By Kamaran Muhamad Aziz
At first sight it seems absurd to even think about Kurds in terms of Sunnis or Shiites. Surely, Kurds are both, since there are followers of both faiths among the Kurds.
But this is hardly the question here. One could easily counter that and say that Kurds are neither of the two. Not just because the approach Kurdish leaders have taken from the start is comparatively secular, but more importantly, there are, in fact, no Shiite or Sunni identities: there are only different politics.
Identifying with Sunnis or Shiites is no longer rooted in the agonizing history of the two sects. Quite simply, being Sunni or Shiite represents just two different worldviews and political conduct.
Let us begin with some unsettling questions: Would Iran be able to influence political affairs in South Lebanon or even in the rugged mountains of Yemen without skillfully playing its Shiite card? Or would it have a say in how politics are conducted in the Arab capitals of Baghdad, Damascus -- or even in Bahrain -- if it did not employ its religious guideline?
Now, would Iran play differently if it had a different means other than its religious doctrine? Maybe, but for now playing with the Shiite sentiment will do just fine.
On the other side of the equation, the region’s other superpower, Saudi Arabia, is doing the same by convincing the Sunni world that its security is in danger and needs to be protected.
And now Turkey and Qatar, a nation of one million and vast natural resources, have sided with the Sunni front, each struggling to maintain supremacy in their own way.
Indeed, new actors are constantly added to the game, but what is important is who gains what and how.
The Sunni-Shiite rivalry for supremacy has survived centuries-long regional hostilities. Yet, it would be difficult to find instances in the past in which Kurds were rewarded or even punished for being Sunnis or Shiites or siding with either of the two.
In our time in particular, being Sunni or Shiite is never about being faithful to God or praying five times a day. It is no longer just a regional question and has rather become global.
Both America and Russia have been settling their own scores in the battlefield created by these two sects of Islam.
One vital question Kurds need to ask themselves is this: what should we do? If we set aside how things went in the past and where we stood in terms of our identity, can we then construct a new view of our past and identity?
A great deal of the issues in the world depend on how they are defined and reproduced. This is exactly why Kurds need to redefine their position in the world and perhaps even their image, which will inevitably lead to a set of Kurdish politics much different from that of others. Indeed, Kurds cannot claim sovereignty if they are unable to distinguish themselves from others.
This is the route Kurds should take -- being different and remaining so -- to demonstrate in politics that they are neither Sunnis nor Shiites. The hope of survival lies in staying different.
Just as in the field of sociology, the whole process depends on how you define yourself and others. Nothing has meaning in itself and thus nothing is in itself dangerous or safe.
The issues of identity, victories and losses decide the national interest of a people and that is exactly why it is time for Kurds to rethink their politics and their understanding of the world. This will make us friends and foes, but a clear understanding of our region and the world is necessary for now and the future generations.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
