Theories of the Imamate

When reading the passage about the Theories of the Imamate I was intrigued by many aspects of the different sects of Shiite Islam. I found the Zaydi’s belief that in order to be acknowledged as the Imam, a person must have the ability to resort to the sword if necessary was very interesting. I think strength and military training are aspects a leader must contain to effectively run a nation. I was just wondering why other Shiite groups do not place this attribute as high as the Zaydi’s. One would like to assume that the leader of a group would have the maturity to fully complete the task. What I understood from the reading was, the other groups would allow for a child to dictate the way the religion was run. I was wondering if anyone had thoughts concerning these topics.

Introduction to Shi'i Islam

The history of Shi'i Islam is a kind of a long and complicated history. It began with the fourth Caliphate Ali. Ali was the cousin of Muhammad and this put him in line for leadership. Ali was faced with major conflicts. He moved his headquarters from Medina to Kufa. Kufa was seen to be the place where Shi'ism was to remain. One of the conflicts that Ali was faced with was from Mu'awiya. Ali was assassinated by the followers of Mu'awiya. After the assassination the Shi'i had to find their next leader. They looked towards the leadership of Ali's son Hasan. Many western historians say that Hasan was a disgrace but the Shi'i historians say that his abdication was an important mood. They believed that it was a way of preserving himself because of his fathers assassination. Hasan ended up dieing and the Shi'i Islams looked to his brother for leadership. Husayn is seen as one of the greatest leaders in the sight of the Shi'i. Husayn was faced with a large probletaking on the leadership role. His adversary Umayya had followers called the Umayyads. These people started talking bad about the Shi'i so Husayn had to take action about what they said. He decided to go to war against them but was told he would have support from the Shi'i. In October 680 Husayn was killed because the Shi'i army was never delivered. He fought his last fight with 78 people. The records say that Husayn was told that the army was not going to be delivered. His death is the most celebrate event to the Shi'i. So why do you think Husayn decide to continue to fight? Why didn't he turn back? Why do you think the Shi'i never sent their army to help their leader?

Schools of Law

I found this reading to be very interesting. I was questioning how they could make laws that have to do with modern day issues like technology when the laws are said to have come from the time of Muhammad. Obviously things like computers and the Internet weren't around in those times. I thought it was interesting how they decided that using loud speakers for the Call to Prayer were acceptable based on the things that Muhammad had done in his lifetime (getting a person named Bilal to do the Call to Prayer since his voice was very loud and many people could hear it). But I'm not sure all things could be traced back to the times of Muhammad, how do you think the lawmakers interpret laws that really don't have any reference in the Qur'an or in Hadiths. This reading also talked about the different types or strengths of Islamic law. I am wondering if this sometimes causes conflict in the Islamic world because one place has a different set of rules or severity of those rules. I also thought it was interesting that in Islamic law people are not accused by a larger party like the state or county in which the crime took place (Western Practice) they are accused by an individual of doing a wrongdoing. And instead of coming to a verdict or punishment, they try to resolve their law cases by coming to an understanding or an agreement. I wonder if this causes more peace in their cultures or leads to more misunderstandings. What did you guys think of this reading?