• Alliances are either necessary or strategic, and their discussions are complex and intertwined.
• Cooperation between Sunnis and Shiites in the field of resistance does not imply acceptance of doctrinal violations.
• We are facing a Crusader-Zionist campaign, and the Muslim alliance is important without anyone changing their creed or beliefs.

From time to time, issues arise regarding the foundations of political alliances in Islam and the balance between political interests and doctrinal positions. This has been clarified by scholars of Sharia, jurisprudence, and legitimate politics who have spoken to “Al-Mujtama,” initiating from the dimensions of the Palestinian issue and addressing the questions and opinions posed by some regarding the cooperation of the Palestinian resistance, primarily the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), with Iran in facing the Zionist enemy.

Complex Dimensions and Methodological Perspective

Initially, Dr. Sayed El-Din Abdel-Fattah, a professor of political science, clarifies in an interview with "Al-Mujtama" that such discussions carry a complex and intertwined depth, and therefore it is not permissible in any way to handle them in a reduced manner, emphasizing that simplification in this regard is a dangerous matter. Dr. Abdel-Fattah adds that from a methodological standpoint, it is necessary to take into account the real contexts, and based on that, the resistance's dealings with what is described as the Iranian Shiite side and its affiliates linked to the Iranian regime should be scrutinized thoroughly. If alliances can be formed with non-Muslim countries and non-Muslim entities, it is only natural that they occur with Muslim countries and Islamic formations, especially since the matter of Shiism involves differences regarding takfir (excommunication), which should be handled with significant caution.

Necessary Alliance and Strategic Perspective

Furthermore, the mention of the alliance between Iran and Hezbollah with the regime of the ousted Bashar Al-Assad can be entered into the realm of speculative matters subject to disagreement, despite some Syrians feeling discomfort about it, but it is acceptable. He explains that the resistance is in a situation dubbed a "necessary alliance," pointing out that alliances are either strategic or temporary, driven by necessities governed by rules of necessity in Islamic Sharia, one of which is that necessities permit prohibitions, and that necessity is evaluated according to its magnitude in terms of place, time, person, and circumstances. Hence, we must examine this matter from this perspective, especially as the so-called Sunni states in this context have not provided any serious assistance or support for the resistance.

Controls of Cooperation

For his part, Dr. Hani Mahmoud Al-Azhari, a professor of Islamic Sharia at the Faculty of Law at Ain Shams University in Egypt, and a former Islamic jurisprudence teacher at Al-Azhar University, affirms in his talk to "Al-Mujtama" that there is no legal hindrance for the Palestinian resistance to cooperate with any party within the broad Islamic circle, especially since the resistance has limited options and falls under the realm of necessities; particularly because it does not ally with any party that is hostile to the rights of Arabs and Muslims in Palestine. He adds that while there are many political, intellectual, and doctrinal disagreements with Iran, it still remains within the broad Islamic circle and has its commendable positions, as publicly displayed in support of the resistance and the Palestinian issue, despite some skepticism about this support. Nevertheless, it remains that Iran has the strongest position in terms of support on the level of states.

Historical Precedents and Strategic Cooperation

Dr. Al-Azhari indicates that interactions between Sunnis and Shiites have existed throughout Islamic history and are not new. He points out that in the Shiite Buyid state, the chief legal scholar, or mufti, was a Sunni, namely Imam Al-Mawardi, one of the leaders of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah. His sectarian differences did not prevent him from holding the highest scholarly position in a Shiite state. Al-Azhari emphasizes that such historical precedents are worth reflecting upon to help Muslims escape the narrow-mindedness that some insist upon. He clarifies that collaboration between Sunnis and Shiites in resisting the Zionist enemy does not imply accepting doctrinal or jurisprudential violations in Shiite sects. He states, "We are facing a fire, and if one initiates efforts to extinguish it while we take action to please God, those who are more pious in their devotion should not deny his initiative, dwell on its negatives, or blame him for his sins. Rather, what is required both legally and logically in this instance is to support him and commend his initiative, while continuing to provide advice and engage in kind dialogue, in accordance with the principle: 'We cooperate in what we agree upon and we discuss what we disagree on.' Especially since the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, forged alliances with non-believers despite the shortcomings of their faith that conflict with what we believe. Unity does not mean accepting doctrinal violations from an ally. From a strategic perspective, the language of interests, which Sharia has directed us to pursue as long as it does not conflict with undeniable truths, states: 'Strive for what benefits you.'"

A Matter of Life and Death

In this same context, Egyptian Islamic thinker Magdy Ahmed Hussein, in his discussion with "Al-Mujtama," explains that doctrinal differences are an old issue and are not limited to Shiites and Sunnis. He asserts that the ummah today faces a crusading Zionist campaign against what remains of Palestine, followed by Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, based on the principle of "from the Nile to the Euphrates," which necessitates that Muslims unite without anyone needing to change their religious sect or beliefs. He adds: "Resistance, rather the entire nation, faces a matter of life or death. Those who demand that the resistance reject financial, military, training, and technological support from Iran must provide an alternative. Without an alternative in support, the only option left is surrender and ending the Palestinian issue." Hussein affirms that there exists the opinion which asserts disagreement with Shiites but does not expel them from Islam, a position held by Al-Azhar and other Islamic institutions for decades. He clarifies that anyone declaring Shiites as infidels, according to their viewpoint, should not be an impediment, either legally or politically, to acquiring weapons from Iran. At that point, it would be akin to receiving support from Russia and China in the face of the Zionist enemy, especially since Palestinian resistance will not convert to Shiism or communism. He points out that those who are staunchly devoted to their sect should fight alone and prove their worth; the entire nation will then follow them.