You must be thinking of the figure cited by Shaykh Hisham Kabbani in his speech at the State Department a couple years ago. He is one of the major Sufi leaders in America, and an important voice for moderate Islam. When he cited that 80% figure, a lot of the other American Muslim organizations reacted with outrage and ostracized him after that. But my impression is that he was accurate. I’m blessed to live in a community with a relatively liberal, diverse mosque, but when I travel around the country I see way too much Wahhabi influence in other mosques. It bothers me a lot and that’s why I have tended to withdraw from Islamic activity the past few years. They make the rest of us non-Wahhabis feel marginalized.
Thank you for responding, Muslim Guy. I’m glad you like my username. 
I try to be as much of a sorceress as I possibly can. 
I’m hesitant to ask you another question with all us Dopers vying for your informative answers so I’ll hold off for awhile.
Have a nice day.
An e-mail I received from Jay ( don’t know if that’s his posting name or not ):
>Tamerlane –
>
>I am having a problem posting to SDMB right now. I have emailed the tech
>guys, but no answer – I think something’s wrong with my registration. So,
>I am sending you my question in the hopes you will post it, and if
>possible, answer it.
>
>What is the relationship between Shariat Law and the ‘legislation’ Muslim
>Guy keeps talking about as arising from the Qu’ran and the haddith? Are
>they synonymous?
>
>And why is Shariat Law so extreme? I have read that it takes three women
>to bring testimony against one man. There have been cases in Pakistan
>where a woman who reports a rape has been convicted under Shariat Law of
>adultery by her own testimony, then stoned to death as the traditional
>penalty, while no investigation was made of the man because her testimony
>was uncorroborated. The recent lashing of the pregnant Nigerian girl was a
>similar case. Another example is the divorce rules – in most Gulf States,
>a man can divorce a woman simply by pronouncing it three times, without
>demonstrating cause. Yet a woman cannot divorce a man without his
>permission and a court proceeding.
>
>As I understand it a significant number of Islamic countries follow
>Shariat Law, and many that don’t have strong conservative movements trying
>to enforce it (Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria, etc.). This
>would seem to be the desire of a vast number of Muslims in the world, and
>Shariat Law appears to run contrary to the gentle humanism espoused by
>Muslim Guy. So back to my original question, is Shariat Law grounded
>directly in true haddiths and Qu’ranic verse, or is it more of that
>cultural templating that Muslim Guy talked about? And if it is cultural
>templating, why does it have appeal throughout the Islamic world, both
>Arab and non-Arab?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Ich bin ein New Yorker
My own ( not very satisfactory ) answer: Shari’a, too give a textbook definition, is Islamic law as derived from the Koran and the examples of the Prophet ( Sunna, hadith ) and as interpreted by the ulama ( the “clergy”, if you will, though the parallel is not exact ). As it is ( somewhat ) open to interpretation, there are some internal differences in Shari’a from one country or region to another. For example, I mentioned earlier their are four major schools of jurisprudence that are practiced in Sunni Islam. Add in Shi’a Islam and you have several more ( varying from sect to sect ). This is not too mention the variety of local variations one can find. So I don’t believe the Shari’a enforced by the Taliban is identical to that practiced by the Gulf States, despite the fact that they are ostensibly members of the same sect ( Wahhabi Sunni ) and use the same school of jurisprudence ( Hanbali ).
So yes, I would say cultural templating comes into play a fair bit. One example is female circumcision. By and large there is only one ( rather debated ) hadith that mentions anything approaching female circumcision and that is pretty mild version. But pharaonic circumcision or infibulation, the major version, is practiced widely in Islamic African countries and a justification is sometimes made on religious grounds by reaching back to that tradition. A brief discussion of this can be found here:
http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm
For another example ( less cultural perhaps, though I really don’t know for sure ), you can take abortion and conception. An interesting discussion on this topic can be found here:
Whether or not Shari’a conflicts with basic human rights and fairness as viewed by the West is going to vary quite a bit from region to region and situation to situation. In some circumstances Islamic law is quite flexible and humanistic, in others it’s not. It really depends on what version you which to apply ( and what the situation is - For example there are questions of patriarchal dominance in all Judeo-Christian religions, which can conflict with some modern values of some people - I’ll leave questions on that for others to sort out ). It should be noted that to the best of my knowledge ( and folks can correct me if I’m wrong ), Islam does not require non-Muslims to live by the dictates of Muslim law. So I think attempts to impose Muslim law as a national standard raises some very thorny theological and legal questions as regards to non-Muslim residents of those countries.
As to your specific examples, I’m afraid I’m not well enough informed to comment on them intelligently.
Maybe Muslim Guy can give it a shot .
- Tamerlane
I’ve come across a couple of articles in the past week or so blaming the Saudis for the spread of so-called fundamentalist Islam. Supposedly, they’ve funded a massive effort not only to convert non-Muslims to Islam but to convert more liberal Muslims to their own brand of Islam. In doing so, they’ve allegedly undermined more liberal and humanistic traditions in other nations.
Does that sound accurate? If so, is there any real counterattack going own by other strains of Islam?
oblongo, how about a link to those articles?
Muslim Guy, thanks for the many pages of info you have posted.
Q. If you have to point to a leader you most identify with as a good representative of Islam (in your view), who would it be?
Muslim Guy,
I appreciate your perspective.
It must pain one who has a view of a religion that sees all the beauty of it, to see that others, so many others, of and out of the faith, pay attention to less beneficient parts of the tradition.
We who are not of the faith need to appreciate both facets. We need to hold you and others like you in great esteem. We need to understand the traditions that are evoked to justify oppression and hate as well.
Onto more understanding. Can you explain the historic origins of the Shi’ite/Sunni split? Is it geographic only or creed based like Catholic/Orthodox Christianity?
Respectfully,
DSeid
I have a question for Muslim Guy (or any other Muslim who knows the answer. Sorry that it isn’t really relevant to what is being discussed right now, but I figured that this is where we could ask all our questions regarding Islam.
Until I was eighteen I lived in Muslim countries (and I mean, 99.9999% Muslim), where shellfish was freely gobbled down and enjoyed by the masses without a qualm of guilt. I don’t eat it myself because I don’t like it. I had certainly never heard anyone say that shellfish was “haraam” (or forbidden) in Islam. But over the last few months, I have heard a number of Americans and Europeans make this claim. Now I can’t see how they would know this when it is not common knowledge in predominantly Muslim nations. I did a search on the Internet and all I got was, as usual, conflicting rubbish from dubious sources.
Is it true??
Here are a few:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2001-09-22&id=1104
http://instapundit.blogspot.com/?/2001_09_09_instapundit_archive.html
On this one look for the title The Saudi Connection from 9-15-2001
One of the problems with having a life is that I have to depend on non-primary sources for information about history and mythology, as I simply don’t have the time to try to track down everything I’d like to. In an effort to add some more fodder for the discussion of Islam (like that’s needed!), let me quote the entry concerning the Koran from “The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” by Barbara Walker. I’d appreciate any comments/critiques from our group experts. Typos are all mine folks…
<begin quote>
Koran
Mohammedan scriptures, often erroneously thought to have been written by Mohammed. Moslems don’t believe this. But many don’t know the Koran was an enlarged, revised version of the ancient Word of the Goddess Kore, revered by Mohammed’s tribe, the Koreshites (Children of Kore), who guarded her shrine at Mecca.
The original writing was done long before Mohammed’s time by holy imams, a word related to the Semitic ima, “mother”. Like the original Mahatmas or “Great Mothers” in India, the original imams were probably priestesses of the old Arabian matriarchate. It was said the tool the scriptures from a prototype that existed in heaven from the beginning of eternity, “Mother of the Book” – ie the Goddess herself, wearing the Book of Fate on her breast as the Mother Tiamat wore the Tablets of Destiny. Sometimes the celestial Koran was called the Preserved Tablet. There was some resemblance between this an other legendary books of divine origin, such as the Ur-text, the Book of Thoth, and the Emerald Tablet of Hermes.
As in the case of the Judeo-Christian Bible, the Koran was much rewritten to support the new patriarchal laws and to obliterate the figures of the Goddess and her priestesses.
<end quote>
Other articles in the book point out that the tablets worn by Tiamat became the tablets of Moses in the Old Testament. In fact the article in the same book on Tiamat is fascinating, but we’re getting off track, so I’ll leave it at this. Look it up sometime if you’re interested.
I don’t know how reliable this book is, but I always have a hard time putting it down when I start looking through it and following trails of myth.
Comments anyone?
Speaking of typos… How come I can never see them until I hit send?
In my quote from the Barbara Walker book:
Change:
"It was said the tool the scriptures "
to
"It was said they took the scriptures "
sorry…
oblongo, thank you - good article in the Spectator.
I wasn’t a very good Catholic. It wasn’t until I got to Islam that I really got my religious life together. Paradoxically, when I was a nominal but nonpracticing Catholic, I had a bad attitude toward it and disrespected the Catholic Church a lot. But once I was formally severed from it and converted to Islam, I behaved toward Catholicism with respect as Islam teaches. So my parents had to admit they liked the positive change in me.**
After his Hajj, Malcolm said:
The concept in the Qur’an essentially means ‘effort’. It does not mean ‘war’. The effort is primarily directed at cleaning up your own soul, making yourself a good person and eliminating your tendency to sin. This is what the Prophet called the “greater jihad.” Fighting in defense of the religion he called the “lesser jihad.” The former is every day, the latter is occasional. Fighting according to the Qur’an and the Prophet is directed against soldiers on the battlefield. It does not mean and has never meant harming civilians.
Extremists like the Taliban have twisted the meaning of Islam. Jihad means to make an effort on your own soul, to live the right way. This is true of any religion, is it not? But these guys have twisted it to mean violence against the innocent and other crimes. They are in violation of Islamic law. How can you claim to be doing anything for Islam when your actions are a violation of it? Yitzhak Rabin rejected the terrorist Haredim settlers saying “Sensible Judaism spits you out.” Right on, Mr. Rabin. Sensible Muslims say the same thing to the extremists who are corrupting Islam.
About a year?
My efforts to keep up with this thread from work are slowed down by the weird firewall on my network. I can only get through to the SDMB on about one try out of ten.
As for the definition of jihad, I am making an effort to get information out – that counts as jihad, more than killing people. How come you never hear about peaceful jihad? How come the American public takes no notice of the peaceful moderate Islam lived every day by one billion folks, but only pays attention when someone commits a big crime against Americans? People are either oblivious to our existence or else see us as evil monsters. It’s getting really hard to exist as a moderate Muslim. I mean, I’m glad people have shown so much interest and support here, and it’s wonderful to dialogue with you all. I just wish it could have happened under better circumstances.
The reason I said that is because we moderate/liberal Muslims have had to deal with the fundie extremists every day for years and they keep making things difficult for us. Americans only notice them once in a while, when they attack Americans. They’ve been attacking other Muslims constantly for years. I have been thinking it’s time for us moderates to find the will to quit being pushed around by them and tell them to bug off already. We’ve been intimidated by them for too long. That you have to do something monstrously evil to get noticed really makes me wonder about the whole world system… I don’t know what to call this syndrome? I’m reminded of an entry in Harlan Ellison’s “From A to Z in the Chocolate Alphabet”:
Tamerlane:
That’s a good question, and here’s why: I can’t see where this whole thing is going. The extremists AFAIK have not articulated any endpoint for it … unless it’s the complete obliteration of America from the face of the earth … which just goes to show how frickin’ insane their whole project is. It shows they’re not out for any positive goal but just aim at raising havoc for havoc’s sake. In Islamic law (shari‘ah) the correct endpoint for a jihad conflict is when the two sides conclude a peace treaty. Since the extremists have never indicated what shape that would take, it goes to show their concept of it is not legit. Anyway, the whole idea is insane because an individual warlord or hell-raiser has no authority to declare jihad. It was bogus from the get-go.
Oh, BTW, I owe a lot to Tamerlane for helping with so many informative answers. He covered several questions so well I really don’t need to add to them so I will work on the ones that he hasn’t gotten to.
Feel free to jump in anytime, Tamerlane!
I had sorta hoped the other Muslim Dopers would contribute as well…
Calling out to Saxman
I’m calling out to Saxman’s world
Muslim Guy: Thanks for the kind words .
DSeid: Although I think this has already been covered in part, I’ll take a stab at the question of the Shi’a/Sunni split. It was not really a doctrinaire religious split like the Catholic/Protestant rift, nor was it really a geographic split ( though there were very limited elements of that ). Rather, despite some definite religious overtones from the beginning, it was primarily a political fissure.
The central issue was the succession to Muhammed. Muhammed was none to clear on just what was to happen after he died in 632 C.E. ( in part it may be that death crept up on him sooner than he expected ). There are some ( disputed by Sunni scholars ) indications that he favored his family, personified in his son-in-law and cousin, Ali ( who was also the first male convert to Islam, though not the first male adult convert ). It seems pretty clear that Ali himself was of this opinion. However Ali was a polarizing figure with limited backing and the Islamic state was in a fragile position. In particular the situation in Mecca, just recently converted, was unstable, but it was there that the bulk of the Islamic state’s resources were concentrated ( to oversimplify vastly, Ali drew his support more from Medina, his opponents from Mecca ). Some of Muhammed’s most important Companions, led by Umar, seized the bull by the reins and quickly convened a council and had Abu Bakr, an extremely clever man and skilled politician with strong support from the all-important Quraysh tribe of Mecca, elected to the post of Caliph. The explanation given was that this was a traditional Arab way of deciding the succession of a community ( Sunnah=tradition, hence "Sunni ). This was then presented as a fait accompli to Ali, who was caught by surprise and NOT happy about it. After some resistance he acquiesced with poor grace. This began the split.
After Abu Bakr died, Umar engineered his own election and sought some rapproachement with the disgruntled Ali, with some, but not complete success. After Umar was killed by a slave, Uthman of the Banu Umayya beat out Ali ( still with only limited support ) in a further election. However his twelve-year reign proved tempestuous and was marred by a certain dictatorial bent and rampant nepotism. He also ( in contrast to Umar ) pursued a policy of centralization. All of this stirred tremendous resistance and led to armed rebellions. One of these rebel parties, proceeding from Egypt, murdered Uthman in Medina in 656. The various rebel factions that now dominated Medina proceeded to place their backing behind Ali, who though he had argued against violence, was tainted by being supported by Uthman’s murderers. Further though he considered himself Caliph by legitimate descent, he was not elected by a Shura ( council of senior Muslim leaders ) as Umar had stipulated should be done and lacked the backing of the Quraysh, which Abu Bakr had proclaimed as the ruling class in Muslim society. He was thus immediately challenged by Mu’awiya, the powerful governor of Syria and Uthman’s closing living relative.
This triggered the first ( of four ) fitna , or Islamic civil war. At first Ali was successfu, winning an advantage at the battle of Siffin. But he then made a horrible political blunder by agreeing to an arbitration with his opponents that made significant concessions. Since he had been waging this war as a struggle against un-Islamic rebels that had earlier been declared unfit to hold office, this arbitration was considered heretical backsliding by a minority of the heterogenous factions that made up the early Shi’a movement. One group ( who were largely desert Bedouin with definite anti-centralizing and egalitarian tendencies ) seceded and declared a general war on both Ali and Mu’awiya - These became the Kharijites.
The Kharijites considered their allegiance to not be bound to a particular person, but rather to the Koran and the Sunna of Abu Bakr and Umar ( they conveniently overlooked or ignored those two Caliph’s elevation of the Quraysh, to which they were fiercely opposed ). They were critical of Ali’s claim to the Caliphate based on his early merits and kinship with Muhammed. In their eyes early merit could ( and in this case was ) be lost by an infraction of divine law ( as they considered Uthman and Mu’awiya to have lost it ) and kinship with the Prophet was irrelevant.
Weakened by the aftermath of the arbitration at Siffin, Ali’s position eroded as he now faced a multi-front struggle. In 661 he was assainated by Kharijites and his son and successor al-Hasan surrendered to Mu’awiya who inaugurated the Umayyad dynasty.
At this point Shi’ism was still more a political force, but it was beginning to gather religious differentiation. Ali’s second son, al-Husayn, died in an abortive revolt attempt at Karbala in 680 and became a martyr to the Shi’ite cause. A son of the fourth Imam, Zayd, died in a rebellion against the Umayyads, causing his followers to split off as the militant Zaydi Shi’ites ( “fivers” ), who only recognized the first four Imams, plus Zayd ( a non-designated son ) as legitimate - To the Zaydi’s, designation of successors ( accepted by other Shi’ite factions ) was unimportant, it was only those that struggled against oppressors that were worthy of the Imamate. The Zaydi’s today dominate northern Yemen.
By the 740’s resistance to the Umayyads, who were extremely Arabo-centric and plagued by some poor rulers ( only Umar II is uniformly praised by Sunni biographers ), began to intensify. The Abbasids, a family that was descended from the Prophet’s uncle, Abbas, began to gather steam in Khurasan in the east, drawing particular support from some Shi’ites and the mawali ( Persian converts to Islam slighted by Umayyad policy ). After being badly weakened by a serious of disastrous military defeats ( to the Khazars, the Byzantines, and North African Kharijites ) and a fratricidal succesion struggle, the Umayyads were swept from power by the Abbasids in 749.
This occasioned a further split in the Shi’ite community. Those that were content that members of the Banu Hashim ( Muhammed’s family, essentially ) were now in power, in the form of the Abbasids, merged into the Sunni mainstream. Those that contended that only Ali’s direct descendants should rule, remained as Shi’ites. From this point, that definition of Shi’ism became codified.
The true development of Shi’ism as an entirely different religious sect, with significant differences in jurisprudence and doctrine from mainstream Sunnism, solidified under the sixth designated Imam ( in direct descent from Ali ), Ja’far al-Sadiq ( who worked under the protection of the Abbasid Caliphs ). From this point forward, though there were many elaborations and one further split after Ja’far’s death into the Isma’ili/Sevener and Imami/Twelver sects ( the Imami’s are the “mainstream” sect that one finds in Iran, southern Lebanon, and southern Iraq today ), one can consider Sunnism and Shi’ism as different religious movements in the fullest sense.
For a good analysis of the reign of the first four Caliphs ( the Rashidun, or “Rightly Guided Caliphs” ) and the first fitna, I’d recommend The Succession to Muhammed, A Study of the Early Caliphate by Wilferd Madelung ( 1997, Cambridge University Press ). Note that in terms of Muhammed’s wishes, his own analysis comes down in favor of the Shi’ite interpretation - But that is not necessarily a consensus view.
- Tamerlane
I just saw this quote:
“Verily those who believe, those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures), the Christians and the Sabians any who believe In Allah and the last day, and work righteousness shall have their reward with their Lord;They will not be overcome by fear nor grief (Soorah Al-Baqarah 2:62).”
at http://www.islamworld.net/true.html
I am assuming that this is a clarification of this:
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (Submission to Allah), Never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (their selves in the hell fire).”(Qur’an 3:85)
And that since the god worshipped by Christians and Jews is the same entity, that even though they may technically not be Muslim, they are covered in terms of being on the good side of God/Allah.
Am I getting that right?
Would one of our experts explain the reference to “Soorah Al-Baqarah 2:62”? Is that a Hadith?
Thanks!
DSeid: Just a brief correction and addition.
Less I was unclear, the fourth Imam, the son of al-Husayn, wasn’t named Zayd ( it was Ali Zayn al-'Abidin ), rather that was his son’s name. The fourth Imam’s designated heir, who is accepted by both Isma’ili and Imami Shi’ites as the legitimate fifth Imam, was Muhammed al-Baqir. He predeceased his younger brother Zayd in 731. So at the time Zayd died a martyr in 740 and the Zaydi split happened, the other Shi’a factions were already under the authority of their sixth Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq ( who died in 765 ), whose authority the Zaydis rejected. Hope that’s not too confusing .
Ismai’il, Ja’far al-Sadiq’s original designated heir, either pre-deceased his father or just disappeared in 760 ( the Isma’ilis believe he was occultated by God ). Ja’far al-Sadiq then designated his son Musa al-Kazim ( Abdallah ) as his successor. It was he that the Imami tradition recognizes as the legitimate seventh Imam. The last Imam in that line was the eleventh, Hasan al-'Askari, who died without heirs in 874. The Twelver designation comes from Imami tradition that posits a hidden Twelth Imam ( known as Muhammed al-Mahdi ) that was occultated by God and who shall return as the Mahdi, or Messiah, at the end of days. The Isam’ilis however, believe that Isma’il will be that Mahdi.
I should note that from Ja’far al-Sadiq through Hasan al-'Askari, all of the Twelver Imams lived under the protection and patronage of the Abbasid court, where they were treated with honor as Holy Men and had considerable influence in merchant and scribal circles. This goes a long way to explaining the relative passivity and apolitical bent of the early Imamis, as opposed to the militant Zaydis and Isma’ilis.
As Sunni=“traditionalist”, so Shi’a=“partisan”. So the Shi’at 'Ali were “the partisans of Ali”.
- Tamerlane
WashU77: A Soorah or Surah, is a chapter heading of the Koran. So those quotes are all from the Koran.
I have to admit the somewhat contradictory quotes as to what the fate is of good Christians ( or others ) who die, is confusing. I’m not entirely sure what the answer is. I’ll quote from Islamic Studies, A History of Religious Approach by Richard C. Martin ( second edition, 1996, Prentice-Hall, Inc. ):
“Muslims believe that the world as we know it will end in divine destruction follwed by a Day of Resurrection at which all of humankind, past and present, will be brought to strict account for the degree to which they kept the faith and the practice enjoined upon them by their prophets. Those who obeyed God and His messengers will henceforth enjoy Paradise; those who did not will suffer in Hell. Those who had iman, “faith”, but who nonetheless sinned in significant ways will suffer temporarily before attaining Paradise.”
Unfortunately there is no further explication. However the use of phrase …their prophets… seems to indicate that this extends beyond just devout Muslims. But I am truly unsure on this point. I think we need to remand this one to Muslim Guy.
- Tamerlane