Returning to the definition of sect, we find that it is a state of human gathering that expresses a socio-economic stage that human society went through many centuries ago.

The sectarian situation does not appear except because of recalling some of the stations of bad history, as it was possible to claim what passes the tricks of parties and criminal formations that convince themselves to defend the interests of a sect by focusing on them and their conditions.

While the truth of the matter in such allegations indicates a process of isolation and fragmentation of the sect on the one hand, and a grotesque exploitation of its name and interests in the service of cheap targets and satisfactory aspirations of the plaintiffs of the sect and its representation.

If we analyze the reality of sectarian parties in terms of their relationship to the human group that adheres to a particular religious doctrine, we will not find any objective relationship with that group that adheres to a particular doctrine or its interests.

The human group belonging to a sect and then distinguished by its specific existence as a sect represents with its existence an integral part in a broader group that adheres to one common religion, but it is distinguished [and I do not say it differs] in the specificity of its treatments as an attempt to solve a problem or address an issue by imagining that that approach contains the optimal solution suitable for everyone, including the other [ doctrine or sect] in its treatment and handling of the same issue or problem, it does not propose to be treated in isolation and separately.

Hence, the people of the sects of a particular religion did not hesitate to accept the appropriate solution for any sect in accordance with the moment or circumstance in which they call for that treatment. In Islam, a Sunni would marry a Shiite or a Shiite would marry a Sunni and on whatever sect they agree upon at the moment they choose a matter, such as their marriage, for example.

This means that there is no historical problem with the multiplicity of sects based on the multiplicity of sects, and there is no conflict between them, neither near nor far.

As for the real apparent problem, it is not the people of religious sects or sects in particular, who have integrated within the framework of civil society and its contemporary institutions that belong to a developed socio-economic level that dates back to the twenty-first century and not to ancient times.

Rather, the problem lies in the insistence of certain parties to claim their belonging to this or that sect, a false, deceitful and misleading claim that forms the cover that conceals the true goals pursued by the sectarian party.

In fact, these parties may succeed in the process of fraud, disguise, and passing their tricks by exploiting the language of religiosity or sectarian Islamization in particular.

Hence, it was in the interest of the struggle of those parties to push for the emergence of parties to the sects and not to accept the case of parties belonging to one particular sect, because that does not cast sufficient shadows for concealment and misleading.

And because partisan (and non-partisan) sectarianism is the most widespread and present today, and this time we received it clearly from Iran, the sectarian parties claiming to be Shiites will not rest until they push as much as they can to form sectarian parties claiming to represent the Sunnis. Imposed by its authority, the policy of sectarian quotas, and beyond that, it is looking for sectarian representatives of its likeness for those it forcibly isolates and separates them with borders and barriers in the name of the Arab Sunnis, not as a distinction from the Sunni Kurds or the Sunni Kurds, but rather to distinguish them from the Iraqis of the Shiite sect, and to push the Shiites towards a deeper isolation from their national and national identity!.

If we ask any Iraqi of any spectrum, be it Arab or Kurdish, Sunni or Shiite: Where does he find his interests? Is his homeland Iraq and his belonging to his Iraqiness? Or is it his departure from his identity, his existence, his people, his integration and his interaction with them?

  We will quickly find the answer in his Iraqiness and not in any other affiliation with which he is torn apart and crushed.

Thus, there is a serious contradiction between the Iraqi and the partisan sectarianism and others. Because it is a phase that has passed in his history and because it is a philosophy and politics that contradict his philosophy and politics.

The Iraqi is patriotic by nature and belongs to his civilized, humanistic identity, open-minded by going back to the history of his Sumerian civilization and the structure of his rational, enlightening, evolutionary logic.

Thus, there are no sectarian parties, whether their Shiites or Sunnis, claim to truly represent the Sunnis or the Shiites. Rather, they are in clear contradiction with their life existence and with their aspirations, because the Muslim Iraqi is the Iraqi first and foremost, and his Islam does not put him in conflict with his patriotism, but rather requires him to reject the divisive, divisive, sectarian spirit in essence. Which sectarian parties brought us without a true affiliation to our country.

The interest of the Shiite Iraqi definitely converges with the Sunni Iraqi, as they are both Iraqis and their interests lie in their Iraqiness and national unity.

While the interests of the sectarian party are completely inconsistent with the positive interaction and integration of Shiite and Sunni Iraqis, and sectarianism is based on isolating them from each other and on their contradiction with each other, and beyond division, i.e. the interests of the sectarian party lie in provoking feelings, inciting enmity and hatred, and provoking strife.

Of course, it must be mentioned here that misinformation and attempts to deceive and conceal themselves show their defense of representing the other, but on what basis? Of course, on the basis of divisional sectarian quotas! That is, on the basis of dismemberment, fragmentation, and placing interests in contradiction, albeit from a hidden side, as they imagine.

Accordingly, the real answer to the Iraqi people and every Iraqi is an enlightened and open-minded person who wants his interests, security, bread and living in peace, freedom and prosperity. The answer lies in the rejection of sectarianism that is always and forever inconsistent with his interests.

Even religiously, it is not permissible for sectarianism to live up to the original, as we read in the Qur’an, “And We created you tribes and peoples so that you may know one another.”

Where did the sectarians find the interests of a particular sect at the expense of another sect? How did they find the interests of a sect by isolating it and promoting racial segregation between it? and their dominance of one party over the other and their creation of the imaginary contradiction between two loving and mutually supportive parties; They only found this in a sick mentality and cheap targets that must serve parties that are not even the sect they claim to represent, and they do nothing more than exploit the name of the sect and the grievances of its people in a premeditated way that has no other than undermining the interests of everyone in favor of a side that is alien to all members of society and its spectra.

In summary, we find that sectarian parties are neither Shiite nor Sunni, but rather abstract sectarianism, specific to the identity of separation and segregation, to represent their bad existence only, which is hostile to the interests of all parties, primarily Shiites and Sunnis, then the rest of the spectrum of the country and society.

So it basically wants to hit the components with each other.

There is no sectarian affiliation with sectarian parties, because sectarianism is a process and diligence in dealing with specific issues, and diligence is a factor of openness and interaction, not a factor of closure, isolation, and opposition. As for sectarianism, it is a factor of closure, isolation, separation, opposition, war, and then division and hostility.

So, sectarian parties are not Sunni or Shiite, but rather they are just a case of pretending, claiming, lying and misleading interests that should be exposed in every aspect of their subversive policies.

The Iraqis are the children of national unity, openness, and the rejection of fragmentation and fragmentation, and they are the ones who have the means to challenge the powers that want them to experience the calamities and diseases of the backward past.

And their unity is capable of defeating sectarian division, the cheap quota philosophy, and the philosophy of sectarian representation, whose outward appearance is concern for the other, and its essence is division and fabrication of contradiction.

Note: This content expresses our own opinions and is not based on scientific research.