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?

The Creed of Al-Iji

There were a few interesting parts to this particular reading, so I was wondering if anyone found any particular significance to their being 73 sects, and 72 of them being in hell? Also, it is curious as to why there are 27 beliefs listed- is this number significant in any way? Perhaps the most interesting part of this reading is belief number 3, which says that there is no need for a teacher, because all knowledge is obtained through reflection. If this is the case, why is there a need for a religious leader or teacher at all? Also, wouldn't everyone's particular beliefs be different, and therefore almost nobody would be saved because they would not have the exact beliefs of Muhammad? What of these 27 beliefs do you find present in other religions? I found the concepts of God being perfect, God being all knowing, and God being present everywhere. Another interesting thing I found was the idea of repentance, which is present in 26. I am wondering if in other religions, if you repent, you're automatically forgiven, since you acknowledged your sins. In Islam, it is apparent that God decides everything- whether or not you have or have not done enough good to get into heaven, whether or not your forgiven, what is good or bad. Share any thoughts you have on these beliefs.

The Caliphate of Ali

As I was reading through "The Caliphate of Ali", a passage on the topic of revenge interested me. Ali is attempting to remove 'Uthman's leaders when he encounters a problem in Syria. The governor of Syria, Mu'awiya, is a powerful leader with high local support and a military. Mu'awiya "had a moral claim against the murderers of the caliph; as the nearest survivng relative of the dead man, he had a right, even a duty, to see vengeance for the wrong done to his clan. Historians have tended to treat this claim as a feeble pretext for his actions but this does not, perhaps do justice to Mu'awiya's position" (Pg. 76). Do you think Mu'awiya's moral claim to vengeance is ethical in the Islamic sense? Do you feel Mu'awiya has more of a right to be the caliph than Ali?

Conquests of Islam (Donner ER reading)

In the begginning of the text the author states there might be a lot of discrepencies between different sources in how the conquests, battles, etc, occured. I was just curious to what everyone thought were the motivations for the Islamic people early on in these conquests. I know it was heavily based on the drive for political, economic, and military power but it was also driven from a religious point of view as well (getting rid of the polytheists and pagans being a major factor). Starting with pg. 567 and on if you have an opinion either way to which factor you think was more influential in the spread of Islam: political/economic/military or religious/spiritual?

Seth

Legal Hadith

As I was reading this blog a couple points stood out to me that seem to be things that would have happened in the older days but I am wondering if these things are still happening today in the Islam community. A reoccurring theme in the hadiths concerning divorce was that men would divorce their wives while they were menstruating and than take her back when she is "clean". This is obviously something that cannot be controlled by the woman so does anyone have any thoughts on if this hadith is still being practiced? One of the other themes in the divorce hadiths have to do with divorces when there is a child. The way they decided who has custody of the children is to tell the child to run to which ever parent they wish, is this still the way they take care of custody issues? Also, in both of the hadiths, the child ran to the mother. I think that the mother, as is the general "stereotype" in all families, is the comforter and the care-giver so children are prone to choose their mother over their father. Does anyone disagree with that? The last hadith I thought was interessting was that "Whoever drinks wine in this world and does not turn away from it in repentance, will find it forbidden to him in the Hereafter". Are Muslims who drink alcohol looked down upon? What are some of your thoughts on the hadiths I brought up and if they are still being practiced.