Eloquent Incoherence

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

There’s an interesting article in the New York Times about Shi’a-Sunni tensions within the Muslim community in the United States. The article mentions the Muslim Students Association here at the University of Michigan, as well as the Muslim community in Southeastern Michigan (home to the largest concentration of Muslims in North America).

(courtesy of Lubna)

According to this article, the ongoing escalation of Shi’a-Sunni tensions is the result of American efforts to foster and encourage sectarian infighting in the Muslim World. The article claims that the campaign is part of the United States’ anti-Iran policy and is supported by the Arab regimes, who perceive Iran as their biggest threat and rival in the Middle East.

Although I agree with such claims insofar as they are presented as a political analysis, Muslims often exhibit a troubling tendency to attribute sectarian violence exclusively to external forces while ignoring the Muslim role in perpetuating it. There comes a point where we Muslims need to take responsibility for our own shortcomings. Our enemies do indeed have an interest in fostering hatred and distrust between Shi’a and Sunnis, but we’re the ones who are giving them ample opportunities to do so. It’s not Americans who are attacking Shi’a Ashura processions. It’s not Americans who are gunning down worshipers in Shi’a masajid. It’s not Americans who are issuing fatawa pronouncing takfir (excommunication) on the Shi’a, calling them “al-Rawafidh” (the deviants), and deeming them worse than the Jews and Christians. And it’s not Americans who are inspired by these fatawa to perpetrate such horrible crimes. Even here in the United States, many Shi’a can share stories about how they’ve been kicked out of Sunni masajid and discriminated against by their Sunni “brothers”. At some Sunni masajid in the West (usually those with strong Salafi contingents), anti-Shi’a propaganda (usually published by Saudi-backed “da’wah” centers) can be found among the newsletters, fliers, and other materials left for distribution after Friday prayer. Although the majority of Muslims do not harbor hatred toward the Shi’a, this alarming prevalence of anti-Shi’a violence and rhetoric indicates that there are serious problems in our Ummah. Even if external forces are behind such nonsense, whom must we ultimately blame if Muslims are doing the dirty work?

Does the United States manipulate and exacerbate divisions in the Muslim World to serve its own ends? Of course it does. But this is nothing new; these are the same tactics European colonialists used to bring most of the Muslim World under Western domination a century ago. At some point, we need to look inward and acknowledge some painful realities about our own issues. Blaming every problem on America is a counter-productive form of denial and self-delusion.

As if the situation in Iraq couldn’t get any worse, Iraqi and American forces say they foiled an assassination plot targeting Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other Shi’a religious leaders. 250 fighters were killed in the operation. The plot was apparently part of a broader attempt by a militia to gain control of the city of Najaf, home of the Imam Ali Shrine. The plot was timed to coincide with Ashura, a holy day on which the Shi’a stage public processions to mark the martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad’s (SAW) grandson Hussain.

When I first heard this news, I figured it was just another instance of Sunni extremists attacking the Shi’a on their holy day. But the plot was apparently the work of a group called the Jund as-Samaa (”Soldiers of Heaven”), some kind of messianic cult. This was the first instance I’ve heard of an Iraqi insurgent group (or resistance movement, depending on your perspective) being referred to by the media as a cult. According to CNN, the group contained both Shi’a and Sunni elements, and its leader (who was killed in the fighting) claimed to be the Mahdi, a messiah whom Muslims believe will emerge near the end of time to restore peace and justice in the world (although both the Shi’a and the Sunnis believe in the concept of the Mahdi, the idea figures much more prominently in Shi’a thought). I can’t seem to find much more information about this particular group or why they wanted to kill Sistani; all the media reports I’ve read are vague on the matter. It’s certainly a bizarre and alarming turn of events. The fact that this movement was able to attract hundreds of followers is an indication of how desperate the situation in Iraq has become; apparently, some Iraqis have taken the ongoing violence as a sign of the apocalypse.

In any event, I’m glad the plot was foiled. Sistani is the highest-ranking Shi’a religious leader in the world. Unlike the Sunnis, the Shi’a have a tightly-structured, hierarchical system of religious authority similar to Catholicism. Sistani’s assassination might have plunged the entire region into all-out war, and would have exacerbated Shi’a-Sunni tensions across the Muslim World. Sistani is also one of the few voices of reason in the ongoing struggle for Iraq’s future, and his assassination would have dealt a tremendous blow to the prospects for peace in Iraq any time soon.