AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Saudi Arabia’s changing approach toward Iran has renewed scrutiny of the role played by the kingdom’s religious establishment over the past several years. Critics argue that some religious figures used sectarian rhetoric to transform political disagreements with Tehran into religious hostility, with consequences for regional conflicts, particularly the war in Yemen.
In an article, Yemeni media professional Mohsen Ali Al-Jamal has criticized the positions taken by Saudi muftis and religious preachers who, he argues, helped foster anti-Iran sentiment through religious pronouncements and public messaging.
According to Al-Jamal, some Saudi religious figures issued anti-Iran fatwas and used sectarian language, including labeling Iranians as *Majus*, a term historically associated with Zoroastrians. Such rhetoric, he argues, gave political rivalry with Tehran a religious dimension and portrayed hostility toward Iran as a matter of faith rather than a question of state policy.
However, Saudi Arabia’s subsequent move toward dialogue and improved relations with Iran has raised questions about the consistency of those earlier messages. If negotiations and diplomatic engagement with Tehran are now possible, critics ask, why were years of hostility and religiously charged accusations encouraged in the first place?
For years, according to Al-Jamal, disagreements with Iran were presented not simply as political or strategic disputes but as conflicts rooted in religious belief. Within this framework, dialogue with Tehran could be portrayed as a concession on matters of faith rather than a legitimate diplomatic option.
Saudi Arabia’s changing approach has therefore intensified scrutiny of the role played by some muftis and religious preachers in shaping public attitudes. Critics contend that sectarian rhetoric helped deepen divisions by presenting opposition to Iran as a religious obligation, making political compromise more difficult to accept.
Yemen’s Human Cost
The consequences of sectarian polarization, Al-Jamal argues, extended beyond relations between Riyadh and Tehran. In Yemen, sectarian slogans and divisive rhetoric contributed to an environment in which political and regional rivalries became increasingly entangled with religious identity.
He argues that such messaging helped create conditions in which young people from southern Yemen were drawn into fighting against fellow Yemenis. Many paid for the conflict with their lives, while families were left mourning relatives lost in the fighting.
The human cost of war cannot be measured solely through political outcomes or military developments. The deaths of young people, the grief of bereaved families and the divisions within Yemeni society represent consequences that may endure long after political positions have shifted.
Political Change and the Legacy of Sectarian Rhetoric
Saudi Arabia’s engagement with Iran has brought the contradiction between past rhetoric and present diplomacy into sharper focus. Governments may revise their policies as regional circumstances and strategic interests change, but the social consequences of sectarian messaging are not so easily reversed.
Years of religiously framed hostility can shape public perceptions, reinforce mistrust and deepen divisions between communities. A shift toward diplomatic dialogue does not automatically erase those attitudes or heal the wounds left by conflict.
Al-Jamal’s criticism raises a broader question about the responsibility of religious figures who use their authority to frame political disputes in sectarian terms. When political disagreements are presented as religious battles, compromise can become more difficult and ordinary people may bear the consequences of rivalries shaped by decisions made far beyond their control.
The contrast between yesterday’s anti-Iran rhetoric and today’s diplomatic engagement, he argues, underscores the need to reassess the ideas that turned political differences into religious hostility. While governments may now pursue a different course, the losses suffered by families and the divisions created within societies remain a painful reminder of the human cost of sectarian polarization.
Your Comment