opinion on jihad and the circumstances in which it can be properly called for is fractured. it's not so much a religious divide as more a case of realpolitik amongst the more educated and mainstream intelelctual thought of islam, as opposed to the more emotional desires to fightback aginst what's seen as Western/Jewish oppression. As Muslims generally rely on their elder clerics for guidance in these matters, it is the opinions of these clerics that shape the manifestation of jihad. Clerics can be suborned by local political influences and their own experiences, of course.

to use terms like "orthodox" with regard to Sunni/Shia is to try to force a comparison from our own experience. This was common in the last century when Western opinion saw the Sunni as being like the Catholic Church, a huge reppressive bloc, and Shia as reforming Protestants. During the 1970s and 80s Sunni were seen as "moderates" and Shia as "revolutionaries" because of the hostility between the US and Iran. It's just not like either of those really, those are misleading comparisons - there is only one Umma. As you know, the rift between Sunni and Shia is not so much theological as one of authority, deepened by Shia taking on a Persian rather an Arab character. They both still look for the establishment of the Kilafah, but their dispute stems from where that Kalifa authority is reposited - in the nominated succcessors to the Prophet (pbuh) or to the family of the Prophet (pbuh)

Don't get the ideal of Kilafah too confused with the historical position of Caliphate; the Kilafah is the Islamic State, a contiguous unity of Islamic peoples that does away with national boundaries. So when Moslems say "the Kalifa was destroyed in 1924" they aren't referring to the ending of the Turkish Sultanate, but to the subsequent subdivision of the Middle East into spheres of influence and mandates and the end of a single authority. Remember they were promised freedom to establish an Islamic State encompassing Arabia, Syria, Iraq etc as a reward for rising up against the Turks; a promise broken by the Sykes-Picot Treaty. Hence Moslems generally and not without justification regard the West as faithless, double-dealing & incapable of keeping it's promises. Hence why they continually accuse the West of conspiring to undermine Islam.

All Sunni do NOT agree with the need for a Kalifa to call for a jihad of all Muslims; but it's very difficult to do this on theological grounds, as the instructions are q clear. Bear in mind also that the various forms of "jihad" allow for a personal interpretation without the need for clerical authority.

the use of the term sects is difficult, as strictly speaking there are no sects in islam. what you have are loosley "shades of opinion" brought about by outside influences (money, power, cultrural distinctions, tribal differences) However it does help outsiders to see that islam is not necessarily an homgenous bloc but toleant of differences and discussion. It is very very common for Muslims to talk about Islam and to stay up into the small hours having discussions.

on a somwhat related note, i found this today. You'll note the last name on the list, prince Turki al-Faisal. he is the Intelligence Chief for the House of Saud and a sort of roving plenipotentiary and ambassador. He was the direct link between the Saudis and the Mujahideen in A'tan during the '80s and the major sponsor of both Al-Quaeda and the Taleban during the 90s, along with the Pakistani Intelligence Service, the ISI.


Edited by - Tawakalna on 9/11/2004 9:45:19 AM

By heterodox, I did not mean to suggest some sense of "orthodoxy" as we know it. But it had been my impression that, among the Sunni at lest, each one of the faith was free to look upon his belief (not practice his observances, mind you) in his own way whereas the Shia were more hierarchically organized and "guided" in their thinking. Hence "heterodox in the fine print."

Prince Turqi was one of the first from a Muslim nation to offer money in relief of what happened here. Mayor Giuliani, however, refused the gift based upon informatin which he was not able at the time to disclose fully. Many of us saw irony in this posture but the vast majority approved of his action.

As for the suit itself ... it is with conflicting and mixed emotions that I react to the news because of what I know about the two plaintiffs that have been identified.

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/11/2004 12:06:36 PM

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/11/2004 12:07:51 PM

Prince Turki is a very bad man.

Are the Sunni and Shia then not sects? If not, why the seemingly mutual intolerance and what is the dividing line?

Well it was bound to happen unfortunately *shakes head*.

they aren't sects at all by their own lights. that's once again a Western concept you're imposing, and in doing so you apply a Western meaning. Sects is a good enough term for general conversation, but if you really want to try to understand Islam, you'll have to dump it.

Well "sect" sounds better than "cult" Taw .

they're so not cults.

I never said that they were. For the average (see ill-informed) person however, all arabic sects have a certain "reputation" if you know what I mean .

You mean Muslim don't you Esqy? Not all Muslims are arabs.

Then what is the dividing line is it just to do with who did wrong to whom? How do the Shia see themselves in comparison to the Sunni and vice versa ?

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/13/2004 7:11:58 AM

Indy - No, I am stating that the average person inevitably links all arabic sects (and Muslims) with terrorism. *Shakes head at generalisations in general*

ok to slightly expand - the corect term for the single Islamic state is Dar al-Islam, as opposed to the current state of affairs, which is Dar al-Kufr. All nation-states are at present kufr. There is no Islamic state in the world. Sunni call the islamic State-to-be, the Khilafah; Shia call it the Imamah. the difference between Sunni and Shia is one of authority, not doctrinaire (in this respect it is somewhat analogous to the long-standing dispute between the Christian Church of the 3rd and 4th C AD and the Donatist "heresy" in N.Africa. )

the obligation is upon Muslims to appoint a kalifah who will take charge of the rule and authority of Muslims. Sunni believe that this authority was/is/will be revealed by Allah (swf) in the person who is brought forward as Kalifah; Shia believe this authority is only passed down from the Prophet (pbuh)through lineage, which is why they mourn Ali and Hassan.

Shia beliefs prospered in Iran/Persia and S Iraq because these regions already had a long-standing and very sophisticated religious tradition that couldn't entirely be subsumed into mainstream Sunni islam. Also as Persians the population was not happy with being conquered by arabs who they viewed as inferior despite adopting Islam from them, and so over the years Persian art, national identity, and pious spiritualism re-asserted themselves and of course eventually they threw off Arab dominance and established a native Persian dynasty, as they ahd in previous times, except this time it was Moslem.


Edited by - Tawakalna on 9/14/2004 12:22:22 PM

I thought it also was a matter of Shia also being more hierarchically regimented than the Sunni as well or does it only seem that way from the news footages?

they are more organised in that way, certainly. Again it's the Persian influence. Arabs in Mohammed's ttime and up to very recently have only really recognised the family the clan and the tribe* as their polity, their main social unit, and this is relected in the *relative* looseness of mainstream Sunni religious authority. Shia being largely Persian had a long history of formal religious hierarchy, organised priesthood, regional subdivision etc and thus it's not really a surprise that they're a more coherent and centralised body.

I meant to mention this earler, but got sidetracked, god job you mentioned it.

*for example, Saddam's secular regime was largely based on these lines. Those closest to Saddam were his family members, then Tikriti clan members, then tribal. Ba'ath Party membership was a lot less important than being one of the Rais' clan. Thsi is how the Arab world really works. These people didn't even have countries within living memory, how can they be expected to suddenly adapt to the concept of a nation-state when until the mid-20th C they'd never even lived in one?
In Afghanistan (not arab btw) the tribe is pretty much the only form of political entity that most of the poulation recognises.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 9/15/2004 3:56:47 AM