More specifically, what are the beliefs of the different sects? I know there are three main ones, Sunni, Shi’ite, and Sufi. Sunni is the most common and Sufi is somewhat mystical. Am I correct?
So, are there any other main sects? What are the beliefs in a nutshell?
Note- this is not a homework project. School has been out for a while now, I’m just bored/curious. Thanks.
Pretty much. Basically, not too long after Muhammed died, Islam split into different factions over who should be in charge of the Muslim movement. There was a group that thought all the leaders of Islam should be from Muhammed’s family, and they supported his son-in-law, Ali. The majority of Muslims didn’t, though, made someone else Caliph, and proceeded to persecute the supporter’s of Ali, who called themselves Shi’ites (the word means “Ali’s party”). What’s the difference? Shi’ites use different methods of jurisprudence, traditionally have been less politically active, in general have a more apocylptic streak, tend to be more pessimistic about human nature, and have the concept of the hidden imam, which is absent in Sunni.
Sufi is a mystical movement in Sunni Islam from the 8th or 9th century, which was probably influenced by neo-Platonism, and which, strangely enough, has been, in some forms, picked up by the New Age movement. So, you need to make sure you’re looking at actual Sufism and not New Age Sufism.
Sunni and Shi’a Islam are the two major Muslim groups, even though they both have subgroups. The Shi’iteshave a few subgroups…the Seveners, Twelvers, and Fivers being the largest, but with other groups like the Ismaili. Among the Sunni, the most famous movement is the Wahabi movement, which is strongest in Saudi Arabia, and tends toward a conservative interpretation of the Qu’ran and is pretty rigid. In addition to Wahabism, you have groups like the Hanif, which is the most common form of Sunni Islam, Ashari, which focuses on the importance of faith and a personal relationship with G-d. the Kharijites, who were a millitant Muslim group, the Mu’tazilites, who were rationalists and argued that the Qu’ran was of human origin, and a bunch of other Sunni groups and schools.
There are also a bunch of groups that split off from mainstream Islam, like the Druze, the Sikhs, the Bahai, the Nusaris, and a few other groups.
A few points of correction.
The Kharijites were Shi’i. They were the Shi’i version of today’s Sunnism’s Wahhabism. They assassinated Ali when he agreed to arbitration with Muawiya. The Kharijites claimed that arbitration was not in the Qur’an, so Ali could not engage in arbitration.
Sunni Islam is divided into four schools - Hanifi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali. Shi’ism is divided among various sects, as pointed out above. The predominant sects are the Athna Asharis or Twelvers. There are also the Seveners. There are actually many, many, many Shi’i sects, most very small. These are a result of disagreements as to who the Imam is supposed to be.
In Shi’i belief, God arranged for humanity to by guided by an Imam, who would be of Muhammad’s blood. This Imam would have the light, or nur, of God, and would be His mouthpiece, as it were, on earth. One must recognize the Imam of the time in order to go to Heaven.
According to the Twelvers, the twelfth Imam disappeared, and will reappear later. Thus, the Imam of the time is the twelfth Imam.
However, as mentioned, there are disputes as to who the Imam is supposed to be. The Seveners came about with a dispute over who would be Imam after Jafar-is-Sadiq. Some claim it would be Ismail, others it would be Musa bin Kazim. The Twelvers accept Musa, the Seveners and Ismailis accept Ismail.
Many Sunnis (like I in my youth) believe that the only difference between Sunnism and Shi’ism is who should lead the Muslims. This is not true - Shi’ism is a whole other interpretation and understanding of Islam and God’s relationship with humanity. It’s very fascinating, in my opinion.
WRS
No. Sufism is not a sect, but more a religious paradigm. One can be either a Sunni or Shi’a and still be a Sufi. Many Sufis are divided into specfic orders, which makes it complicated, as each is a veritable subsect of its own, but strictly speaking Sufism is not a sect unto itself.
Example: The Safavid dynasty that ruled Iran/Persia from the early 16th century to the the early 18th, started out as a family that was the hereditary leader of Sunni Sufi order that eventually metamorphosed into a Shi’a Sufi order. They conquered Iran and converted it ( via help from imported Shi’a clergy from southern Iraq, who were not Safavid Sufis ) to a far more orthodox version of Shi’ism than the one the Safavids themselves had espoused. Shi’ism flourished in Iran, but the Safavid order pretty much died with the dynasty.
“Partisan”. Shi’a means “partisan”. So the Shi’at Ali were the “partisans of Ali”.
Sunna means “tradition”. So the Sunni were the “traditionalists”. What tradition? The old Arab/Bedouin tradition of egalitarian election of a leader from within the ranks after the death of the last leader, that those who stole a march on Ali and claimed the Caliphate used.
Also Ali wasn’t persecuted, he was honored, just shut out and disgruntled. He did consent, however grudgingly, to the election of the first three Caliphs and Umar in particular actively tried to mollify him. It wasn’t a matter of persecution really, just political differences and Ali represented a minority opposition view ( and not the only one, I might add ), but was still greatly respected.
Depends on the group and period ;). The Zaydi Shi’a ( dominate in modern Yemen ) have never believed in the hidden imamate. And the Isma’ili Shi’a defined political activism in the medieval period.
Isma’ilis are the same group as the “Seveners”, Imamni or Ithna’ashari are the same group as the “Twelvers”, Zaydi Shi’a are the same group as the “Fivers”. The numbers referring to the accepted number of Imams ( details on request _.
A confusion of terms above ( not picking on CA by the way, an excellent poster :), but just to clear up confusion ).
Wahabism = subsect of Sunni Islam
Hanafi, Hanbali, Shaf’i, Maliki = schools of Sunni jurisprudence, not sects. So Wahabis adhere to the Hanbali school of religious jurisprudence.
Mu’tazila = a now defunct school of religious philosophy, not a sect per se
Kharijites = a sect of Islam that is a subset of neither Shi’a nor Sunni, but a distinct third.
Sikhism = a syncretic faith, not a true offshoot
No, neither Shi’a nor Sunni, they are generally counted as separate from both. The confusion arises from the fact that they were among the groups called “Shi’a” when that term had more of a political, rather than a religious definition. When they split from the other Shi’a they pretty much went their separate way as a distinct ideology rather than a branch of Shi’ism ( their denunciation of Ali alone, is enough to mark them as non-Shi’a ).
The Ibadis of modern Oman are descnded from a Kharijite branch and their religious ideology is far closer to Sunnism than Shi’ism.
As noted, those are schools of jurisprudence, not sects. Nitpicky, but a worthwhile distinction. Examples of Sunni sects are the similarly hyper-conservative Deobandi and Wahabi sects.
Okay, for those few who may be interested, once again I present Tamerlane’s Thumbnail Sketch of the Origins and Early Development of Shi’ism ( originally posted way back in the first “Ask the Muslim Guy” thread ) :
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 wars. At first Ali was successful, 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 Qur’an 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.
addendum ( originally a second post, eited to exclude details on the Ismai’ili/Imami split ):
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.
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.
Tamerlane, you never, never, never cease to amaze me. You explain it so much better than anyone I know or have read - including Fazlur Rehman.
(My favorite author on Islam is H. A. R. Gibb. You’re tied with him. 
)
Thanks for the correction and explanation. I had no idea the Kharijites were not Shi’i. Nor did I know that the Wahhabis were followers of the Hanbali school. (Although, I had to look up what the four schools were - “Hanbali” didn’t sound right. I initially thought they were a previous incarnation of the Wahhabi sect that died out.)
Where does the Salafi movement fall? It is a school or a sect? It was my understanding that one could lump the Salafi, Wahhabi, and Deobandi movements into a group as they all have the same attitude (though certainly different beliefs, rules, views on orthopraxy). All I know is that “Wahhabi” comes from Abul Wahhab of Saudi Arabia, and is basically a revival of his movement (which the now-ruling House of Saud supported in order to united the Kingdom under one House and one interpretation of the faith), and that “Deobandi” comes from Deoband, a city in India where an Islamic institution of higher learning is situated. (I even cam across a website that had a Deobandi pamphlet flaming the Wahhabis.)
From where did you learn so much about Islam? I’d love to know what sources have educated you. Feel free to email me if you’d prefer. I have sooooooooo many more questions, and feel afraid to chew people brains out with question after question.
Good going, Tamerlane. You’re getting better at this. You haven’t left me anything to correct you on. Just to note that the Ash‘ari school (mentioned above by Captain Amazing) is not a sect either, but a school of theology, as the Hanafi, Mâlikî, Shâfi‘i, and Hanbali are schools of jurisprudence. All of these “schools” are tendencies within mainstream orthodox Sunnism.
Each of the jurisprudential schools had a theological tendency associated with it. The Ash‘ari* theology went with the Shâfi‘i fiqh. The Hanafi fiqh had an associated theological school called Mâturîdî, which is scarcely different from Ash‘ari. The Hanbalis had their own approach to theology which was sharply different from all the other Sunnis, including literalist anthropomorphism applied to God. Wahhabism is an aggravated excretion of Hanbalism. The Mâliki jurists did not have their own theological school, so they just went along with the Ash‘ari. Of all these, Ash‘ari is the only prominent one today, largely because Abû Hâmid al-Ghazzâli (1058-1111) was highly influential, and he taught Ash‘ari theology.
*Ash‘ari (the Sunni theological school) is not to be confused with Ithnâ ‘Ashari (the mainstream Shi‘ite body, the Twelvers). Although the two names look similar in transliteration, they are spelled differently in Arabic.
Few people outside India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have ever heard of the Barelvi sect, even though it is huge. It keeps pretty quiet and doesn’t raise a fuss. Barelvi is a very moderate trend within Indian Islam, strongly opposed to its rival Deobandism, and has a far larger allegiance. It follows traditional Sufism, whereas the radical sects are vehemently against Sufism.
Salafi is a name given to two very different groups.
The original Salafi movement started in Egypt in the 1890s. It had pretty well died out by the 1920s or so. It was associated with the Azharite thinkers Muhammad ‘Abduh and Muhammad Rashid Rida. It was a modernizing, rationalistic movement that sought to emulate European progress in scientific thought.
Nowadays, Salafi is simply what the Wahhabis (and similar radical conservatives) call themselves, as they don’t like the name Wahhabi. That’s all that Salafi means today. Most people have never even heard of the earlier Salafi movement, which cannot be found outside the history books.
One thing that differentiates the Wahhabi sect from everyone else in Islam is the way they insist all non-Wahhabi Muslims are infidels. This is contrary to one of the most hallowed, time-honored principles agreed on in mainstream Islam, which is that no Muslim may call another Muslim an infidel. The Wahhabis have broken that understanding, and this is traditionally considered a very serious sin. That infidel accusation is behind the ultraviolence of radical groups similar to al-Qa‘idah, which had been killing other Muslims in terrorist attacks for many years before they ever turned against Westerners.
Hmm… a few questions but first, WeRSauron, you might want to take a look at Tamerlane’s Islam reading list, if you’re not already aware of it.
were the Whirling Dervishes Shia? If so why do they whirl? Why do they dervish?
the Zaydi’s dominate in Yemen? How do they get on with the Wahabbis? I’m sure I recall hearing OBL say that the only true Islamic countries are Yemen and Afghanistan. But OBL is Wahabbi and the Yemenis are shia, so why does OBL consider them to be true?
the Barelvi sect, are they the majority group in Bangladesh? Are they the most sufi-ist of all the sufis? (please excuse my phrasing)
What sect and school are they in Turkey?
Thanks, Jomo Mojo! You and Tamerlane (and Collounsbury even) are like gods!
I had no idea “Salafi” was another name for “Wahhabi.” Which is how they want it, I would suppose. “Wahhabi” now has a very negative connotation, whereas Salafi does not. Excellent way to lie their way into people’s good graces.
Your assessment on their disregard of human life, even those of other Muslims, is right on the dot. It might even be that wayward Muslims are worse than non-Muslims, since wayward Muslims know what’s right and what to do (or, rather, what group to turn to and join).
A cousin related a story I thought I would tell.
Some time before Muhammad’s death, representatives from various tribes and regions of the Arabian peninsula gathered around him and asked for his blessing. He bestowed his blessing and prayer on every one, except for the one from an-Najd. The assembly asked him again to bless the representative from an-Najd, and Muhammad refused again. They asked him a third time, and he refused once more. Then they asked him why he refuses to extent his blessing on an-Najd, and Muhammad said, “Because everyone else will recognize all Muslims as Muslims. But one day, a group from an-Najd will conquer the land and tear Islam by refusing to recognize other Muslims as Muslims.” The House of Sa’ud and the Wahhabi/Salafi movement originate from an-Najd, overpowering the more popular Hijazis.
Thanks for the link, Jojo! Sorry for bugging you, Tamerlane!
I know the Whirling Dervishes is not for me, but let me expose my ignorance!
The so-called “whirling dervishes” are the Mevlevis, who follow “Mevlana” Jalal-ud-Din Rumi. I would submit that there’s a large debate whether Rumi was a Sunni or Shi’i - there is no doubt that he was a Sufi.
The “wrhiling” is part of sema, which is a ritualistic dance/worship that Mevlevis do. It incorporates recitation, and dancing in circles, as planets in an orbit around the sun. In the center is the leader of the group. Click here for more on sema. Click here for more info on Jalal-ud-Din Rumi.
WRS
Holy Shi’ite! Here come the Sunnis! :eek:
Sorry. I just had to get that out.
WeRSauron: A search on my name, Jomo Mojo, and salafi or salafism should turn up a couple of threads where the two of us rolled around a bit on this topic. In general we hold slightly differently nuanced, if nowhere near diametrically opposed, views. I tend to define “Wahabism” rather more narrowly than JM for instance, nor seperate modern salafism from its roots quite as sharply. I also consider Deobandism a bit more seperate from Wahabism than I think JM does, though I acknowledge the considerable similarities between the two and their shared theological roots ( but for instance they follow different fiqh and Deobandism is much more steeped in Sufi influences ).
The modern Wahabis do tend to prefer to call themselves “salafists”, but I don’t consider the two terms synonmous, really.
As to my background - A sprinkling of college classwork and a great deal of independent reading. That list Jojo linked to for a start.
Though Shi’ism had a great deal of influence on many early Sufi orders in Anatolia, the Mevlevis are these days generally considered a mainstream Sunni order. The whirling is a ritual act meant to help achieve greater mystical connection to the divine. Almost a form of meditation ( if a very active one ), really, as well as a type of worship.
The Wahabis have been gaining a foothold in Yemen recently. See this article:
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer204/weir.htm
However the majority of Yemenis are still Zaydi, with a strong minority of non-Wahabi Sunni ( Shafa’i school ) in the south. Relationship with Saudi Arabia? Chilly, but correct. Yemeni laborers are a very major part of the Gulf workforce and for labor reasons ( the Gulf states, including SA ) and money reasons ( remittances from Yemeni laborers abroad is a major source of foreign exchange for Yemen ), the two sides strive to maintain some cordiality. But it is usually strained.
What ObL was referring to I don’t know. I haven’t seen that quote or its context.
The Bangladeshis are overwhelmingly Barelvi, as I recall. The Barelvi are dominant in South Asia, period, as Jomo Mojo suggested. The only place where Deobandism is threatening to achieve majority status is in Pakistan and it still isn’t quite there yet ( though it has narrowed the gap considerably between the two since the 1980’s ).
As for most “sufi-ist”, no, probably not, even if you could define such in any clear way :).
In terms of fiqh, Turkey is largely Hanafi ( the Sunni Kurds tend to be Shafa’i ). In terms of sect, mostly mainstream orthodox Sunnism.
Tamerlane, do you happen to teach at Cal? I’d go to school there just to be in one of your classes, if you do.
Is this chiefly a lingering effect of the Afghan-Soviet war, or is there another reason?
Thanks for the compliment, but I’m afraid I work in the blue-collar trades :D. Really. I think the only time I’ve ever actually taught anything in a classroom, was when I gave a couple hour guest lecture on the Reptilia and Amphibia for a non-major undergraduate biology course a buddy was teaching ;). Of course I was a professional student for over a decade, but I’m afraid my formal credentials are paper-thin.
But go to Cal, anyway :). It’s a damn fine school and a great area.
That’s a big part of it. The largely Pashtun northwest in particular has always been pretty religiously ( and/or culturally ) conservative and the Afghan war just served to increase this tendency, with virtually every anti-Soviet authority ( Pakistan’s ISI, SA and its fat bankroll, the U.S. and its various agencies ) pushing Islamic fundamentalism as a great ideological counter to communism ( which it certainly is, though in hindsight it brings to mind the old saying of “the cure being worse than the disease” ). The growing frustration with the Pakistani condition ( and the issues surrounding Kashmir ), as well as overall international trends in the Muslim world towards a anti-secular backlash, have also fed into this. But the Afghan situation is probably the single greatest catalyst in Pakistan.
Not quite. The Ismailis do not only accept 7 Imams. Currently they accept 49 - a continuous line from Imam 'Ali (a.s.) to the current Imam - Shah Karim al-Husayni. The Ismailis believe that the Earth cannot be without an Imam for even one second, and that if the Earth were ever to be without an Imam, then it would be the end of the world, or Qiyamat.
Ismailis believe that the light (or nur) of Allah, which was present in the Prophet and in Imam Ali, is passed from one Imam to the next at the moment of the previous Imam’s death, so that the Earth always has its Imam, its guide. The position of Imam is a hereditary one, passing from father to son, or in the case of Shah Karim al-Husayni, from grandfather to grandson.
That’s the Nizari view ( which, to be sure, is the majority position today ).
But the Bohras hold to a different line, now inactive and occultated ( the Musta’li line ) and the Qaramita ( now extinct of course ) considered the Imamate to have completely terminated with Isma’il, who was occultated by God. So the only unanimously accepted Imams by all Isma’ili groups in history, were the first seven.
But I admit I oversimplified :). Seven as a number is also considered to have special significance in terms of cycles of Prophets and Imams in Isma’ilism, hence part of the story of the name.
Yes, this is true, however, I do believe that it is only the Nizari Ismailis will self identify as “Ismalils”, without the use of “Shia Imami Nizari” in front of “Ismaili”
Yet another nitpick - Ismail was the sixth Imam according to Nizari Ismaili tradition, the Imams, in chronological order, upto Imam Ismail were:
[list=1]
[li]Imam 'Ali[/li][li]Imam Hussein[/li][li]Imam Zain-al 'Abideen [/li][li]Imam Mohammad ibn Baqr[/li][li]Imam Jaf’ar as-Sadiq[/li][li]Imam Ismail[/li][/list=1]
I know that the Ithna Ashari sect believe Hazrat Hasan as an Imam after Imam Ali, but before Imam Hussein, but the Ismailis do not. Well, not the Nizari Ismailis at any rate, and so to lump them in with the “Seveners” is a tad incorrect.
I might mention that a somewhat similar state of affairs exists with the Zaydi Shi’a, who had multiple lines of Imams active at the same time for a period ( there was a Zaydi state along the southern Caspian for a few centuries, quite separate from the state in Yemen ).
So in this case, was the Imam was a poitical position, rather than a spiritual and political position?
Ah, interesting. I hadn’t known that, thanks for the correction :). I suspect that is Nizari-specific, but that is definitely something to check into and it does break my argument either way.
Sort of. The Imam is a spiritual leader as well as a political, but not a semi-divine one. Zayd himself disclaimed any divine status and the the title of Imam can be claimed by any legitimate descendant of Fatima and Ali that proves their worth and they can lose the status of Imam by failing or transgressing in any of a number of ways ( like being defeated by a rival claimant - proof of God’s disfavor ). i.e. it is theoretically an earned position as much as a hereditary one ( though frequently it has been more dynastic of course ).