It is my understanding that in the most general sense the Sunni are the descendents of the followers of the Umayyid Dynasty. The Shi’ite are the descendents of the followers of Ali and those who believed the caliphs should be of Muhammad’s descent. I do know that they don’t like each other and haven’t for a long time, and my definition is a pretty generic one and they have very different ideas relating to Islam.
So, I often see Muslims who’s name is ‘Ali’. This may be a last name or a first name, I’ve seen it both ways. An example of this is Mohammad Ali (I don’t know if he is Sunni or Shi’ite, or Nation of Islam or whatever). My question is, would a Sunni ever name their child ‘Ali’? Do Sunnis despise Ali, for causing the Shi’ites to form, do they honor him, for being a descendent of Muhammad, or do they sort of not care, like they do for most of the caliphs. This question also applies for other important Shi’ite figures, like Husain (BTW: Would the name Hussein, as in Sadaam, be derived from the name Husain?)
I am leaning towards the thought that Sunnis hate Ali and Husain regardless of being Muhammad’s SIL/cousin. The Umayyids did assasainate them both and kill their family, after all.
Not exactly. The breakdown ( at least in a political sense ) occurred almost immediately after Muhammed’s death. Sunna means tradition and so the Sunni were the traditionalists that elected a leader to follow Muhammed by council in the traditional tribal Arab method, superceding Ali’s claims. Shi’a means partisan and so the Shi’ites were the partisans of Ali. The Ummayyads ( in the person of Mu’awiya, governor of Syria, later founder of the dynasty ) were simply members of the anti-Ali faction who triumphed over Ali when the split broke out into open warfare some decades later.
Sure, though it might be a little more common in Shi’a circles.
He is honored by Sunni’s as the fourth and last Rashidun or ‘Rightly Guided Caliph’. He was a major figure in the early Islamic wars during Muhammed’s life and the first male convert to Islam and as such has a very high place in Islamic historigraphy. In contrast Sunni tradition does not look with great favor on most of the Ummayyads and with one or two exceptions ( like Umar II ), refer to most of them as mere Maliks ( secular kings ). Of course a lot of that tradition derives from the Abbasids who overthrew the Umayyads, in part with Shi’a support ( they were related to Muhammed through his uncle, Abbas ). After their victory, that part of the Shi’a community that just held out for the legitimate rule of a member of Muhammed’s family ( as opposed to the specific descendants of Ali and Fatima ) merged into the Sunni mainstream.
It’s just that the Shi’a hold him to an even higher level and regard him as the only legitimate Caliph.
Different transliteration of the same name ( as is Husayn ). Very common Arab name and I doubt the famous Shi’a Husayn has any bearing on its popularity in Sunni circles. In contrast I’m sure it is more popular in Shi’a circles for that reason.
No, at worst I think they would regard Ali as a revered figure who was wrong in his specific claims to the Caliphate as being dynastic. Husayn is more regarded, at a WAG, as being a respected man who rebelled inappropriately, but was also probably slain inappropriately by Yazid.
Not quite. Ali was assassinated by a Kharijite ( a third faction that a split with Ali during the course of the first fitna or Islamic Civil War between Mu’awiya and Ali ). Husayn was killed by the Umayyads at the opening of the second fitna, it’s true ( specifically by Yazid, who ignored his father Mu’Awiya’s advice on not trying to compel his obediance ). But his brother Hasan survived as did his son Ali, from who descended the main line of Shi’a Imams and ( probably ) the later Fatimid anti-Caliphs. There are supposedly his descendents still walking around today ( the late Ayatollah Khomeini was purportedly one of them ).
Wait, scratch that. Hasan died eleven years earlier than Husayn in 669. Husayn’s son Ali ( Zayn al-Abidin ) died in 714, 34 years after his father was killed at Karbala in 680.
What Tamerlane said. He covered it so well, I don’t have much to add.
The name ‘Alî means ‘high’ in Arabic. It’s related to the Hebrew El ‘Al (‘to the heights’) and to the Zionist term ‘aliyah (literally ‘going up’ because of the higher elevation of Zion compared to surrounding terrain). All these words come from the Proto-Semitic root ‘ly.
al-‘Alî ‘The High’ is one of the 99 Most Beautiful Names of God in Islam. Without the definite article, ‘Alî is a name for a man (and the feminine form is a woman’s name, as in Princess Alia of Dune fame; Frank Herbert was into Arabic a lot, and I could write a dissertation just on the odd uses Herbert made of Arabic in the Dune books. But I digress).
Sunni Islam traces its origin to the first four caliphs: Abû Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmân, and ‘Alî. Shî‘ite Islam begins with ‘Alî and does not recognize the first three. Both Shî‘ites and Sunnis regard the Umayyad dynasty as a wrong development. That’s why, for the Sunnis, only the first four caliphs are considered “rightly guided”; they were elected democratically, but when Mu‘âwiyah started a dynastic succession with his son Yazîd (universally reviled as evil by both Shî‘ites and Sunnis), the original democratic-republican spirit of the polity was lost and replaced with a monarchical regime.
The difference is that the Sunnis ruled it was preferable to go along with an unjust regime, because civil war, the breakdown of the political order, was worse than an unjust ruler. Perserving order took top priority in this view. But the Shî‘ite position was that you must rebel against the tyrant. This caused the massacre of al-Husayn in Iraq and imprinted Shî‘ism with a martyr mentality. Against a background of a Middle Eastern religious world in which the dying fertility God Tammuz of Babylon was killed every year and the women wailed and mourned for him… See Thomas Mann’s novel Joseph and His Brothers for the use of the Tammuz cult as an obvious foreshadowing of the Christian mythos. It helps one to understand how Christianity and Shî‘ism arising in those parts came to have such a blood-soaked theology. But I digress.
‘Alî is just as highly revered among Sunnis as the first three caliphs are. What’s more, even al-Husayn’s martyrdom has been mourned by many Sunni poets over the centuries. Especially the ones influenced by Sufism, which even in Sunnism shares some of the esoteric flavor cultivated in Shî‘ism, so Sufism has often served as a bridge over the divide between Shî‘ites and Sunnis.
Not quite. You were right up to Hussain’s death (well in the history of Shia’ Islam (Ismailism) that I subsrcibe to). Then, Hazarat Hussain’s brother, Zayn’al Abadin ascended to the Caliphate (Imamat as we call it). Then various decendents down to the Fatimid Caliphs (not the anti-Caliphs - they actually ruled vast areas of Afirca, including Egypt, Italy, and Spain in a very secular sense), and from there a direct line of desendants who still guide the Ismailis, to this very day. AFAIK, the Ayatollah Khomeini is not a direct desendent of this line. But the desendants are still around today, guiding the Ismailis.
Nope, you’re incorrect :). It was Hussain’s son Abu Muhammed Ali b. al-Husayn Zayn al-Abidin, like I said, not his brother ( i.e. he was Hassan’s nephew ). Cite:
Then to his son Muhammed al-Baqir. Then to Ja’far al-Sadiq. Then the Isma’ili/Imami split, with either Is’mail ( occultated ) or Musa al-Kazim following him.
No offense or slight intended :). I used the term “Anti-Caliph” in the sense of an oppositional figure to Abbasid Caliphs, much like there were was a Pope in Rome and a rival “Anti-Pope” in Avignon at one point in Christian history. Didn’t mean to slant towards the Sunni tradition in any real sense - Just that the Abbasids preceded the Fatimids chronologically, so I gave the Fatimids the oppositional title. But certainly for a significant period of time they were far more powerful and independant than their “Praetoerianized” Abbasid rivals.
Khomeini was a Sayyid, a purported descendant of the Prophet via Musa al-Kazim’s line. So not the same line of descent as the Isma’ilis, no.