Comments on Jus' the Tip by Ali-Asad: Understanding Sunni-Shia

PS: I meant "caught up on the former". lol

2008-08-10T18:39:08.007-04:00

PS: I meant "caught up on the former". lol

Salaam bro!Don't worry about the call, it was abou...

2008-08-08T20:14:54.589-04:00

Salaam bro!

Don't worry about the call, it was about the job/shura meeting issue. I was on a deadline so I got the job anyway (I'll just have to trust I can work it out with shura).

So anyway, what you have proven to me is that Ali considered himself to be the prophet's successor, and that there would be twelve imams from the prophet's family...as I stated in my last comment, I don't necessarily dispute this. Again, this doesn't speak to the imamate as is understood by the shia today. Of all the Sunni accounts we have, you provided only one that speaks to the idea of being "sinless", and even that doesn't scream infallible. Sure, Al-Juwayni's narration implies this, but certainly you can't expect me to develop doctrine based on one narration, narrated by someone who clearly didn't consider this to be a sign of infallible imams, being the awesome scholar he is considered to be. So ultimately, what we have are vague (at best) narrations that refer to twelve imams after the prophet from his family. We don't even know what that means. one might even question that it means, you know, twelve imams IMMEDIATELY after the prophet, since, it didn't exactly happen that way. Surely, were it Allah's will that the twelve succeed the prophet, it would have been that way. Perhaps it meant that the prophecy would begin only when Ali became caliph...Perhaps I'm completely wrong. thing is we don't know the intricacies of MANY vague narrations. The narrations don't even say they would follow each other one after the other. All we know is that there will be twelve imams from the prophet's family; perhaps "sinless", but no less as "purified" as the prophet's wives (read 33:32-3, not just 33). The fact that even the Shi'i disagree on who the twelve imams are says something about the specificity derived from the narrations.

As for the verse that speaks to occultation...

"The most important is the following verse: O, but I call to witness the planets, the stars which rise and set [al-Takweer, LXXXI, 15-6]

According to Imam al-Baqir, this verse means that an Imam would go into occultation in the year 260; then he would reappear suddenly like a bright shooting star in the darkness of night."

Huh?

let's be straight. the verse is pretty much God swearing by natural phenomenons (which, as we all know, is a familiar convention in the Qur'an) to assure the nonbelievers that "this is the speech of a noble messenger [two verses later]. I mean God also swears "by the night as it dissipates, by the morning when it breathes again" [At-Takweer:17-8], in the EXACT SAME WAY, after the said verse...why isn't this some symbolic reference to the mahdi, or any of the other oaths in the Qur'an. As inexplicit as I've considered the other Qur'anic references to be, this is certainly the most off the wall. Imam Al-Baqir should have at least offered how he came to this conclusion, how this referred to the mehdi, and where "260" came from. And again, why did the Shia have to wait until the 5th imam to know "the most important" (not so sure) info regarding the mehdi. The first four imams, being guided by Allah, should have told us this. In fact, 'Ali should have told us this (if not the prophet).

Finally, a point of clarification. I do not consider myself as "Sunni", just Muslim, although I tend to ascribe to traditional Sunni thought more than I do Shi'i. So this isn't a us against them thing, its more like us discussing to find what the religion of our beloved prophet is (something I know we share an interest in). The reason why I refuse to accept that multiple sets of doctrine can legitimately exist is because I doubt the prophet would have accepted that (Qur'an and Hadith are pretty clear on sects), unless all discussions were exhausted and all differences found legitimate. I sincerely believe in the importance of these types of discussion, not so I can find that I'm right, but so I can find what is right (though I admit I at times get caught up on the latter).

But yep, that's it. I'm excited to hear your response.

Relwan

Salaams Relwan,With regards to the verse in questi...

2008-08-03T13:44:03.958-04:00

Salaams Relwan,

With regards to the verse in question, I will again reference Dr. Wright's supposition that authorial intent in a text presented orally, and redacted decades later, at a distance of 14 centuries is, by all accounts inscrutable. If you disagree that's cool but to get a sense of what he is talking about you would have to read his award-winning thesis: Modern Qur'anic Hermeneutics. What Dr. Wright has essentially shown, in my understanding, is that any modern Qur'anic hermeneutic must take into account the inherent constructedness of the historical context as well as the equally inherent constructedness of the context of the interpreter. This understanding is informed by centuries of scholarship in literary criticism, primarily derived from tempering of the early structuralist conceptions of semantics, in which semantic power is vested primarily in the locus of the recipient's interpretive context. In short, it is certainly not the case that God gave us a text (the Qur'an) which is indecipherable to us, rather, it is decipherable only after passing through two opaque 'lenses' of contextual constructedness. It is for this reason that Dr. Ernst began our course with a quote from Imam Ali that "The Qur'an is but ink and paper, and it does not speak for itself. Instead, it is human beings who give effect to it according to their limited personal judgments and opinions."

As a minor historical aside, I think we can both agree that the Sunnah is part of our religion. In order to interpret the verse as you do, one would have to assume that the prophet did absolutely nothing of religious significance after he uttered the verse, because that would have been 'adding to something that was already complete.' The Prophet delivered his farewell sermon after that verse was revealed which contains some of the most famous ahadiths in our tradition. However, my interpretation as well is equally bound to being "limited by [my] personal judgments and opinions," however I approach the verse from a historical vantage point.

Imamah is a doctrine that is rooted in the Qur'an, that cannot be overemphasized. The qualities of the imams are rooted in the Qur'an, that equally cannot be overemphasized. Certain verses, to some, clearly as day vindicate the doctrine of imamah to the Shi'a: 5.55 to Hamid Algar at UC Berkeley, 4.59 to Ali-Asad (as he stated above), the talut-narrative to me. These same verses have been read for fourteen centuries by sunni scholars to mean something entirely different, this is not only acceptable but expected from a written text. The issue at hand is whether the idea of imamah was in the minds of the Prophet, Ali, and his descendents. This is addressed primarily historically, not textually. My apologies in advance, I will be quoting from the sunni theological tradition. This is not unheard of in academic history but these hadith collections are frequently bypassed in that the target audience could have any range of skepticism of those specific collections. It is my humble assumption that you do look at bukhari and Muslim as sources of authentic narrations, or at least acceptable sources from which one could build an argument. If that is not the case, I do include works of academic history that can be self-sustaining by Jassim Hussain and Lynda Clark

Now to address your point, you stated:
"The question is: when Ali sought to be the imam, did he imply that he was infallible? that there would be twelve infallible imams from his blood to lead the ummah, except for our generation...our's would be in hiding? that beleif in this was fundamental in imaamah? etc. I think we both agree that the answer is no..."

My question is, what is the academic basis for your understanding? I have been quoting scholars at princeton (crone), oxford (madelung), unc (wright), and cambridge (daftary), I am not aware of any contemporary academic texts which support your premises. The entirety of academic scholarship rests upon citation of evidence. My understanding of Islam is based on the notion that there aren't contemporary historical texts that endorse your understanding.

I will address your points:
"that there would be twelve infallible imams from his blood to lead the ummah, except for our generation...our's would be in hiding?"
The historical evidence suggests that certainly he did:

"Narrated Jabir bin Samura: I heard Muhammad saying, "There will be twelve khulafa'." He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, "All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraish.""
This hadith is narrated in Sahih Bukhari, in Sahih Muslim, in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, Sahih al-Tirmidhi, and Sunan Abu Dawud. It is one of the most well-attested to Ahadith in the entire sunni narrative.

Other sahih narrations in sunni works are more explicit (yet even the previous hadith can stand on its own),
"I am the chief of the Prophets and Ali ibn Abi Talib is the chief of successors, and after me my successors shall be twelve, the first of them being Ali ibn Abi Talib and the last of them being Al Mahdi." (there are many more such as this)
sourced in al-Juwayni in fara'id al-simtayn. the Ash'ari school of kalaam is the theological underpinning of the shafi'i, maliki, and hanbali madhahib. al-Juwayni was the single most prominent scholar in the entire school after al-Ashar'i himself and he was a renowned muhaddith.

al-Juwayni also narrates: "I and Ali and Hasan and Husayn and nine of the descendants of Husayn are the purified ones and the ma'sum (sinless)."
These traditions are sahih in their chain of narrators.

These traditions have been explained and elaborated upon countless times by ali himself and his successors. The above, of course, are theological in nature, but if one attests to the authenticity of al-bukhari and Muslim, it is difficult to ignore these traditions.

In academic history, Jassim Hussain in, "The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam" examined the narrations of the imams that existed during the lifetime of the first 11 imams (definitively shown to have been narrated prior to the twelfth imam).
Imam al-Baqir clears up the issue of the occultation quite nicely:

The most important is the following verse: O, but I call to witness the planets, the stars which rise and set [al-Takweer, LXXXI, 15-6]

According to Imam al-Baqir, this verse means that an Imam would go into occultation in the year 260; then he would reappear suddenly like a bright shooting star in the darkness of night.
al-Kafi,I,341;Kama’l, 325,330; N. al-Ghayba, 75.

Dr. Lynda Clarke of Concordia University explains, in her dissertation on theological trends in pre-occultation twelver shi'ism, that the phase of history in which the imam was occulted was presaged in the hadiths of the first eleven imams in narrations that were definitively in existence in the lifetimes of those individuals.

The answer to your question is then, "most definitely Ali and al-Hasan and al-Husayn etc. saw themselves precisely as infallible leaders and precisely as in a lineage of twelve successors of the Prophet." This supported both by works of sunni theology and academic history.
This builds upon my previous arguments in which Dr. Madelung, i will emphasize again, demonstrates that Ali saw himself as specifically nominated as the successor to Muhammad. It is also worth noting that any examination of Ali's life indicates that he was not concerned with whether or not he was in political power, he once described the caliphate as of less value to him than his leather shoe that he was stitching back together. At the same time he did claim to be the Prophet's wasi.

Finally, as a more wholistic academic vindication of the doctrine of Imamah, Dr. Crone at princeton attests: "The Sunni version (of caliphate, as opposed to imamate) represents the outcome of a conflict between the caliph and early scholars who, as spokesmen of the community, assumed religious leadership for themselves. Many Islamicists have assumed the Shi'ite concept of the imamate to be a deviant development. In contrast, this book argues that it is an archaism preserving the concept of religious authority with which all Muslims began."

Dr. Crone argues beautifully that imamate existed from day 1, and the sunni conception of the caliphate did not. As a final note, she states: "Many islamicists have assumed the Shi'ite concept of imamate to be a deviate development." Dr. Crone wrote this text in 1986 as a refutation of the works of the orientalists that had written before her. Dr. Crone's conclusions in this book (even, in contrast to her other works) have been adopted by the academic historical community.

Also, I have a missed call from you bro, i will call you soon!
wa salaam,
John

Salaam Jorann! I'm a guy btw...but no worries :)On...

2008-07-24T18:33:08.679-04:00

Salaam Jorann! I'm a guy btw...but no worries :)

Once again I'm responding without having read the books (sad, I know). Anyway, how then do we read that verse? I understand the development in Islamic doctrine over time. But I strongly feel that what should have developed shouldn't have been (and shouldn't be) fundamental concepts of doctrine (pretty much nothing considered usul-al-deen), but simply how these concepts are defined (and such an exercise should be taken with GREAT care). I would go so far as to say that doctrine should not change, only details. For example, Tawhid is a pretty fundamental concept of Islam, and has always been--we all agree on that. However, the idea of different degrees of Tawhid developed over time with differnt scholars (Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah, Rububiyyah...etc.). And till this day There are still different definitions. I'm completely fine with this sort of development and I enjoy reading about them just because they are interesting.

The truth is your comment about historical development is spot on. No one used the terms: "the six articles of belief", "Pillars of faith", "Usul al-Din" for awhile. These developed with the argument that they were made explicit in the Qur'an (and Hadith...which I don't like to bring up since we disagree on them anyway...the Qur'an is our best bet). So this takes us back to what we were talking about before...whether or not the concept of imaamah can be legitimately derived from the Qur'an.

I should have addressed this earlier, but this is something that we need to focus on...it's important. I disagree that "the divine intent in scripture...is ultimately inscrutable". If so, then what the heck was the point of sending us a message that is promised to be "clear" and never to be corrupted? Sure, it means I have in my hands the untainted words of God; and yes, that's awesome. But I hope we agree the Qur'an is more than that. I hope we agree that it has been sent to us as a guide. So it is our duty (and would benefit us) to look for and discuss the divine intent in scripture. Wright is right (HAHA) that there are language issues...that's the point of studying arabic and discussing the text; or trust those who do and read what they write, along with translations (don't like this much, but it's a legitimate temporary fix).

As for Ali claiming caliphate and passing this on to his son (and indirectly his heir...I suppose), again, we don't necessarily disagree on this. Yes, he claimed caliphate (as did others in the Ummah that we know of), and every single one of his heir (apparently) passed this on to his son. Moreover, 'Ali is said to have endorsed the caliphate remaining with his family. fine. But the question here is whether or not he understood himself to be the infallible imam that he's claimed to be...and perhaps same with his children (but I could care less what was said by whoever came after after the first couple on the matter...righteousness isn't genetic). The question is: when Ali sought to be the imam, did he imply that he was infallible? that there would be twelve infallible imams from his blood to lead the ummah, except for our generation...our's would be in hiding? that beleif in this was fundamental in imaamah? etc. I think we both agree that the answer is no...and that this elaborate doctrine developed over time (sounding a little redundant), for there's no report that 'Ali ever questioned the understandings (of Islam) of the sahaba with respect to core fundamentals, even if they had fall outs.

Here's my issue with this. If this is not the doctrine that 'Ali supported, how can it be something we support today. If the infallible imams are meant to interpret the Qur'an and Sunnah for us (of course I'm not so sure how much faith is had in this, we all refer to arguments written by men, and seem to interpret ourselves), one must wonder how it is that authoritative shia doctrine can "develop". Doctrine should have been the same from the first Imam. Of course we agree that (certain) practices can change over time, but how can it be that there is divine influence in doctrine changing? Doctrine is the heart of religion, it makes no sense to "develop" (i.e. change) over time.

What do you think John? and anyone else of course (don't wanna monopolize the discussion).

-Relwan

alhumdu,i think john (sp?) might need a more direc...

2008-07-24T04:02:24.944-04:00

alhumdu,

i think john (sp?) might need a more direct style, and stop using dafatry all the time. but none the less, i agree with what ali asam and john (sp?) is saying because it is the truths.

the relwons fellow, doesnt seem like she has a good understandings

-Jorann Samms

salaams relwan!i like your response, however, I fe...

2008-07-23T16:55:14.315-04:00

salaams relwan!

i like your response, however, I feel Ali-asad and I view the origins and development of Islam in a much more fluid framework than you seem to be advocating. I get the sense from your writing that you view the concept of an inerrant leader as something that was developed and crystallized much after the death of the prophet. I think it is definitely the case that this understanding developed gradually over time (and even i would concede that this doctrine of imamah was influenced by cultural, political, and even socio-economic concerns). I get a sense that that is the basis of your argument, and I agree with you. The problem, however, is that in a historical examination of Islam, all doctrines developed as such. The best source to consult on this idea, is The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East 600-1800 by Jonathan Berkey, a History Professor at Davidson. This book comes recommended from Dr. Ernst. Berkey explains: "The book stresses that Islam did not appear all at once, but emerged slowly, as part of a prolonged process whereby it was differentiated from other religious traditions and, indeed, that much that we take as characteristic of Islam is in fact the product of the medieval period." Once you understand that not a single islamic doctrine was formalized until centuries after the prophet's passing, it becomes less defensible to quote the verse 'and now I have perfected my religion for you' and claim that all of Islam was stated in totality and undestood by the community. If you look at islam historically, you have to interpret the verse differently.

As Dr. Farhad Daftary has stated: "In the formative period, Muslims lived in an intellectually dynamic and fluid mileu characterized by a multiplicity of communities of interpretation, schools of thought, and a diversity of views on a range of religio-political issues." You can make the argument as many times as you like that the doctrine of imamah developed gradually over time and any academically-minded shi'a will accept it, as Ali-asad, Abbas and I, do. That is a given because it applies to all islamic doctrines which, by definition, are a product of that period of speculation as described by daftary. This is not to say that the Prophet didn't teach anything concrete, he did; what is important is to see if the roots of the doctrine of imamah extends back into the prophet's time or if it was historically interpolated.

On that note, in addressing the previous rhetorical, as well as your question: It is accepted by the historical community that Ali viewed himself as the prophet's sole successor, it is accepted that he specifically nominated his son (and the prophet's grandson) al-Hasan to succeed him, it is also accepted that al-Hasan narrated al-Husayn, and that Husayn nominated his son etc. It is not that Ali claimed he knew more about Islam than Abu Bakr (which he did) it is that he was, as the Prophet called him, the sole "gate to the city of knowledge." Ali claimed, as i stated previously, to be the heir to the prophet (wasi an-nabi); this denotes that he and his successors are the sole legitimate teachers of, and elaborators upon, the essence of islam just as the Prophet himself was the sole legitimate founder of islam. The sunni theological concoction that Ali never claimed this for himself was has been rightfully discarded by historians. If sunnis do not take Ali at his word then that is certainly their prerogative, however, that Ali claimed to be the sole legitimate teacher of Islam has been demonstrated by historians (jafri, daftary, madelung) and embraced by the larger historical community.

To suggest that the way in which Ali's authority was conceptualized and articulated (i.e. the imamah doctrine) was a product of gradualism is a historical given.

Let me know what your thoughts are!

salaams.

Salaam guys! I've been MIA for awhile with my fami...

2008-07-21T18:16:48.213-04:00

Salaam guys! I've been MIA for awhile with my family. When I got back home, I just kind of slacked. my bad.

Ali-Asad, I would definitely disagree that Sunni thought is deprived of "any intellectual thought". ouch. Perhaps of (intense) "debate and rigor", but certainly you've admitted that conclusions made by Sunnis can be "valid". I know your standard well enough to know that you would not consider any argument devoid of intellectual thought to be valid. Of course the idea that Shia thought really started around 765 AD only further supports the idea that uniquely Shi'i doctrines were not stated explicitly by the prophet (SAW). I guess we all agree on that, hence the continued support of a figurative reading of the Qur'an. Also, I disagree that "4:59 alone can sufficiently demonstrate the need for an infallible successor". What sucks is that I don't understand Arabic, so I'm truly handicapped by having to read translations. But of the translations I have seen, they all make only one thing clear...that we are to obey those of authority among us (furthermore, probably specifically those of religious authority). This does not speak to the elaborate concept of imaamah. I mean my local imam has a degree of religious authority over me. what I wrote earlier explains this better. You presented an argument (the website) that used various ayah, then claimed the ayat is sufficient alone. you ought to rebut my analysis first. Or ignore my analysis and show how the ayat is sufficient alone to support the concept of imaamah as it is today.

Ok John, I know you don't want to rebut your summaries (and for good reason), but I kind of have to. It's more like rebutting what you present as your understanding of Shi'i thought from what you've read.

First I'll address the Caliphate issue. I don't know how in the world I considered the issue simply political. That the leaders of the early ummah shared both political and religious leadership is something I know to be true and that I've even spoken to non-muslims about when speaking of the problems with Shari'ah law today. That's a very poor mistake on my part that I actually remember making many times before when discussing this issue with you. I agree that without doubt, whoever was supposed to succeed the prophet (SAW) was supposed to provide "religious guidance on interpretation".

However, John, you added "exactly as the Shi'ah look to their Imams". Sunni's and Shias have always had people of religious authority if we are referring to "religious guidance on interpretation". Of course a clear example for both sides would be the mufassirun, to whom many look for interpretation. Even scholars are seen in the same light. I would guess then that you define religious authority on terms of more than those we look to for "interpretation". It's more how the imams are defined (infallibility, divine guidance, etc.) that we disagree on.

With that said, you've written very well how it is likely that 'Ali (RA) considered those of the prophet's household to have "superior religious knowledge". Perhaps. The truth is I don't believe Sunni's should really argue against that. Neither should we see Abu Bakr in a greater light than Ali simply because he was the first Caliph (and A LOT of Sunni's do, as you know...respect is dished out according to the order in which the caliphs came, even when we don't mean to respect in that way). I have to ask though, is it clear that 'Ali meant that religious superior knowledge would be with the family for all time, and it would pass through his son, and his son. And even if he thought this (and he could, as he was a human being with a legitimate humble opinion), did he ever encourage the idea of divine guidance? Did he ever tell us he was infallible? Did he ever encourage the concept of imaamah, especially as it is today? Why would he be so figurative about a fundamental doctrine of the Deen? Why would the Prophet leave us to debate on this when he made every other fundamental concept quite clear, and when Allah constantly calls his message a clear one? from what you wrote, perhaps his grandson further developed the concept. But the idea that the concept was developed over time (apparently especially after Al-Sadiq...though the issue with his sons further speaks to my point of clarity), and that it was not something explicitly encouraged by not only the prophet (SAW), but by Ali (RA) is strange. Sure they both made it obvious that the prophet's family was special...that should be a duh for anyone (and it's sad that it isn't). But really though, did they ever encourage the transformation of "religious superior knowledge" into infallible imams?

And I find we use the idea of ijtihad to "Okay" this development. But I strongly doubt ijtihad was meant to be used in matters of fundamentals.

When all know very well the verse "...Today i have perfected your religion" (5:3). What's interesting is that that verse is surrounded by what it is we can and cannot eat (perhaps a "fundamental", but certainly not as important as other fundamentals, and yet we are told that the religion is perfected. How then can Sunni thought or Shi'i thought regarding fundamentals be "developed". Adding to something perfect makes it imperfect. Ijtihad should be left for matters that are not fundamental. For example (I think i mentioned this earlier), there is legitimate ikhtilaaf on the matter of growing a beard, and (I believer) that's ok. We don't even use ijtihad for Wudu (we do wipe the tops of our shoes and socks, not the bottom, and I doubt that will change)

I'm interested to hear what you guys have to say...hope summer is going well.

-Relwan

I recommend that all of you take the wonderful cla...

2008-07-09T19:27:48.072-04:00

I recommend that all of you take the wonderful class offered in Spring 2009 at UNC CH on Shi'ism.

Secondly Mr. John,

You, as Dr. Ernst would claim, need to be more firm and not docile in your analysis.

Overall Mr. John you are a genius.

- Abdul-Aziz Adams

Asalaamu Alaykuma Relwan and Ali-Asad,I skimmed ve...

2008-06-30T00:18:20.742-04:00

Asalaamu Alaykuma Relwan and Ali-Asad,

I skimmed very briefly over what the two of your have written thus far and I was hoping to make a modest contribution. My contribution will consist of a historical examination on the roots of the doctrine of imamah. Additionally, I will not be focusing on Qur'anic verses that could potentially support the doctrine of imamate. As Peter Wright has stated, the divine intent inscripture, based on the properties of language, is ultimately inscrutible. As such, we must turn to history. (For the record, my final paper for dr. ernst was on verses of authority in surah al-baqarah so I have previously written on the topic of verses of authority that Shi'i scholars interpret as supporting the doctrine of imamate. I understand if you do not accept these interpretations, that is completely legitimate and is expected based on modern notions in literary criticism of semantic power. However, to say that Imamate is not reasonable found in the Qur'an, to me, suggests a superficial understanding of the argument. If you are not familiar with verses relating to Talut, for example, I would be hesitant to endorse your positivism).

From the formative period of Islamic scholarship through the 20th century, Sunni scholars have constructed a historical narrative on the religious and political climate of 7th century Arabia. It goes something like this:

What is commonly perceived of as the Shi'ah movement (based around a hereditary heir of esoteric knowledge, i.e. imam) developed long after the death of Ali. There was, to be sure, a Shi'at Ali during the first Fitnah, but they were simply the active supporters of Ali's caliphate, just as there was a Shi'at 'Uthman composed of all those seeking revenge for Ali's predecessor murdered in Madinah. The conflict between the two Parties was, in modern terms, strictly political. Ali himself sought the caliphate after Uthman's violent death on the same basis as his three predesessors. He faced, however, strong opposition from Aisha and the Makkan Quraysh, and subsequently from Mu'awiyah and the Syrians. It was only after the murder of Ali and the abdication of his son al-Hasan in favor of Mu'awiyah that some of the Kufan partisans, disappointed by the failure of their cause and resentful of the transfer of the sovereign power to Syria, began to build up the idea of a special right of the ahl al-bayt, Muhammad's Family, to rule the Muslim community. In order to raise 'Ali's status they now ascribed to him a superior knowledge of Islam which he had received from the Prophet and sometimes also supernatural qualities. In due time, the more radical of his partisans claimed that only Ali and a line of his descendents were entitled to the religious and political leadership of the community and that Ali's predecessors as well as the later caliphs were illegitimate usurpers. The further removed from political reality, the more the shi'ah became prone to religious radicalism and exagerration.

Sound about right, Relwan?

This historical narrative was, to varying degrees, supported and accepted by the first generation of western scholars to academically study Islam. This narrative, in a relatively consistent form, can be found in the works of the pioneers in the field of Islamic Studies such as Ignaz Goldziher, Julius Wellhausen, Moshe Sharon, and Marshall Hodgson. This was, however, the first generation of Islamic scholars and the first exposure of academics to the Islamic historiographical literature. Sunni historical and heresiographical literature was accepted wholesale and other "sectarian movements" were rejected as deviating from a well-defined doctrinal foundation that existed at the Prophet's death. As you know, Relwan, this early generation of scholars is known today as "orientalists," and they have been superceded by successive waves of more sober scholarship. As Farhad Daftary eloquently summarizes, "This picture of early Islam (presented by the Sunni Ulama of medieval times) is at variance with the findings of modern scholarship." If your opinions are informed by the above historical narrative then I kindly suggest that you read contemporary studies of early Islamic History for a contemporary academic perspective. To sum up decades of scholarship in this post would result in something no one would want to read, so I will give you a few suggestions.

God's Caliph, by Dr. Patrician Crone, Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University
The Sunni model operates on the foundation that religious authority ended with the Prophet's death. Abu Bakr and Umar, for example, succeeded the prophet only in political terms, so the narrative goes. What Dr. Crone found, in examination of everything from historical literature to recent archaeological evidence acquired from Syria and the Arabian Peninsula, is that this was a later, anachronistic interpretation by the Sunni Ulama. In actuality, the early community looked to the khulafah for religious guidance on the interpretation of Islam (exactly as the Shi'ah look to their Imams). The idea of a separation of the political and religious authority is an interpolation of modern society, such a distinction would have been unintelligible in the Prophet's time. The idea that Abu Bakr and Umar maintained solely political authority is, as crone states, historically insupportable. The conclusion one draws form this is that the entirety of the Muslim community, the righteous forefathers (the Sahaba and Tabi'een), those taught Islam by the Prophet himself, viewed Muhammad's successors as having religious authority. Put differently, everyone in the Prophet's generation viewed Muhammad's successor as a religious guide for the community, the only distinguishing factor of the Shi'at of Ali was their contention that a member of the Prophet's house deserved this distinction. Even if one were to argue against this contention (about Ali), the idea that Muhammad's successors should inherit solely his political authority, as the Sunni narrative unanimously attests, is a historical anachronism and contrary the views of Muhammad's companions. This shifts the burden of proof to the Sunnis then, to demonstrate their claim for Muhammad's successors not being heirs to religious guidance, because this view is contrary to those of the Muslims in the first generations.

Succession to Muhammad, by Dr. Wilferd Madelung, Laudian Professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford.
Additionally, "Shi'ism in the Age of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs"
Central to the Sunni model is the contention that the views of the Shi'a (that the successor to Muhammad must be from the Prophet's household (i.e. ahl al-bayt) and that this individual was heir to esoteric (i.e. initiated) knowledge of Islam) developed later, after Ali's death. This perception, put forth by Sunni theologians is out of necessity; the idea that Ali claimed for himself the sole right to religious authority after the Prophet is unpalatable to the Sunni model.
To digress away from academic history, Ali is described in the Sunni texts in the following ways:
The Prophet stated: "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate (bab)" (recorded in Sahih al-Tirmidhi)
Further the Prophet stated, "I leave behind me two things, the Qur'an and my ahl al-bayt, my ahl al-bayt, my ahl al-bayt, and the two shall never separate until they meet me at the pool of Kawthar (in Jannah)." This hadith is recorded in Sahih Muslim, and it ranks as mutawatur (equal in authority and historicity to an ayah of the Qur'an)
There are many more such traditions in the sunni collections, what I hope to illustrate is that both Sunnis and Shi'a hold Ali in the highest regard in truthfulness, conduct, and closeness to the Prophet, for him to claim to be the Wasi (legatee) of the Prophet would cause insoluble problems for the Sunni historical narrative.

Dr. Madelung examines the historical literature of that era of history and concludes not only did Ali's followers at the time of the first caliphs referring to him as the wasi of the Prophet, a practice which he approved of, Ali himself claimed, from the pulpit of the Mosque in Kufa to have been nominated directly by the Prophet at the event at Ghadir Khumm. He asked members of the audience to come forward and testify to hearing this nomination. Ghadir Khumm, by the way, was the crossroads of the Prophet's farewell pilgrimmage in the final year of his life. He recited a verse of the Qur'an to the effect that: "Do I not have more authority (awla) over the believers than they have over themselves?" and followed that "Of whomsoever i am master (maula), Ali is now his Master." Later sunni interpretation is characterized by the word maula meaning simply "friend." however, contexually, the verse of authority from the Qur'an was cited for the purpose of conveying the proper sense of the word maula, that is, in its form related to authority (awla). My apologies for the diversion, the point being that within his own lifetime, Ali himself claimed the sole right to succession to Muhammad. He further stated in his letters that authority belonged to a member of the Prophet's family on account of superior religious knowledge. This view has been echoed by the likes of al-Husayn, the Prophet's grandson and one of the key figures in the early islamic community who, in a letter to supporters claimed the Prophet's family were the awsiyah (legatees) of the Prophet and those given authority by God himself over the Ummah (cited in al-tabari).

The conclusions from these works,which have been universally acclaimed, rather than contested, by the historical community are, as Daftary stated, "at variance" with the traditional Sunni historical hypothesis. The idea that the doctrine of Imamate developed later is dubious in that this paradigm was the sole paradigm accepted by the students of Muhammad himself, further, Ali and the other impeccable members of his family (i.e. al-Husayn), the former who was mentioned in the following way "Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali" by the Prophet, all claimed for themselves in their lifetimes what the Shi'a accord them. The idea that Ali's sole right to authority developed later as a result of exaggeration is counter to the historical evidence.

Finally, it would be unfortunate for you to hold the Shi'a movement accountable for some early writers accusing Umm al-mu'mineen Aisha of adultery and the first three khulafah and the community as apostates. This was always a minority view in the Shi'a movement and has been rejected once scholars began to evaluate the historical and hadith literature. The same is true of the sunni movement, it would be incorrect to condemn the sunni movement because the caliphs of the Ummayad dynasty cursed Ali from the pulpits every Jumu'ah prayer. This view was eventually rejected, just as the negative views of Aisha and the companions were rejected in 'orthodox' Shi'a thought. Additionally, I highly advise you to abandon polemical websites such as ahlelbayt.com in favor of academic historical work, ahlelbayt.com might serve as acceptable primary-source material on Sunni thought but it does not live up to the rigors of academic scholarship. All this being said, this final paragraph is largely meant to be ignored. This is a tangential issue irrelevant to the conceptual foundations of the sunni and shi'i movements. Finally, you should not accept my conclusions from the above authors, you should read these academic texts youself and decide for yourself if you view them to be flawed, if so it is up to you to refute them. Refuting my summaries of the texts is not worth your time because it is simply my very rough highlights from memory without specific textual citations that are present in the text. In addition, when reading Patricia Crone's work, note her tendency to make sweeping conclusions that are defended textually primarily in "notes" sections in the back, these citations are crucial to understanding her overall point. Beyond those two texts I highly recommend "The Origins and Early Development of Shi'a Islam, by S.H.M. Ja'fri, as well as pages 35-57 of the 2007 Edition of Farhad Daftary's "The Ismailis, their history and their doctrines. Once you've read all these I'd love to have a conversation with you regarding the relative validity of the findings of each of these historians.

Lastly, salaams bro, I hope you have enjoyed the summer and I'm looking forward to shura!

-John

There’s a big difference between studying classica...

2008-06-29T21:14:22.976-04:00

There’s a big difference between studying classical Sunni thought and classical Shia thought. After the Prophet’s death, proto-Sunni thought continued to evolve until Ghazali shut down ijtihad in his seminal work The Incoherence of the Philosophers . On the other hand, Shia thought really got started around the time of Jafar As-Sadiq (d. 765 AD). But after the disappearance of the 12th Imam, Shia scholars took a greater role in developing doctrine through ijtihad. This ijtihad has continued till this present day. Ijitihad amongst Shia scholars has included a large use of rationalism as a tool to discover the truth. Now, some early Shi’a scholars may have argued that, for example, the Qur’an was incomplete. This argument was based on the evidence they had at the time. Later Shi’a scholars like Shaykh as-Saduq refute this argument around the 10th century and go on to hold that the Qur’an was in fact complete, which has been the dominant Shi’I position ever since. Now, can you honestly argue that the Shi’a aqeeda holds the Quran to be incomplete? Of course not. Relwan, religious thought isn’t monolithic. Ghazali’s closing down ijtihad has resulted in a current Sunni thought deprived of any intellectual thought, debate or rigor. Don’t confuse that with Shi’I thought.

You make valid arguments regarding the Quran and Imamah. But your analysis relies on an inherently literalistic reading of the Quran based on one translation. I’d caution against that methodology because it’s the spirit of the law that counts, not the letter. An argument from 4:59 alone can sufficiently demonstrate the need for an infallible successor.

Ali never claimed the right to succeed the Prophet? You can’t possibly make that claim without going over Madelung’s work; he includes letters written by Ali to Muawiya discussing the succession issue. And how about he traditions where Ali, during his Caliphate, makes companions testify to his nomination at Ghadeer – you can find that here.

so looking at those sites, pretty much the better ...

2008-06-22T16:54:06.247-04:00

so looking at those sites, pretty much the better of the arguments involved 4:59, 76:24, and 2:124. The first half of the first page is a jumbled mess. The writer refers to 3:7 and 21:7 and uses these to affirm that the prophets and the "imams/guides" were/are "the only individuals who have the full knowledge of Quran and the Sunna of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) after him, and as such, they are the only qualified people who can properly interpret the verses of the holy Quran and explain its meaning, as mentioned in Quran itself (See 3:7 and 21:7)". In short only the Imams can properly interpret the Qur'an. Clearly the writer (and us two as made clear by this discussion) disagree, which is kind of strange for the writer. Also, we know very well that 'Ali (RA) did not state belief in the imaamah as part of Aqeeda. This is another topic of discusion, but I hope we can agree this section of that website was just bad. So moving forward, the idea that 4:59 refers to the imaamat is based on bad logic and reading ayat in a vacuum. the writer claims that since we are told "not to obey a sinner" (76:24), then those of "authority" we are told to obey can't just be pious people who avoid sin, but they must refer (quite specifically) to the twelve imams. Dude, not only did the writer leave out previous ayat, he actually chopped of half of the ayah. Here's 76:23-26
"(23)We Ourself have sent down this Qur'an to you [Prophet] in gradual revelation. (24)Await your Lord's Judgment with patience; do not yield to any of these sinners or disbelievers; (25)remember the name of your Lord at dawn and in the evening; (26) bow down before Him, and glorify Him at length by night". Looking at verse 23, it is clear this was directed to the prophet (SAW). However, there's no doubt the Qur'an often addresses both the Prophet and the believers at the same time. but AT THE LEAST look at the whole verse at hand...this verse is about patience and endurance, not authority. as for 2:124. Brother, the opposite of "dhalimoon" (wrong-dowers, unjust, etc" is not infallible, but rather "mu'min (good-doer)", or "'Adl (just)". but these are not my words, and this person argues his stance more eloquently...http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/imamah/the-quran-challenge-3

I hope ths thing hyperlnks...I've forgotten how to do all that stuff. lol

Relweezy

"...you’ve assigned minority opinions of extremist...

2008-06-22T15:51:41.741-04:00

"...you’ve assigned minority opinions of extremist (ghulat) shia groups in early Islamic history to mainstream contemporary Shi’i thought – it’s the equivalent of my using Wahabi ideas to denigrate Sunni Islam."

I knew this would come, and I made a subtle reference to it in my other comment. Okay, so my definition of the fundamentals of Shia Islam actually comes from authoritative works of Shia thought, and my conclusions are a result of these. sue me. Somehow you compare this to the whole Wahabi phenomenon. The truth is it actually would be okay to study Sunni Aqeedah by looking at "clsasical" Islamic thought, and almost no one would oppose that. This is Aqeedah we are talking about...fundamentals...not whether or not I pray two raka'at of sunnah or 4, or I keep a beard, or mut'ah made permissible, or self-affliction made permissible. I've never heard anyone say the "five pillars" of Islam are extremist. So Sunni Aqeedah goes back to classical Sunni thought, and so should Shia Aqeedah. And looking at these, it is pretty clear that belief in the imaamah is part of the "usool-al-Deen". not implied, but explicit. That is to say, belief in this (plus others), constitutes a Muslim. ipso facto, not believing in this=kufr. If not that, then someone that's extremely deficient in his Islam. That would including 'Aisha (rA). Now with respect to views on 'Aisha, perhaps I went a little far in referring to how many classical Shia thinkers considered her adulterous. Regardless, utter disrespect for her is inherent in Shia Islam. I say this because she is without a doubt considered a liar and (by some) a fabricator of Hadith. Not only this, but most troubling is there's no doubt she is considered to have apostatized, along with the companions. Again, i say this because of what is considered "usool-al-din" in Shia Islam. I mean we are saying that a wife of the prophet (SAW), along with the companions, vehemently rejected a "fundamental belief" in Islam! Someone Allah calls a "mother of the believers". Yea, ok. Let's not be naive and call these extremist positions in Shia Islam. This was implied from the beginning simply because the Shias affirmed 'Ali's status as caliph as a directive from the prophet (thus making it a religious directive), and not just a political disagreement...thus why imaamah is part of the Aqeedah. And if this is part of the Aqeedah (which of course you agree on in your original post), then 'Aisha is an apostate. Now the reason why we might disagree is because (perhaps) your definition of Shia Islam is based on the works of contemporary Shia scholars--I doubt this because you agree that imaamah is a fundamental belief, and as I've said, my conclusions on 'Aisha are based on these. Regardless, i look at classical Shia thught. And this is because it is not contemporary scholars that separated themselves from "mainstream" Islam, but those of the past who "defined" Shia Islam (I guess as a doctrine). As for the arguments for the imaamah in the Qur'an, this comment is already long enough, so this will be in the very next comment (below), unless you respond to this before I'm through with it, lol.

Relweezy

Relwan, when talking about Shia fundamental belief...

2008-06-21T13:44:53.690-04:00

Relwan, when talking about Shia fundamental beliefs (‘aqida) and their views on the companions and wives, I fear you’ve fallen into a common trap: you’ve assigned minority opinions of extremist (ghulat) shia groups in early Islamic history to mainstream contemporary Shi’i thought – it’s the equivalent of my using Wahabi ideas to denigrate Sunni Islam. It doesn’t make any sense and avoids the topic at hand; essentially, it’s mudslinging.

By the way, leading scholars from all sides have included both Sunni and Shi’a schools of thoughts within the fold of Islam, and so I have no idea where you get the idea that if you don’t believe in Imamah you’re not a muslim.

The Amman message

You say that there’s no Quranic basis for Imamah whereas all the Sunni doctrines are stated clearly in the text. However, you may be relying on a literalistic interpretation of the Quran to make this judgment, which is fine but there are other methods of interpretation. Refer to chapter 3 (Family of Imran) verse 7 where the Quran talks about how some verses are decisive and some are allegorical.

You have a right to say that Imamah as no basis in the Quran only if you can back that up with rationality and evidence. Refer to here and here for a short rational Quranic argument for Imamah. You may completely disagree, and that’s fine. But any interpretation that can be defended on a rational and Quranic level is a valid interpretation.

So I'm commenting on this super late. :) I disagre...

2008-06-18T18:04:32.854-04:00

So I'm commenting on this super late. :) I disagree that Sunnis and Shias "unite in the most fundamental tenets of the islamic faith", because they differ on what these "tenets" are. Contrary to popular belief, it's not because of mut'ah--while that is an issue on which sunnis ad shias disagree on, it's by no means a "central" part of shiism. Anyway, we all agree that the main reason the sunni and shia differ is because of the idea of imaamah and the idea that not believing in this concept makes one a kaafir--believing in the concept of imaamah is/was a fundamental belief in Shia CLASSICAL thought...it is/was very much a central well-established part of Aqeedah. So if you are Muslim, you believe in this (along with other beliefs of course, which Sunnis and Shias do agree on), and if you don't you're not Muslim. I don't know what people are saying today, and frankly I don't care much for people trying to jump around their beliefs (don't get me wrong, this happens with all people of all faiths...including sunnis who fail at the whole progressive thing). but this is based on early shia books. The reason why many can't accept this is simply because the Qur'an does not make a directive for believing in this. When i mean a directive, I mean clearly without brackets or commentary involved--no one tends to accept the other's hadith or tafsir anyway, so forget that. But all fundamentals of the Sunnis are clearly stated in the Qur'an without commentary, and the idea that something as "fundamental" is not stated and that three of the prophet's closest companions decided to apostatize from the religion, and that God chose pretty much a conspiratorial slut (audhubillah!!!) as a wife for the prophet, and a mother of the believers...etc doesn't sit well with sunnis. Were it not for these issues, shiism would be seen by many as just a school of thought (consider the respect had for maliki, hanafi, etc.), and nothing more. So to conclude, the purpose of this comment was simply to refute the claim that sunnis and shias agree on the "most fundamental tenets of Islam" simply because they define these differently.

-Relwan O.

Yes, there are differences as to practices during ...

2008-03-27T20:56:32.654-04:00

Yes, there are differences as to practices during Muharram but again the Shia and Sunni unify in terms of the central figure involved - Husayn, the Prophet's grandson.

It's only a small fraction that engage in the acts of self-flagellation that are commonly portrayed in the news media. There's a vigorous debate in the Shia world and amongst the Shia ulema as to the permissibility of self-flagellation, and to what extent it can be taken.

The question is whether you'd ever trust a religio...

2008-03-26T21:53:46.657-04:00

The question is whether you'd ever trust a religious sect that self flagellates. I saw on a documentary a bunch of Shiites gashing their backs with whips. Almost as bad as some Catholics (all with their hair shirts, leg bracelets with inward spikes, etc). Actually, on the real tip, is self flagellation common for Shiites, or is it only a small percentage that engage in it?

There are some differences in practice, right? i....

2008-03-26T15:32:08.098-04:00

There are some differences in practice, right? i.e. Extent of mourning during Ashura.

P.S. Hey look I left a comment...but it's anonymous.

See you tomorrow, Inshallah.

2008-03-25T00:20:06.924-04:00

See you tomorrow, Inshallah.