Recently there has a been a lot of controversy over the handling of a minor dispute with Shi’ite Muslims by the Nigerian Army.
Reports stated that the Army unleashed a blood bath that killed over 63 Shi’ites and injured at least a hundred people.
Several local and international groups including the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and Amnesty International condemned the killings, however the President Muhammadu Buhari led-Federal Government has not issued a statement leaving tens of millions of observers both in Nigerian and internationally wondering what the heck?
Even more surprising, was the response of the King of Saudi Arabia who reached out to Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari and called the massacre a victory in the “fight against terrorism.”
Nigeria recently reportedly joined a military bloc of countries in Middle East and Africa set up to fight ISIS. Iran, the biggest home of Shi’ite Muslims was not included in this bloc.
To understand a little bit about middle eastern regional politics and why the King of Saudi Arabia does not seem particularly concerned about the Zaria massacre, let’s look at this Wiki that puts some historical background in context.
While Saudi Arabia has only existed since 1932, an earlier Al Saud state (Emirate of Diriyah) clashed with the Shia. Ibn Abdul-Wahhab believed that Shia “imported into Islam” the practice of building mosques on graves, a practice he considered un-Islamic. He referred to Shia as Rafida (rejecters),[8][9] a name his followers have continued to use.
In 1802, the Saud-Wahhabi alliance waged jihad (or at least qital, i.e. war) on the Shia holy city of Karbala. There, according to a Wahhabi chronicler `Uthman b. `Abdullah b. Bishr:
Muslims [Wahhabis referred to themselves as Muslims, not believing Shia to be Muslims] scaled the walls, entered the city … and killed the majority of its people in the markets and in their homes. [They] destroyed the dome placed over the grave of al-Husayn [and took] whatever they found inside the dome and its surroundings … the grille surrounding the tomb which was encrusted with emeralds, rubies, and other jewels … different types of property, weapons, clothing, carpets, gold, silver, precious copies of the Qur’an.”[10]
The main Shia area of what is now Saudi Arabia — al-Hasa — was conquered by Saudi forces in 1913.[11] The initial treatment of Shia was harsh, with Shia religious leaders compelled to vow to “cease observance of their religious holidays, to shut down their special places of worship and to stop pilgrimages to holy sites in Iraq.” Wahhabi ulama also “ordered the demolition of several Shia mosques” and took “over teaching and preaching duties at the remaining mosques in order to convert the population.” [12] However within a year, Al-Saud emir Ibn Saud permitted the Shia to expel the Wahhabi preachers and to hold private Shia religious ceremonies led by the Shia religious establishment “without interference.”
Saudi authorities have however acted on Wahhabi desires to eliminate “vestiges of Shia religiosity” in and around Medina. In 1926, the Al-Baqi’ mausoleum—which included the tombs of the second, forth, fifth, and six Shia Imams—was destroyed by Ibn Saud. In 1975, the tomb of a Shia imam (Ismail ibn Ja’far al-Sadiq) was reportedly destroyed,[13][14][15] and a year later an ancient palm tree that legend had it had been planted under the direction of the Prophet Muhammad, and visited by Shia pilgrims for generations, was cut down on orders of a high ranking Wahhabi shiekh.[13][16]
In 1979, the Iranian Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah of Iran, replacing a pro-Western monarchy with an anti-Western revolutionary Islamic republic. Iran is larger than Saudi Arabia and relatively close to Saudi Arabia’s oil fields—which is also where most Saudi Shia traditionally lived. It was eager to export its revolution, and ideologically opposed to both monarchical systems of government and any state allied with the West. Leaflets, radio broadcasts and tape cassettes from Iran targeted Saudi Shia and attacked Al Saud for corruption and hypocrisy. That November, Shia commemorated Ashura (illegally) for the first time in many years. In February demonstrations were held on the one year anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini’s return to Iran. Saud officials responded with both “sticks and carrots”, arresting activists but also promising more schools, hospitals and infrastructure for the Shia region.[17]
In 1987, following the deaths of over 300 during a demonstration by Iranian pilgrims at hajj, Khomeini “denounced the House of Saud as murderers and called on all loyal Shia in the Kingdom to rise up and overthrow them”, further alarming Saudi officials. [18] After oil pipelines were bombed in 1988, the Saudi government accused Shia of sabotage executed several. In collective punishment restrictions were placed on their freedoms and Shia were further marginalized economically.[3] Wahabi ulama were given the green light to sanction violence against Shia. Fatwas were passed by the country’s leading cleric, Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz denouncing Shia as apostates from Islam.[19]
After the 1991 Gulf war ended, weakening Iran’s mortal foe Saddam Hussien and exhibiting the strength of Saudi ally the United States, “there was a noticeable thaw in relations between the two countries.” In 1993, the Saudi government announced a general amnesty resulting in various Shia leaders being released from jail or returning from exile. “Hundreds of young Shia” were provided with jobs in the governmental and private sectors.[20] The anti-Shia Imam of the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina was even sacked after he attacked Shiism in a Friday sermon in the presence of Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.[20]
In 2003, the political direction turned again, and a series of “National Dialogues” were initiated that included Shia (as well as Sufis, liberal reformers, and professional women), to the strong disapproval of Wahhabi purists.[21] In late 2003, “450 Shia academics, businessmen, writers, and women” presented a petition to Crown Prince Abdullah demanding a greater rights including the right for Shia to be referred to “their own religious courts as Sunni courts do not recognize testimonies by Shia.”[22]
As of 2006, more militant Saudi Wahhabi clerics were circulating a petition calling for an intensification of sectarian violence against the Shia, while the official religious establishment was calling for Shia renounce their “fallacious” beliefs voluntarily and embrace “the right path” of Islam, rather than be killed, expelled, or converted by violence.[23]