In Sunni Islam leadership also should not be inherited (elected through shura), as a matter of fact in early Islam, the first four caliphs were not really related to each other by blood (they were by marriage but that's a different story). These are called the rightly guided caliphs (rashidun), because they were all companions of the prophet and good leaders. It went to shit soon after though.
Monarchies such as the one in pretty much every Gulf state (including Saudi Arabia) are actually unislamic, which is funny since the Saudis fund all those extremist groups.
You got it backwards - Shia believe the caliph must be of the blood of Muhammad while Sunnis consider anyone suitable to be acceptable (Although they do venerate having Muhammad's bloodline). That doctrinal issue is inconsequential nowadays and has been since at least the fall of the Abbasid caliphs but the centuries of doctrinal development, religious practice and theology and general cultural evolution has made the two into highly separate identities. To our western sensibilities we can't understand the religious sectarianism being second or even equal to ethnic or racial identity, so it makes sense if one almost sees Sunni/Shia as an ethnic divide. It's not, but it certainly is a kind of cultural divide.
Ibadi are the Omani and are slightly separate of Sunni and Shia though counted as Sunni. They are said to have descended from the Kharijites - the ISIS of the early islamic period. Folks who were mad at Ali for agreeing to arbitration with the proto-Umayyad rival claimant to the caliphate. They left the Islamic community but after Ali's forces killed them in battle for some reason I forget they eventually killed Ali. They would resurface across the Caliphate for the next few hundred years often as a kind of egalitarian resistance to the nepotism and arab-chauvenistic hegemony of the Umayyad and to a lesser extent Abbasid caliphates - you'd see Berbers or whatever being the ones who flock to the Kharijite ideology for that reason.
However today I get the impression the Ibadi are rather like quakers or amish in believing they have the right and orthodox view and are the true Muslims with others possibly even being heretical or infidels but are benign about it - they just want to disassociate themselves from those non Ibadi in day to day affairs.
The Saudis are Wahhabists, though you do have Shia and non-Wahhabi Sunni minorities in the kingdom. Wahhabism originated much more recently around the 1600s or so in a rather apt fortelling of the future kingdom by being a cooperation of Abdul al-Wahhab, a mullah or just religious preacher and an early scion of the Saudis. A main feature of Wahhabism, and which I believe ISIS does too, is rejection of taqlid. Taqlid is following the existing religious scholars and theologians - chiefly the classical islamic era schools of jurisprudence (hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i). Islam is much more like Judaism in the sense of being highly legalistic and law-oriented orthopraxy (right action or behavior) whereas Christianity is usually a lot more orthodox oriented (right belief).
Wahhabists rejected the slavish imitation and obedience to taqlid, favoring Ijtihad - which can be simplified as independent reasoning, but only with thorough familiarity with the quran and Islamic mores.
In addition they emphasized the oneness of God, bitterly reject religious 'innovations' in Islam in addition to local cultural customs which have tainted the puritanical roots of Islam. They smashed a lot of tombs of Muhammad's relatives or companions in Saudi Arabia because of veneration of them like saintly tombs.
>>53124569 >Wahhabists rejected the slavish imitation and obedience to taqlid, favoring Ijtihad - which can be simplified as independent reasoning, but only with thorough familiarity with the quran and Islamic mores. This makes it sound like Sunni Islam is the good guy and Shia is the bad guy. Am I correct?
>>53124569 This is correct but id also like to add one more thing which is one of the biggest issue with wahabism,it is that they consider bukhari's hadith compilation as sahih aka everything in it is completely valid and things that were said by muhammad,however issue is that this compilation was compiled hundreds of years after muhammad's death and its validity is on par with fanfiction and it is where all the wierd religious rules that dont exist in quran stem from such as dogs being haram and filthy and that music is haram.
The Wahhabists were rejecting Taqlid of the Sunnis, the Shiia have their own Taqlid and intricacies therein. And you touched on the crux of the complication with it. On the surface those favoring Ijtihad should be the 'good guys' and it can indeed be used by more progressive or moderate Muslims to bring Islam into the modern era. I think it was Ijtihad which was used to justify the banning of slavery which had been condoned in the Quran and Hadiths.
But it's perhaps our modern sensibilities that make us think Ijtihad or independent reasoning is good. We believe western liberalism in the classical sense is the end of history/end of philosophy and the natural summit of reasoning and logic. But it is hubris to think that and not panned out by the facts. While Christian to Muslim comparisons are always risky one can still find a useful one in our own reformation and birth of protestantism. In a modern lens we see the protestant revolution in enlightenment views of liberalism, secularism, individual rights, moderation and so on. Yet the protestant revolution was in large part a rejection of Catholicism being too lax, too moderate, too diluted and corrupted with innovation. Eventually the independent reading and interpretation of scripture would facilitate modern western liberalism but at the time it advocated a much more puritanical, extreme and uncompromising view of Christianity.
Simply put, Ijtihad in a modern western thinking might advocate progressivism but in an indigenous Islamic context can easily and more often does advocate fundamentalism and puritanicalism.
>>53122630 Sunnis don't have a ruler that speaks for god, Shiites do(same as it happens with catholic church and the pope). And as we all know, people are always influenced by consequences and so on, so it's safer to say that shiites are better since their ruler will think twice before commanding to kill someone, while sunni wahabbi shitheads will kill you just because they understood the qu'uran in the wrong way. Also by statistics shiite terrorist attacks and killings are way less than sunni
Both branches are shit anyway, but shiites are a bit more controlled by their leader, while sunni muslims can kill freely whoever the fuck they want.
>>53125562 >Yet the protestant revolution was in large part a rejection of Catholicism being too lax, too moderate, too diluted and corrupted with innovation. Eventually the independent reading and interpretation of scripture would facilitate modern western liberalism but at the time it advocated a much more puritanical, extreme and uncompromising view of Christianity. Damn. Never saw it like that. It's interesting to draw historical parallelisms between the evolution of Christianity and Islam.
Sunni: the leader of the Caliphate should be elected democratically by a council of tribal elders
Shi'a: the leader of the Caliphate should be a direct relative of Muhammad, because he has a magical bloodline even thought the Quran explicitly states that Muhammad is just a vessel and is in no way endowed with special powers.
About 10 or so years ago I started to read more and the interest metamorphosed from there. I seem to have some innate interest in the more peripheral civilizations, histories or cultures to the more familiar Western European. Not to say I don't like that, just that it can be a bit less of an adventure or discovery to traverse the well trodden roads of that part of the world. Why I tend to like the periods that are less covered therein - the Carolingians and Merovingians, England prior to the 1300s, I love the Roman republican period and the late roman era but I have zero interest in the overly done and highly sanitized early Imperial period, ect.
Recent bullshit with the Islamic world has made it harder to remain appreciative of it, but I like to think one can divorce contemporary complains (of course militant islam towards others has been a issue since its conception but you know what I mean - the current issue of them bringing that militancy to our backyards.) - one could enjoy Russian composers and authors even while we opposed the Soviet Union, and likewise I can appreciate the history of Muhammad and the early caliphs or any odd span of Islamic history without challenging my steadfast opposition to Islamism in the West. After all a lot of folks who love Nazi era uniforms, technology and weapons don't espouse the Nazi's views.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.