The Origin of the Shia - Part Two
Read the article this discussion is about
- Binte
- Pinky102
- Binte
- Pinky102
- Binte
- Pinky102
- Pinky102
- Binte
- Pinky102
- Binte
This archived discussion is "read only".
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» Binte - Re: Shariah
In response to Again posted by Pinky102:Yes, Shariah is the word used for Islamic Law. It seems to conjure up images of horrific drownings in family swimming pools, especially since the publication of books that expose the secret lives of Muslim women. These acts by the way, have no place in Islam - they are culture based.
Basically, Shariah refers to the Laws a Muslim is required to follow. Praying five times a day, fasting and going for Hajj are the more common ones. Then, there are laws on how to do business, on governing should a territory be ruled by Muslims, on the rules of war and conflict, on social rights etc.
The Shariah covers all aspects of life, which gives us the definations of Islam such as: 'a code of living' or 'a way of life'. It isn't just a set of dogmatic beliefs and rites.
Regarding Shias and Sunnis, the basics are the same, but differences arise because of the issue of Imams that I mentioned.
For Sunnis, as the centuries passed, they had the Qur'an and traditions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but when they were confused over an issue or did not know how to apply it to the current times, they were forced to come up with new ideas - thus, the birth of the four Sunni Schools of Thought. Many other Sunni's believe that every person can choose to interpret a law as they understand it.
For Shias, the presence of an Imam in every time, meant that they could turn to that Imam for clarification and many of the finer points were discussed and developed over the years after the death of Muhammad (pbuh). Because all the Imams were Divinely appointed, there is a steady consistancy in what they said and so there is little confusion over the Shariah for the Shias.
The Shia believe that the 12th Imam is still alive and in seclusion according to the Will of God. They await his re-appearance in much the same way the Christians await the coming of Jesus. You may have heard of him - he is called The Mahdi.
In his absence, a scholar is chosen to clarify any problems that a Shia may have in understanding the Shariah. This scholar does not create a law or change it. He is chosen because of his knowledge of the historical records of traditions and his understanding of the concepts of the Qur'an. He only applies this vast knowledge in solving problems.
-- posted by Binte
» Pinky102 - Re: Re: Shariah
In response to Re: Shariah posted by Binte:I've done a little study on the subject--not a lot so I can't get into a lot of detail.
My understanding is that many Muslims believe the Shariah supersedes the laws of state. I don't know how true that is.
Maybe I should get my book down from the shelf?
-- posted by Pinky102
» Binte - Re: Re: Re: Shariah
In response to Re: Re: Shariah posted by Pinky102:Depends on who wrote the book!
In Islam, there is no difference between the state and religion. There are laws regarding every aspect of government should an Islamic state exist. We believe that God sent down a complete guide to help us perfect every area in our lives.
In the absence of an Islamic state, and where the Muslims live in non-Muslim territory, they follow the laws of the existing state and where possible the Islamic ones.
For most cases, the only laws that they are free to act upon are social ones - regarding marriage, divorce, (in some cases) custody of children, death, funeral rites, inheritance and such.
So, yes, Muslims do believe that the Shariah supersedes the state law. They just don't act upon that belief for the sake of peace.
Unless you start talking about extremists ...
-- posted by Binte
» Pinky102 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Shariah
In response to Re: Re: Re: Shariah posted by Binte:All of which would seem to raise a rather hairy question about the kind of constitution that will be created for Iraq--what with the Shiis making up the largest body of influence according to the recent election. Will their new constitution be written according to the Shariah? Will Iraq end up being like Iran or will it be a secular state? There are a lot of Judeo/Christians in the U.S. who would like to rewrite our Constitution to be more in line with biblical law.
-- posted by Pinky102
» Binte - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shariah
In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Shariah posted by Pinky102:That is a question that is on most minds. Ending up like Iran would not be a bad thing in the eyes of the Shia, and also for many Sunnis. Iran has had plenty of bad publicity so that it comes out looking like some fanatical state, when in fact it's quite a normal country - just with different rules.
Sure, non-Muslims find it difficult to adjust to some of the laws, but no more than Muslims find it difficult to live in a non-Muslim state - and they do. They just don't voice it.
I think that's one of the biggest problems in the Islamic community (Shia or Sunni) - the fact that people don't speak up and present their point of view. The few who do are usually the 'liberals', whose opinions are acceptable to the rest of the world simply because they are familiar.
Within Islamic Shariah, there is also a place for non-Muslims who live under the Islamic state. Few people seem to know that the Shariah has no clause specifying that a non-Muslim must convert or that they are forbidden to practice their own faith.
During the Early Islamic Era, non-Muslims actually preferred living under the Muslims than other colonial powers, because they were treated fairly and justly.
The best example I can find is closest to home (my home, that is) Arabs came to the coast of East Africa years before the British, but they never interfered with the people or tried to change them forcibly. They traded, they made friends and some settled there, creating a new culture from a mix of Arab and local tribes. Those who wanted to convert to Islam did, those who didn't, didn't.
By contrast, the coming of the British and their method of conversion / civilisation of the locals is available in any history book.
I'm curious though - why did the state and religion split come up in Christianity to begin with?
-- posted by Binte
» Pinky102 - Origins of Shiah
Karen Armstrong, in her book, The Battle for God, claims that when Isabella and Ferdinan signed the Edict of Expulsion that forced all Jews and Muslims to either convert to Roman Catholicism or get out of Spain, big things began to happen as the world moved into a stage of modernization. She writes that Muslims made up a third of the world population in the sixteenth century during which time three new Islamic empires were founded; the Ottoman in Asia Minor, Anatolia, Iraq, Syria, and North Africa; the Safaved in and the Moghul empire in the Indian subcontinent. She says each "... reflected a different facet of Islamic spirituality. The Moghul empire represented the tolerant, universalist philosophical rationalism known as Falsafa; the Sfavid shahs made Shiism, hiterto the faith of an elite mirority, the religion of their state; and the Ottoman Turks, who remained fiercely loyal to Sunni Islam, created a polity based on the Shariah, sacred Muslim law." pp32.Apparently, reading from her book, Islam enjoyed a period of high culture parallel to the Italian Renesaince. The Ottomans, architecture; the Safavid, painting; and the Mobhuls the Taj Mahal. Another quote from her book states, "Where Christians have come to identify orthodoxy with correct belief, Muslims, like Jews, require orthopraxy**, a uniformity of religious practice, and see belief as a secondary issue. The five 'pillars' require each Muslim to make the Shehadah (a brief declaration of faith in the unity of God and the prophethood of Muhammad), to pray five times daily, to pay a tax (Zakat) to ensure a fair distribution of wealthy in the community, to observe the fast of Ramadan as a reminder of the privations suffered by the poor, and to make the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, if circumstances allow."
** The word, orthopraxy, apparently means proper behavior and actions. I think it means the style in which a person lives out their day to day life.
My comment, as a liberal Christian, is that conservative Christianity is moving over to orthopraxy as a means of expressing their belief--so, more like Muslims and Jews in this sense. Liberals, I suppose would be more rational about life.
What do you think of what Karen Armstrong has to say in the above?
As for your curiosity about the state and religion splitting (here in the West I think you mean), it was because of the tyranny involved in a religious state that demanded obedience regarding belief. I guess that shows one of the main differences between Christianity and the way the Jews and the Muslims join the state and religion through their laws. When the state establishes a particular religion, the leaders of that religion--in effect--become the leaders of the society--the Ayatollahs--and they put their interpretations of the religious laws over the secular laws of the land. The United States is presently going through a period in which we are testing if religious rule will superseced our secual Constitutional laws. This is a tough time for Americans. Especially tough if you happen to be a liberal. Check out some of the threads at the Religion and Spirituality site. 
-- posted by Pinky102
» Pinky102 - Christian Ayatollahs
.We have a few powerful leaders in Christendom here in the United States. They give public support and openly bestow their blessing on the president.
They are the ones who would be Ayatollahs in a state established church. I can tell you that they would, most likely, tyranize America if they had the chance. Our culture would revert back to the laws of colonialism and heavy punishments would be reestablished for crimes against the religious laws.
But, I like to think the American people would rise up with physical force against such a tyrant.
-- posted by Pinky102
» Binte - Re: Christian Ayatollahs
In response to Christian Ayatollahs posted by Pinky102:Sorry for the delay in replying. Saturday was Ashura, one of the greatest days in Islamic - and especially Shi'ite - history. (I've written an article on it at http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/shia... then I got a 24-hr virus which kept me away from my comp
That said, I read both your posts with great interest. The various empires that arose within Islamic history did adopt one aspect of Islam, or rather their interpretation of it. No one dynasty was perfect or safe from human interests.
About the quote you sent:
"Where Christians have come to identify orthodoxy with correct belief, Muslims, like Jews, require orthopraxy**, a uniformity of religious practice, and see belief as a secondary issue. The five 'pillars' require each Muslim to make the Shehadah (a brief declaration of faith in the unity of God and the prophethood of Muhammad), to pray five times daily, to pay a tax (Zakat) to ensure a fair distribution of wealthy in the community, to observe the fast of Ramadan as a reminder of the privations suffered by the poor, and to make the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, if circumstances allow."
While orthopraxy is a good word to explain the attitude of Muslims, to say that belief becomes secondary is a bit of a general statement. Within the Shia, actions without belief are like traditional practices carried out from force of habit - they have no 'weight' or little value. In many cases, the performance of religious actions is the lowest level of obedience, and individuals are required to build upon this with study and thought regarding beliefs.
Which leads me to my second protest - the description of the Shahada that Armstrong gives. It's an extremely common misconception, but this list applies to the Sunnis. For the Shia, there are two aspects of belief:
The Roots which make up the basic articles of faith i.e. Belief in One God, His Justice, the institutes of Prophethood and Imamat and Life after Death/Accountability.
The second are the Branches, which complement faith. These are the 'actions' like praying, fasting, going for hajj, giving charity, supporting good, discriminating against evil and so on.
So amongst the Shia, belief is actually the core of the actions and primary, rather than secondary.
Regarding the keadership, if a society was able to implement pure Islamic Shariah, there is no place for personal interpretation within it. The laws are clearly laid out and available to anyone who wishes to study them. Which is why many Shia are not averse to it.
By the way, I have been browsing through the other threads. I often find myself losing track of the conversation though Either because it's based on American society, which is foriegn to me or because it's from a perpsective so far removed from or opposed to Islam that I find I can only be an interested observer and not actually contribute.
-- posted by Binte
» Pinky102 - Re: Re: Christian Ayatollahs
In response to Re: Christian Ayatollahs posted by Binte:Regarding your last paragraph, I understand completely.
But, in regards to your statement, "The Roots which make up the basic articles of faith i.e. Belief in One God, His Justice, the institutes of Prophethood and Imamat and Life after Death/Accountability."
-----------------
Four things you point up for Shi'is, (1) belief in one God, (2) God's Justice, (3) the prophethood and (4) the Imamat. I'll check those things out so I can gain a little perspective, but I would like to hear what you have to say about God's Justice as that is extremely interesting to me as a Christian. I believe that Jesus came to restore Justice to a people who were being led by an extremely unjust leadership.
Would you expound--at least a little--on what is considered God's Justice in Islam?
-- posted by Pinky102
» Binte - Re: Re: Re: Christian Ayatollahs
In response to Re: Re: Christian Ayatollahs posted by Pinky102:Justice in Islamic terms has been a subject of great debate in Sunni/Shia circles. In the early years after the death of Muhammad (pbuh), as the Muslims began to delve further into theology and philosophy, they split into two (very general) thought groups:
a) From amongst the Sunni, the Ash’arites believed that there was no such thing as God’s Justice. To them, because God is the Creator of the Universe, whatever He does is Just. The human intellect is incapable of distinguishing between good and bad and therefore all good and evil comes from God.
b) The other Sunni group – the Mu’tazilites – and the Shia believed in justice in relation to the Creator and that He never commits oppressive acts.
For the Shia, Justice and Prophethood/Imamat are inter-related. The need for the latter stemming from the existence of the former.
Justice is seen to have two meanings: general justice which means putting everything in its rightful place explaining the tradition of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh): “It is by means of justice that all of the heavens and earth exist” ; and a specific justice which is to give every creature its rights in accordance to its abilities.
Also, the Qur’an mentions: “Verily, God will not deal unjustly with man in anything; it is man that wrongs his own soul.” (Chapter of Yunus (10) : Verse 44)
You could say then that, for the Shia justice is innate in the Divine Nature of God and to be unjust would be in violation of His Nature, which is impossible.
So while amongst the predominant Ash’arite Sunnis, there is a greater emphasis on the Will of God and understanding is subordinated to this will, while amongst the Shia there is a greater emphasis on intellect and reason when dealing with Justice.
(Just a note, you mentioned noticing 4 things about the Shia – hope you didn’t miss the 5th – Resurrection, it’s quite essential as all five relate to each other to form one whole.)
-- posted by Binte
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.