What do you know about Sunni & Shia

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Is it ?


The Shi'ite Safavids of Iran under Shah Abbas the Great defeated the Sunni Ottoman Turks, regaining the Shi'ite holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala. They took back Kandahar from the Sunni Moghul Empire.

They defeated the Sunni Uzbeks in Central Asia. They defeated the Sunni Arabs of southern Arabia and the Portuguese.

Shah Abbas created a great new capital city for the Safavids in Isfahan, engaged in trade with the French and Dutch and English, impressing them all with the sophistication and high culture of Isfahan. You can find the impressive Nagsh-i Jahan Square there, one of the world's largest city squares.


The Shi'ite Fatimids of Egypt also had quite a good run for their money too, defeating the Abbasids. They founded the victorious city, Al Qahaira/Cairo to celebrate their victory. They even managed to capture Islam's second capital, Damascus.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point . Their religious consciousness is defined not by these subsequent victories , but by their initial defeat by the Arabs and Arab Islam . And you did not address the rest of my post .

Originally posted by molly bloom

Hindu devotees are so much more decorous with their religious enthusiasm, aren't they ?

Now who is deliberately obfuscating the issue ? The man in the photo is an ascetic - these sort of things are limited to a few ascetic sects , and are not meant for the laypeople . The processions on the streets in Iran , however , are supposed to be attended by everyone . And you behave as if my mentioning the self-flagellation of Shias as a criticism of them - which was not my objective . I just mentioned it as a curious and interesting thing ( the same way that normal people are interested in that which they perceive to be abnormal and beyond their experience ) .

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Darius871

Eh, I think that was more in theory than in practice...

Now, what makes you think that?

Well, you're right, of course.

The modern democracy - based on the idea that sovereignty lies with the people and that the government exists to protect the rights of the people and is legitimate only as long as the people support it - is, of course, an American invention.

Or, as they wrote it in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, (...)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


You seem to be deliberately missing the point . Their religious consciousness is defined not by these subsequent victories , but by their initial defeat by the Arabs and Arab Islam . And you did not address the rest of my post .

I'm not at all. When Shiite Islam was adopted as the STATE religion of Safavid Persia, the Safavids brought their empire to a great height, despite being surrounded by devout Sunnis. And importantly (and as I've pointed out) there was a Shi'ite Arab empire BEFORE there was an Iranian one. A point which you either deliberately or accidentally missed....

Now who is deliberately obfuscating the issue ? The man in the photo is an ascetic - these sort of things are limited to a few ascetic sects , and are not meant for the laypeople . The processions on the streets in Iran , however , are supposed to be attended by everyone .

Not me. I could post a few more charming photos of Hindu 'ascetics' parading through public areas in full view of admiring crowds of fellow Hindus. All those ascetics with hooks impaled in their flesh, or swords, daggers or saws pushed through their cheeks or upper arms...

processions on the streets in Iran , however , are supposed to be attended by everyone .

Oh, and you're quite sure about that, are you ? Sure that the people who attend and watch don't just do that, but also scourge themselves ?

And you behave as if my mentioning the self-flagellation of Shias as a criticism of them - which was not my objective . I just mentioned it as a curious and interesting thing ( the same way that normal people are interested in that which they perceive to be abnormal and beyond their experience ) .

Of course you did. Which is why you put it like this:

That is why lots of people in Iran come out every year to indulge in masochistic self-punishment ( because they consider themselves responsible for the defeat of Ali , and are punishing themselves for it ) , whipping themselves , and using spiked instruments until they draw blood . The processions on the street are a gory sight .

'Masochistic self-punishment', 'draw blood', 'gory sight'- not at all like those Hindu ascetics, eh ?

Or those sadhus who hold one arm up in the air until they permanently lose the use of their muscles. Now that's what I call masochistic self-punishment.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson
very much in theory. Only first 4 caliph were elected anyway.


third. The second, under Ali, was Al-Kufa. You'd know that if You read my first post in this thread.

As I was referring to capitals of mainstream Sunni Islam as opposed to Shi'ite Islam (hence I referred to the Fatimid Shi'ites capturing [Sunni] Damascus) I think I'll let my words stand.

But thanks for reading my post so attentively.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I'm not at all. When Shiite Islam was adopted as the STATE religion of Safavid Persia, the Safavids brought their empire to a great height, despite being surrounded by devout Sunnis. And importantly (and as I've pointed out) there was a Shi'ite Arab empire BEFORE there was an Iranian one. A point which you either deliberately or accidentally missed....

That STILL doesn't change the fact that their religious consciousness is dominated by that feeling of defeat ! Why are you consistently missing the point ?

Originally posted by molly bloom

Not me. I could post a few more charming photos of Hindu 'ascetics' parading through public areas in full view of admiring crowds of fellow Hindus. All those ascetics with hooks impaled in their flesh, or swords, daggers or saws pushed through their cheeks or upper arms...

Even I could post a lot of photos of Hindu ascetics doing some wierd things , and being admired for it by other people .

Admiration , however , does not equal or imply emulation . Duh !

Originally posted by molly bloom

Oh, and you're quite sure about that, are you ? Sure that the people who attend and watch don't just do that, but also scourge themselves ?

They're supposed to . Whether they do or not is their personal choice . I'm talking about things held as ideals - you talk of what those ideals are transformed into when attempts are made to put them into practice . My criticisms are of ideas - yours are of things .

Originally posted by molly bloom

Of course you did. Which is why you put it like this:



'Masochistic self-punishment', 'draw blood', 'gory sight'- not at all like those Hindu ascetics, eh ?

Or those sadhus who hold one arm up in the air until they permanently lose the use of their muscles. Now that's what I call masochistic self-punishment.

They're not motivated by the same idea , are they ? And again you miss the point magnificently !

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


That STILL doesn't change the fact that their religious consciousness is dominated by that feeling of defeat ! Why are you consistently missing the point ?

I don't think I am.

It carries with it the Persian sense of defeat against the Arabs , the defeat of the Persian culture and religion by Islam , and , as an expression of these , the defeat of the rightful heir of the Prophet .

Since Shi'ism was begun by Arabs and is not limited to and did not originate in Iran, I fail to see how Shiite Islam carries with it 'the Persian sense of defeat against the Arabs.'

It certainly didn't for the Shiite Fatimids, and Iraq's Shi'ite Arabs are hardly Persian. Persian culture in fact triumphed over a distinctively Arab culture- as far back as the Abbasids actually. That might be why even when the Safavids were at war with the Ottomans, Uzbeks and Moguls, high Persian culture predominated at all those courts....

Even I could post a lot of photos of Hindu ascetics doing some wierd things , and being admired for it by other people .

Admiration , however , does not equal or imply emulation . Duh !

Well so far you haven't actually proved that ALL Iranians scourge themselves in public demonstrations of piety. You've simply asserted it. The fact that some Hindus might choose to insert metal objects in their flesh and some wouldn't seems to my mind to be pretty much the same kind of situation.

They're not motivated by the same idea , are they ? And again you miss the point magnificently !

So tell us what the motivation of sadhus who lose the use of their arms in pursuit of religious devotion is.

As an act of self-punishment or abnegation (masochistic or otherwise) I'd say that the permanent loss of use of a limb trumps a bit of blood loss and skin damage any day.

And again you miss the point magnificently !

No, we get your point. You've made it ad nauseam and ad infinitum it seems.

Let's all chant: Muslim bad, Hindu good, Muslim bad, Hindu good, get down and do the antiIslam boogie...

[Sava]

I think it was one of Lonestar's avatars that put it best:

If you aren't Sunni, you ain't Shi'ite.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom


As I was referring to capitals of mainstream Sunni Islam as opposed to Shi'ite Islam (hence I referred to the Fatimid Shi'ites capturing [Sunni] Damascus) I think I'll let my words stand.

But thanks for reading my post so attentively.

You didn't say You've ment sunni islam. Your defence if a further mistake, though, for Ali was a sunni caliph. Actually, he is considered one of four "rightly guided" ones. At this point, shia/sunni division was in statu nascendi and was a political, not a religious or denominational, one.

[Lodi]

How about researching the other, smaller Islamic sects? Such as the Sufis and Hassassins. I am sure that would also be interesting and enlightening.

[Thorgal]

AFAIK, inside the Shiites, aside the currently majoritary group of the imanies (the ones in Iran and Iraq who believe in 12 imams) there are another branches as the ismailies who believe there were seven Imams or the Zaidies who believe in five imams only.
The Hassasins were a sect inside the ismailies, the main shiite group several centuries ago.

Outside shiites and sunites there is another very minoritary muslim group, the jariyies. Today the only remained jariyies are the ones of the sect of the ibadies who can be found in Oman, and some spots in the magreb.

About the Sufis they are not a muslim branch exactly but a mystical way of understanding islam. There can be sunite and chiite sufis.

[Darius871]

In response to the OP I thought I'd copy and paste my answer from a final exam last year, it pretty much sums up the shi'i side of the split anyway:

Imamate, essentially, is the political rule of an Imam. The various sects of the Shi’i generally agree that the head of state should be a divinely-selected Imam descended from Muhammad, through his daughter Fatima and his son-in-law Ali ibn Abu Talib. While Ali was not a descendent of the prophet, he is revered by Shi’i as the first Imam and the first true caliph because it was believed the Prophet chose him at Ghadir Khumm Muhammad to lead the ummah after his death.14

Imamate came to take on a divine character, whereby Allah imbues each Imam with religious and political authority, makes him ma’sum (free of sin), and guides him to infallibility. As such, those who believed in Imamate – both before and after they came to be known as the Shi’i (from Shi’at Ali, the “party of Ali”) – effectively rafadu (reject) the rule of any caliph who was not a recognized Imam, including three of the Khalifat Rashidun in Sunni Islam: Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.15 After the death of Ali and the establishment of the Umayyad dynasty by Mu`awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, the Imamate and the caliphate no longer coincided, but the Imams continued to survive in hiding and communicated in secret with their followers through an intricate network of couriers.

Succession of the Imamate was often contentious and resulted in the split into multiple sects, the most predominant being the Twelvers and the second most being the Ismailis. According to Twelver beliefs the eleventh Imam Hasan al-Askari – who was not known to have had an heir – in fact had a son who was concealed by Allah for protection from persecutors and will not return until the end times, so there have only been twelve Imams to this day.16

The Ismailis, on the other hand, believed that the eldest son of Jafar al-Sadiq – Muhammad ibn Ismail – was in fact the seventh Imam despite having died before his father. The Ismailis themselves then split into multiple sects, some believing that Ismail lived and is held in occultation (much like al-Askari’s son in Twelver Shi’ism), and others believing in later Imams that claimed to descend from Ismail. The Bahraini Qarmatians are an example of the former, and the powerful Fatimid dynasty founded by purported Imam Ubayd Allah illustrate the latter.17 While the Twelvers and most Ismailis await the arrival of their various hidden Imams, it is notable that the Imamate of Nizari Ismailis survives to this day.18

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Thorgal
The Hassasins were a sect inside the ismailies, the main shiite group several centuries ago.

Interestingly the hereditary line of the Nizari Ismaili sect (of which the Hashashin were a part) still survives in the Aga Khan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aga_Khan_IV

[Thorgal]

Yep, i have also read that after the mongol invasion and the destruction of Alamut the remaining hassasins themselves escaped to India, where they exist still today and are known as joyas. It seems they dont kill people anymore though. (And I wonder if they still smoke ).

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Lodi
How about researching the other, smaller Islamic sects? Such as the Sufis and Hassassins. I am sure that would also be interesting and enlightening.

As it was mentioned, assassins are part of ismailits, the 7-imam shia islam. I believe they were borned when the rightous Fatimid crownprince was moved away from inheriting the throne (for he was not a child, like his brother, and therefore could not be "taken care of" by others).

In my Syria thread, You can find pictures of Musyaf/Masyaf, perhaps the most important stronghold of assassins but Alamut, in coastal mountains of Syria. It was unsuccessfully besieged by Saladin, it's a very nice story.
The village around is still majorly or at least in big part ismailite.
Some of its citizens we've talked to claimed that ismailism is not a denomination, but a "science/knowledge", and You can be a christian ismailite

Originally posted by Darius871


Interestingly the hereditary line of the Nizari Ismaili sect (of which the Hashashin were a part) still survives in the Aga Khan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aga_Khan_IV

It is very doubtful, as every line connection in shia islam.

[Darius871]

Of course; that's why I said their line not "the" line.