Lack of a Hierarchical Structure in Islam

[George_Waters]

Catholicism teaches the supremacy of God; that God is the supreme ruler of the universe and as such is the head of the heavenly hierarchy as well as all hierarchies. When the Catholic Church was established it was given a hierarchical structure like exists in heaven to insure proper understanding and practice of God’s laws and faith.

Islam also teaches the supremacy of God; that God is the supreme ruler of the universe and as such is the head of all hierarchies. However, unlike Catholicism Islam does not have an earthly hierarchy. It seems more a kin to the numerous forms of Protestantism in which individual interpretation and relativism is the norm.

This is curious to me as Muslims frequently point out that there should be no government aside from the rule of Islam. It is also pointed out that there is only one Islam. Yet when questioned about other Islamic sects and the actions of extremist it is claimed they are not true Muslims and are acting contrary to Islam.

This post is not to argue the actions of immoral persons or to question the legitimacy of Islam itself, but to ask the Muslims on this forum if they believe the lack of a hierarchical structure in Islam may be a direct result in violent Islamic fanaticism?

I know Muslims believe Islam to be the true faith, I will not question that on this post, but even Islamic governments have a hierarchy, so why does not Islam itself?

Peace,

George

 

[onesimplemind]

George Waters:

. It seems more a kin to the numerous forms of Protestantism in which individual interpretation and relativism is the norm.

There is quite a possibility that you have answered your own question before you asked.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

George wants your point of view. He does not have to be fully blank about the topic in order to get your attention and opinion.

 

[George_Waters]

Cyber Knight:

George wants your point of view. He does not have to be fully blank about the topic in order to get your attention and opinion.

Thank you Cyber Knight!

Peace,

George

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Islamic scholars try to point to a lack of heirarchy as an advantage. They will say that Islam can adapt to any culture while “we Islamicize it”. While there is some truth to that it also has a very grave downside. There is no one to tell a violent form of Islam or a violent culture that violence is not what God wants. Of course, even if there was such a heirarchy, they would have little to stand on. Islam is violent already. How would a heirarch change it?

Many point to American Islam as being a saving factor for all of Islam. Native Muslims here tend to be less violent and more open to women’s rights than their counterparts in the Middle East. At least we are led to believe that is true.

With each answer new problems arise. If American ways become imbedded in Islam will that form of Islam be any better than Christian forms are in America? Monotheism is after all better than what passes for many forms of Christianity in this country.

CDL

 

[onesimplemind]

GregoryPalamas:

Islamic scholars try to point to a lack of heirarchy as an advantage. They will say that Islam can adapt to any culture while “we Islamicize it”. While there is some truth to that it also has a very grave downside. There is no one to tell a violent form of Islam or a violent culture that violence is not what God wants. Of course, even if there was such a heirarchy, they would have little to stand on. Islam is violent already. How would a heirarch change it?

Many point to American Islam as being a saving factor for all of Islam. Native Muslims here tend to be less violent and more open to women’s rights than their counterparts in the Middle East. At least we are led to believe that is true.

With each answer new problems arise. If American ways become imbedded in Islam will that form of Islam be any better than Christian forms are in America? Monotheism is after all better than what passes for many forms of Christianity in this country.

CDL

Is Islam violent by nature or is it violent because it is unstable? Muslims in the U.S. that acknowldege they are Americans are very dignified and trustworthy people though I am unsure about how they treat women. On the other hand, the Iranian clerics and Islamic terrorists regard loyal American muslims as having been poisoned by our culture and missing the true faith. There are countless other points of view between those opinions.

Christianity in the U.S. is highly influenced by the Constitution. The freedom to believe whatever you want has multiplied the different forms of Christianity and protected those forms from outside persecution and from each other. In old Europe, Catholics and Protestants used to kill each other and it was all allowed explicilty or implicitly by the governments. In the U.S., armed raids between people of different faiths are a very rare occurance (unless race is involved) and will always be criminal. If Islam adapted American ways in terms of being allowed to believe whatever you want, there would probably be an increase in the amount of sects but a vast decrease in the violence due to toleration. The problem is there are many other dubious aspects of American culture that would make an “Americanized” Islam unpredictable.

If Islam had a had a trend to obtain a heirarchy, it would lead to the return of the Islamic superstates. Imagine the conflicts between shia and sunni if both had its own superstate. Imagine the conflicts between muslims and non-muslims if there were Islamic superstates. Imagine if all those that fought against Islamic caliphates in the past (mongols, crusaders, British) fought with modern weapons instead. In fact it is the Islamic state of Iran that is festering problems for other countries. It is Iran’s rise to nuclear power thats going to lead to an Israeli strike which can inflame the entire Middle East. It was the superstates that conquered vast territories for Islam. Thats something bin Laden desires. If Islamic superstates existed today, there won’t be any territorial gains, there would be billions dead. I hope the Islamic scholars keeping pushing for the advantages in the lack of heirarchy.

 

[onesimplemind]

George Waters:

I know Muslims believe Islam to be the true faith, I will not question that on this post, but even Islamic governments have a hierarchy, so why does not Islam itself?

Muslim countries in the middle east generally don’t have Islamic governments. Most of them are quite secular. Sure there are some that tend to favor Islamic teachings like Saudi Arabia(monarchy) and Kuwait(constitutional monarchy) and discriminate against non-muslims along with repressing women. These countries are nothing like the caliphates in the past which claimed to be successors of Mohammed.

The exceptions are Iran and Afganistan in the Taliban days. Iran is a theocratic republic and Afghanistan pre-George W Bush went with the Shariah.

 

[Shenango]

George Waters:

It seems more a kin to the numerous forms of Protestantism in which individual interpretation and relativism is the norm.

I am Muslim, and I want to say that’s an astute and accurate observation, but it only applies to Sunni Islam. Shi’a Islam is much like Roman Catholicism in having an earthly hierarchy and believing that some form of divine inspiration passed from the Prophet (PBUH) to his descendants and finally the to the Shi’a imams, as Catholic believe the same about Jesus (PBUH), his apostles and the Catholic Church.

This is curious to me as Muslims frequently point out that there should be no government aside from the rule of Islam.

Ah but there’s a difference between the concept of the Sunni caliph and the Shi’a imam, my friend. A Shi’a imam is much like the Catholic pope, whose rule is divinely inspired and infallible, and who is the chief arbiter of doctrine/theology.

In Sunni Islam, the caliph is only a temporal, political leader who does not dictate theology/doctrine, but is rather the upholder/executor of its implementation. The (Sunni) Islamic State governs strictly by the Qur’an and Sunnah, and their interpretation the community as a whole has come to consensus on (most likely through its scholars).

It is also pointed out that there is only one Islam. Yet when questioned about other Islamic sects and the actions of extremist it is claimed they are not true Muslims and are acting contrary to Islam.

Both statements are true, and what you are asking about Sunni Islam can also be asked of all Protestant Christians. How can Baptists claim there’s only one true (Baptist) Christianity without a pope? The answer they would give you is much the same one I would give about Islam.

This post is not to argue the actions of immoral persons or to question the legitimacy of Islam itself, but to ask the Muslims on this forum if they believe the lack of a hierarchical structure in Islam may be a direct result in violent Islamic fanaticism?

This is sort of a separate issue, but no, the fact that there’s no pope in Sunni Islam does not make for more violence and fanaticism. Even if there was a Muslim pope, people will do what they want in the end. And even in Qur’anic interpretation, there is reason which form the basis for consensus, and by which the fanatics are wrong by any stretch of the imagination, to most Muslims.

I always find it fascinating how people who belong to centralized religions, like Catholicism, Mormonism or Shi’a Islam can contrive a thought process whereby any religion that’s not centralized cannot work. Your assertions all sound the same, and it’s just interesting to me how the mind can rationalize to justify what it wants to and make it sound objective, when such thought is totally subjective.

In the end though, I know that the de-centralized basis of Sunni Islam and Protestant Christianity is the better, more rational approach to religion. It just can’t be any other way, because Shi’a Muslims and Catholic Christians can’t produce any historical evidence that anyone post-Muhammad or post-Jesus/Apostles was divinely inspired or had authority from the founders to arbitrate doctrine.

Thus, the authority given to figures such as the Pope and the Shi’a Ayatollah is based 100% on pure faith alone. In other words, it is no firmer than superstition. And inevitably, as people who hold supersitions are forcibly made to see, sooner or later, both Shi’a and Catholics are forced either into denial or admission of their falsehood when a Pope or Ayatollah proves that he’s not infallible or divinely inspired by making some big goof.

Not to pick on Catholicism particularly, but Pope Benedict XVI confessed on camera that previous popes in history have obviously been neither divinely inspired nor infallible. In other words, he admitted the beliefs he holds are false, and yet he still perseveres in them! I mean, what’s left to say after this? In my book that’s enough proof against this centralized school of thought about religion that’s common to many of the world’s faiths.

 

[onesimplemind]

Shenango:

This is sort of a separate issue, but no, the fact that there’s no pope in Sunni Islam does not make for more violence and fanaticism. Even if there was a Muslim pope, people will do what they want in the end. And even in Qur’anic interpretation, there is reason which form the basis for consensus, and by which the fanatics are wrong by any stretch of the imagination, to most Muslims.

So who would know the real Qu’ranic interpretation? Who would know who is truly following Mohammed’s path?

 

[Shenango]

onesimplemind:

So who would know the real Qu’ranic interpretation? Who would know who is truly following Mohammed’s path?

The true Qur’anic interpretation is established by community consensus (except in a few cases, where the Prophet (PBUH) has given us his interpretation in Hadith), through the ummah’s scholars. When in doubt, an individual should “ask the experts”, the imams, how they understand a given verse. If the person finds individual consensus on a large basis (a majority of scholars who agree), that’s considered sound basis.

This has historically proven to work for both Sunni Muslims and Protestant Christians.

 

[George_Waters]

I would like to thank everyone for their insight and adding to my knowledge so far, I am here to learn and do appreciate it.

Shenango, thank you for offering a Sunni perspective. I would like to address some things you have said.

(Due to the number of quotes I want to address I have opted to cut and paste for my convenience, I apologize if this is inconvenient for anyone to read.)

“In the end though, I know that the de-centralized basis of Sunni Islam and Protestant Christianity is the better, more rational approach to religion.” - Shenango

While de-centralization may (or may not) be “more rational” to humans is it really the way of God? The large number of Protestant denominations all claiming they are guided by the Holy Spirit while totally disagreeing on many key issues makes me skeptical, but I was so long before I became Catholic.

“It just can’t be any other way, because Shi’a Muslims and Catholic Christians can’t produce any historical evidence that anyone post-Muhammad or post-Jesus/Apostles was divinely inspired or had authority from the founders to arbitrate doctrine. Thus, the authority given to figures such as the Pope and the Shi’a Ayatollah is based 100% on pure faith alone. In other words, it is no firmer than superstition.” - Shenango

While I can not address Shi’a doctrine, it is recorded in the Bible that Jesus gave authority to Peter and the apostles, who through apostolic secession has handed it down through the centuries to our popes. While that may not be considered “historical evidence” in the strictest sense, please remember that if we are to use the strictest sense there is not really any “historical evidence” that even Jesus or Muhammad were “divinely inspired”.

“And inevitably, as people who hold supersitions are forcibly made to see, sooner or later, both Shi’a and Catholics are forced either into denial or admission of their falsehood when a Pope or Ayatollah proves that he’s not infallible or divinely inspired by making some big goof.” – Shenango

You are right the Pope (nor any other human) is infallible! I have never denied that nor am I forced into that admission. It is simply the truth. Remember that infallibility is only in connection with doctrinal authority and that it also belongs to all the bishops as a whole when they solemnly teach doctrine. This seems virtually identical to the scholarly consensus you pointed out is used by Sunnis.

“Not to pick on Catholicism particularly, but Pope Benedict XVI confessed on camera that previous popes in history have obviously been neither divinely inspired nor infallible.” -Shenango

As I stated above no human is infallible, Pope Benedict XVI knows this. Why shouldn’t he admit the truth?

“In other words, he admitted the beliefs he holds are false, and yet he still perseveres in them! I mean, what’s left to say after this?” – Shenango

Was the Pope speaking about his predecessor’s personal beliefs or his doctrinal authority when he made his statement? Context is paramount my friend.

“The true Qur’anic interpretation is established by community consensus (except in a few cases, where the Prophet (PBUH) has given us his interpretation in Hadith), through the ummah’s scholars. When in doubt, an individual should “ask the experts”, the imams, how they understand a given verse. If the person finds individual consensus on a large basis (a majority of scholars who agree), that’s considered sound basis.” – Shenango

How is this different from the Pope and bishops exercising doctrinal authority?

“This has historically proven to work for both Sunni Muslims and Protestant Christians.” – Shenango

Has it been “historically proven” to work or has it simply been proven to be persistent? No offence, but is separation God’s way or our way?

Peace,

George

 

[Shenango]

George Waters:

While de-centralization may (or may not) be “more rational” to humans is it really the way of God? The large number of Protestant denominations all claiming they are guided by the Holy Spirit while totally disagreeing on many key issues makes me skeptical, but I was so long before I became Catholic.

In drawing any analogy, there is always the risk of extending it too far, and I fear I may have done so here. My purpose in relating Sunni Islam to Protestant Christianity was to prove a point about interpretation at a fundamental, philosophical level.

I won’t defend Protestants and their sectarianism. I don’t have to, because while there is scholarly disagreement on some minor issues within Sunni Islam, the big-ticket items are universally clear, and all still remain Muslims (even the Shi’a) and all can worship and live together at the end of the day.

What accounts for this difference, though Protestants and Sunnis use the same methodology, is less clear. Perhaps the Bible itself is less clear on key issues than is the Qur’an, and that is the reason, but I’m not sure. It’s an issue that fascinates me, certainly, and warrants further study.

While I can not address Shi’a doctrine, it is recorded in the Bible that Jesus gave authority to Peter and the apostles, who through apostolic secession has handed it down through the centuries to our popes. While that may not be considered “historical evidence” in the strictest sense, please remember that if we are to use the strictest sense there is not really any “historical evidence” that even Jesus or Muhammad were “divinely inspired”.

Well, we each have our reasoning for why we believe Jesus and Muhammad (PBUT) to be divinely inspired men, but the point I wished to make was, rationally speaking, such evaluation must always occur on an individual basis. In other words, the fact that one man is inspired will never make any later other, other group of people, necessarily so.

My beef with Catholic doctrine about apostolic succession is not so much whether Jesus (PBUH) gave authority to the apostles to found a political institution/establishment, such as the RCC, but that divine inspiration must have necessarily passed from Jesus (PBUH) to the Apostles to popes. I can accept that the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus (PBUH) promised to send the Spirit to inspire the Church. But my question is, where does it say this inspiration is to be concentrated in one figure, and can only pass from such solitary figure to another one?
That contradicts the Acts of the Apostles, where the entire 120-member church is inspired by the Holy Spirit to start speaking in tongues.

infallibility is only in connection with doctrinal authority

Even in doctrinal authority it should be obvious that popes weren’t infallible.

and that it also belongs to all the bishops as a whole when they solemnly teach doctrine.

Why not also monsignors and priests? Why not the laity? See, this is the falsehood of centralization that I’m talking about. The distinction between clergy and laity is totally false, because it says only some believers can be guided, not others, and most offensively, that the basis for that is wearing a red cap and black suit. Articles of clothing do not an inspired man make.

Continued…

 

[Shenango]

…picking up…

This seems virtually identical to the scholarly consensus you pointed out is used by Sunnis.

It’s absolutely not the same…scholars are not holy oligarchs. They don’t have unique authority to intepret that anyone else in the ummah (community of believers) doesn’t have. Muslims respect their opinions because they’ve studied the issues. The deference they receive is of rational basis, not irrational belief that they’re selectively chosen by God and provided some special inspiration. Muslims are not bound by their opinions, and scholars do not have authority to tell the ummah what to do and not to do. Sunni clergy are unhierarchical and totally informal, essentially the equivalent of Protestant pastors. They are (usually) more educated than an average believer, but they are fully equal to all believers, and are part of them, and do not rank over them, and there is no real distinction between them and the laity.

Now, the clerics in Shi’a Islam are hierarchical and centralized, and do have divine authority over believers, making them a sort of theocratic elite, and are exactly what you tried to compare Catholic bishops to.

Was the Pope speaking about his predecessor’s personal beliefs or his doctrinal authority when he made his statement? Context is paramount my friend.

I think he meant in the relevant context…that is…what Catholics believe. Nevertheless, I won’t press the point, because it’s been too far back and I don’t remember exactly what he said.

How is this different from the Pope and bishops exercising doctrinal authority?

Sunni imams are not infallible and don’t have divine authority to command or enforce their views. As we said, they are the equivalents of Protestant pastors. It is Shi’a imams who are comparable to Catholic priests, and excercise true doctrinal authority over their followers.

If a Shi’a Ayatollah declares a certain thing to be illegal in Islam, all Shi’as must automatically oblige immediately, because that ruling is infallible and divinely inspired, as if it came from God or the Prophet (PBUH) himself.

But if a Sunni imam advises me and gives me his scholarly opinion about an issue, that’s his personal opinion, which he may be right or wrong about. I am not obliged to follow it, but must become educated myself, and follow the line of reasoning that makes the most sense. I may find another imam has a better opinion and decide to stick with that. Someone else may find the first opinion more sound, and go with that. That’s fine, and both men are still Muslims and pray together in the same mosque. This is Sunni Islam.

Which example sounds more like Catholicism to you?

Has it been “historically proven” to work or has it simply been proven to be persistent? No offence, but is separation God’s way or our way?

Considering the irrationality, superstition and lack of textual/historical evidence for the centralized method vs. the uncentralized one, I have no doubt as to which one is correct.

 

[George_Waters]

Sheango,

When it comes to apostolic secession and papal infallibility we will have to simply agree to disagree at this time. You have explained many things in your post, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I still fail to see how centralization is irrational or superstitious when that is the very method of God.

My original question was does the lack of a hierarchical structure in Islam contribute to violent Islamic fanaticism? You may firmly believe de-centralization to be best, but is it possible that de-centralization leads to many false beliefs and many people claiming to be Muslims acting contrary to Islam? I am not attacking Islam and perhaps this is an unfair question, but it was a question that entered my mind. You can simply tell me this is not a fair question and I will drop it.

On a non-related side note may I humbly ask you to be careful when claiming things are only superstition? I could easily claim that Mohammed’s ride to heaven on a heavenly steed is simply Islamic superstition lacking historical evidence, which would be offensive to you. Thanks Sheango.

Peace,

George

 

[MugenOne]

All,

Anyone can be an imam in Islam. There’s no special qualification or school. I’m not making this up. My Muslim friend told me that. Arab Muslims don’t consider American Muslims like the Nation of Islam Muslim or Islam.

George,

I guess that possibly answers your question.

M1

 

[r.gonzales]

MugenOne:

Anyone can be an imam in Islam. There’s no special qualification or school. I’m not making this up. My Muslim friend told me that. Arab Muslims don’t consider American Muslims like the Nation of Islam Muslim or Islam.

wow. that’s some misinformation there… whether it be a misinterpretation of your friends words on your part, or a gross generalisation on your friend’s.

firstly, concerning being an “imam”. imam in the arabic language simply means “leader” it’s derived from the verb amaana - to be in front or ahead of. this word in islamic terminology has a few different usages.

the first usage is with respect to the leader of the muslim nation, also known as the caliph. this obviously does have special qualifications that come with it - the first and foremost being that he must be from the tribe of quraish and also be amongst the best of the muslims in both his religious knowledge and his character. it should be noted that these conditions aren’t always met and the position has been given to those who don’t meet them in the past. also, at present time, there is no caliph for the muslim nation as a whole.

the second usage is with respect to scholars of the religion. this title is usually given to the top scholars among the muslims; the most knowledgeable and influencial scholars. examples of these are the four imams that the most common “schools of thought” are named after: aboo haneefah nu’maan bin thaabit, maalik bin anas, muhammad bin idrees ash-shaafi’ee and ahmad bin hanbal.

the third usage is with respect to the head of the community or the local mosque. this position should be given to the most knowledgeable person in community who has good leadership qualities. he’s often one who’s memorised the entire Quran as well - as he’s required to either lead the people in congregational prayer at the mosque or appoint someone who can.

the fourth usage is with respect to the congregational prayer itself. while this position should be given to the one who has the most knowledge of the Quran, anyone who leads the congretational prayer - whether they are truly qualified to do so or not - is called the “imam”. in this last sense, what your friend told you is correct.

as for your last statement concerning arab muslims vs. american muslims, that’s not entirely accurate or correct. the nation of islam is a group in the u.s. whose beliefs take them outside the fold of islam. thus, in reality they don’t really have anything to do with islam at all. they believe that Allah came to earth in the form of w. fard muhammad and that elijah muhammad was a prophet and messenger. both beliefs effectively nullify any claim to islam they have and render them non-muslims. and muslims in general shouldn’t consider them to be muslim at all, nor should they consider the religion that they’re upon to be islam. as for other american muslims, then so long as their beliefs don’t take them outside of the fold of islam, then arab muslims - and other muslims around the world should consider them to be muslim - even if they have deviations in beliefs, such as the sufis or the shee’ah or any other sect - so long as their deviations don’t nullify their islam.

 

[MugenOne]

Well, it was very clear. That’s what he told me. By the way, my friend’s a Sufi. He claims that his Islam is true Islam. You know, I’ve heard many people claiming their Islam is true. So, who is right and who is wrong?

 

[Wildkit]

MugenOne:

Well, it was very clear. That’s what he told me. By the way, my friend’s a Sufi. He claims that his Islam is true Islam. You know, I’ve heard many people claiming their Islam is true. So, who is right and who is wrong?

Mugen1 - Indeed brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[Shenango]

George Waters:

My original question was does the lack of a hierarchical structure in Islam contribute to violent Islamic fanaticism? You may firmly believe de-centralization to be best, but is it possible that de-centralization leads to many false beliefs and many people claiming to be Muslims acting contrary to Islam? I am not attacking Islam and perhaps this is an unfair question, but it was a question that entered my mind. You can simply tell me this is not a fair question and I will drop it.

I answered this in my first response to your original post.

 

[George_Waters]

Shenango:

I answered this in my first response to your original post.

You did indeed! I should have re-read your post again!

Peace,

George