Eloquent Incoherence

I apologize for the lack of updates. My father just had bypass surgery (please pray for him) and things have been a little hectic lately. But he came home today, alhamdulillah, so hopefully my schedule will return to normal soon. There are a few things I’ve been meaning to blog about, so I promise that I’ll get back to updating regularly soon.

The other day I was talking with a relative and the subject of the Shi’a-Sunni divide came up. I mentioned how unfortunate Shi’a-Sunni violence and tensions are. She agreed with me in principle, but mentioned that the Shi’a are “very different from us” due to their “deviant” beliefs. She went on to mention a number of widely-held misconceptions about Shi’a beliefs. For some reason, I’ve always found this issue interesting, and have read about it and discussed it with both Shi’a and Sunnis. In my discussions with my Sunni friends and relatives, I’ve often heard the same rumors and misconceptions repeated about the Shi’a by educated, otherwise liberal-minded Muslims like my relative. These myths seem to be so widespread that I think they should be addressed.

Myth #1: The Shi’a are deviants/heretics because they have a different Shahadah.

Reality: Belief in the Shahadah–the Arabic phrase La ilaha il Allah Muhammadur-Rasul Allah (”There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”)–is the first and most important pillar of Islam, and is common to both Shi’a and Sunnis [1]. The misconception that Shi’a have a different Shahadah stems from an addendum that Shi’a sometimes add: wa ‘Ali wali-ullah (”And ‘Ali is the friend of Allah”). Shi’a most commonly recite the addendum as part of their ‘adhaan (call to prayer). They do not regard the addendum as an obligatory part of the Shahadah, and La ilaha il Allah Muhammadur-Rasul Allah wa ‘Ali wali-ullah (”There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and ‘Ali is the friend of Allah”) is viewed as a variant of the standard Shahadah. The claim of some Sunnis that this variant Shahada constitutes heresy stems from an apparent belief that the literal text of the standard Shahadah is sacrosanct and unchangeable, a view that is unsupported by Sunni tradition. Sunnis also have variants of the Shahadah, such as Ash-shadu an-la ilaha il Allah wa ash-shadu anna Muhammadur-Rasul Allah (”I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”) and Ash-shadu an-la ilaha il Allahu wahdahu la shareeka la wa ash-shadu anna sayyidina nabiyyana maulana Muhammadan ‘abduhu wa rasuluhu (”I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, He is One without associates to Him, and I bear witness that our master, our prophet, our patron Muhammad is his slave and messenger”). Neither the standard Shahadah nor any of its variants appear anywhere in the Qur’an, nor are there any ahadith ascribing a sacred status to the literal text of La ilaha il Allah Muhammadur-Rasul Allah. Rather, only the underlying idea of one God whose final messenger is Muhammad, a belief shared by Shi’a and Sunnis, is regarded as inviolable. The Shi’a base the reference to ‘Ali as the friend (wali) of Allah on verse 5:55 of the Qur’an, “Only Allah is your wali and His messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow,” which, according to Sunni and Shi’a sources, was revealed in honor of ‘Ali after he gave his ring to a beggar while he was in prostration. Furthermore, the Shi’a base their recitation of ‘Ali wali-ullah as part of the adhaan on what they believe to be a tradition of the Prophet; in a hadith found in several Shi’a sources, the Prophet (SAW) is said to have approved of the practice after it was initiated by the companions Salman al-Farisi and Abu Dharr al-Ghafari. Shi’a claim that the hadith has been reported by Sunni scholars [2].

Myth #2: The Shi’a are deviants because they pray with their hands to the side, as opposed to the “proper” way of folding the hands across the midsection.

Reality: Followers of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, who comprise the majority of Sunni Muslims in West Africa and a sizable minority of Sunni Muslims in North Africa, also pray with their hands to their sides. This centuries-old position of the Maliki school is well-documented and supported with evidence from the practice of the people of Medina and various companions of the Prophet (SAW). Anyone who thinks Shi’a are deviants because of the manner in which they pray must also think that their Sunni brothers in West and North Africa are deviants as well.

Myth #3: The Shi’a are heretics because they believe that Allah intended for ‘Ali to be given Prophethood, but the Angel Jibril made a mistake and gave Muhammad the revelation instead.

Reality: The Ithna-Ashari Shi’a–the mainstream branch of Shi’ism followed by over 95% of all Shi’a–believe no such thing. This belief belongs to the ‘Alawi sect, a tiny offshoot of Shi’ism whose adherents are concentrated mainly in Syria and number no more than two million (Syria’s government, including the Assad family, is comprised mostly of ‘Alawis). ‘Alawis also apparently ascribe divinity to ‘Ali as part of a trinitarian notion of God not unlike Christianity. The overwhelming majority of mainstream Shi’a and Sunni scholars consider the beliefs of the ‘Alawi sect heretical.

Myth #4: The Shi’a are heretics because they believe ‘Ali was a prophet.

Reality: See myths #1 and #3.

Myth #5: The Shi’a are deviants because they only pray 3 times a day.

Reality: The five daily prayers–Fajr (early morning), Dhuhr (early afternoon), ‘Asr (late afternoon), Maghrib (evening), and ‘Isha (night)–are common to both Shi’a and Sunnis. The misconception that Shi’a have only 3 prayers stems from the common Shi’a practice of combining Dhuhr with ‘Asr and Maghrib with ‘Isha. Sunnis also combine these prayers in the case of travel, inclement weather, war, or other exceptional circumstances. Shi’a jurisprudence takes a broader view toward the permissibility of combining prayers, holding that prayers may be combined for any reason. Thus, the Shi’a practice of performing the 5 prayers in 3 sittings has been twisted into the misconceived fiction that the Shi’a believe in only 3 prayers [3]. Because the Hanafi school of jurisprudence takes the most restrictive position on the issue of combining prayers, this misconception is particularly common in Hanafi-dominated South Asia.

Myth #6: The Shi’a believe in mut’a (temporary marriage), which is a form of prostitution.

Reality: Shi’a and Sunnis both agree that mut’a was permissible in the early days of Islam. According to the Sunni view, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) declared the practice forbidden following the campaign at Khaybar. Shi’a do not accept the hadith Sunnis point to in support of their view and trace the ban on mut’a to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, whose authority they do not recognize. According the the Shi’a view, ‘Umar outlawed mut’a on his own initiative during the third year of his reign as Khalifa. In any event, mut’a is not a from of prostitution per se. Ayatollah ‘Ali al-Sistani, the world’s highest-ranking Shi’a authority, views permission of the woman’s guardian as a requirement for mut’a, which would be difficult to obtain if he proposes a term of only a few hours. Shi’a put forth a number of social policy justifications for why the permissibility of mut’a is just and proper, such as the minimization of messy and emotionally painful divorces through the institution of a marriage “trial period”. Furthermore, the practice of mut’a is often little different from misyar (travelers’ marriage), a similar concept that many Sunni authorities hold to be permissible. In a misyar marriage, a man marries a woman without assuming any of the responsibilities of a regular marriage (e.g. financial support) or taking up residence with his wife. In practice, many men enter into misyar marriages without any intention of transitioning the union into a regular marriage, and end the arrangement with a divorce. The practice is legitimized through the misapplication of a fatwa by Imam Abu Hanifa, who once ruled that marrying a woman with the intention of divorcing her is permissible. The net effect is often the same as mut’a.

Through this discussion, I do not mean to convey that I agree with the Shi’a. I do not believe in the Shi’a variant of the Shahadah. I do not pray with my hands to my sides (after all, I’m not a Maliki either). I do not combine my prayers without a good reason. I view any form of marriage entered into with the intention of eventual divorce as morally repugnant. I am a committed Sunni, and I find many aspects of Shi’ism problematic (the doctrine of the Imamate, and the hostility towards certain wives and companions of the Prophet that pervades much of Shi’a thought). However, the doctrinal differences between the Shi’a and Sunnis are not going away any time soon. To the extent that Shi’a-Sunni hostility stems from widely-held misconceptions about Shi’a beliefs and practices, addressing and dispelling these myths can ease tensions and foster mutual understanding. And that’s something we can all appreciate.

(Note: I realize that there may be equally widespread myths about Sunni beliefs amongst the Shi’a. Because I am a Sunni, I am not privy to what the Shi’a may say about Sunnis in their own discussions on this issue. Therefore, I only consider myself competent to write about common Sunni misconceptions about Shi’ism.)

___________________________

References:
[1] - http://www.al-islam.org/begin/intro/rahim.html#1
[2] - http://www.answering-ansar.org/fiqh/kalima_adhan/kalima_adhan.pdf
[3] - http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter7/5.html

An interesting debate is currently taking place between Ali Eteraz, creator of online Islamic discussion forum Eteraz.org, and Robert Spencer, director of anti-Islam blog JihadWatch. Spencer is a dedicated Islamophobe whose writings are focused on attempting to prove that jihadist violence and rhetoric represent mainstream Islam, not just the views of fringe extremists. To this end, Spencer wrote an op-ed piece in the Emory University student newspaper The Emory Wheel arguing that “jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute Sharia worldwide” is a “constant element of mainstream Islamic theology… affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence.” For a bigot, Spencer is a pretty smart guy. Unlike many Islamophobes, Spencer is reasonably well-versed in the intellectual history of Islam. Rather than citing directly to Quran and ahadith, which are always subject to interpretation, he quotes the writings of well-respected mainstream scholars such as ibn Taymiyya, ibn Khaldun, al-Qayrawani, and al-Mawardi on offensive jihad and warfare. Superficially, he seems to have made a convincing case that Muslim terrorism is but a manifestation of mainstream Islamic political theory.

In a post on his website responding to the op-ed, Eteraz correctly identifies the fatal flaw in Spencer’s arguments. He points out Spencer’s failure to distinguish between theology and jurisprudence and notes that none of the scholars Spencer quotes lived past 1406. These are more than just inconsequential oversights; unlike philosophers and theologians, jurists are bound by the context in which they live. While the former are concerned with philosophical matters relating to the attributes of God and the nature of human existence, the latter deal with actual legal and political problems. Opinions of jurists, even when framed in the most general of terms, are always informed by the factual realities of the problems they address.

In the case of jihad and warfare, the opinions of the eminent scholars Spencer quotes are limited by the manner in which they conceptualized war and international relations. Prior to the modern era of nation-states, the world was divided into empires that were in a perpetual state of war with each other. Emperors staked the legitimacy of their empires on religion and justified their invasions and conquests by appealing to God (some would argue that very little has changed). Critically, Islam didn’t create this model; it was born into it. Immediately upon its inception, the nascent Muslim state had to contend with the Christian Byzantine Empire and the Zoroastrian Persian Empire, who were themselves locked in a bitter, religiously-charged conflict. The rise and fall of Muslim empires generally followed the path of their non-Muslim counterparts. For every ibn Taymiyya that called for jihad against kafirs, there was an Urban II that called for a crusade against infidels. For every Haroon al-Rashid that sent Muslim armies to subdue a Christian nation, there was a Charlemagne that sought to conquer “pagans” so that they may be “saved”. In short, nothing that the scholars Spencer quotes or their emperor patrons did violated the established order of international relations. And in an era where the world’s population was a fraction of what it is now, bombs and missiles were nonexistent, and most battles occurred in sparsely-populated countrysides, perpetual war between nations was not nearly as bloody or destructive as it would be today.

Admittedly, what Eteraz describes is a recurring problem in both the writings of bigots such as Spencer and the radical Islamists who give him ammunition. Indeed, Spencer’s op-ed might as well have been authored by Ayman al-Zawahiri. And the problem is not confined to jihadi extremists; as Eteraz notes, today’s Islamic jurists have often exhibited a troubling over-reliance on opinions of the distant past in areas such as women’s rights, minority rights, and the issue of apostasy, among others. But the fact that no modern Muslim nation has sought to wage offensive jihad as a means of spreading Islam is an indication that the overwhelming majoriy of Muslims do not view the writings of past scholars on jihad as wholly applicable today. Muslim hostility toward the West usually stems from American and European policies Muslims perceive to be unjust, not the religion Westerners practice. Even jihadi extremists such as Bin Laden and Zawahiri couch much of their rhetoric in defensive terms. But something tells me Spencer is not interested in these realities. Rather, Spencer’s writings coupled with his support for destructive American and Israeli policies leads one to wonder whether he is on a jihad of his own.