Shia and Sunni Islam

[Hypatia]

One thing I thought I knew was that there were some differences in praxis between Shi’a and Sunni. For example, I thought that Shi’a recognised some deceased Muslims as saints. I appreciate that is probably an inappropriate western term but I’m afraid I don’t know what else to call them. I also understand there are various religious shrines that Shi’a visit. It is my understanding, which I accept may be erroneous, that Sunnis believe this is not appropriate.

Certainly the Saudi’s do not think it is appropriate… to the extent that there are worries that they might destroy historical sites associated with the life of the Prophet (pbuh) himself because it promotes idolatrous devotions (i.e., they don’t want to encourage Sufism). They are also opposed to things like remembering the birthday of the Prophet, etc.

That said, many Sunnis do recognize certain persons as models of holiness and build shrines to them. These are all common sufi practices. Such shrines are common in Sunni areas like Pakistan and in India. The admiration for “saints” is not limited to the Shi’a. See, for instance, the Dargah of Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer, India, which is a common pilgrimage site for Muslims. There are many others. The house where Mary (pbuh) the Mother of Jesus (pbuh) died is, likewise, an common place of pilgrimage in Turkey.

Even though Shi’a and Sunni Muslims may pray together and associate together in the west I do not believe this to be the case in other parts of the world. For example, why do populations of countries protest where the majority of Muslims are Shi’a but the government is Sunni. I believe that was the situation in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was the ruler. I also understand it is the cause of the current protests in Bahrain.

There are certainly some deep political divisions and competing attempts to control the interpretation of Islam between, esp. Arab Sunnis and the mostly Persian Shi’a. It is the case that Sunni Arab states tend to be suspicious of their Shi’a residents because they suspect them of being readily available agents of Iran. Saudi for instance seems to largely live in official denial of the size of its Shi’a population, which it seems to significantly under-report… the north east quarter of the Kingdom is overwhelming Shi’a. But it does this precisely because Saudi is committed to being a Sunni Kingdom and does not want to open any roads to Iran within the Kingdom. Similarly in Bahrain, where the the Sunni rulers have reacted very defensively to Shi’a demands for more political freedom in part because Iran has, on occasion, hinted that they think Bahrain is naturally a part of Iran. Saudi likewise is deeply interested in making sure a Shi’a uprising doesn’t happen in Bahrain, both because it doesn’t want that uprising to spread to its own substantial but ignored Shi’a population, and because they are afraid that Shi’a control of Bahrain would be Iranian control of Bahrain, thereby bringing Iran one step closer to the Arabian peninsula.

There are a few Sunni groups who do treat Shi’a as heretics… but these groups also tend to treat Sunni Sufis as heretics as well, etc., etc. I.e., they are rigorists who tend towards violence against other Muslim groups who they label as non-believers and accuse of shirk. We have seen outbreaks of this type of violence in Pakistan, where there have been attacks on Shi’a populations, as well as on Sufi devotees and Sufi shrines.

Is Wahhabi Islam practised in Saudi Arabia a form of Sunni Islam.

yes. Al-Wahab is a fairly radical reformer within Sunni Islam: a kind of modernist trying to get behind the traditional practices that had become associated with Sunni Islam. He wanted to return to a “pure” Islam. He can be fairly compared to some of the more rigorist Protestant reformers, e.g., Zwingli, stripping the statues out of churches and breaking the stained glass windows because they were idolatrous.

I admit to not being Wikipedia’s biggest fan; however, do you know if their article on Islam is a reliable article about your faith?

The Islam article on Wikipedia has been locked for a while and they have tried to maintain it in a fair way. It is not bad as a really basic intro. The Ismaili article on Wikipedia is not bad either, at least the last time I looked.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Certainly the Saudi’s do not think it is appropriate… to the extent that there are worries that they might destroy historical sites associated with the life of the Prophet (pbuh) himself because it promotes idolatrous devotions (i.e., they don’t want to encourage Sufism). They are also opposed to things like remembering the birthday of the Prophet, etc.

That said, many Sunnis do recognize certain persons as models of holiness and build shrines to them. These are all common sufi practices. Such shrines are common in Sunni areas like Pakistan and in India. The admiration for “saints” is not limited to the Shi’a. See, for instance, the Dargah of Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer, India, which is a common pilgrimage site for Muslims. There are many others. The house where Mary (pbuh) the Mother of Jesus (pbuh) died is, likewise, an common place of pilgrimage in Turkey.

There are certainly some deep political divisions and competing attempts to control the interpretation of Islam between, esp. Arab Sunnis and the mostly Persian Shi’a. It is the case that Sunni Arab states tend to be suspicious of their Shi’a residents because they suspect them of being readily available agents of Iran. Saudi for instance seems to largely live in official denial of the size of its Shi’a population, which it seems to significantly under-report… the north east quarter of the Kingdom is overwhelming Shi’a. But it does this precisely because Saudi is committed to being a Sunni Kingdom and does not want to open any roads to Iran within the Kingdom. Similarly in Bahrain, where the the Sunni rulers have reacted very defensively to Shi’a demands for more political freedom in part because Iran has, on occasion, hinted that they think Bahrain is naturally a part of Iran. Saudi likewise is deeply interested in making sure a Shi’a uprising doesn’t happen in Bahrain, both because it doesn’t want that uprising to spread to its own substantial but ignored Shi’a population, and because they are afraid that Shi’a control of Bahrain would be Iranian control of Bahrain, thereby bringing Iran one step closer to the Arabian peninsula.

There are a few Sunni groups who do treat Shi’a as heretics… but these groups also tend to treat Sunni Sufis as heretics as well, etc., etc. I.e., they are rigorists who tend towards violence against other Muslim groups who they label as non-believers and accuse of shirk. We have seen outbreaks of this type of violence in Pakistan, where there have been attacks on Shi’a populations, as well as on Sufi devotees and Sufi shrines.

yes. Al-Wahab is a fairly radical reformer within Sunni Islam: a kind of modernist trying to get behind the traditional practices that had become associated with Sunni Islam. He wanted to return to a “pure” Islam. He can be fairly compared to some of the more rigorist Protestant reformers, e.g., Zwingli, stripping the statues out of churches and breaking the stained glass windows because they were idolatrous.

The Islam article on Wikipedia has been locked for a while and they have tried to maintain it in a fair way. It is not bad as a really basic intro. The Ismaili article on Wikipedia is not bad either, at least the last time I looked.

Thanks, Hypatia that was very interesting and informative. It would seem that no matter your faith it gets hijacked for political purposes.

 

[TheAtheist]

That said, many Sunnis do recognize certain persons as models of holiness and build shrines to them. These are all common sufi practices. Such shrines are common in Sunni areas like Pakistan and in India. The admiration for “saints” is not limited to the Shi’a. See, for instance, the Dargah of Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer, India, which is a common pilgrimage site for Muslims. There are many others. The house where Mary (pbuh) the Mother of Jesus (pbuh) died is, likewise, an common place of pilgrimage in Turkey.

The prevalance of shrines and saints seem to increase as one moves further away from the the Middle East.

I’ve traveled through India and Indonesia and was quite astonished to discover not only of their existence, but also the fact that localized sectarian divides tend to err… “break down” before something like the tomb of Moinuddin Chisti.

Some of my colleagues speak of other places as far away as the Maghreb/North Africa and Timbuktu. Although from my limited reading of the matter/listening to Al-Jazeera, it seems these particular saint shrines are under local pressure…

 

[famdigy]

I was born Sunni but converted to Shia Islam late in my teens so I believe I can answer this question from both sides of the fence.

The differences between the Sunni and Shia are are not limited to the issue of succession of Ali (as) alone but are deeper than that. We have major and deep differences in our theology, our understanding of early islamic history, the personality of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and those close to him. Our interpretation of the Quran is different, even our understanding of God is different.

The only commonality between a Sunni and a Shia is in some of the ritual practices. Both pray, both fast, both perform the pilgrimage but outside of that we are worlds apart.

Before going into further discussion around the differences it’s important to get some context around each group. Sunnis consider the period of when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions lived to be the best era in Islam. They consider the first 3 centuries of early Islam to be the golden years. Even to this day you find Sunni muslims who are vocal about returning to a caliphate based system. Sunnis consider the personalities close to the prophet to be sacred. His wives, and his companions in particular. To say anything negative about any of his wives or his companions is considered blasphemy and in some countries equated to apostasy and is a crime punishable by death.

Shias on the other hand have a negative view of early Islamic History. They believe the personalities surrounding the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were hypocrites who converted to Islam for fame, conquest, riches, and the prospect of personal, financial or political gain.
Shias believe these people along with the 2 of the Muhammad’s (pbuh) wives corrupted Islam and fabricated false stories about the prophet. Shias believe that 2 of Muhammad’s (phuh) closest companions and their daughters conspired to poison and kill the prophet. They conspired to usurp Ali’s right and also killed his wife and the prophet’s daughter. Shias believe the so called companions killed the prophet’s first grandson Hassan, and then moved to kill his second grandson Hussein. Shias collectively refer to Ali, Fatima, Hassan, and Hussein as the prophet’s household and the guardians of the faith. Therefore Shias reject any hadiths, religious rulings, quranic interpretations etc… that has been transmitted through the prophet’s household.

so in the eyes of Sunnis, the shia are seen as destroying Islam from within and therefore are vilified. In the eyes of the Sunni a shia is a non-muslim and non-believer.

The shia on the other hand see the sunni version of islam as an imposter. They see Sunnis as being simple minded people who are deceived by their religious leaders.

 

[famdigy]

Hi Sam. That’s a pretty young age for a widow. It is very unfortunate that she should be a widow at that age. What I would like to know, well, just for knowledge, whether Aisha would ever remarried or take a lover in the course of her life? Was she a Queen, in the mode of a Dowager and the power ‘behind the throne’?

Ruben, This is another point of contention between Sunnis and Shias. Shias don’t believe she was ever married at 6 and consummated the marriage at 9. This is rejected by the shia as a false story narrated by Aisha herself. Shias point to other contradictory narrations which point to her being much much older when she was married to the Prophet including narrations which state she was previously married to a man named Jubair before divorcing him to marry the Prophet.

Also, shias believe Aisha married in secret after the Prophet’s death on her way to the battle of the camel. There are numerous historical records that point to this.

 

[Bakmoon]

A question for our Muslim brethren: What is the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam? Why do the adherents of these two areas of Islam have such antagonism against each other?

I’m not a Muslim, but I know a few things about the split.

Muhammad, in addition to being followed as a prophet, was also the political leader of the Arabs of his time, and after his death, there was a controversy over who should become the next Caliph. One side held on the basis of a sermon that Muhammad made shortly before he died that Ali ibn Abi Talib, (Muhammad’s son in law) should succeed and the other side wanted Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad’s closest friends, to succeed him as Caliph. Abu Bakr was the one who actually took political power, and after him Umar, and then Uthman became leaders.

After the death of Uthman, Ali became the Caliph but a civil war broke out with Muawiyah I, who was the governor of Syria. Muawiyah I eventually won and founded the Umayyad Dynasty of the Caliphate. Those who accepted his legitimacy became known as Sunnis and believed that the rightful Caliph could be any able bodied Muslim man, while those who supported the family of Ali ibn Abi Talib believed that the legitimate Caliph had to be descended from Ali.

These Shia also grew theologically different from the Sunnis in relation to their beliefs on Religious authority. The Sunnis believe in following the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The Sunnah means the established practices of Muhammad, so if Muhammad prayed a certain way, that was considered to be an acceptable way of praying by his example. The Shia believe this too, but in addition to this, some Shia (and now a days all Shia except the Zaidi denomination) believed that the line of people of Ali’s family who were rightfully the heirs to the Caliphate (who the Shia call Imams) were the infallible interpreters of theology and religious law and so their teachings are held to be authoritative.

Some other differences are that their collections of Hadith (documents recounting the actions and sayings of Muhammad) disagree on the authenticity of certain Hadith, the members of the Twelver Shia denomination (the largest one) believe that the last Imam was hidden away and is guiding the religious hierarchy, Shia have a hierarchy of religious scholars while the Sunni don’t, and Shia see no problem with venerating and praying to various saints such as the Imams and even Muhammad, whereas these things are not universally accepted by Sunnis even if they may be common in terms of folk religion in some areas.

I hope you find that helpful.

 

[Reuben_J]

Ruben, This is another point of contention between Sunnis and Shias. Shias don’t believe she was ever married at 6 and consummated the marriage at 9. This is rejected by the shia as a false story narrated by Aisha herself. Shias point to other contradictory narrations which point to her being much much older when she was married to the Prophet including narrations which state she was previously married to a man named Jubair before divorcing him to marry the Prophet.

Also, shias believe Aisha married in secret after the Prophet’s death on her way to the battle of the camel. There are numerous historical records that point to this.

Thank you for this information especially that she remarried again. I should say that was the most likely scenario. It does not surprise me; rather it does if she did not marry after Mohammad’s death.

About the age of the consummation of her marriage, I think the stronger information on this, like from the Hadith, would point to the younger age rather than older, though that should not be unlikely. But if the latter is true, then the whole information on Islam will be subjected to for scrutiny and that could affect its credibility. In any case, there were so many intrigues in the early formation of Islam that took along the line of politic.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m not a Muslim, but I know a few things about the split.

Muhammad, in addition to being followed as a prophet, was also the political leader of the Arabs of his time, and after his death, there was a controversy over who should become the next Caliph.

…

I hope you find that helpful.

Yes, that was certainly helpful but you, being a non-Muslim; your information can be subjected to challenge.

This is probably more appropriate in the Mohammad’s thread but people there seem to be more interested in Christianity rather than discussing about him. What I want to say here since you brought it up, is Mohammad being a political leader. I have heard Muslims deny this vehemently like Mohammad was never political, not a warlord, was a peaceful and humble man, was not ambitious, etc. But if he was a political leader how could he not do what any political leader did? What he did, at least from a non-Muslims’ view, was certainly political.

Perhaps famdigy can help to address this too.

 

[dolphinlove]

p.s. 18 seems a little young. She married the Prophet in 619 and he dies in 632, so that is 13 years of marriage. She is probably somewhere in her early to mid-20s, which is still plenty young of course. By 656 and the Battle of the Camel, she would have been a very mature woman.

She was married at 6, 632 - 619 = 13, 6+13= 19, so give or take when he died and when her birthday is, she may have been 18

 

[famdigy]

But if he was a political leader how could he not do what any political leader did? What he did, at least from a non-Muslims’ view, was certainly political.

The answer to that question depends on who you ask. It would also depend on your definition of political leadership. Leadership means different things to different people

The Sunnis believe Muhammad (PBUH&HF) is a spiritual leader but not a political leader. Even though he was a military commander and the appointed Judge in Madina in which he judged on religious and non-religious affairs. Maybe because Sunnis believe Muhammad (PBUH&HF) to be infallible when it comes to matters of religion but they see him as a normal person when it comes to worldly affairs.

In Shia theology Imamat (Leadership of Mankind) is one of the 5 pillars of faith and is absolutely essential to our belief system. Shias believe that all prophets are infallible in that they don’t sin, they don’t forget, and they don’t make mistakes in all affairs spiritual and otherwise. Prophets have to be infallible because God commands us to follow them. In other words God commands me not to sin, He also commands me to follow the guidance of a prophet for my salvation. If that prophet sins, or forgets, or makes mistakes then he could potentially guide me into sin and so the concept of Infallibility is a rational necessity. This concept is also related to another pillar of faith, Adl’ (Divine Justice) in which we believe God is ultimately just and does not subject his creation to injustice. An example would be requiring us to follow a person who sins, makes mistakes, or forgets.

The Shia also believe that the rank of Imamat (the position of a divinely-appointed leader) is higher than that of prophethood. An Imam has authority over all the creation even angels and it becomes irrelevant at that point whether or not he is accepted by people. In our view Muhammad (PBUH&HF) was an Imam and so in this context he is a spiritual leader and a political leader to those who follow him. We don’t differentiate between the two.

Imam Ali (as) as an example was removed from state affairs by the 1st and 2nd Caliph, As an example, if the Caliph dispatches a military campaign and the Imam forbids his followers from participating. They would have to oblige with the Imam’s request regardless of the Caliphs orders.

I know this was a mouthful. My apologies for being long winded.

 

[famdigy]

About the age of the consummation of her marriage, I think the stronger information on this, like from the Hadith, would point to the younger age rather than older

With all due respect, the stronger information points to her age being much much older and places her age between 19-23 years of age when she was married to Muhammad (PBUH&HF)

In examining the evidence for the early marriage hadiths we find that all of them are Narrated by Aisha through Hisham 'ibn Urwah Aisha’s cousin almost 71 years after the marriage occurred. Hisham was a frail and old man at the time he narrated that Hadith and his memory at that time is described as having suffered badly. How is it that an important event like the Prophet’s marriage to the infamous Aisha and the details around her age at the time is only known to 1 man and it only came to light 71 years later in his old age.

The Chain of transmission of these series of hadiths by Hisham is weak and his reliability is also questionable because of the memory problems he suffered in his old age. But never the less even if we were to ignore this fact and accept the hadith as it is related we are still faced with other irreconcilable contradictions. just two examples below.

1. Aisha was previously married to Jubair ibn Mut`am. The hadiths state that she was living with Jubair when her father Abu Bakr divorced her from Jubair to marry Muhammad (PBUH&HF). This is in contradiction to the hadiths of her playing with dolls at her parents house. Source: Al-Tabaqat al-Kabir of Ibn Sa’d Vol. 10 page 59
2. Aisha’s older Sister Asma’ is 10 years older than Aisha. Asma was born 27 years before the Hijrah and Aisha married 2 years after Hijrah. This would make Aisha closer to 19 years old when she got married. In other words Asma’ was 29 when Aisha got married. Source: Tahdheeb al-asma of Nawawi Vol.2 page 329

there is ofcourse more contradictions and they are too many to enumerate so I’ll just point you to this link for now. alqatrah.org/en/edara/index.php?id=91

 

[Hypatia]

Thank you for this information especially that she remarried again. I should say that was the most likely scenario. It does not surprise me; rather it does if she did not marry after Mohammad’s death.

About the age of the consummation of her marriage, I think the stronger information on this, like from the Hadith, would point to the younger age rather than older, though that should not be unlikely. But if the latter is true, then the whole information on Islam will be subjected to for scrutiny and that could affect its credibility. In any case, there were so many intrigues in the early formation of Islam that took along the line of politic.

It seems to me that a re-marriage on Aisha’s part, especially BEFORE the Battle of the Camel is extremely unlikely since much of her political and religious charisma is based precisely on her being the particularly beloved wife of the Prophet (pbuh). Remarriage after, also seems extremely unlikely; she was exiled to her brother’s home in Medina and continues to very faithfully practice Islam there with widespread public expectation that she would not remarry and any attempt of someone to marry her looking politically suspicious in the eyes of the Ali-camp or the Uthman-camp. She almost immediately becomes the model of Muslimat practice. Any hint of her remarriage would probably have exposed her to something much worse than public ridicule. In any case, arguments that Aisha (pbuh) remarries are basically arguments that Aisha is vicious and shallow since she continues throughout to portray herself as the faithful wife of Muhammad. It is a second attempt at accusing her of being a faithless wife. I’m not aware of credible historians who take the remarriage claim seriously.

The whole discussion about her marriage, and her supposed remarriage for that matter, really goes to demonstrate how historically unreliable some of the stories about Aisha are from all sides, because everyone has points they are trying to make, either positively or negatively. Aisha herself may emphasize her youth at the time of marriage (she narrates it as betrothed at ~6yo and married at 9yo) in order emphasize her purity and that she was especially selected by God for the Prophet. [Btw, she is betrothed to Jubair before Muhammad but not married.] The supporters of Aisha are certainly at pains to stress her virginity at the time of her marriage to the Prophet as evidence of her unique status amongst all of the Prophet’s wives: a case that would be hard to make to the inhabitants of Medina and Mekka (which are not huge cities to start with), where she and her family were universally well known, if she had been married before. Whether her own narration is correct or not, everyone agrees she is young; this is why I suggested an age in her early to mid-twenties at the time of the Prophet’s death (early20s if she is right, but still only a few years older if she is overestimating her youth). Stories concerning Aisha coming from the supporters of Ali, on the other hand, are all hostile because they see her and her family as illegitimately challenging Ali(pbuh) after he had been specifically singled out. The whole point is to attack the credibility of Aisha and her family as representatives of Islam (and there is also a great deal of hostile historiography aimed at Uthman and the Ummayads as well).

Finally, Sunni seem no more likely to separate the political from the religious aspects of the life of the Prophet than the Shi’a. There is a dispute over the status of the leaders who follow the Prophet, but even then, Islam itself is seen as something that organizes the whole life of the Umma. Moreover, it would be highly anachronistic to look for such a split during that time in history.

You certainly see that though, at one level, the differences between Sunni and Shi’a are relatively minor at one level, the dispute over who should succeed the Prophet (pbuh) touch on number issues in the history of that early Arabian community and its development into the Ummayad Empire. There are a few doctrinal issues (the status of the imammate in particular), but some really crucial political disputes as well (which do not only cause friction between Ummayads and the followers of Ali, but also between the Ummayads and, to a lesser degree, the Medina-residents where Aisha lives after the loss at the Battle of the Camel).

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks for the very informative posts by both famdigy and Hypatia. They make interesting reading, I have gone through them fully. Despite the somewhat different takes from both of you, for me at least, I have discovered something new from the information given – the betrothal of Aisha to a man named Jubair. I was about to dismiss this when famdigy mentioned it. Most of my information comes from the more conventional and widespread information about Aisha’s child marriage and her earlier betrothal was not brought up and not expected too. The fact that she was betrothed as a child is not surprising considering the practice of the society then. We are indignant now about this but in seventh century Arabia or even until now, this practice is quite common.

So Aisha was betrothed to another man before Mohammad. I don’t know what to comment on this and if I do, it may not be flattering to Muslims. But what is apparent, she was probably just like any kid born to somewhat rich and influential parents. For her father to annul the first betrothal and then betrothed her to Mohammad probably with a view that Mohammad would be a more ‘promising suitor’. Or perhaps Mohammad himself wanted this marriage and Aisha’s father was not in a position to refuse. For me personally, this aspect of Mohammad’s determination to impose his own way does not augur well on him as a prophet. Later it was not just this marriage to Aisha but to Zaid’s wife and the Jewish queen (his slave, war booty).

Conventional wisdom would make sense for Aisha to remarry as mentioned before by me but Hypatia’s explanation that she should not remarry being a prophet’s wife should be seen from a religious rationale. Therefore this has not been as convincing especially to the neutral because there is no precedent that a prophet’s wife should not remarry or that a prophet should not marry a widow or a divorcee.

As a hindsight. But if she was indeed betrothed to Jubair, then it would be probably she was much older for the two betrothals to have taken place.

Another thing – the explanation that Mohammad is both a spiritual and a political leader because Islam encompasses all aspects of life is well understood; an aspect of Islam that makes it difficult for Muslims to assimilate in foreign countries.

 

[Ontheway]

Here is what the grand mufti of Egypt has to say on the differences between Shia and Sunni:

“He claimed that the Shia believe the Quran was distorted, while the Sunni do not, and that the Shia insult the Prophet’s companions, while the Sunni do not. He said that the Shia allow lying if it is necessary, while Sunnis do not lie, and that the Shia believe in the infallibility of imams, while the Sunni believe only prophets are infallible.”

This is quoted by the Egypt independent newspaper.

egyptindependent.com/news/grand-mufti-warns-spreading-shia-doctrine-egypt

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

It is all a question of succession. Who is the right successor of Muhammad?

The comparison between Protestant and Catholic is tempting, but not helpful. The issues involved are so different.

The issue starts following the death in 632 of Muhammad. What is clear is that there was nothing clear in the way of instructions from Muhammad for leadership following his death. In a particularly Arab way, the believers at Medina acclaimed Muhammad’s long time disciple and father-in-law Abu Bakr as the first Caliph (or khalifa, successor). He lived about 2 years more, then came 'Umar who was led the expansion of Islam into the Near East and north Africa. He reigned for 10 years. He was succeeded by 'Uthman, who though thought to be particularly weak, did reign for 11 years. Finally came 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law (married to his daughter Fatima).

Now, although Ali was the 4th Caliph, the Shiites consider him to be the first Imam. Beware of the term Imam. It has one meaning with multiple applications. It means the one who stands in front. In this case the Shiites believe Ali was the first imam and the caliphs were just interlopers, false rulers. The largest group of Shiites believes that there were only 12 imams and that the 12th disappeared around the year 260 AH. This group can be called the twelvers or ithna ashariyya. They are the huge religious majority in Iran and also a majority of Iraq.

These twelver shiites believe that the 12th imam will return, in a way like the return of Christ. Hence when Ayatullah Ruh’u’llah Khomeini came back to Iran in 1979, he was referred to as Imam. This was deliberately confusing, as the term Imam refers to the one who leads Friday prayers and to the disappeared leader of the Shiites.

I have read that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinajad actually wrote a letter to the 12th Imam and deposited it in the well where he is though to have disappeared into.

The next group is the Ismailis. Most of these believe hold that there was a divergence in the succession line that happened with the 7th Imam of the twelvers. They do not recognize Imams 8-12 of the twelvers, but rather trace a line of succession up to the present Aga Khan. Hence they are often called Aga Khanis.

There is also a group called the fivers.

All Muslims, Shiite and Sunni, participate in the same Pilgrimage and observe the same Ramadan fast.

A question for our Muslim brethren: What is the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam? Why do the adherents of these two areas of Islam have such antagonism against each other?

 

[famdigy]

I appreciate everyone’s contributions to this thread and so I wanted to add my comment to what’s been said already.

With Respect to the issue of Aisha’s re-marriage or infidelity to be precise, we have numerous documented records on both sides (Sunni & Shia) to reasonably conclude she remarried after the prophet. There is a recurring theme in the Quran and the hadiths of warning the wives of the prophet against being lewd and engaging in clear immorality. Qur’an 3:30 and the hadith “whichever one of you (wives) fears Allah, and does not commit a clear immorality… will remain as my wife in the hereafter” are just 2 such examples. And so it is not improbable for the wives to be immoral.

One example that all Muslim will agree on is that Aisha introduced the concept of nursing adult men. The sunni hadiths in their most reliable sources are peppered with Aisha’s narrations around advocating for the breastfeeding of grown men. This is hardly a model of a faithfully practicing woman.

Furthermore, Qur’an 66:10 was revealed regarding Aisha and her co-conspirator Hafsa. In the verse they are described as unbelievers and likened to the wives Noah and Lot who **betrayed **their husbands. The verse is intended to remind Aisha and Hafsa that their marriage to the prophet (PBUH&HF) will not benefit them if they don’t reform.

Al-Qummi in his commentary of the Quran 66:10 narrates that when Aisha sought to travel to Basra in preparation for the battle of the camel to fight Imam Ali (as). Talha ibn Ubaydullah compelled her by saying “It is not permissible for you to leave (your home) without a Mahram” and so she gave herself to him in marriage. Tafseer al-qummi vol.2 page 377. A mahram in this context is a male relative who would accompany her in her journey. She gave herself to Talha in marriage so that her journey to Basra would be permissible according to Sharia. This is not improbable because we already know that Talha openly advocated his desire to marry the prophet’s wives many years before this incident and in particular he expressed his desire to marry Aisha. The opportunity to do so presented itself with the Battle of the Camel named after the Camel Aisha rode on her way to Basra.

In another hadith the 5th Imam was asked about the nature of the betrayal in Qur’an 66:10. The Imam (as) replied “it is nothing other than immorality” The word he used was “Fahisha” to mean sexual immorality.

As a side note I don’t have the source for this one handy at the moment but Imam Hussein (AS), the prophet’s 2nd grandson is said to have warned Aisha that he knows about a green jar hidden in her house which she filled with 40 Dirhams she received as a result of her immorality.

And so putting the pieces together I would say that Talha long wished to marry Aisha. He got the opportunity to do that preceding the Battle of Camel and paid her 40 Dirhams as her Mahr. Mahr is a marriage gift the groom gives to the bride which forms part of the marriage ritual.

I don’t believe Aisha was simply betrothed to Jubair because the language of the hadith seems to suggest she was living with Jubair and that her father physically removed her from Jubair’s family to give her to the prophet in marriage. If she was old enough to live with her first husband she couldn’t have been as young as she claimed when married to the Prophet.

Another point of contention is the belief around Aisha being Muhammad’s (PBUH&HF) favorite wife. In reviewing the hadith literature it appears this is nothing more than an attempt at self promotion by Aisha. In the sunni hadiths we find that Muhammad (PBUH&HF) complained of Aisha and her behavior towards him and her hatred of Ali (as). He repeatedly reminds her not to be indecent, he questions her faith, he describes her as Devil’s horn and by her own admission he wished she were dead.

A common misconception among Sunnis is that the 12th Imam disappeared into a well or is hiding in some cave. People who want to communicate with the Imam (atfs) are instructed to write letters and throw them into a body of water or bury it under some earth, not because the imam disappeared into a well but because we believe the imam will receive the letter if disposed in this manner.

Another common misconception is that the Shia believe the Quran is distorted. This is not so much a misconception as it is a deliberate malignment by Sunni Muftis in order to prevent their people from discovering the truth and converting in masses.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is all a question of succession. Who is the right successor of Muhammad?

The comparison between Protestant and Catholic is tempting, but not helpful. The issues involved are so different.

The issue starts following the death in 632 of Muhammad. What is clear is that there was nothing clear in the way of instructions from Muhammad for leadership following his death.

I just want to make a naïve comment here because it is not easy to really understand what the different Islamic sects stand for, as it is difficult for non-Christians to comprehend the different Christian denominations.

If Mohammad was a prophet, then he did not need a successor in which case the Sunni’s stand is appropriate.

If Mohammad was a prophet and a political leader of a people, perhaps a country, then the Shias are probably taking the logical step to find a successor.

 

[Reuben_J]

One example that all Muslim will agree on is that Aisha introduced the concept of nursing adult men. The sunni hadiths in their most reliable sources are peppered with Aisha’s narrations around advocating for the breastfeeding of grown men. This is hardly a model of a faithfully practicing woman.

…

Al-Qummi in his commentary of the Quran 66:10 narrates that when Aisha sought to travel to Basra in preparation for the battle of the camel to fight Imam Ali (as). Talha ibn Ubaydullah compelled her by saying “It is not permissible for you to leave (your home) without a Mahram” and so she gave herself to him in marriage. Tafseer al-qummi vol.2 page 377. A mahram in this context is a male relative who would accompany her in her journey. She gave herself to Talha in marriage so that her journey to Basra would be permissible according to Sharia. This is not improbable because we already know that Talha openly advocated his desire to marry the prophet’s wives many years before this incident and in particular he expressed his desire to marry Aisha. The opportunity to do so presented itself with the Battle of the Camel named after the Camel Aisha rode on her way to Basra.

In another hadith the 5th Imam was asked about the nature of the betrayal in Qur’an 66:10. The Imam (as) replied “it is nothing other than immorality” The word he used was “Fahisha” to mean sexual immorality.

As a side note I don’t have the source for this one handy at the moment but Imam Hussein (AS), the prophet’s 2nd grandson is said to have warned Aisha that he knows about a green jar hidden in her house which she filled with 40 Dirhams she received as a result of her immorality.

And so putting the pieces together I would say that Talha long wished to marry Aisha. He got the opportunity to do that preceding the Battle of Camel and paid her 40 Dirhams as her Mahr. Mahr is a marriage gift the groom gives to the bride which forms part of the marriage ritual.

I have heard vaguely about ‘breastfeeding adult men’ but unsure of its Islamic origin. But now since you say it.

“It is not permissible for you to leave (your home) without a Mahram”, is probably as Islamic as it can be, feature we often hear in strict Islamic countries like the Saudi Arabia. This can credibly support the argument that Aisha was married somewhere in time after the death of Mohammad if she continued to be active socially and the necessity to go outside her home.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Perhaps the term successor is misleading. In neither case, Sunni or Shi’a, do Muslims consider the successor to be in any way co-equal with the prophet. Just as Roman Catholics consider Peter and the popes to be the vicars of Christ, they also do not ascribe any prophetic powers to the occupant of the chair of Peter.

Muhammad was indeed a political leader. Unlike the Christians when Jesus ascended, Muhammad left a fully developed community uniting the entire Arabian peninsula and some regions beyond. Therefore the question of succession is very important to all Muslims.

I just want to make a naïve comment here because it is not easy to really understand what the different Islamic sects stand for, as it is difficult for non-Christians to comprehend the different Christian denominations.

If Mohammad was a prophet, then he did not need a successor in which case the Sunni’s stand is appropriate.

If Mohammad was a prophet and a political leader of a people, perhaps a country, then the Shias are probably taking the logical step to find a successor.

 

[famdigy]

Perhaps the term successor is misleading. In neither case, Sunni or Shi’a, do Muslims consider the successor to be in any way co-equal with the prophet. Just as Roman Catholics consider Peter and the popes to be the vicars of Christ, they also do not ascribe any prophetic powers to the occupant of the chair of Peter.

Muhammad was indeed a political leader. Unlike the Christians when Jesus ascended, Muhammad left a fully developed community uniting the entire Arabian peninsula and some regions beyond. Therefore the question of succession is very important to all Muslims.

Both Shia and Sunnis see the appointment of a sucessor to be important.

The appointment of Abu Bakr as the successor or Caliph was made in secret by a small party of companions while Imam Ali (as) was in the middle of preparing the funeral of the prophet (PBUH&HF). Sunnis explain the prophet did not appoint a successor and therefore it was up to the community to select one. When asked why they couldn’t wait until after the funeral was over, they explain that having a successor is absolutely critical to the survival of the new Muslim community.

The Shia on the other hand maintain that the earth is never left without an infallible Imam to act as God’s representative on earth from Adam (as) to our present day. In some cases the Imam was a prophet in other cases he was not. For example, we believe the Imam After Moses (as) was Joshua Ben Noon (as), the Imam after Jesus (as) was Simon Peter (as) and so on until the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF), and the imams after him are Ali (as), his two children Hassan and Hussein (as) and 9 descendants from the children of Hussein (as) in succession from father to son until our present Imam Al-Mahdi (as) who will reappear when God grants him permission.