Questions re: Sunni vs. Shia
David Goldman
theological disagreement between Sunni and Shia Islam? How do
adherents of the two forms of Islam view each other from an
ideological/theological point of view?
Also, what are the principle sub-branches of each branch, and what are
their "sub-points" of disagreement among themselves?
I am still curious about the nature of the power of the Alawites in
Syria. Are the Syrian people comfortable with the fact that the
political and military leadership is in the hands of members of group
who are considered to be "deviant" Muslims?
Finally, what is the history of the geographical distribution of Shia
Islam? In other words, what forces brought Shia Islam to Lebanon, and
are there Palestinian Arab Shiites?
Thanks,
David
Shibli Zaman
da...@erols.com (David Goldman) wrote:
> Could someone give me a thumbnail sketch of the principle points of
> theological disagreement between Sunni and Shia Islam? How do
> adherents of the two forms of Islam view each other from an
> ideological/theological point of view?
Specifically about the `Alawis, they are the result of the Fatimid
Shi`ite Caliph al-Hakim who proclaimed himself God at the age of 13.
His eyes being blue and his hair being blonde were supposed attributes
of his divinity. Historically, they were a latent minority in Syria who
often served as farmers, labor class and servants. In the 20th century
the Ba`th party changed all of that. Now we have a reversal in Syrian
society in which that servant class is not the elite class and the
religious Sunni Muslims have been hammered into servitude. However,
many Syrians (Damascenes in particular) have fallen into such a raging
nationalism that they hardly notice that they have become subjects of
the `Alawites. The nationalistic sentiment is so bad in Syria that many
such Damascenes actually will not even marry a Syrian from another
city. However, generally, the religious Syrian Sunni population is very
bitter that their historical prominence has been robbed from them right
in what they see as the very heartland of the Sunni empires.
The difference between Shi`i (in English "Shi`ite") and Sunni sects has
been likened to the difference between Catholic and Protestant
respectively. Though this gives a loosely general idea it is at the
same time highly inadequate. The Shi`ites belief can be summarized in
the following:
According to the Shi`ites, Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) is the
rightful successor of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The 12
ancestors of the Prophet (including Ali) make up what they refer to as
the "12 imams" whom they believe were the successors of prophethood. In
their dogma these Imams are actually at a higher level than the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him). For example as is found in their
compilation of narrations, Usool al-Kaafi of Imam Kulayni, there is the
alleged statement of `Ali,
"..nothing that is hidden can be hidden from me."
[Kitab al-Hujja, Usool al-Kaafi, volume 1]
This is obviously a level higher than that which the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) ever claimed explicitly or implicitly.
Also the 8th Imam Abu `Abdullah (peace be upon him) alleged stated,
"..We possess knowledge of the afflictions, destinies, and genealogies
of the Arabs..On casting a single glance on a man we can tell whether
he is a true believer or a hypocrite." [ibid]
These are claims higher than that which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) ever made. Thus, the Shi`ites venerate their Imams as quasi-
eternal intermediaries between themselves and Allah. They also place
their imams on levels even higher than angels and approaching the
majesty of Allah Himself.
"Verily, I possess the knowledge of all what is in the heavens and the
earth.." [Usool al-Kaafi, vol 1, allegedly stated by Ima Abu `Abdullah]
They believe that the 12th Imam is still alive to this day in
occultation (what the Sunnis believe about Jesus, peace be upon him)
and will return at the end times to destroy the Sunnis, resurrect and
crucify the Pious Caliphs and burn their bodies, resurrect and put
Aisha (may Allah bless her) on trial, and subsequently rule the world
in the name of Shi`ism. This is found in their belief of "ar-raja`a".
Thus, the fundamental difference between the Shi`ites and Sunnis is
actually doctrinal and not about history. History is a smoke screen in
actuality which in essence covers the reality of a quasi-Islamic
movement which is the result of hundreds of years of amalgamation with
Gnostic, Mithraistic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Judaic beliefs.
These are found evident in their rituals and practices such as the
practice of "matam" in which they whip themselves and tear their flesh
in alleged lamentation of the martyrdom of al-Hussain (peace and
blessings upon him). Again one can see the historical smoke screen used
to cover a ritual which is obviously originated in the self torture
methods found in Gnostic and Buddhist asceticism. Such practices are
generally agreed upon by most Near Eastern scholars to be a travesty
from Islam's Semitic character. Genuinely Semitic practices do not
involve self mutilation. The Semites have been more society and
communally oriented rather than focusing on such individualistic morose
asceticism.
The Shi`ites vehemently oppose the use of the "Sunnah" or what the
Sunni world considers the narrations and practices of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) namely in compiled works such as the
Saheeh of al-Bukhari and the Saheeh of al-Muslim.
They claim to be the followers of the Qur'an only. However, their
practices and religion are found nowhere in the Qur'an but are found in
detail in such books as Usool al-Kaafi and Bihaar al-Anwaar which are
their authoritative sources of traditions. Thus, in reality they have
merely traded one "Hadeeth" (narrative) source for another.
>
> Also, what are the principle sub-branches of each branch, and what are
> their "sub-points" of disagreement among themselves?
Within the Sunni world you will find very few sects that do not accept
the other as "non-Sunni". You will find variant groups who claim to be
the "true" followers of the Sunnah, but seldom go as far as to label
the others as "non-Sunni". Traditionally, the Ash`aris, Maturidis,
Hanbalis, etc. have all considered each other Sunni Muslims even though
they have been at odds with each other regarding theological and
doctrinal issues. This is because these issues are considered
insignificant by them and not enough to warrant an issue of
extracommunication from the fold of the Sunnah. Aside from these
theological schools you have four main legalistic schools which are the
Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali schools of thought. These vary on
issues regarding general day to day life such as how to raise one's
hands in prayer, etc and not on primary issues of belief.
There have been a few sects which split off from the Sunnis who are
considered outside of the fold of Islam in totality. These are the
Ahmadiya/Qadianiya (Brittish mandated sect of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of
Qadian, Punjab, India) as well as the Khalifites or 19'ers (those who
believe in Rashad Khalifa and the number 19 as preserving the Qur'an),
and very few others I may have not mentioned. The Habashiya is one sect
that is considered non-Sunni but they are not ostracized to the point
of being called disbelievers.
However, this is not the case with the world of Shi`ism. Within the
Shi`ites you have 12 imam Shi`ites and 7 imam Shi`ites, both of whom
consider the other not true Shi`ites with varying severity. The 7 imam
Shi`ites do not consider the 12 imam Shi`ites as true Shi`ites, but the
12 imam Shi`ites consider a majority of the 7 imam Shi`ites as outright
disbelievers from Islam altogether.
Within these subsects you have even more subsects. Within the 7 imam
Shi`ites you have the Druze, Isma`ilis, Bohris, Khojas, `Alawis,
Nizaris, Nusayris, etc.
Generally, the 7 imam Shi`ites are referred to as "Isma`ilis" since
they split at the 7th imam in favor of Muhammad ibn Isma`il instead of
Musa Kazim whom the 12 imam Shi`ites traced the remainder of their 12
imams from. Then within the Isma`ilis were sects such as the Nizaris,
Nusayris, etc. The reason there are so many sects and subsects is due
to the "Imamate" issue in itself. The Shi`ites could never agree upon
which line of Imams was legitimate. The Nizaris and Nusayris split in
the Isma`ili sect due to differences in the ancestry of the Imams. The
Assassins or "al-Hashishiyeen" (from where the English word "Assassin"
comes) were just one manifestation of Shi`ism's tendencies which are
indisputable when looked at through the looking glass of history.
The Sunni world is in agreement that the Ash`aris, Maturidis, Salafis,
Sufis, Hanbalis, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi`ees, Wahhabis, Tablighis,
Tahriris, Ikhwanis, etc are all Sunni Muslims and in the worst of
debates one will accuse the other of simply being "off the mark" and
not following the "true Sunni" concept. None considers the other non-
Sunnis.
Shi`ism as it is found today is the result of the Safavid conquest of
Iran which began in the 16th century. The Safavids rose from Azerbaijan
in the wake of Timur the butcher who gave their patriarch, Safi-ad-Deen
(after whom the dynasty took its name), the entirety of Azerbaijan.
>From here these Azeri Turks became a military power and conquered Iran.
Then they forcefully converted the entire population (85% Sunni, 25%
Shi`ite) to a form of Shi`ism that had only been practiced by heretics
and was condemned by the Shi`ites themselves. This movement gained
strength as the Safavids became a world power in opposition to the
bastion of Sunni Islam at the time, the Ottoman Empire. They then
established satellite states in neighboring areas. The Mughals in India
were submissive to the Safavid state. The Nizam's of Hyderabad were
official vassals of the Safavid state from where they got the
title "Quli" meaning "subject". This form of Shi`ism is what we see
today which curses the family and companions of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him), and seeks open war with the main body of Muslims
(the Sunnis). Though this was the last nail in the coffin it should not
be mistakenly attributed to the Safavid conquests alone. This was a
thousand year old process which finally saw its covin fruit in the 16th
century and again resurfaced in the 1979 Iranian so-called "Islamic
Revolution".
Before this Shi`ism was love and fealty to the house of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him), and belief that Ali (peace be upon him)
was the most beloved after the Prophet and his rightful heir (without
hatred for the first 3 Caliphs of Islam). They were tolerated and
coexisted with the Sunnis with occasion biases against them and even
the occasional injustice at the hands of the majority.
This is an extremely deep subject and you will see many Shi`ites reply
in vehement protest to this article as is expected. However, facts
speak over hot tempers and emotions. I have simply presented the facts
as they are.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Goldman
outsider, it sounds to me like in Shia and Sunni Islam are actually
different enough to be considered as two separate religions,
especially since you describe the Shia as rejecting that Hadith
tradition of the Sunni, and their conception of the Imams. Does Sunni
Islam consider Shia Islam doctrinally to be heresy, etc.?
If you have further references to the points you discussed, it would
be of great interest. Perhaps a good overview book on the subject. By
the way, how does an Imam in Shia Islam become the leader of a whole
nation, such as Ayatollah Khomeini? Is he elected? And would he
considered the world leader of Shia Islam (i.e. "true Islam")?
Also, what about the history of the geographical distribution of Islam
in places like Lebanon, and elsewhere? Are there Shia Muslims in
North Africa?
David
corr...@my-deja.com
da...@erols.com (David Goldman) wrote:
> Could someone give me a thumbnail sketch of the principle points of
> theological disagreement between Sunni and Shia Islam? How do
> adherents of the two forms of Islam view each other from an
> ideological/theological point of view?
Basically, after the demise of the Messenger of God (Peace be upon him
& his pure progeny), a small group followed his orders and remained
faithful with the true monotheistic faith which all the 124,000
prophets of God brought down to earth.
The vast majority of those who had, at least visibly on the surface,
taken Islam as their faith returned to their previous pagan beliefs
which they mixed with the newly brought faith.
Sunnis, and extremists like Salafis, basically have an antropomorphic
view of God - as did the pagans - believing He has a foot, fingers,
hand, face etc.
They also believe that the faithfuls, after death, will "see" God as a
reward for their life. They attribute false sayings to the Prophet
(PBUH&HP) in order to support this and contradict the Qu'ran.
Quotation from the most authentic sunni book, next to the Qu'ran, Sahih
al-Bukhari.
Sahih Bukhari 9.531:
Narrated Jarir:
Allah's Apostle came out to us on the night of the full moon and said,
"You will see your Lord on the Day of Resurrection as you see this
(full moon) and you will have no difficulty in seeing Him."
The noble word of God in the holy Qu'ran denies this pagan belief:
[Yusufali 6:103] No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all
vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all
things.
This is one example, other examples includes, but isn't limited to, the
belief in predestination, caliphate being a more developed version of
how the pagans elected tribe leaders etc.
The Armin
Actually, you, and anybody else who believes likewise, are wrong if you
understand by "sunni" and "shia" 2 different religions.
There is one Islam, just as there is One God and One Koran. There are many
different kinds of Muslims but only one Islam.
I feel I can comment on this matter more objectively, because I am a convert
without a Sunni/Shia heritage, and also I only think of myself as Muslim (not
wahhabi sufi shia/sunni whatever etc.)
All the differences between the "sunnites" and "shiites" are post-Koranic.
They generally have to do with politics, history, and ritual, but not theology.
The solution to this problem/fitna is simple: "sola sciptura." Emphasize the
Hadith of God, the Koran.
In a sense, the Sunnites are Shiites and the Shiites are Sunnites. The
Shiites do NOT reject the Sunna. Actually, they accept it, but in a slightly
different form. Ironically, the Sunnis owe much of their jurisprudence to the
"Shia/Jafari" scholarship. They have different hadiths and interpretation of
hadiths, but they have the same Koran.
Also, Sunnites are Shiites in the sense that they are descended from the
"Shiat Moawiyya", just as the Shiites are descended from the "Shiat Ali."
Moawiyya and his descendants were the Ommayyad Governors of Damascus. They
were appointed by the Ommayyad Caliph, Othman. There was some tension between
the Ommayyads and the caliphs in Medina, Ali and then later his sons Hasan and
Hussein. The Shiites accuse the Ommayyads of defying the "true caliphs"
(i.e., the House of Ali), and some of them even go so far as to claim that
these Ommayyads were "unbelievers" who actively tried to assasinate the
"sinless" and "most excellent of caliphs" Ali and his sons. Now regardless of
who is right in this sunni-shia dispute, we can see that the argument is
political and tribal, not theological.
It should be pointed out that the Sunni and Shia scholars at Al_azhar in Cairo,
which is the oldest University in the world and the center of Islamic
shcolarship, do NOT consider each other to be non-Muslims and why should they?
(The Alawites are not Muslim, and are considered non-Muslim by other Muslims.
This is because they worship Salman, Ali, and other saints.) Any true Muslim
would worship only the one true God.
The practical differences between Sunnis and Shias follow:
1. Both are to perform 5 canonical prayers a day, but the Shiites like to
perform their prayers back to back.
2. Shiites pray with their hands at their sides in salute; Sunnites pray with
their hands over their abdomen and chest.
3. Shiites like to add to the Hajj to Mecca by also going to places like
Karbala; Sunnis like to add to the Hajj to Mecca by going to Medina.
4. Shiites are generally found in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, East Arabia,
Azerbaijan, and Afghanistan. The rest (China, Indonesia, India, Malaya,
Balkans, Central Asia, Turkey, Arabian Penisnula, Egypt, Maghreb, Sub-Saharan
Africa, etc.) are usually Sunni.
5. Shiites do not accept many of the "hadiths" collected by Bukhari--probably
because Bukhari had a tendency to "collect" hadiths which seemed to favor the
"Sunni" caliphs, and downplay Ali.
6. Shiites generally accept that the House of Mohammed (i.e., Ali and Fatima)
were the rightful caliphs; sometimes (but this is not so common among the shia
masses of today) going so far as to say that Ali and his sons were sinless and
that Omar, Othman, Moawiyya, Yazid, others, and sometimes even Abu Bakr, were
usurpers of the caliphate, or even crypto-infidels.
The resentment against Abu Bakr generally has to do with the feeling among the
Shiites that Mohammed felt that Ali was most qualified to lead the Muslims in
the event of his death and that Abu Bakr gave Aisha to Mohammed to try to get
closer to Mohammed and win his favor.. The resentment against Omar is
generally the product of his vigorous campaign in Iran (which is the modern
champion of Shiism and a modern powerhouse for Islam in more ways than one.)
(Some of the Sunna/Shia dispute has to do with Arab and Iranian distrust and
racism; the Iranians did not accept Jafari jurisprudence until about the 16th
century.) Othman is disliked for his nepotism. Moawiyya is disliked for
defying Ali and then supposedly tricking Hasan, and Yazid is disliked for
allegedly tricking Hussein (under a banner of peace) and then murdering him as
well as his brother, one by the sword and the other supposedly by poison. The
climactic moments of the Sunna-Shia dispute can be seen at Karbala in 680-681
and also at the "Camel" in the late 650's.
In the end, these are all silly disputes which Moslems would be better off not
dwelling on. The matter is not only post-Koranic but also outdated now, since
the caliphate no longer exists. All the Sunni and shia caliphates (who all
considered themselves to be the true caliphs, whether they were in India, Iran,
Turkey, Spain, or wherever/whenever) are dead. Arguably The last caliphate
died when Ataturk, having defeated Greek, Italian, and Allied ambitions in
Anatolia and the Dardannelles, entered Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1923 as
the Ottoman caliph fleed aboard the warships of the retreating French and
British.
Fortunately though, Moslems have never had to dispute the identity of God,
Mohammed, or the Koran.
Hope this helps.
There is one God and Mohammed is His messenger.
Peace.
Shibli Zaman
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:05:21 GMT, corr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Basically, after the demise of the Messenger of God (Peace be upon him
>& his pure progeny), a small group followed his orders and remained
>faithful with the true monotheistic faith which all the 124,000
>prophets of God brought down to earth.
>
>The vast majority of those who had, at least visibly on the surface,
>taken Islam as their faith returned to their previous pagan beliefs
>which they mixed with the newly brought faith.
Had this happened then the mission of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) would have been one of the greatest failures in history.
This is contrary to the simple surah we read in the Qur'an in the 30th
Juz, called surat an-Nasr:
"When the Help of Allah and Victory comes,
When you see the people entering the religion (of Islam) en masse,
Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness;
surely He is oft-returning (to mercy)."
[al-Qur'an 110:1-3]
So according to the Qur'an, Allah sent Help and VICTORY to the Prophet
(peace be upon him). According to the shi`ites He sent failure.
According to the Qur'an, the people entered Islam in CROWDS. However,
according to the shi`ites only a few became true Muslims.
These are such rudimentary and fundamental concepts that it is
bleaguering the point to go into any more detail than this.
>Sunnis, and extremists like Salafis, basically have an antropomorphic
>view of God - as did the pagans - believing He has a foot, fingers,
>hand, face etc.
This is known to be false by any elementary student of the history of
Islamic theology. Imam Abu-l Hasan al-Ash`ary the great Sunni
theologian whose school of though is dominant in the Sunni world is
famous for his legal approach to Allah's Divine Attributes. What is
the term he used? It is "bi laa kayfan" meaning "without asking how".
Imam al-Ash`ary is actually ushered in the end of the rationalist
Mu`tazilite movement WHO DID take Allah's Divine Attributes listed in
the Qur'an literally. Thus, the precedent has been established (and
even discussed here on SRI frequently) that Allah's Divine Attribute
mentioned in the Qur'an are taken without asking "how".
>They also believe that the faithfuls, after death, will "see" God as a
>reward for their life. They attribute false sayings to the Prophet
>(PBUH&HP) in order to support this and contradict the Qu'ran.
>
>Quotation from the most authentic sunni book, next to the Qu'ran, Sahih
>al-Bukhari.
>
>Sahih Bukhari 9.531:
>
>Narrated Jarir:
>
> Allah's Apostle came out to us on the night of the full moon and said,
> "You will see your Lord on the Day of Resurrection as you see this
> (full moon) and you will have no difficulty in seeing Him."
>
>
>The noble word of God in the holy Qu'ran denies this pagan belief:
>
>[Yusufali 6:103] No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all
>vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all
>things.
So nice to quote verses out of context isn't it? Read the context and
you will see that this is talking about seeing Allah IN YOUR LIFETIME.
This is in reference to Allah being unseen as opposed to objects of
worship which are seen every day. This was one of the main arguments
of the mushrikeen that they see their "gods" every day, whereas, the
Muslims worship an "unseen" God.
Let me elucidate the context in case there is any doubt:
" Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah, though Allah did create
the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him
sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what
they attribute to Him!
To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can
He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He
hath full knowledge of all things.
That is Allah, your Lord! there is no god but He, the Creator of all
things: then worship ye Him: and He hath power to dispose of all
affairs.
No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above
all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.
"Now have come to you, from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes): if
any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; if any will
be blind, it will be to his own (harm): I am not (here) to watch over
your doings."
Thus do we explain the signs by various (symbols): that they may say,
"Thou hast taught (us) diligently," and that We may make the matter
clear to those who know.
Follow what thou art taught by inspiration from thy Lord: there is no
god but He: and turn aside from those who join gods with Allah.
If it had been Allah's plan, they would not have taken false gods: but
We made thee not one to watch over their doings, nor art thou set over
them to dispose of their affairs."
[al-Qur'an, Surat al-An`am 6:100-107]
About the verse in question (6:103) the scholars of Qur'anic exegesis
say the following:
"this is with the exception of the vision of the believers in the
after-life based on the verse, 'Some faces, that day, will beam (in
brightness), LOOKING TOWARDS THEIR LORD.' [Surat al-Qiyamah 75:22-23]"
[Tafsir al-Jalalayn]
Ironically, it goes on to narrate the VERY Hadeeth quoted here in
exegesis to the verse itself!
Ibn Kathir narrates in his Tafsir to this verse theopinion of the
Imams of the first generation of Muslims:
"..no one can comprehend (via sight) Him in this world but they will
see Him in the after-life..."
>This is one example, other examples includes, but isn't limited to, the
>belief in predestination, caliphate being a more developed version of
>how the pagans elected tribe leaders etc.
Actually, the Pagans did not select their tribal leaders. Here we have
another travesty of elementary historical education. Islam is the
earliest system, apart from the Greeks, who selected their statesmen.
This was instituted in CONTRAST to the dynastic leadership that was
prevalent not only in Arabia but throughout the world in the late 7th
century. This should be covered in a basic Western Civilization class
which I believe is a core requirement in colleges and universities
throughout the United States.
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
rja...@my-deja.com
da...@erols.com (David Goldman) wrote:
> Could someone give me a thumbnail sketch of the principle points of
> theological disagreement between Sunni and Shia Islam? How do
> adherents of the two forms of Islam view each other from an
> ideological/theological point of view?
try:
http://al-islam.org/murajaat/index.htm
The main issue of difference is Khilafah. The sunni say that the
Prophet appointed no one as successor and left it to the community of
muslims to decide who should assume leadership after him
through "shuraa" (consultation).
The shi'i say that he appointed 'Ali as his successor through an order
>from God. If the Khalifah was the representative of the people it
would be fine for the community to choose one through consultation.
But the Khalifah is Not the representive of the people. He is the
representative of God. Only God chooses his representative. The
people don't choose the representative of God:
They quote:
And your Lord creates and chooses whom He pleases; to choose is not
theirs; glory be to Allah, and exalted be He above what they associate
(with Him). [28:68]
Imran Razi
> Imam al-Ash`ary is actually ushered in the end of the rationalist
> Mu`tazilite movement WHO DID take Allah's Divine Attributes listed in
> the Qur'an literally.
No they didn't. What Attributes did you have in mind? Also, Imam
Al-Ashari was severely criticized a bit later by strict followers of
hadith, who disliked theology in any form. These followers became
dominant in later centuries. This decade's hero becomes next decade's
goat.
By the way, the rise or fall of this or that school, particularly in
theology but also in law, had much more to do with political dynamics
at the time than the truth or lack thereof of any position. The
Ismailis (or "Batini") were quite successful for many years in some
areas despite doctrines that were/are barely coherent, for example.
Al-Ashari did have famous arguments against what later Muslim scholars
described as "canonical" Mutazila positions (extreme positions
completely adhered to by only a few later Mutazila), but those
arguments had counterarguments, and had little to do with the decline
of Mutazila thought.
Finally, a pet peeve: The "-ite" suffix used in terms such as Shiite,
Mutazilite, etc. is a Western, non-Muslim terminology which encourage
all Muslims to abandon. It is as objectionable as the terms mosque,
Avicenna, Malcolm X, and others. I request all Muslims to stop using
the conceptual framework of the non-Muslims, especially in regards to
Islamic or Muslim terms.
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
Shibli Zaman
> I feel I can comment on this matter more objectively, because I am a
convert
> without a Sunni/Shia heritage, and also I only think of myself as
Muslim (not
> wahhabi sufi shia/sunni whatever etc.)
This is akin to saying "I am a convert to Christianity without any
particular belief in Jesus' nature". It simply doesn't make sense. If
you hold a certain number of beliefs then you fall into a certain
category. If you believe that the 12 imams of the Shi`ites received
divine revelations like the ringing of a bell and that Ali (`alayhis-
salaam) will determine who goes to heaven or hell then you are a
Shi`ite and can not be considered anything else. If you reject these
ideas as heretical and adhere to the Qur'an and the Hadeeth which meet
the criteria of veracity established by the first generations of
Muslims then you are a Sunni and can't be considered otherwise.
Your notion is an idealistic one and, equally, unrealistic. It is very
insincere of certain Muslims to eschew the truth in order to make Islam
more palatable to the non-Muslim masses. It is a sin and it is a
disservice to Islam itself.
Now, regarding some incorrect statements:
> All the differences between the "sunnites" and "shiites" are post-
Koranic.
This is false. Their hatred for the wife of the Prophet, the Mother of
the Believers, Ayesha (r) is quite Qur'anic as she was strongly
defended by Allah himself in Surat an-Noor. This is something both the
Sunnis and Shi`ites agree upon. The ones whispering against Ayesha (r)
happened to be those who were surrounding Ali (as) from the beginning.
Ali (as) himself was rebuked by Allah in the Qur'an for not defending
her strongly enough when the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam)
asked his opinion concerning that matter (al-Qur'an, Surat al-Noor,
24:12-19).
> They generally have to do with politics, history, and ritual, but not
theology.
This is false and I am actually quite amazed that you say this in light
of the narrations I quoted from Usool al-Kaafi which are very much
theological issues and have absolutely nothing to do with politics,
history or ritual. The Shi`ites believe their imams to be on a level
even higher than that of the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam)
himself. It even compromises the knowledge of Allah regarding the
unseen (refer to my previous post for the quotes). As I mentioned in
that post they hide these Gnostic, Mithraist, Buddhist, Vedic, and
Judaic beliefs under the guise of historical "injustice". The issue is
very theological and you should not play this down and deny something
so obvious that the Shi`ites and the Sunnis are extremely different
>from one another on the fundamentals of faith.
> In a sense, the Sunnites are Shiites and the Shiites are Sunnites.
The
> Shiites do NOT reject the Sunna. Actually, they accept it, but in a
slightly
> different form. Ironically, the Sunnis owe much of their
jurisprudence to the
> "Shia/Jafari" scholarship. They have different hadiths and
interpretation of
> hadiths, but they have the same Koran.
This is also very false. "The Sunnah" is none other than the Sunnah of
the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam). There is no other
Sunnah in Islam. However, you say that both Sunnis and Shi`ites follow
this Sunnah but in different forms. This is like saying those who drink
Welch's Grape Juice and those who drink Wine both drink alcohol but in
different forms. What the Shi`ites claim to be their traditions are
actual the traditions of the 12 imams and very few in contrast have
anything to do with the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa
sallam) at all. Buy a copy of Usool al-Kaafi (you more than likely
would have to import it) and take a look for yourself how much emphasis
is on the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) himself.
The Sunnah which the Sunni world follows has been authenticated
historically as well as archaeologically. Read Saifullah's post on this:
http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
AN=634751463&CONTEXT=963863457.996999330&hitnum=13
Also, the notion that Sunni Islam got its jurisprudence from what you
coin as "Shia/Jafari" is an extreme distortion of the truth. If
by "Jafari" you mean the jurisprudence of Imam Ja`far aS-Saadiq, then
the only historically established existent example of that would be the
jurisprudence of his two chief students, Imam Abu Haneefa and Imam
Malik. These two are two major Imams of the 4 schools of thought in
Sunni Islam, the Hanafi and Maliki schools, respectively. The rest of
the attribution to Imam Ja`far by the Shi`ites is so historically
unfounded that Usool al-Kaafi narrates Hadeeth from him which have the
donkey of the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) in the chain of
transmission (quote "`an Hemaar ar-rasoolillaah")!!
So these statements of yours are also extremely false.
> Also, Sunnites are Shiites in the sense that they are descended from
the
> "Shiat Moawiyya", just as the Shiites are descended from the "Shiat
Ali."
This is also false as this was a division between the Companions of the
Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) politically and not a division
between whether you believe Ali will say whether you go to hell or not.
You are speaking of historical and political events hundreds of years
before the Shi`ites even existed. From all archaeological and
historical data the lifestyles and rituals of the Muslims from the
earliest generations were more in key with the majority Sunni group of
Islam. There exists not a single document prior to the 10th AD century
on which "wa `Aliy waliyyullah" is written in existence. If you believe
otherwise I would like to see your data!
> Moawiyya and his descendants were the Ommayyad Governors of
Damascus. They
> were appointed by the Ommayyad Caliph, Othman. There was some
tension between
> the Ommayyads and the caliphs in Medina, Ali and then later his sons
Hasan and
> Hussein. The Shiites accuse the Ommayyads of defying the "true
caliphs"
This is also false as there was no tension between Hasan (as) and
Mu`awiya (r). They made peace and lived in congruence with each other
in harmony. Hasan (as) never rose against him in any context of
history. Please present any data otherwise.
> It should be pointed out that the Sunni and Shia scholars at Al_azhar
in Cairo,
> which is the oldest University in the world and the center of Islamic
> shcolarship, do NOT consider each other to be non-Muslims and why
should they?
Al-Azhar also sanctioned the Camp David accords. They also were silent
when al-Hakim, the Fatimid ruler, declared himself a god. Could it be
because the Fatimids FOUNDED al-Azhar? This institution has sadly been
manipulated by its ruling policies for hundreds of years. Though it is
an invaluable source of scholarship its publicized verdicts need to be
passed through a strainer of scrutiny.
> (The Alawites are not Muslim, and are considered non-Muslim by other
Muslims.
> This is because they worship Salman, Ali, and other saints.) Any
true Muslim
> would worship only the one true God.
This is one statement that is actually sound.
> 2. Shiites pray with their hands at their sides in salute; Sunnites
pray with
> their hands over their abdomen and chest.
This is false. The entirety of Maliki North Africa prays with their
hands to their sides and they are Sunni.
> 3. Shiites like to add to the Hajj to Mecca by also going to places
like
> Karbala; Sunnis like to add to the Hajj to Mecca by going to Medina.
Wouldn't it make more sense to visit the Prophet Muhammad's
(Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) grave rather than visit Iraq?
> 4. Shiites are generally found in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, East Arabia,
> Azerbaijan, and Afghanistan. The rest (China, Indonesia, India,
Malaya,
> Balkans, Central Asia, Turkey, Arabian Penisnula, Egypt, Maghreb, Sub-
Saharan
> Africa, etc.) are usually Sunni.
This is also statistically inaccurate as many of the countries you
mentioned actually have ISMA`ILI communities which make up their
alleged "Shi`ite" population. The 12 Imam Shi`ites would not want to be
considered one with their Isma`ilite brethren. Afghanistan for example
has a 75% Isma`ilite majority in their 15% Shi`ite population.
> 5. Shiites do not accept many of the "hadiths" collected by Bukhari--
probably
> because Bukhari had a tendency to "collect" hadiths which seemed to
favor the
> "Sunni" caliphs, and downplay Ali.
This is completely false as Bukhari is in accordance with the earliest
dated manuscripts of Hadeeth which are from the lifetimes of the
companions. Refer to the link to Saifullah's article I pasted earlier.
Bukhari's SaHeeH has an entire section devoted to Ali's merits and he
is the most mentioned under "merits of the companions". You say you are
neither Sunni nor Shi`ite but you only repeat Shi`ite polemics. Why is
this?
There is even more attacks on the foundations upon which the Muslim
Ummah was built that I can't go into any more detail without gracing
those attacks as valid.
> Fortunately though, Moslems have never had to dispute the identity of
God,
> Mohammed, or the Koran.
This is a naive statement.
> There is one God and Mohammed is His messenger.
This also is a sound statement.
I find it extremely unjust when Muslims use propoganda type methods in
order to make Islam more digestable to non-Muslims. Islam is, as it is,
the truth from God without the need for human embellishment. When
someone wants information about Islam, just give it to them with
sources and proof. Leave out the propoganda, polemics, and other folly.
Regards,
--
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
Shibli Zaman
Again here is an example of using history to hide the core issues..
> The main issue of difference is Khilafah. The sunni say that the
> Prophet appointed no one as successor and left it to the community of
> muslims to decide who should assume leadership after him
> through "shuraa" (consultation).
This is a smoke screen. The issue is not Khilafa. Follow the thread in
this newsgroup regarding "Monarchy in Islam". There are opinions that
monarchy is allowed and there are opinions that it must be a Khilafa.
However, neither opinion takes one outside of being a Sunni. If there
were to be an Imamate over the Muslims and all the Muslims were to
agree that `Ali (as) were to be the first imam and then a succession of
Imams ruling the Muslims after that this would not change whether one
was Sunni or Shi`ite. This is because even if they were united on this,
one section of the community would believe this:
al Kulayni in al Kaafi in Kitab al Hujja, volume 1, page 285 narrates
that Abu Abdullah claimed that Ali ibn Abi Talib (r) allegedly said, "I
know the destined hours of all creatures, the afflictions that would
befall them, and their genealogies. My word shall discern truth from
falsehood. I shall not be tried for my inconsistencies and errors.
ANYTHING THAT IS HIDDEN CAN NOT BE HIDDEN FROM ME..."
Whereas, another section of the community would declare such a
statement NONSENSE. That section rejecting this claim would be the
Sunnis.
[polemic deleted]
David, I would advise you that you have touched upon a
controversial "hot spot" laden with propoganda, polemics, and LOTS of
emotions. The best advice I can give you is stick to the facts (not
just Islamic sources, but all *RELIABLE* historical sources) and avoid
emotionalist propoganda.
Best Regards,
A.S.R.I
>This is one example, other examples includes, but isn't limited to, the
>belief in predestination, caliphate being a more developed version of
>how the pagans elected tribe leaders etc.
It is also well known that Bukhari recorded an "authentic" hadith saying
that "khilafa belongs to the tribe of Quraysh", and "if there are only two
men on earth, it is the one from quraysh who must rule". So, we have not to
wonder that many arab sunnis rulers of today claim that their ancestors are
>from Quraysh tribe (some go further and claim their ancestor is none but
prophet Mohammad himself!!)
The sunnis muslims dare criticize the imamat theory of shi'a and forget the
NONSENSE of their own theory of khilafa!!
A.S.R.I
seer...@my-deja.com
rja...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Could someone give me a thumbnail sketch of the principle points of
> > theological disagreement between Sunni and Shia Islam? How do
>
> Prophet appointed no one as successor and left it to the community of
> muslims to decide who should assume leadership after him
> through "shuraa" (consultation).
>
> >from God.
This is one of the most widespread illusions as far as the Schi’ah sect is
concerned.
After the death of the Prophet(SAW) there was some dispute about who
should success him(SAW). That dispute was very normal and could
happen with every group of humans , in fact, it would had have been
ABNORMAL if there was no dispute at all during those tense circumstances.
That dispute was resolved very soon, Abu Baker(RA), who was the best
candidate, was appointed as the Khalifa. This is not meant to belittle the
rank of any of the other candidates, but Abu Baker(RA) was indeed the
man of that hour, the crucial events that immediately took place after his
appointment had proven his choice beyond any doubt.
This was, by the way, the FIRST time in the history of man-kind that a
community would FREELY choose and appoint its ruler.
Ali(RA) was for sure one of the top candidates to become the successor of
the Prophet. Ali(RA) had never claimed that he was especially appointed
by the Prophet as his successor, neither when those events took place nor
at any later times. There is not a single authentic account in which Ali(RA)
or any other of the members of the noble family of the Prophet or anyone
else had made such a claim.
This fabricated story that Ali was divinely appointed as the successor of
the Prophet(SAW) was invented many years after the death of Ali(RA).
W’assallam,
Seeraj
Cbun
The Mu'tazila interpret the Attributes of Allah (subhanehu
Wa t'ala)as oposed to "take Allah's Divine Attributes
listed in the Qur'an literally".
It is true that Imam Al-Ashari was severely criticized by
the folowers of hadith and who were against using
philosophy to understand the Attributes of Allah (subhanehu
Wa t'ala).
Imam al-Ash`ary held the beliefs of the Mu'tazila as his
teacher was a Mu'tazili. He later rejected and refuted the
belief of the Mu'tazila.
Al-Hafidh Ibn 'Asaakir reports from Imam Al-Ashari;
"We belive in all the narations which are confirmed by the
reporters regarding the descending to the lowest heaven,
and that the Lord says 'Who askes, who is seeking
forgiveness'" - al-Tabayin by Ibn Asaakir, and Al-Ibaana by
Imam Al-Ashari
Refuting the Mu'tazila, Imam Al-Ashari says,
"... The Mu'tazila say, 'the descending is the descending
of His signs and His angels, and the ascending means
conquered.'" Al-Ibaana, and Maqalaat al_islamiyeen, by Imam
Al-Ashari
The Ash'arya who became dominant in later centuries until
today do follow the belief that was held by Imam Al-Ashari
before he rejected the belief of the Mu'tazila. Their
dominance was facilitated with the political dominance of
those rulers who were influenced by the psuedo Ashari creed.
Similarly, the spread of Shi'a in Iran was facilitated with
the political dominance of rulers who were influenced by
the Shi'a creed. The Mu'tazila were also able to influence
the Khalifa al M'amoon and attempted to impose their
devient belief on the believers. One must remember that
political dynamics has a lot to do with the dominance of a
certain creed that people hold at a given time and place.
Al Habashi (not Ahbash, Salafi, ... but one who tries to be
on the path "ma ana 'alaihi wa Ashabi" - as Resulullah
sallallahu 'alihi wa sallem)
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Cbun
> > Could someone give me a thumbnail sketch of the
> principle points of
> > theological disagreement between Sunni and Shia
> Islam? How do
> from an
> > ideological/theological point of view?
> try:
> http://al-islam.org/murajaat/index.htm
The issue of diffrence is not Khilafah but it is used as a
smoke screen to distroy Islam.
The Shia belief as we know it today is full of heresy, and
strange ideas not known at the time of the messenger of
Allah sallahu a'alaihi wa sallam and the Sahaba
radiallahu 'anhum). To attribute the main issue of
difference to Khilafah is very misleading. You need to make
a comparative study - based on the Qur'an and Sunnah - to
see the glaring difference.
Al Habashi (not Ahbash, Salafi, ... but one who tries to be
on the path "ma ana 'alaihi wa Ashabi" )
The Armin
Shibli Zaman wrote:
>This is akin to saying "I am a convert to Christianity without any
>particular belief in Jesus' nature". It simply doesn't make sense.
No. It makes a lot of sense to say that I am a Muslim, not a "Sunnite" or
"Shiite."
And actually, it is akin to saying, " I am a convert to Christianity, but I do
not really care who the defender of the Church is, who the Holy Roman Emperor
is, or whether the Pope should grant Henry VIII a divorce?"
> If
>you hold a certain number of beliefs then you fall into a certain
>category.
Correct. I hold the belief that there is one God who taught Mohammed the
Koran, and will judge the world. This belief is shared by 25% or more of the
world's people, and more than 95% of the people who call themselves Muslims.
> If you believe that the 12 imams of the Shi`ites received
>divine revelations like the ringing of a bell and that Ali (`alayhis-
>salaam) will determine who goes to heaven or hell then you are a
>Shi`ite and can not be considered anything else.
You premise is false. "Shiites" do not believe God sent revelation after
Mohammed, and they do not believe Ali or any man will judge the world. There
may be certain individuals who believe such things, but the Shiite masses do
not believe such things.
>Your notion is an idealistic one and, equally, unrealistic. It is very
>insincere of certain Muslims to eschew the truth in order to make Islam
>more palatable to the non-Muslim masses. It is a sin and it is a
>disservice to Islam itself
It is idealistic, but it is also proper and realistic as well. And actually,
it is not my business to make Islam "palatable" to non-Muslims. God has been
doing that; that is why Islam is to this day the world's fastest growing
religion. The only sin in this context is to try to divide the religion.
>This is false
Actually, it is true that the differences between so-called "Shiites" and
"Sunnites" are post-Koranic. This can be seen by the fact that:
1. They argue over the authenticity of various hadiths outside the Koran but
not the Koran itself.
2. The schism emerged AFTER the Koran was completely revealed and written
down, indeed DECADES after. And even as the schism mounted, both parties
always appealed to the SAME Koran to resolve their differences (as can be seen
in the 650's when the opposing parties put the pages of the Koran on the tips
of their swords as they stood ready to battle each other.) Of course, I am
referring to the incident resulting from Moawiyya's march against the caliph
Ali.
>Their hatred for the wife of the Prophet, the Mother of
>the Believers, Ayesha (r) is quite Qur'anic as she was strongly
>defended by Allah himself in Surat an-Noor. This is something both the
>Sunnis and Shi`ites agree upon.
The Shiite objection to Ayesha's legacy has no relevance to the Koran. It is
true that the Koran defends Ayesha in a PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL incident which
occurred during the lifetime of Mohammed and that the Shiites recognize this.
However, the Shiites prinicipal objection to Ayesha comes from her defiance of
the caliph Ali, long AFTER Mohammed has moved on. And it is fair to say that
Ayesha sided with the Omayyads against the caliph Ali.
>The Shi`ites believe their imams to be on a level
>even higher than that of the Prophet
I had written that the differences between the Shiites and Sunnites were not
theological, and I was correct in doing so. Again sir, your premise is false.
"Shiites" do not believe Ali or any other man to be more excellent than
Mohammed. (There may be certain individuals who adhere to such false beliefs,
but the Shiite masses do not.) Shiites believe the House of Ali is more
excellent than the Omayyads, who resisted Mohammed most fiercely with their
money and power and then were the last ones to convert. As to the
Sunnite/Shiite argument over which conversions were "genuine," God knows who
is and who is not a Muslim and it is useless arguing about it. It is notable
that Ali was Mohammed's first or second convert, and it was Ali, on the
battlefield, and everywhere else, who demonstrated that he was the greatest of
Mohammed's human helpers, outside of God and the angels. Even ignorant heathen
like Dante recognize the fact, which is why they in their wishful thinking like
to imagine that Mohammed and Ali are burning together, next to each other at
the bottom of Hell-- God forbid!
>This is also very false. "The Sunnah" is none other than the Sunnah of
>the Prophet Muhammad
Actually, I think the Koran refers to the Sunna of God.......
>There is no other
>Sunnah in Islam. However, you say that both Sunnis and Shi`ites follow
>this Sunnah but in different forms. This is like saying those who drink
>Welch's Grape Juice and those who drink Wine both drink alcohol but in
>different forms.
No. Actually, it is like one party saying, "My cup of grape juice is pure;
your grape juice has 10% additives and preservatives" with the other party then
returning the favor with the same statement.
>Also, the notion that Sunni Islam got its jurisprudence from what you
>coin as "Shia/Jafari" is an extreme distortion of the truth
This is an amazing statement from you considering that you THEN go on to
acknowledge that 2 major "schools" of the Sunnis are indebted to the work of 2
"students" of a Shiite Imam! The information you provided in your post lends
credence to the importance of Jafari jurisprudence.
>This is also false as this was a division between the Companions of the
>Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) politically and not a division
>between whether you believe Ali will say whether you go to hell or not.
The "Shiat Ali" and "Shiat Moawiyya" were not and are not now based on "Ali's
judgment" of the world. To be honest, I have to say that is quite an absurd
response from you. The Shiat Ali and Moawiiya derive from the defiance of
Moawiyya and Ayesha and others towards the caliph Ali, more than 20 years after
Mohammed had passed away. The issue was (and still is I suppose) the
"caliphate."
>You are speaking of historical and political events hundreds of years
>before the Shi`ites even existed.
No. I am speaking of events in the 7th century. You are making a bizarre
observation here because you seem to be saying that "Shiites" did not exist in
the 7th century. Now, I do not accept that observation at all but I suppose
it depends on what you mean by a Shia, after all the word can literally be
translated a "partisan." The fact of the matter is that there were "partisans
of Moawiyya" and partisans of Ali in the 650's. The Sunnites and Shiites
derive ultimately from these 2 parties. We also have to remember that in those
days there was only "Muslim"; there was no such think as Maliki, Jafari,
Wahabi, etc. so there is some truth to your point.
>From all archaeological and
>historical data the lifestyles and rituals of the Muslims from the
>earliest generations were more in key with the majority Sunni group of
>Islam
>From all? No, I think you mean from your, and from those who think like you.
The truth is that the Shiites and Sunnites have both fabricated traditions in
order to justify their stupid arguments and petty disputes. This is why it is
important to emphasize the Hadith of God, the Koran.
>There exists not a single document prior to the 10th AD century
>on which "wa `Aliy waliyyullah" is written in existence. If you believe
>otherwise I would like to see your data!
Perhaps you are right, but I never recall saying in my earlier post that that
Arabic statement did in fact or didn't occur in ancient manuscipts. The truth
is that many Sunnite and Shiite traditions were fabricated more than 100 years
after Mohammed had passed away, so you do have point but one which is
irrelevent since I never stated or implied-- and have not seen any Muslim do
so-- that such a statement occurred.
>This is also false as there was no tension between Hasan (as) and
>Mu`awiya (r
Oh but there was! After Ali's assassination, Hasan became caliph. Moawiyya
then pressured Hasan to "strike a deal" and give up the caliphate, and in
return Hasan would become caliph upon Moawiyya's death. We both know that that
this agreement was not honored. Upon Moawiyya's death, his son became caliph,
and let's just say that certain unpleasant things were happening to Hasan and
Huseein at about that same time.
>They made peace and lived in congruence with each other
>in harmony.
Yes they "made peace" but some of the Omayyads never honored this. There was
no peace or harmony and it only got worse as can be seen by the assassination
of Hasan and the massacre at Karbala.
>Hasan (as) never rose against him in any context of
>history.
True. I never said he did. Hasan did not show the strength of his father and
bowed to Omayyad pressure instead of asserting himself (which resulted in such
nonsense as non-Arabs being prevented from converting to Islam as well as
Muslims having to bow each time an Omayyad emperor walked by on the street
unless he wanted to get his head cut off.) But Moawiyya did successfully rise
against Ali and Hasan, just as his "son" Yazid would successfully rise against
Hussein.
>Al-Azhar also sanctioned the Camp David accords. They also were silent
>when al-Hakim, the Fatimid ruler, declared himself a god. Could it be
>because the Fatimids FOUNDED al-Azhar?
The Fatimids did found Al-Azhar, but it is a Sunni-dominated institution, and
it properly recognizes Muslims as Muslims. Sure, Al-Azhar has made mistakes,
but more often than not, it is right. This can be seen by the fact that MOST
Muslims in practice agree with al-Azhar in its ruling on these matters. The
OIC conference was recently held in Iran. 60 Muslim nations would not be so
stupid (would they?) to allow an OIC meeting to be held in a "non-Muslim"
country (as you apparently imagine Iran to be?)
>This is false. The entirety of Maliki North Africa prays with their
>hands to their sides and they are Sunni.
Good. I am happy(?) to hear that. That seems to reinforce my point about the
basic unity of Sunni and Jafari jurisprudence, since Sunni jurisprudence finds
some of its origins in Jafar.
>Wouldn't it make more sense to visit the Prophet Muhammad's
>(Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) grave rather than visit Iraq?
It would be more proper to visit, in accordance with the Koran, ONLY Mecca for
religious duties, and the others you can visit (if you like) along with Paris,
the Pyramids, and the Great Wall for "family-filled fun" or whatever you like
to call it.
.>> Fortunately though, Moslems have never had to dispute the identity of
>God,
>> Mohammed, or the Koran.
>
>This is a naive statement.
Christians debated the identities of God and Jesus at the Councils of Nicea and
Chalcedon and numerous other events, will you please cite a similar incident in
Islam, if I have indeed made a "naive statement."
There is One God, the Koran is His Book, and Mohammed is His Messenger.
Peace.
--statistical demographic nonsense, general rhetoric, and absurd claims about
"Bukhari's hadiths" dating from Mohammed's time (!) snipped.
qizilbash
da...@erols.com (David Goldman) wrote:
> Could someone give me a thumbnail sketch of the principle points of
> theological disagreement between Sunni and Shia Islam? How do
> adherents of the two forms of Islam view each other from an
> ideological/theological point of view?
Hi Dave,
Firstly, I just wanted you to know that I was born a shi'i, but I
believe what I write here will be fair.
Shia and Sunni Islam disagree on many points and topics of all aspect:
historical, theological, philosophical,etc. It must remembered that
both sects are not uniform and there is a lot variety in each. For
example you would find a follower of sufism in Sunni Islam closer to a
follower of sufism in Shi'i Islam, than suppose a follower of Sunni sufi
Islam and a salafi/Wahabi.
Here are some main topics:
1. Determinism vs Stochastic
A. Sunni Islam believes in pre-destiny.
B. Shia Islam believes in a state between pre-destinity and free-will.
It is interesting to note that this idea is stilll at the heart of
debate of modern science as well and fundamental theorems of Atom.
Heisenburgs uncertainty principle which was vehemntly rejected by
Einstein comes to mind.
2. The nature of God.
A. Most sects within Sunni Islam believes God can be seen.
B. Some sects within Sunni Islam believe the Quran literally and thus
believe God has saaq(shin) which will be made bare.
C. All sects within Shi'ite Islam believes God can not been seen.
D. Some sects within Shi'ite Islam believe that God can manifest his
light and a perfect being acts as mirror for the divine light.
E. Sufi sects within both sects believe in Wahdat-al-wujud.
3. Politics
A. Sunni Islam supports a caliphate system. The Caliph is supported
because he is the protector of the Ummah. Then you have unjust caliphs
like Muawiyah, Teymur lame(who killed many sunnis) and some Ottoman
Caliphs(which ravaged the Balkans) supported.
B. Shi'i Islam theoretically does not support unjust caliphs and
believes the caliph must be chosen by God , thus making the caliph
equivalent to an Imam.
C. In reality Shi'i Muslims have supported corrupt caliphs as much as
their Sunni brethen, so the Imamat is an ideal subject matter.
According to some Shi'i sayings of the Imams, Shi'ites are not suppored
to delve into politics. But again, the reality of the situation is
diffrent.
4. Matters of Rituals
A. There are many similarities but also some very diffrences betweent
he sects. For example they both pray to Mecca, but most Shi'ites gather
at friday nights while all sunnis gather during the friday noon.
5. Quran
A. There are hadeeths in Both sect that attest to incompleteness of the
Quran although All Sunni scholars and majority of Shi'i scholars believe
that the Quran is complete. There is not any proof of this fact(and in
reality there won't be, because you will actually contradict Godel's
theorem). So it is not provable unless you accept an axiom outside the
system, which would is called belief/Iman/Faith in theological terms.
B. Some Shi'i scholars believed that the Quran has not changed in
words, but there are some chapters missing. This is not the
positions of majority of shi'ite scholars.
6. Classic Philosophy(Aristotle, Plato, Kay Khosravi, Sohrovardi, Ibn
Arab, Mulla Sadra, Farab(the second plato), Mullah Hardi Sabzivari...
A. In Sunni Islam philosophy became dead after Imam Ghazzali.
B. In Shi'i Islam philosophy is still thought and Shi'i Islam has a
coherent philosophical system illuminated by the great Mulla Sadra.
> Also, what are the principle sub-branches of each branch, and what are
> their "sub-points" of disagreement among themselves?
There many sub-branches within each branch. If you have a question on
specific subsect, you should check out a good library like the
Princeton Near-east Libary or any other major University libary..
>
> I am still curious about the nature of the power of the Alawites in
> Syria.
The Alawites are indeed an interesting case. On their origin is two
theories. The first theory is that their origin goes actually back to
Nusayr who was an adopted son of Ali(AS). The story is long, but Nusayr
becomes a worshipper of Ali(AS) and recognizes him as the manifestation
of the divine. This theory can be supported by the fact that at the
time of Muawiya, they were people that worshipped Ali(AS).
The second theory which is cited by Encyclopedia's, but in my opinion is
much weaker, is the theory of a person by the name of Ibn-Nusayr who
started worshipping the 11th Shi'i Imam(AS). Either way, another name
for the alawites in Syria is Nusayri. It is my opinion due to their
celebrations of Persian festivals like Nowruz, Mehrigan and
Tiregan(Zoroastrian festivals that are barely celebrated in Iran now)
that these people are actually arabized Kurds. The similarities with
some other sects found in Kurdistan is clear.
A historical joke that I always liked was that 1400 years a man named
Muawiyah that cursed Imam Ali(AS) is on the throne in Syria, but today
there are people in power that worship him. Just another reason that
makes learning history, fun.
> Are the Syrian people comfortable with the fact that the
> political and military leadership is in the hands of members of group
> who are considered to be "deviant" Muslims?
I do not think they really care and Syria is more stable than any other
Arab countries, even the ones supported by the West. Plus Iraq is ruled
by a 15% Sunni-Arab minority(The Kurds and Shi'is make up about 85% of
the population).
Bahrain is ruled by a Sunni minority as well. So these things are
common. Comparing Assad's leadership to many other Arab rulers, you can
say that the man had integrity and was very shrewed. He was the only
non-sunni "Arab" ruler. These countries like Bahrain, Saudi, Iraq,
Syria and so on are artificial countries, without a real state idendity.
I would not be suprised to see if there is a seperate alawi state that
compromises part of Syria oneday.
Iran on the other hand have had a continous state-idendity for at least
500 years and have survived diffrent games , invasions(Arab,
Greek,Mongol..) and so on. So the problem with artificial countries
might be that their state Idendity is not real, which might cause them
problems. Most of these artificial countries where created by Britian
and then France. A lot of problems of the region and also in African in
many expert opinions is because of some of their bizarre
artificial borders.
>
> Finally, what is the history of the geographical distribution of Shia
> Islam?
Shi'i are majority in Iran(about 90%), Iraq(65%), Bahrain(75%),
Lebanon(I don't have the number, but Druze+alawite+12-Imami Shi'ite
should make over 50% in Lebabon. I know 12-Imami Shi'ites are the
largest sect there), Azerbaijan(75%). Also there are significant
numbers of shi'i groups in Turkey, Kurdistan, Albania, Afghanistan,
Centeral Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, and some countries in Africa
mainly Tanzania.
Also Shi'ites are majority in the oil rich regions of Saudi Arabia, thus
making them important in the geopolitical nature of the Persian Gulf.
> In other words, what forces brought Shia Islam to Lebanon, and
> are there Palestinian Arab Shiites?
What brought Shi'i Islam to Lebanon is not an easy question. The
community believes it was Abu Dhar(RA), the companion of the
Prophet(PBUH) and Ali(AS) who brought it there.
In my opinion there are two ways to learn about Shi'i and Sunni Islam.
Your best bet to learn about Shi'i Islam and Sunni Islam is to actually
use the research of western scholars. The above information I provided
was also based from western sources.
You should also learn about Shi'i Islam from Shi'i sources. The same
with Sunni Islam.
A mistake would be to learn about Shi'i Islam from a Sunni person as you
would find many prejudices due to 1400 years of animosity. The
vice-versa is also true.
I won't recommend you books on Sunni Islam, but about Shi'i Islam,
try these two by a late Orientalist who converted to Shi'i Islam:
1. voyage and the Messenger : Iran and Philosophy
by Henry Corbin, Joseph H. Rowe (Translator), Jacob Needleman (Preface)
2. Spiritual Body and Celestial Earthby Henry Corbin, Nancy Pearson
(Translator)
3. History of Islamic Philosophy by Henry Corbin, Liadain Sherrard
(Translator). Hardcover (April 1993)
4. The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism by Henry Corbin
5. The following site provides you with a short article on Shi'i Islam:
a. http://www.al-islam.org/anthology/index.htm
b. http://www2.mozcom.com/~habib/islamstu.htm
I hope this helps your research.
Regards
GF Haddad
Shibli Zaman wrote in message <8l438u$62p$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>Al-Azhar [...] were silent
>when al-Hakim, the Fatimid ruler, declared himself a god. Could it be
>because the Fatimids FOUNDED al-Azhar?
Apparently the founders were not very successful at maintaining even a
minority of Shi`is in Egypt. Perhaps, al-Azhar should be credited for this
historical development as well just as it is blamed for others?
>> 2. Shiites pray with their hands at their sides in salute; Sunnites
>pray with
>> their hands over their abdomen and chest.
>
>This is false. The entirety of Maliki North Africa prays with their
>hands to their sides and they are Sunni.
I would say: the majority. Qabd (grasping) is preferred by some fuqaha' in
the Maliki madhhab and many Malikis follow that fatwa. Add to this the
"Salafi" campaign in Maliki North Africa that is trying to propagate the
innovated belief that sadl (hanging arms) invalidates the salat.
>> 4. Shiites are generally found in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, East Arabia,
>> Azerbaijan, and Afghanistan.
The original poster forgot Pakistan.
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb