Today I am beginning a series of publications of articles about the Shia faith, culture and history. I think that it is important, crucial in fact, to understand the uniqueness and specificity of this branch of Islam which so often either totally ignored or, worse, conflated with Saudi Wahabism. How often do we hear that Iran and Saudi Arabia are “Islamic states”? To a certain degree such a statement is undeniably true; the danger here is that it somehow assumes that the two countries, societies and religious wordviews are somehow similar, if not identical. Nothing could be further from the truth.
While there undoubtedly is an over-arching commonality among the various branches of Islam, this shared heritage should not serve to somehow occult the very substantial differences among them.
The Muslim world is amazingly diverse and the Islam of the Talebans has little in common with the Shia Islam of neighboring Iran which, in turn, has little in common with the kind of Islam practiced in Turkey and even less so with the Islam of the Saudis. Still, the Western corporate media likes it conflate it all together into a vague, but always frightening, “Islamic fundamentalism” or, even worse, “Islamo-Fascism” (the beloved expression of the UN Neocons).
I have come to the conclusion that Shia Islam is one of the least known or understood religions of the planet even though Iran, Iraq and Lebanon are, in many ways, among the most important countries on earth. Furthermore, the USraelian Empire has now clearly embarked on a long term strategy of aggression and sabotage against the Shia world. Even if the West knows close to nothing about the Shia, they will become the central key force of the Middle-East in the foreseable future.
Let us not forget here that the Shia were the first Arabs to even defeat the Israelis not only in combat, but politically. Likewise, the Shia were the first in the Middle-East to overthrow a pro-US dictatorship and replace it by an Islamic government in Iran. The very same Shia are now in the process of booting out from power the Three Stooges (Siniora, Hariri, Jumblatt) and their clique of overweight millionaires from power in Lebanon. The Shia are clearly a formidable force and one whose main strength lies in their faith.
It is therefore exceedingly important to learn more about the Shia, their history, culture and beliefs. With this new series about Shia Islam I will endeavor to regularly publish essays written by Shia Muslims on various aspects of their identity. Hopefully, this will give a valuable insight to all those who, like myself, are not Muslims but who want to understand this complex, rich and original faith.
The concept of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of Islamic Jurists) is a very important one albeit not one which is accepted by all Shia. For example, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, arguably the single most influential Iraqi Shia authority, does not accept the point of view of Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei on this topic. Hezbollah, which is under the spiritual guidance of Ayatollah Khamenei, does endorse this teaching (which is why it does not accept the spiritual leadership of Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah which most non-Hezbollah Lebanese Shia consider their spiritual leader). Thus, the idea of Wilayat al-Faqih is at the center of not only Shia-Sunni differences, but even intra-Shia polemics.
I am deeply grateful to Ali Mahdi for allowing me to publish his most interesting article.
The Saker
——-
State and Religion in Shi’ah Islamic Thought
By: Ali Mahdi
Port Dover, Ontario, Canada
Written for: “History of the Middle East,”
at Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Imam ‘Ali says, “Scholars are the rulers of the people.”1 In Islam, there is no room for secularism, as Islam encompasses all aspects of society, economics, administration and politics. Islam is not just worshipping God, it includes politics as well. This can be proved from the Qoran and hadith (traditions). Therefore an Islamic state ruled by the ‘ulama or clergy is necessary under Islamic Shari’ah or law, which is applicable for all time. The necessity for a true Islamic state became a reality with the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution, which was led by (Imam) Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mousavi Khomayni. Islamic government is not a recent theory, as many scholars argue, but it has its origins in the Qu’ran and Sonnah (traditions) of the Prophet Muhammad, and his Holy Family. The theory of Wilayat al-Faqih, the rule of the Islamic jurist, is the form of government used in the Islamic Republic of Iran; this theory was developed by Imam Khomayni. It is explained in many of his books, especially “Wilayat al-Faqih.” Wilayat al-Faqih, an Islamic government with a strong leader/jurist, is the main theory of Islamic governance in Shi’ah thought, and has proved itself to be an alternative to secular styles of government promoted by the United States of America and its allies. Today, Iran is the only true Islamic state; its constitution is based on the Islamic laws put down by the Prophet mixed with a modern Republican state. State politics and religion in Shi’ah Islamic thought provides a compatible system of governance for all Muslims.
The Islamic state is not a new phenomenon, but comes from the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad, took the existing Arabian society, and tore it apart as it was a decayed and corrupt system, which was far from the ideals set prescribed by God for humanity.2 He established an Islamic government that is the model and inspiration for a modern Islamic government which encompasses all aspects of life within the state. The Islamic revolution brought by Imam Khomayni is not dissimilar to that brought by Prophet Muhammad. Before the Islamic Revolution, Iran was ruled by the tyrant monarch Reza Shah Pahlavi, who repressed Islam and the political, social and economic aspects of Islam which were crucial to the maintenance of social justice. The Islamic Revolution brought power and influence to the clergy, and implemented an Islamic state based on the rules and traditions given by our Prophet and his Holy Family.
Wilayat al-Faqih is the rule of a pious and just (‘adl) jurist who is learned in all aspects of diniyat (religion). This method of determining this person is elaborated in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.3 It is necessary for an Islamic society to have a religious judge as a ruler to defend the ‘ummah (community) from its enemies, develop justice, and society. Not all people would agree with these goals, and see them as going against their interests and liberties. The leader has absolute authority and his will and authority are superior to the wills and power of the people.4 Islam is a not only restricted to individual prayers, fasting, and moral values and is involved in the solution of social problems, justice, and political and economic issues. In Islam, the general population must accept the guardianship of the jurist, which means the enforcement of Islamic laws. Problems must be solved and governance must be guarded by the ‘ulama. In the Qoran, God asks Prophet Muhammad to consult the people (shura) before making a decision, although the final decision lies with the ruler. This was done to show the fallible people how to run an Islamic state. In Islam, it is necessary that the believers follow all the rules of Islam and obey their scholars.
The concept of Wilayat al-Faqih was originally detailed by in “’Awa’id al-Ayam” by Ayatollah Mulla Ahmad Naraqi in the early nineteenth century, although it had been mentioned earlier.5 He argues that the faqih is entrusted with guardianship rights during Occultation of Imam al-Mahdi. He writes that this can only mean that a qualified jurist could be the legitimate ruler in the absence of the Imam, and this was the only legitimate government.6 Ayatollah Naraqi develops his arguments from the Qoran, hadith and jurisprudence. He stresses that the scholars have the same right to rule as the Prophet and Imams. Imam Khomayni was the next scholar to study the role of the jurisprudent in governance, and he expanded on the theories of Ayatollah Naraqi.7 In his book “Wilayat al-Faqih,” written from a collection of speeches while in exile in Iraq in the early 1970s, Imam Khomayni discusses guardianship as a principle of Islam, which serves as a foundation for all duties. He expands on this concept from governmental and political points of view. He writes that the Prophet’s successors (Imams) were not just appointed for expanding on the principles of Islam, but for “rulership, and for enforcement of laws and regulations.”8 Imam Khomayni writes in his book “Qa’edah la-Zarar” that the jurist in the time of occultation had authority of the society just as the prophet did. The four deputies of Imam al-Mahdi during the Lesser Occultation were his successors in political matters, and today the ‘ulama hold this role, so they have the right to political power.
Islamic law was not meant to be enforced only for the time of the Prophet and Imams, but for all time. The ‘ulama are the representatives of the Imams, so therefore have a right to rule. Imam Khomayni explains the deviation from Islamic government during the Ummayad and Abbasid dynasties and its continuation into the modern day. He emphasizes the importance of rising up against tyrannical governments and to establish and Islamic government, with the enforcement of Islamic law, Islamic unity, and to save the oppressed from tyranny. He notes that this is the religious duty of all Muslims, especially the scholars. Imam Khomayni explains the role of the Islamic legislature, writing that it is their goal to develop all government programs within an Islamic framework and not that of other states.
Next Imam Khomayni explains the important qualities of the Islamic ruler. The leader of the Islamic state has not been appointed by Imam al-Mahdi, but from ahadith we know that he must have command over religious laws (fiqh) and be just (‘adl.) He must be knowledgeable about Islamic law and he must be “just,” meaning moral and trustworthy. Imam Khomayni recommends “A person, who intends to be the guardian of the Muslims and successor of the Commander of the Faithful [Imam ‘Ali], should not be attached to worldly matters. If one indulges in worldly matters, he cannot be the trustee and reliable person for people.”9 This was evident in Imam Khomayni’s very simple and humble lifestyle. The Leader of the Islamic state tries to be the executors of the rules of God, and they cannot go against God’s rules. They can only use their own authority when there is no clear principle.10 Imam Khomayni argues that divine Islamic law is applicable to all aspects of all societies in all eras. Gods’ religious commandments are not useful unless they are applied to form an Islamic state based on divine guardianship. To protect Islam from its enemies and to prevent chaos in an Islamic society, an Islamic state is necessary. Even though our infallible Imam is in Occultation, we must have an Islamic state. Imam Khomayni writes that we live in the time of the Occultation, and that Islamic principles are to be enforced, and no one has been appointed by God to fulfill this task. However, God has given man the qualities which are required for leadership to a great number of ‘ulama since the beginnings of Islam. They must join together to form a just government in the world. It is the duty of the ‘ulama to fulfil their role to enforce Islamic law. Laws, some seen as harsh or authoritarian by outsiders who do not understand their obligations to Islam, are made to protect the people from corruption in society and to protect Islam. Imam Khomayni writes that it is not the role of the ‘ulama to sit in “some corner in Najaf or Qom studying the questions of menstruation and parturition instead of concerning themselves with politics, and draw the conclusion that religion must be separate from politics.”11 He notes that during the time of the Prophet and Imam ‘Ali religion and politics was one, as they were political and religious leaders. If one concentrates only on prayer and the other duties of Islam, the imperialists and colonialists will be able to take the Muslim society over.
Imam Khomayni writes about the necessity for an Islamic government in his book “Wilayat al-Faqih.” He continues his discussion that the Prophet Muhammad laid down the laws for an Islamic state and implemented these laws as well, and called for an Islamic state to be set up. The Islamic state cannot just have Islamic legislations to protect Islam; it needs an “executor.” This executor is called the Wali al-‘Amr, meaning “the one who holds authority,” a term derived from the Quranic verse 4:59: “O you who believe! Obey God, and obey the Messenger and the holders of authority (wali al-‘amr) from among you.” The Wali al-‘Amr, implements the laws and verdicts given by the courts, allowing society to benefit from the just laws that the courts deliver.12 Without an Islamic state, religion would into destruction and decay causing its institutions and rites to decay and then vanish. Wilayat al-Faqih protects the religion from “madmen.”
The legitimacy of Islamic government can be proved by hadith (traditions) reported by the Prophet and Imams. Here are a few prominent hadith out of many hadith regarding Islamic government. Imam Jaafar as-Sadeq says in the Hadith of Wilayah (of the ‘Ulama):
They must seek out one of you who narrates our traditions, who is versed in what is permissible and what is forbidden, who is well-acquainted with our laws and ordinances, and accept him as judge and arbiter, for I appoint him as judge over you. If the ruling which he based on our laws is rejected, this rejection will be tantamount to ignoring the order of Allah and rejecting us is the same as rejecting Allah, and this is the same as polytheism.13
This means that the ‘ulama are the heirs of the Imams in the “absence” of Imam al-Mahdi according to Shi’ah fiqh (law). The majority of people are not given the Wilayah (guardianship); it is the ‘ulama who have this power during the Imam’s Occultation.14 In another hadith, Imam ‘Ali says, “Scholars are the rulers of the people.”15 In an Islamic society, the head of government should be a “just” jurist with all the prescribed qualifications. These jurists are the authorized representatives of Imam al-Mahdi, while he is in Occultation. Devine commandments cannot be altered, as it would be going against the will of God.16 Imam ‘Ali also says: “I have accepted the task of government because God, Exalted and Almighty, has exacted from the scholars of Islam a pledge not to sit silent and idle in the face of gluttony and plundering of the oppressors, on the one hand, and the hunger and deprivation of the oppressed, on the other.”17 This means that the scholars have the role of running the Islamic state. The fifth Imam, Muhammad al-Baqer says: “Islam is founded on five pillars: prayers (salat), zakat (charity), hajj (pilgrimage), sawm (fasting), and Wilayah (guardianship).” Zurarah (a student) asked the Imam: “Which one is the most important?” The Imam answered: “Wilayah is.” After the Imam emphasized Wilayah as the most important, he added: “Because it acts as the key for them (ie: the five pillars) and the wali is the guide towards them.” 18 Imam Husayn says, “Discharging of the duties and the enforcement of laws should be in the hands of the scholars, God-fearing and pious persons. These are the people who do not make any changes in the Divine commands pertaining to lawful and unlawful things, and who are the custodians of trusts.”19
Scholars point to the Verse of Authority (4:59)20 to show that the Wali al-‘Amr cannot be a corrupt or a secular leader. God gives us the command to the Leader in all material, religious and spiritual matters.21 The authority of the Leader over the Islamic state is derived from Ayah (verse) 2:246: “…Raise up for us a king (that) we may fight in the way of Allah…” This means that even in the time of an infallible, people need one ruler to lead them and to fight against oppression.22 Ayatollah Momen, a member of the Council of Guardians, writes that by disobeying the Wali al-Faqih, you are disobeying the laws of God. Ayatollah Khamenei also mentions that since Wilayat al-Faqih is the law of God, obedience to the Islamic state is mandatory (as a divine duty).23 It is necessary to follow the Wali al-Faqih; this is said by all ‘ulama. All ‘ulama believe in Wilayat al-Faqih, although some interpret it differently. Ayatollah ‘‘Ali Sistani (most senior marja’/religious authority in Shi’ah Islam) says: “everyone, even other mojtaheds, are obligated to follow the hokm (jurisdiction) of the person who has Shar’ei Wilayah, when the hokm is related to public issues where social order and people’s sustenance are concerned. On the issues that are related to the protection of the Islamic system, the accepted Faqih has Wilayah on all the believers.”24 This means that everyone has to follow the Wali al-Faqih, regardless of the marja’ they follow.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s only true Islamic state, the highest-ranking official is the Leader (Rahbar) or Wali al-Faqih, who is the head of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government. Imam Khomayni was the first Leader, and since 1989, Ayatollah Sayyed ‘Ali Khamenei holds this role. The leader (or leadership council) is chosen by the Assembly of Experts (Khobregan), of which the seventy mojtahed’s (jurisprudents) are chosen directly by the people. According to the Constitution the Wali al-Faqih must be pious and fair, and have proper political and social expertise. The Wali al-Faqih must have the qualifications to issue decrees on fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution has many functions and duties, including the appointment and dismissal of most heads of state organizations, the president (after the Supreme Court has made a ruling on a violation of his legal duties or a vote of his incompetence by the Majles). The Leader also has the ability to pardon the sentences of condemned people, and to resolve problems that cannot be settled by the Expediency Council, and other disputes. The Islamic Republic of Iran is obviously not perfect, as it is fallible, but it is the closest thing we have of Islamic government in practice. The only true Islamic state will be implemented when Imam al-Mahdi appears.
Islamic government is not just a reaction against imperialism and the corrupt Pahlavi monarchy, but a return to the Islam of our Prophet, who commanded that we follow in his footsteps. He commanded that we have an Islamic state, and Imam Khomayni was the first person to establish this state. Imam Khomeini’s ideas are not his alone; they are based on an extensive study of hadith, Quran, and Islamic history. From the careful study of this, scholars find that the leader of the Islamic state must be a jurisprudent – who has both a religious and legislative role, of which are explained in hadith and the books of our scholars. These laws are not ancient and can be replaced as time goes on; they are progressive and must be applied for all time. According to the eminent scholars that Shi’ah follow, it is necessary that we follow the Wali al-Faqih. Imam Rouhollah Khomayni has brought an Islamic revival to Iran that was so desperately needed. With religion, all social, economic, and political problems can be solved. It is the scholars, according to Imam ‘Ali, who hold the rights to the governance of the Islamic state.25 With his strong words and actions Imam Khomayni defeated an imperialist tyrant (Shah Pahlavi and his American supporters), who repressed Islam, and brought Islam back to the rightful role that is so clearly explained in the writings of Prophet Muhammad and the Twelve Infallible Imams.
Notes:
1 “Ghorar al-Hekam.” (book of hadith). Volume II. 293.
2 Shaykh Shabbir Hassanally. “Islamic Revolution Question.” (online posting). Islamic Digest Forum. 8 March, 2005.
http://www.islamicdigest.net/v61forum/index.php/topic,352.0.html.
3 Khamenei, Ayatollah Ali. “Practical Laws of Islam.” Islamic Culture and Relations Organization: Tehran, 1997. 30.
4 Practical Laws of Islam, 32-33.
5 Algar, Hamid. Forward to “Wilayat al-Faqih.” Imam Ruhollah Khomayni. 4.
6 Martin, Vanessa. “Creating an Islamic State.” IB Tauris Publishers: London. 117.
7 Arjomand, Said Amir. “Turban for the Crown.” Oxford University Press: New York. 180.
8 Algar, 5.
9 Khomayni, Imam Ruhollah. “Hokomat-e Eslami.” Page 199.
10 Khomayni, Imam Ruhollah. “Sahif-e Nour.” Publication of Minister of Islamic Guidance. Volume 11. 123.
11 Khomayni, Imam Ruhollah. “Wilayat al-Faqih.” 16.
12 Khomayni, Imam Ruhollah. “Wilayat al-Faqih.” 18.
13 “Furu’ al-Kafi.” (book of hadith). Volume 7. Tehran, 2001. 412.
14 “Wilayat al-Faqih – A Contribution.” http://www.qaed.net.
15 Ibid. 1.
16 “Why do we need an Islamic Governance and Guardianship of a Jurist?” http://www.qaed.net.
17 Imam Ali ibn Abi Taleb. “Nahj al-Balaghah.” Sermon 3 (Khutbat ash-Shaqshaqiyah). Ahlul-Bayt Assembly of America. 8.
18 “Wasael ash-Shi’ah.” (book of hadith). Volume I. 40.
19 “Tuhaf al-‘Uqoul.” (book of hadith). 242.
20 Quran: “Oh you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you…”
21 Arjomand, 177.
22 Ibid. 5
23 Arjomand, 183.
24 Sistani, Ayatollah ‘Ali. “Wilayat al-Faqih.” Email. 10 February, 2005.
25 “Nahj al-Balaghah (Peak of Eloquence)”, Sermon 2 (regarding hypocrites). 6.
Okey that was a very long post. You should have started by a course in islamic theology first, then you should have introduced an historical split between Sunnis and Shias. I’m not an expert in islamic theology, although I do read lots of articles and books on islamic religion, but I think people might be mistaken at many levels. Here is a little bit of my knowledge that I can share with you guys.
First off, in order to understand Al Mahdi, because this is how Shias are different from Sunnis, their way of thinking is not that much different from some people in the West, especially in the US. The religious right shares some theological concepts with the Shias, more than they could share compared to Sunnis. In the US, the “rapture” is exactly the same theological level than Al Mahdi. They believe in the end of the world in which the Messiah will appear on Earth to save them from hell. I don’t think we can go closer than that from the american religious right in their apocalyptical vision.
The Islamic philosophy lies down in the antiquity’s times. I’ve been trying to figure out what exactly happened. For that, you need to read Avoreos and Avicenna’s philosophy. While Avicenna was closer to Aristotle’s philosophy (because the Arabs had translated most of the western books after the collapse of the roman empire), Avoreos with his way of thinking started writing on the shariah laws, and I believe this was the 1st time that Shariah laws were elaborated in accordance with the Q’ran and Hadith during the XIIth century.
This is how the anthropological religious philosophy got fragmented at the beginning on Earth when people started thinking. For them it is impossible to deny God because he represents the truth itself. That’s how their started orientating their thought, metaphysics and religion for them could only be one. It’s very different from what we Westerners learned in Democraticus that was agnostic because he could not deny the existence of God but at the same time he was not sure about the existence of God.
The split between Sunnis and Shias started around the VIIIth century (in the West it started around the XIth century for christians). Even inside the Shi’s community there has been a split in the Abbasids (that’s how persian culture was forged) between Al Rida’s factions and the ones who believed that Al Kazim that the Mahdi. And they thought that Al Kazim had not died and he would come back on Earth.
In the Sunni Islam there is also Al Mahdi, but they differ from the Shias. For the Sunnis the Mehdi should appear in Mecca or Medina, and Jerusalem is their kingdom (unlike Shias).
The Al Mahdi words for Shiites is also known as Qa’im. They believe there will be 313 people (that was the battle of Badr in 614) and that the Mahdi will revenge all the people, and he will kill all the Sunnis, and the Kafirs, because Sunnis are their enemies in the Holy Writings. There is also an anti-christ (Dajjal) that should appear before the Mahdi, but it’s not really precise in every culture, some of them say he will follow the Mahdi, others think he will appear only before the Mahdi comes on Earth.
…etc
Well that’s just an introduction. You know that the medieval period is also called “dark ages” and we always try to separate it from Antiquity. That said, religion was not that much different during the Antiquity times and the medieval period. While there was 3 different periods in Antiquities (classic period, hellenistic period, and roman period) the greeks went from polytheism to monotheism at the end of their era, but punishments towards heretics were not that much different from the medieval ages. Socrates for example was making fun of the statues of their God and he was asked to either leave in exhile or getting poisoned, and he chose death. Religion appeared on Earth for many reasons, one of them in my opinion, is that many people on Earth had no idea whatsoever what the hell they were doing in this world, so their reason became religion. Even in the medieval ages, people were afraid of death, and this is why death was representing in their imagination Hell on Earth.
Death was part of their lives, and many people were convinced that they could go from one world (live) to another world (death) and they thought there were 2 worlds in one. These were scary thoughts but completely legitimate.
Also nowadays, the West blames the arab world to pick on the Jews, but let me tell you that Europe was not different from the arab world back then. During wintertimes, when the Lord was cold and wood was running out from the chemney, they were throwing 1 or 2 jews in the chemney so that they can warm themselves up. I would even say there has not been lots of good times for Jews in Europe until WW2. In England, they were expulsed under the reign of Chrom, and english christians were picking up on them. Same thing in Spain or in France, history’s books are full of bad religious periods.
Bien a toi.
PS: it was said that the apocalyptical vision of the Shias is more dangerous than the one of the Sunnis, this is why the West does not trust the iranian regime.
All of that is just a political game anyway, full of b/s, and it very simple to see the anthropological evolution of western geopolitics: anything that does not fit into the western tradition is just part of a lack in understanding CULTURAL TRADITIONS. The anthropology of geopolitics does not want to know or does not want to comprehend and does not want people to know the implications of cultural heritage. The less people know about that, and the better they’ll be able to do anything they please against Iran. They’ve been demonizing Iran when it’s one of the only countries in the world that has been historically very cool with Jews during the last 3000 years.
Sorry but there is also a political context in the Shi’i tradition. The apocalyptical vision of the Shi’is based on their religious faith was forged during a fight with the caliphates in Bagdad. Nothing is purely neutral in religion whether it’s Islam, Christianity or Judaism.
The Islam movement was more like a movement coming from the jewish roots that was instaured to reclaim the holy land. At least it has been argued historically.
We’ll never know for sure…
Another thing to know in the Shi’i religious thought: it is mostly acknowledged that Iman Al Ja`far Al Sadiq is the cores of islamic philosophy. It’s 100% sure for the Imanis and Zaydis, and it’s also acknowledged for the Ismailis. I just don’t know how it works from one islamic country to another one, there are legal grounds and different interpretations that I’m unable to understand.
Their pillar in their religious comes from the Twelver Shi’ism and it is based on 5 principles:
– God is unique
– Faith in the mission of the prophet and faith in the mission of Muhammad
– Belief in rewards and punishment in the afterlife
These beliefs are shared by the Sunnis of course, but there are 2 other beliefs very particular for Shiites:
– Belief in Divine Justice
– Belief in the principle of the imamate
There are other characteristics of course, in order to understand what’s different between Sunnis and Shiis but that should be enough for today I guess.
Let me make only a short comment now: my purpose what *not* to make a ‘compare and contrast Shia and Sunni Islam’ exercise, but to provide on a regular basis a insight into some issue specific to Shia Islam.
I am frankly not competent to address the points both of you make, though I have some reservations about some of the things you wrote.
I hope that somebody more knowledgeable than myself who is of the Shia tradition will soon drop by to provide some insights. I have made the request and I think that my friend will agree to it, provided he can find the time to do so. Stay tuned!
Politiquesusa and stevenrix are the same guy, I was just sick of signing again with my login and password. Besides I look all druggy on the picture lol.
politiquesusa et stevenrix sont la meme personne lol.
Si j’ai le temps j’ecrirai un texte la-dessus, j’ai interroge un peu tout le monde dans les terres de l’Islam pour bien comprendre leur pensee et ce n’est pas evident. C’est un travail de titan tres vigoureux. Mais bon j’etudie un peu de tout et j’aime bien savoir comment presenter les differentes particularites de ce monde diversifiant. Ce que je t’ai donne je peux dire que c’est fiable a 100%.
Il est tout a fait interessant de voir ce qui se passe dans le monde de l’Islam et comment ils ont evolue a comparer de l’Ouest. Je pense et je te l’ai toujours dit, que le seul moyen de defuser notre systeme geopolitique est de faire de l’initiation a l’interculturalisme. Si l’on arrive a bien comprendre pourquoi et en quoi les cultures sont differentes des unes des autres, ce sera un gros progres humaniste dans ce XXIieme siecle pour empecher des pays comme les USA de partir en guerre dans le Moyen-Orient.
Dans les medias americains, ils melangent tout et absolument tout, et l’une des raisons evidentes, c’est que justement ils ne connaissent vraiment pas du tout le monde qui les entourent. Une autre raison vient aussi de leur vision philosophique qui a ferme les portes de l’atheisme pour partir dans une doctrine jugee dorenavant trop religieuse.
Another thing that nobody seems to be aware: the Shi’ite doctrine is relatively widespread, not only in Iran but even in India and Pakistan. Many people hide their allegiance, because of the sunni majority in other countries (the alouites from Syria and even some Kurds in Iraq).
Keep letting us know anything about Shiism, it’s always interesting to learn something new.
Peace all,
Interesting comments and parallels but some of them are far fetched.
I think what would be beneficial to follow this post up with an article about who are the Shias and what is their faith per say because given the comments I can see there is some things which needs to be clarified to understand the faith of Shias.
The Shia Sunni split started after the demise of the Prophet [p]. It further escalated in the reign of the Caliphs and then after the advent of Karbala. The split is deep however there is common ground on both sides and the leaders from both sides advocate unity on these grounds. The interesting point to remember as ‘politiques USA’ mentioned abt the sub sects of the Shias is the same with the Sunnis. They have sub sects and many of these sub sects have extreme views against the Shias, that is another topic for another day.
Again for the concept of Mahdi [aj] there should be another post to clarify things which in due time Saker will be able to put up. Some of the points that has been stated by ‘politiques USA’ are wrong. There is no indication that he will kill the non muslims or the Sunnis. The traditions which talk about his revolution have to be understood in the correct manner. Again I will clarify these things in the article on the Mahdi [aj] which should be up soon.
Coming to the context of Wilayat ul Faqee; the Government of Jurist is the political/social doctrine which the majority of the Shias believe in. However the difference comes in terms of the magnitude or the extent of the authority the Jurist holds in the time of occultation. Ayatollah Khoei and Ayatollah Sistani both deem that there is no enough evidence to give the full authority to a Jurist while Ayatollah Khomeini differed on this point.
Saker, if you wish I have a document from CAIR which talks about the common points between the mainstream Sunnis and Shias. However I would not endorse that to be the official view from the Shias or even for that matter the Sunnis. Its just an insight on the commonality of both sects. Let me know and I will send it to you.
Regards
Ayaz
///Some of the points that has been stated by ‘politiques USA’ are wrong /// You are talking to a guy that almost became a monk a few years ago. It is rationally impossible to expose in only 1 article the whole theory of Shi’i philosophy. I’ve been working years in reading and learning about islamic philosophy, and trying to connect the dots with Sunnis/Shi`its and islamic/western philosophy. The Q’ran and the Bible have lots of common grounds for one simple reason: they wanted to convert as many people as possible.
In order to understand Shi’i thought, I’d say you have to read 4 important books: al-Kitab, Sunna, ijma (consensus) and al’-aql (reason). One of the main differences is that the Imans rejected and still reject the sunni principles of Qiyas because it is the tool of Satan.
Another difference is in the Hadith for Shi’its, it is not only the tool of the prophet Muhammad, it has also extensions with his daughter Fatima, therefore a good Shi’it must reject the testimony of the Companions and the authenticity of the Sunni compilations.
Only the Iman is the key to the walaya, but historically it was not always the case in the Shi’it tradition when somebody started writing that the kings should be the key of God, then if I have a good memory they murdered the guy (sorry I don’t recall his name).
Historically yes people only know there is a split between Sunnis and Shits on the descendance of the prophet, whereas it’s more subtle than that.
The islamist and christian spirits during the medieval ages was not very different. On my side, I’ve been searching for answers in the medieval ages to find out what happened exactly. I think these were critical times when reason was not still able to acknowledge higher forces in nature. Then from this point, people started to choose other paths through different periods. I won’t list all important periods because we are on a blog, but you have to keep that in mind. Persia saw a bunch of philosophers during these centuries. The best religious philosophers in my opinion were during the X/XIIth century because Baghdad was a universal center to develop and discuss about religion between Jews, Christians and Muslims. This date is very important because you’ll always find Jerusalem in the Holy Writings whether it is the Q’ran or the Bible, and this is the date when everything broke apart (holy wars from both sides).
It’s easy to understand the rise of Khomenei in Iran, just search in History for the Safavids to understand their way of thinking. These are the the rationalist jurist schools that propulsed their rise to power, it’s absolutely logical.
PS: it’s just the US that tried to interfer in the anthropological cultural religious evolution of Iran.
You are talking to a guy that almost became a monk a few years ago
Sorry, but unless you were a “Shia Muslim monk” (if there was such thing) being an ‘almost monk’ in another religion does not really qualify as a substantial credential, not to mention that this is an ad hominem in reverse or what the Papist call l’argument d’authorite: :-)
Also: when you write the Bible wants to convert as many people possible you are suggesting an over-reaching common purpose among all the authors of the books of the Bible which I do not believe exists.
The islamist and christian spirits during the medieval ages was not very different.
If you are referring to Western Christianity I cannot agree with that. Western Christianity’s ethos is essentially a Frankish (“Franj”) one, whereas Islam (in particular Sufism) is, I think, much closer to the “Roman” (“Rumi”) Orthodoxy of Byzantium.
Oh, and FYI. ‘altigerrrr’ is a Shia student of Islam with personal first hand access to and knowledge of Shia Islam and its theology.
Knowledge is universal, I feel pretty much confident with my words, I’ve been working on theology, not in a professional way but as a hobby to understand the cosmos of our humanity. 2 opinions are better than one.
I told you before The Saker, the only way to defuse explosive geopolitics is to educate people to interculturalist knowledge, and that’s what I’m trying to do on my part in here. You were complaining that I don’t take part on your blog, and when I do, you think from your pedestal that a white boy can’t understand their philosophy. It took me a while to achieve some kind of knowledge that I never shared with anybody else because most people (but not all) don’t have the time to study. You should feel special, honestly :)
There is nothing irrational whatsoever in religion. The US mainstream media pushed the bar to the frontier of demonization and intolerance while they can’t even fucking keep up with the tenets of the US constitution and the politicization of the US supreme court, they make their apology to criticize other people to wage their wars and their dirty business.
Not only knowledge is universal and it does not represent power to me, but learning is also a social skill. So let’s learn :)
LOL
I almost became a monk no kidding. I was working in a cloister, and I learned little by little everything in architecture, medieval history, antiquities, and religion and philosophy.
It’s easy to understand their thought in islamist philosophy, we have common knowledge with Aristotle and during the medieval times, every scholar in muslim religion had to read Aristotle.
Avicenna also is a good source. He wrote around 4,500 books in his lifetime and his treaty on medecine was even used in the West until the XVIIth century. So we have alot in common between Muslims and Christians, more than you could ever imagine in many many fields. Back then everybody that was familiar in medecine was also good in philosophy. These were the tenets of their knowledge.
/// Also: when you write the Bible wants to convert as many people possible you are suggesting an over-reaching common purpose among all the authors of the books of the Bible which I do not believe exists ////
Not until Thomas Aquinas read Aristotle and started wondering that the Church had gone into something very wrong. Then the Church started to differ on a little bit of everything, but deep inside, the role of the Church was to convert people to their own truth until the XVIIth century. Things only changed when people started to learn more in human knowledge and curiously this had been possible thanks to a Pope whose name was San Augustine. The clergy wanted money for their Church so they were charging students in exchange of courses. Of course it is undeniable not to say that the Church was also political and they differed inside Churches for their own political goals, but the trend of people that said the world could have not begun in 7 days started during the XVIIth century. Before this period, everybody was considered as a heretic and they were delighted to burn people on the stakes for whatever reasons.
Different opinions started in Italy, I forgot the name of the city, I beleive it was in Naples, then the 1st student’s strikes started in Paris 30 years later in the XVIIth century. I think and it’s only my opinion, that the Church was more respectable during the XIIth century, because of our institutions that were able to manage the laws. Back then if the clergy did not like anything, it was still disputed in Court, at least that’s what I’ve seen in the University of Angers during the XIIth century. After this period, it was harder to dispute the role of the Church all the way through the XVIIth century.
We are coming a long way. If religion was still in the West the way it was, people would have not been able to separate themselves from psychology and psycho-analysis, and Darwin would have been burnt in a public place. Unfortunately all this important evolution have been sabotaged philosophically in the US in the 60s, and there is no way to go back, because it’s deeply anchored in civilisational principles. While I do feel it’s not right IMO, it is one of the major problems nowadays in the viewing of american philosophy in the rest of the world. It’s perhaps the most dangerous pillar that we should have not touched.
Peace,
Politiques usa, I feel necessary to respond to your comments but I also find that the best way to do this would by an article describing the Shia thought fully. Much of what you have stated is maybe a mixture of confusion and jumbling up ideologies. In terms of Islamic Philosophy, you have to look up the names of Mulla Sadra, Ibne Arabi, Rumi, Ibn Sina and others of this calibre.
The centre of knowledge was Baghdad for sometime yes that is because of the Shia Seminary there. The Seminary in Najaf is the oldest Seminary of Shia learning, through the Shia traditions [hadiths] it has always been stated that Najaf would be the centre of knowledge for a long time until the return of the Mahdi [aj] then the centre of Knowledge would be Qum, which we are witnessing today.
The rationalists or rather the Usoolis as they are called that came into existence somewhat during the Safvaid period. However, the rationalist doctrine was very much limited to Najaf alone. The Akbaris or the traditionalists as they are known continued to dominate the Shia society for a long period even during the Safavid period. The change was through that period with the likes of Shaheed e Awwal and Shaheed e Thahani, the first Shaheed and the second Shaheed, who wrote books expanding on the theological aspects of the Shia faith and introduced the rationalist approach into. Later the rationalist approach become dominate and majority of the Shias follow that ideology. The difference is not much between the two ideologies apart from the usage of Ijtehad. Traditionalist stick to Traditions and Quran where as the Rationalists believe that applying intellect is a necessity in new problems. Hadith does give an inkling but to expand on it requires intellect as well as in circumstances where more than one hadith is found on a certain subject. This bought the introduction of Marjiyyat too.
Will add some other points later. Sorry in a rush.
Regards
Ayaz
Ayaz khouya;
Here is something you did not know for sure:
Abu Sina is also known as Avicenna. We use the word “Avicenna” or “Avicennes” in the West instead of “Abu Sina”. And in respect to Abu Sina we even named western schools after his name. This is what I’ve been trying to tell you guys, we have common grounds in philosophy with Abu Sina and other philosophers.
Ibn Rushd is also a famous one. We call him “Averroes” in the West, and he’s been the founding father of the secular thought in Europe. Later the guy specialized himself writing about the “Shariah laws”.
Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra are very good philosophers but they are not very known from Westerners for the simple reason that there was a different point of view in religion and mysticism.
I’m pretty familiar with islamist philosophy, because we always asked these same questions inside the western philosophy, and it’s very simple to understand the religious path with different philosopheres in the West and Islam. That said we come up with different answers (except in the US that differ from the western tradition).
What’s really interesting would be to demonstrate the philosophical path between all the nations at a historical level, to see the evolution.
For the split, and in order to understand Shi’i thought, here is what a Shi’i friend (“Boudi”) just wrote earlier today:
After prophet muhamad(p.b.u.h) died moslem community divided into two parts the followers of IMam Ali( the shi’a) and the followers of Abu Baker and Omar ibn al Khattab.
who the are the sunna. IMaM ali was the cousin of prophet Muhamad(p.b.u.h) and the husband of his daughter Fatima Al zahra’a.
so in Shi’as opinion the recognition from the prophet was To Imam Ali as the sunna’s opinion turn to follow Bu baker as a Khalifa ( a leader after the Prophet). Imam ali was the strongest ever no one could beat him, so they send him the cursed (Abdul Rahman bin maljam) who did hit from behind with a sward on his head while he was prayinng).
we Shi’a believe in Imam ali and the 11 Grand sons who came after him.
was his son Imam Al Hassan the send with his wife to poisen him and he died that way. then Al Hussein who faught Abou bakir and Moawiya.
Moawiya send his son Yazeen with a big army to finish Imam Hussein and his step Brother Al Abbass whom was betrayed from their Army, only 70 men left with them willing to fight the great army of yazid, that was on the days of Ashoura’a on the land of Karbala’a.
They were surrounded with the army of yazid with no water in the middle of the dessert with their kids and women. So on ten following days they were suffering with no water even the few days baby of Imam Hussein (Ali al Akbar) was there thirsty, and when imam Hussein carried him facing the army of yazid calling 4 few water just 4 the baby, heartless ppl shot the baby with an arrow in his neck and he died in his father’s hands.
On the tenth day Imam Hussein was killed and his body’s parts were cut and his head was carried on the top of their flag. All women and children was taken into hostages to yazid, and after that they were released, and a son of Imam hussein( Imam zen al abideen) was sick at this time so he didnt participate in battles, he survived to carry on and thereafter all the imam’s of their grand sons came to live his time calling the ppl to the right way until al Imama al mahdi who was in danger so God hid him first time for 70 years.
after the 70 years he came out to ppl for a certain ppl the God hide him agaim which we call now the long hide, and we believe that he will come out with the christ on the last day.
So every year on our islamic calender, we live the tragedy of Iman Hussein.
PS: the long hide in arabic is al ghaiba al Kobra.
PS: in Lebanon, people don’t really divide themselves between Sunnis and Shiites, because of the different concentration in population zones.
Also what the fuck is wrong with the Druz people? Today they’ve been cutting off parts of 3 Hezbollah guys and even some Sunnis, cutting off their tongues and their penis.
Peace,
Yes I did know abt Avicenna and Averroes. So I take you have studied the Philosophy of Ibn Sina? What did you make of it? Do share your thoughts.
And dude lol you are spoiling it for Saker :) He wont be happy since he wants to talk about all the aspects of the Shia faith in is coming posts and you are giving away alot of stuff here lol but keep it up I am quite impressed at your knowledge about my faith. I once knew a Army veteran who knew alot abt Shia faith and would discuss occasionally. He was quite impressed by the story of Karbala. What are your thoughts on it?
Regards
Ayaz
I don’t know where to begin :) Here are a few words though.
The center in Bagdad was well renowned throughout the world because all the intellectuals were debating in different domains such as mathematics, religion, and philosophy. If I have good memory, before the XIIth century it was the anarchy in grammatical syntax and it is the center of Bagdad that allowed the world to edict grammar rules.
Avicenna read Aristotle’s treaty on “metaphysics”. At the beginning he did not really understand what Aristotle was talking about, and after reading “Isagoge” in logics teaching, then he was able to perform a better philosophical work. Avicenna IMO is one of the philosophers that really sticks with the classical arabic philosophy; in the West he is called under the nickname of “The last arab philosopher”. It is told that the cultural problem between the West and Islam lies down in the fact that Islam should go back to Avicenna’s thoughts, and the West should go back to Gregory de Nyssan (Gregoire de Nys in french). Either way, the West and Islam did evoluate afterwards in different ways, and none of us so far today is able to achieve a correct dialogue, especially in the West with the fucking crazies (the neocons) and the Bush administration that are completely blinded by their cultural heritage.
There is no doubt in my mind that everything has been achieved under Aristotle first for the West and Islam. I just don’t know how it happened exactly. The West lost its knowledge after the collapse of the roman empire, while different invasions allowed the arab scholars to translate and save the work of Aristotle. This is how the dialogue happened because everybody based their religion thanks to Aristotle’s work. It was not like we had lost tomes of books, I’m pretty sure that the whole human knowledge could have been compiled in a little book of no more than 1000 pages.
So imagine the shock of the West when they were able to put their hands centuries later on the work of Aristotle. It was like a pure revelation :) So thank you my arabic friends for that. Also one important point, it is during the VIIth or VIIIth century that all the scholars in Islam had to read Aristotle, so IMO we can’t really deny that Aristotle’s treaties in metaphysics did not encline the philosophers to pursue its work, and that’s exactly what Avicenna did. And you know, it would have never happened without the discovery of the paper. I also believe, if my memory is correct, that the 1st encyclopaedia comes from Baghdad (I forgot the name but I’ll check online if ever I can find the name).
So first of all, we need to make clear that one shouldn’t be confused between the words of “islam” and “arabic”, in the sense that Avicenna was arab and it was Islam that drank his philosophy in the pure respect of Kalam tradition. Avicenna IMO is the pursuit of the beginning of the movement of the neoplatonic tradition (neoplatonicism was founded by Plotin and can find all its impact in the monotheist religions).
In the West, Avicenna was still able to distinct metaphysics from theology.
When you tell a westerner that Shariah laws are also metaphysics, I’m pretty sure they won’t understand our points of view lol.
In order to understand Shariah laws, they are numerous authors, and one of them is called Al Farabi.
This is how the anthropological evolution of Islam started. For them, there were not truths but only one truth, and this path could only be achieved by the transcendance of divinization. Avicenna on the other side did stick with Aristotle’s views (that’s what the call today the “pursuit of happiness” because we don’t know about the afterlife). Then everything that happened after Avicenna’s doctrine went in different ways, but he’s always been cited by our scholars, whether we agree or disagree with him, and whether we are Shi’its or Sunnis. Avicenna is at the base of everything. If you want to understand his point of view, you have to read “Avicenna on theology” – or I will write a few lines about his writings another day to understand the intellectual path he chose (but that’s going to be rather complicated) – and the book of healing. It’s just amazing the level of intellectual degree and honesty Avicenna had and he only meant to do good things in this world.
Errata: I wrote something wrong earlier. Avicenna wrote around 450 books and not 4,500. On the Internet they said his books of medicine (the cnnon of medicine) were used until the XIXth century, and I think it is a mistake, it was until the XVIIIth century from what I recall, but maybe my memory betrayed me.
More later
And dude lol you are spoiling it for Saker :) He wont be happy since he wants to talk about all the aspects of the Shia faith in is coming posts and you are giving away alot of stuff here
Not at all. The two if you are doing exactly what I have been dreaming about for a long while: adding your knowledge and expertise to this blog by means of very interesting posts. This is very good stuff, and I can only encourage both of you to post as much as possible.
So my request to you is: KEEP POSTING! Where else can one find such interesting discussions?!
Thanks a lot to both of you,
The Saker
I think we’ll continue this conversation, like I said earlier it is impossible to write everything in 1 day, because the world did not build itself in only a few days :) And it’s cool because I’ve never been able to talk about anthropological philosophy to anybody else. That said, I’m not an expert, I’m more like a guy that is rather attached to the century of Enlightment, without really rejecting postmodernism, and I’ve been trying to educate myself to understand the cosmos. So I keep reading, listening, I don’t have any specialisations for the theological field (I’m more like an IT guy), just my knowledge and philosophy to understand this world.
The West reformed the Bible, otherwise I think we’ll still be throwing stones on the Infidels until this day. Although that’s what the Bush administration is still doing in Iraq, in a more modernist version, but the despicable symbolic of the gesture remains the same. People fight for their God.
There is a very important period during the XVIIIth century in both Islam and the West. While Islam was exploring other unknown zones of the philosophical theology, the West broke apart with its tradition and started a new era with many authors whose faith was agnostic or even atheist. For me it’s a very important intellectual progress, because we had been the prey during the medieval ages for more than 7 centuries whose scientific knowledge was not able to perform without getting into trouble with the Church (Coppernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, Nostradamus). Until the XVIIth century we still had to hide from the Church so that we can perform dissections on dead corpses.
Then came Mr Charles Darwin whose writings shook up the West on species’ evolution. This is how people started to revolt themselves against the Church, and that was the best thing we ever did in the West. Once Charles Darwin was recognized, it allowed us to put God to another place with Nietzsche, then Freud.
And it’s good because we would have never separated philosophy from psychology. I believe it happened only during the XVIIIth century.
It’s a normal evolution, like I said before, medecine and philosophy were only 1 thing altogether in the medieval ages because we were only aiming at the goodness and beauty of this world. You’ll see in the incoming centuries there will be other intellectual discoveries anyway. The Human Being only works with his own knowledge, if you give him more knowledge then he’ll discover other theories that will allow him to pursue his goals.
:)
Nite
/// He was quite impressed by the story of Karbala. What are your thoughts on it? ///
I’ll elaborate tomorrow with the iranian aspect in History. On my blog my friend Shadi from Teheran was supposed to write something about Karbala and its implications, and we wanted to promote Shi`i traditions with an intercultural aspect, but it never happened. I love digging in a particular subject, so maybe we could do something with the Saker on these issues.
I’m just a guy that is amazed in different cultures, and I love emulating them. It’s very important for me because I think it would be boring to live in a whole homogenized world. Cultures are precious and we need to protect them, and we need to protect all of them.