So, reading the Wiki that Ian so kindly supplied, it would seem that Islam states that Christianity and Judaism distorted the true faith of God. Then later int he introduction, the Wiki article describes the difference between Shia and Sunni as resulting from "following disagreements over the religious and political leadership of the Muslim community". It would seem to be very similar to the objections to Christianity and Judaism.
Obviously I am missing something (I assume so). Are these the same "distortions" or are they viewed more as both right but different?
Link to article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)
Thanks,
Bill
I'm far from an expert on Islam but the differences between Shia and Sunni belief seem to be more like that between Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, or perhaps Catholicism and Trinitarian Protestantism. That is, fundamental doctrine of both branches state that there's no god but Allah, Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and the Koran is the divinely inspired word of Mohammed that supersedes all other holy works. By contrast, Islam and Christianity differ enormously on the nature of Jesus. In one he's a prophet (not the ultimate prophet), in the other he's the son of God, one person of the Trinity, who was incarnated and sacrificed to free mankind from original sin. The theological differences between Islam and Judaism (at the time when Islam was developing and undergoing its major schism) seem far smaller but there are a host of disagreements in religious practice, the identity of the prophets (i.e., Jews didn't recognize Mohammed as anybody any more than they did Christ), the nature of the Law, identity of the chosen people (going back to who it was that Abraham nearly sacrificed), and so forth.
My understanding of the history of Islam -- admittedly imperfect -- is that divisions within the faith began to occur even by the end of Mohammed's life (Sunni vs. Shi'a) and divided further during subsequent generations (Ismaili, Fatamid, etc.). In a very, very rough sense, the divisions were akin to the crisis the Christian faith encountered during the first century or two following the death and assumption of Jesus -- Now that the founder is gone, who gets to be Pope? Differing interpretations of the faith have also led to conflicts of varying degrees of volatility, particularly when the competing doctrines have become politicised. I believe, as a whole, one muslim of a particular tradition will view another muslim of a different tradition as still being a member of the true faith -- much as a Catholic will still feel akin to a Presbyterian, or a Conservative Jew to a Hassidim -- though disagreements could still erupt over the particular practice of the faith.
As for the Islamic view of Christianity and Judaism, I suppose the great benefit of being the latest faith on the block is that you get to undermine the validity of those that came before you, now that you have the latest word from God. If its any consolation, the Mormons can totally punk all of the Big Three on this count, while the Jews still claim pre-eminence through the longest unbroken, unrevised relationship with God.
!i!
The Sunni-Shia divide began over a question of political authority (which is not distinct from spiritual authority in the Abrahamic religions). Basically, the Shia believe that the son-in-law of Mohammed, Ali, was the rightful ruler of the Ummah (the Islamic community) after Mohammed's death, and his direct male descendants maintained that spiritual authority. The Sunni believe that the spiritual authority of Mohammed moved onto his companions and allies, and particularly the Umayyad caliphs, who were one of the more powerful clans of Muslims.
Theologically, it worked itself out in a debate over who should be Imam (leader of the Ummah). The Sunnis believed that anyone in Mohammed's clan could be Imam. The Shia believed that only the direct male descendants of Mohammed could be Imam.
Other groups of Muslims formed with different qualifications (for example, the Shurat believed that anyone could be the Imam so long as they were suitably righteous without reference to wealth or social standing). These were mostly marginal groups.
Familiarity breeds contempt, and in many cases the hatred between shia and sunnis is greater than any hatred either have for non-muslims.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;224907Familiarity breeds contempt, and in many cases the hatred between shia and sunnis is greater than any hatred either have for non-muslims.
RPGPundit
I think it's another instance of the "Uncanny Valley."
-clash
Muhammed was familiar with the faiths of the Jews and Christians, and taught that they had recieved the Word of God, just as he had. I'm trying to remember the exact language of the Koran, but I think the problem was that God only gave them what was relevant to them, then they passed it down. Muhammed was the 'Last Prophet', meaning he recieved the whole of the story, directly from Gabriel, and passed it uncorrupted to his followers (neat trick as it as the... um... fourth Caliph who actually put the Koran together).
The Shites (the Party of Ali, yeah, as in political party...) believed not only should Ali (Muhammed's Son-in-Law) should be the political ruler of the Ummah, but also the spiritual successor to the Prophet. The Sunni believed that the Caliphs should remain purely political rulers. Note that Ali was the Fifth (and final?) Caliph before his assassination by what we could call 'proto-Wahabists'.
Now, this is where I get confused. After Ali died, the Syrians really took control of the faith and there was this OTHER guy named Ali, possibly a decendent of Ali the Caliph, and HE had a son named Ali. Now, Ali (the second one...) was invited to this town in modern Iraq to support them (they were all Shia) against the Syrians (who would be Sunni), and he sorta didn't want to get involved, but did anyway. THen those fuckers betrayed him when the Syrians came to town and kicked some ass. So, the Syrians trap Ali, with his son, out in the Desert in this little valley and for long time just hold them there. Its not that the Syrians wanted to seige this dude's camp, but he was such a total bad ass they couldn't take him. Now, with all of his men sick, dead or wounded, his women dying of thirst and disease... and his SON dying, Ali rode out and just whupped all SORTS of ass all by his lonesome until the Syrians finally brought him down. THey took his son capitive (this leads to another story where the third Ali is the Mahdi, the 13th Imam hidden away by God until the chosen time, etc... in reality the poor fucker died right after being chosen by an 'infallible' Imam as a successor. Oops.
Anyway, back to the Shites... so these bastards that had asked for Ali's help, then betrayed him to save their own skins felt pretty guilty, right? So they head out, a few years later, to where he had died and start flogging the ever living shit out of themselves so they could share his pain... and thats why Shites are still flogging themselves today, and why they really hate the Sunni's, and why the Sunni's think they are all crazy fuckers who don't worship Allah properly.
Does that help?
Quote from: Spike;225480Does that help?
I guess that is what I meant. It seems the Muslims would view each other with the same "contempt" or "world view" or "not worshiping correctly" each other as they do other faiths. I mean, yeah, Christians have some pretty black and white views of other faiths but Islam seems to say "Yeah, its a faith and it worships the same God, but they are wrong and we are right". It is the inclusive "embrace to reject" type of thing that makes me wonder if external faiths are viewed the same as internals divisions.
Thanks for all the great responses guys.
Bill
Well, the Koran has some pretty powerful injunctions against persecuting Jews and Christians. The attitude might come across as helping your slightly retarded brother, but you know... he's still your brother.
The issue when dealing with current events is two fold: First the nations of the west are not viewed as christian so much as secular, thus fair game (not that being christian nations necessarily preserves us from harm... conquering is fair, persecution is forbidden.), and secondly; the hard line radicals (we call them, erroniously, fundamentalists) are perfectly willing to ignore even more powerful injunctions regarding treatment of fellow muslims in the pursuit of their agendas...
Quote from: Spike;225512...and secondly; the hard line radicals (we call them, erroniously, fundamentalists) are perfectly willing to ignore even more powerful injunctions regarding treatment of fellow muslims in the pursuit of their agendas...
You're not saying that someone would suborn religious doctrine in favor of political agenda, are you? :eek:
!i!
Quote from: HinterWelt;225493I guess that is what I meant. It seems the Muslims would view each other with the same "contempt" or "world view" or "not worshiping correctly" each other as they do other faiths. I mean, yeah, Christians have some pretty black and white views of other faiths but Islam seems to say "Yeah, its a faith and it worships the same God, but they are wrong and we are right".
Still don't see how that's any different from the various Christian sects/heresies (arians, cathars, etc.) that have been violently put down by the dominant Christians. I'd wager the 30 Years War alone, fueled by Christian sectarian hatreds, killed more people than any conflict between Sunni and Shiite muslims.
Quote from: Haffrung;225534Still don't see how that's any different from the various Christian sects/heresies (arians, cathars, etc.) that have been violently put down by the dominant Christians. I'd wager the 30 Years War alone, fueled by Christian sectarian hatreds, killed more people than any conflict between Sunni and Shiite muslims.
Que paso el skipper? That is so outside what I was getting at that I barely get your point. Are you making some sort of "Hate" comparison? Honestly, I am not sure.
My questions are mostly about how Muslims view each other vs how they view other faiths. It would seem from the Wiki I mentioned that there would be little difference between them. A single Muslim sect would seem to view other sects as a omission or corruption as much as Christianity or Judaism. Then I admit I am not an Islamic scholar nor a terribly familiar with the religion or its practice.
So, I have no hidden agenda. If that was not your point, then I apologize but it seems you are taking me to task for some unrelated comparison I never made.
Bill
Quote from: Haffrung;225534Still don't see how that's any different from the various Christian sects/heresies (arians, cathars, etc.) that have been violently put down by the dominant Christians. I'd wager the 30 Years War alone, fueled by Christian sectarian hatreds, killed more people than any conflict between Sunni and Shiite muslims.
An important difference for today is that some key Christian conflicts (mainly Catholic vs. Protestant) mellowed a lot over the late 19th and early 20th century, while the Sunni vs. Shiite clash is still going strong. Though Christian sectarianism did play a role in the Serb (Orthodox) vs Croatian (Catholic) conflicts, among others.
Bill,
It might be helpful to ask some Muslims as you are getting into degrees of subjectivity re: "in" and "out" of the community.
I would say though that you are exaggerating the difference between Shia and Sunni by comparing it to the difference between, say, Shia and Christian or Sunni and Jew.
Shiites and Sunnis go on pilgrimmage to Mecca at the same time and engage in common rituals there. While there are also rituals which are not universal across the Muslim world, you will not find any religious rituals that are traditionally interchangeable or held in common between Muslims and either Christians or Jews. I do not know exactly what the status is, in terms of recognizing the validity of sacraments carried out under the traditions of other sects in Islam. However, I would compare Catholic doctrine (as early as the 4th century) on e.g. baptism carried out by priests of non-Catholic Christian sects--it is considered valid. (Admittedly the sect which basically prompted this ruling, the Donatists, didn't see things the same way.)
Quote from: HinterWelt;225537So, I have no hidden agenda. If that was not your point, then I apologize but it seems you are taking me to task for some unrelated comparison I never made.
I probably shouldn't speak for Haffrung, but I didn't get the impression that his comments were directed at you as such. I think his point, and John's following, get to the heart of the matter -- Islamic sectarianism mirrors Christian sectarianism (and, if you want to get all historical about it, Jewish sectarianism and Buddhist sectarianism), where, depending upon the prevailing social and political climate, the sects within a given faith may be more at odds with one another than they are with entirely different faiths.
!i!
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;225545Bill,
It might be helpful to ask some Muslims as you are getting into degrees of subjectivity re: "in" and "out" of the community.
I would love to but currently do not know any. I have in the past but honestly, it did not come up that much. So, I ask here as I thought there either were Muslims here or at the very least, theologians and people who do live in Muslim states.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;225545I would say though that you are exaggerating the difference between Shia and Sunni by comparing it to the difference between, say, Shia and Christian or Sunni and Jew.
This is why I asked about and did not state the difference.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;225545Shiites and Sunnis go on pilgrimmage to Mecca at the same time and engage in common rituals there. While there are also rituals which are not universal across the Muslim world, you will not find any religious rituals that are traditionally interchangeable or held in common between Muslims and either Christians or Jews. I do not know exactly what the status is, in terms of recognizing the validity of sacraments carried out under the traditions of other sects in Islam. However, I would compare Catholic doctrine (as early as the 4th century) on e.g. baptism carried out by priests of non-Catholic Christian sects--it is considered valid. (Admittedly the sect which basically prompted this ruling, the Donatists, didn't see things the same way.)
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: HinterWelt;225537My questions are mostly about how Muslims view each other vs how they view other faiths. It would seem from the Wiki I mentioned that there would be little difference between them. A single Muslim sect would seem to view other sects as a omission or corruption as much as Christianity or Judaism.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim sect recently opened North America's largest mosque in Calgary. A member of the Canadian Islamic Congress described the Ahmadiyya's status as Muslims as controversial, in the same way that the status of Mormons as Christians is controversial. Some Christians regard Mormons as fellow Christians. Some do not.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;225546I probably shouldn't speak for Haffrung, but I didn't get the impression that his comments were directed at you as such. I think his point, and John's following, get to the heart of the matter -- Islamic sectarianism mirrors Christian sectarianism (and, if you want to get all historical about it, Jewish sectarianism and Buddhist sectarianism), where, depending upon the prevailing social and political climate, the sects within a given faith may be more at odds with one another than they are with entirely different faiths.
!i!
Ian,
Which is what I have been after. Like I said, perhaps I misunderstood Haffrung's comments and if so, I apologize. It just struck me as framing the point in the most negative manner.
And certainly, I understand the implementation and manipulation of a sect for political ends. I was more interested in the religious philosophy of viewing a difference in the Faith as acceptable, but incorrect. It would appear that it is a matter of degrees. Sunni and Shia are still Islam, Christianity and Judaism would be farther from the Truth. What about something like Buddhism? Taoism?
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: jhkim;225538An important difference for today is that some key Christian conflicts (mainly Catholic vs. Protestant) mellowed a lot over the late 19th and early 20th century, while the Sunni vs. Shiite clash is still going strong. Though Christian sectarianism did play a role in the Serb (Orthodox) vs Croatian (Catholic) conflicts, among others.
...and in Northern Ireland's 'troubles'.
While Christian sectarian conflict has moderated very recently, you don't have to go back more than a couple decades to find a strong social opposition to intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics. In Alberta, Catholics still have their own separate school board.
And Christianity is more than 600 years older than Islam.
Quote from: HinterWelt;225556Sunni and Shia are still Islam, Christianity and Judaism would be farther from the Truth. What about something like Buddhism? Taoism?
Ooh, now there I'm totally out of my depth. As others have mentioned up-thread, Islam recognises both Judaism and Christianity as precedents to the true faith. They all share the same Word, though Islam purportes to have the complete Word. I have to wonder what they'd make of other subsequently-derived faiths, like Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Jews for Jesus.
But faiths of entirely different cultural lineage? You got me there. Buddhism? Hinduism? Taoism? Anyone else have a read on these? Then there's the Sikh faith, which emerged from the intersection of Hinduism and Islam -- what do they make of that? Islam's influence on Asia is huge, but I have to confess that I really know very little about it.
Where the hell is David R. when we need a man with boots on the ground?
!i!
I can't claim any knowledge of the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect, but I've always held that the Ba'hai faith was something of the Mormons of the Islamic faith...
... and just so you know, Gabe and me talked about it, and the big guy agrees with me.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;225560Buddhism? Hinduism? Taoism?
Idolaters, I'm afraid.
Quote from: Spike;225480Muhammed was familiar with the faiths of the Jews and Christians, and taught that they had recieved the Word of God, just as he had. I'm trying to remember the exact language of the Koran, but I think the problem was that God only gave them what was relevant to them, then they passed it down. Muhammed was the 'Last Prophet', meaning he recieved the whole of the story, directly from Gabriel, and passed it uncorrupted to his followers (neat trick as it as the... um... fourth Caliph who actually put the Koran together).
The Shites (the Party of Ali, yeah, as in political party...) believed not only should Ali (Muhammed's Son-in-Law) should be the political ruler of the Ummah, but also the spiritual successor to the Prophet. The Sunni believed that the Caliphs should remain purely political rulers. Note that Ali was the Fifth (and final?) Caliph before his assassination by what we could call 'proto-Wahabists'.
Now, this is where I get confused. After Ali died, the Syrians really took control of the faith and there was this OTHER guy named Ali, possibly a decendent of Ali the Caliph, and HE had a son named Ali. Now, Ali (the second one...) was invited to this town in modern Iraq to support them (they were all Shia) against the Syrians (who would be Sunni), and he sorta didn't want to get involved, but did anyway. THen those fuckers betrayed him when the Syrians came to town and kicked some ass. So, the Syrians trap Ali, with his son, out in the Desert in this little valley and for long time just hold them there. Its not that the Syrians wanted to seige this dude's camp, but he was such a total bad ass they couldn't take him. Now, with all of his men sick, dead or wounded, his women dying of thirst and disease... and his SON dying, Ali rode out and just whupped all SORTS of ass all by his lonesome until the Syrians finally brought him down. THey took his son capitive (this leads to another story where the third Ali is the Mahdi, the 13th Imam hidden away by God until the chosen time, etc... in reality the poor fucker died right after being chosen by an 'infallible' Imam as a successor. Oops.
Anyway, back to the Shites... so these bastards that had asked for Ali's help, then betrayed him to save their own skins felt pretty guilty, right? So they head out, a few years later, to where he had died and start flogging the ever living shit out of themselves so they could share his pain... and thats why Shites are still flogging themselves today, and why they really hate the Sunni's, and why the Sunni's think they are all crazy fuckers who don't worship Allah properly.
Does that help?
Replying late, but...just to make things more complicated:
The place where this Ali is entombed, which is so important to all these Shia?
Najaf.