lack of institutionalization: peacebuilding is mostly done by individual actors, such as imams or sheikhs, and often in a rather informal manner. Still, the authors note that "one should not conclude from this that there are hardly any Muslim-based peace-building activities" (Bouta et al. 2005, p. x). Their study further identifies and discusses 14 Muslim faith-based peacebuilding organizations, most of which are not covered by the KAICIID Peace Map, which further underlines that these organizations do exist, although they might be less common than their Christian counterparts. Thus, institutional interreligious dialogue and peacemaking are not alien to the Muslim context.

Moreover, there is an important historical trajectory of "ecumenical" efforts within Islam. Even though it is easy to portray the relationship between Sunni and Shia Muslims as a history of conflicts and tensions, it is also necessary to pay attention to individual and organizational efforts to promote understanding and rapprochement. Indeed, some theologians have worked hard to promote understanding, cohesion and brotherhood among all Muslims, despite the many differences when it comes to dogmata or rituals. Instead of addressing or paying close attention to historical discords (e.g., who should be the proper leader of Muslims after the death of the Prophet Muhammad) and disputes over how to understand and apply Islam, these theologians have stressed that all Muslims should be bound together by the fact that they are Muslims.

As pointed out by Ende (2018a, 2018b) and Brunner (2004, 2011), it was primarily the development of the pan-Islamism ideology (e.g., in organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood) and the rise of Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918–1970) to power in Egypt in 1952 that provided a window of opportunity for theologians that wanted to promote a theological program that stressed that all Muslims should be seen as equal. This was, however, not an initiative that aimed to neglect existing differences, but to put focus on unity rather than conflicts and splits. Moreover, already prior to this, during the 18th century in India, ecumenical attempts had been made by the Muslim ruler Nadir Shah. Since then, several individual Muslim thinkers have tried to promote similar ideas in other places. Yet, these initiatives primarily depended on isolated individuals or the mercy of local rulers that saw rapprochement as a pragmatic tool that could be used for political purposes. When the Al-Azhar University in Cairo started the society *Jamaat al-takrib bayn al-madhahib al-Islamiyya* ("Association for the rapprochement of the Islamic Schools of law") in 1947, the situation changed. From this point in time, there was a society

<sup>4</sup> No information is available on the religious affiliation of the remaining 261 organizations. This is mostly because these are international organizations not rooted in any of the world's major religions.

that included both Sunni and Shia Muslims with a common ambition to work toward reconciliation between the di fferent branches of Islam. Among its supporters and followers, we find the rector of the Al-Azhar, Mahmud Shaltut (d. 1963), who issued a fatwa in 1959 that declared the Twelver Shias to be valid and that the legal school of this tradition (i.e., the so-called *Jafarite* school) should be recognized.

Even though the initiatives above were important—not least among the political and religious establishment—they never became fully accepted or popular among the common population. The ideas of the so-called *dar al-taqrib* were therefore supported only where they could be exploited by the political establishment for promoting anticolonial sentiments and fostering unity among the Muslims in the Middle East. Moreover, the ambition to unite all Muslims was already threatened from the start by the rise of the new nation states of the Middle East (i.e., after the end of colonialism), the cold war and the rise of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia that saw Shia Islam as a danger to "pure" Islam (Polka 2013, p. 422). With the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the declaration of the theocratic state of Iran—based on Twelver Shiism—the institutional attempt to promote unity and reconciliation between Sunni and Shia Muslims experienced a serious setback. The revolution sparked a general fear among Sunni Muslims and many Arab leaders feared that Shia Islam and the revolution could be exported to other countries of the Middle East. Since the 1960s and the weakening of the *dar al-taqrib* in Cairo, there have been some Iranian attempts to establish equivalent organizations, which remained unsuccessful outside a very small Shia Muslim minority.

Those who argue that rapprochement is the way forward have often stressed that it is the enemies of Islam that gain from the division and split that exists among Sunni and Shia Muslims. In the 1940s, the external enemy was colonial power, whereas today, the enemy is often seen in the state of Israel. For instance, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a prominent Egyptian Islamic theologian (b. 1926), has argued that the Sunni animosity against Hezbollah should be put aside as long as Israel provides a common enemy. In 2003, by employing a similar line of reasoning, he tried to stop the blood bath between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq, which had been unleashed by the US-invasion of the country: in this case, it was the external enemies—i.e., the invading troops of the United States, Al-Qaeda, etc.—that exploited the internal conflicts for their own interests. From this point of view, it is easy to employ the same argumen<sup>t</sup> when it comes to the conflicts that followed the uprisings in Syria. The Syrian Civil War, too, is a conflict with external enemies, in which key actors exploit divisions and old tensions within the population of the country. Theologians who call for rapprochement, unity, and a focus on theological and political questions are aware of the split and unwanted discord that is caused by those who work to enforce sectarian divisions. Today, however, there are few theologians or organizations that employ Islamic ecumenism to reach rapprochement between Sunni and Shia Muslims as a higher goal. Still, as the historical overview above has demonstrated, it is not alien to Muslim theological development or core faith institutions. The deficit of institutional intra-Muslim dialogue along the Shia–Sunni cleavage can therefore not be explained by depicting interreligious dialogue as a purely "Western" phenomenon.
