Cedric Muhammad: What is your position on the basis of the Shi-ite and Sunni split? Do you think that the Shi-ite’s have a valid point in their view that Ali was improperly denied the caliphate beginning with the election of Abu Bakr in ‘succession’ to Muhammad of 1400 years ago?
Dr. Aminah McCloud: Actually since both sides have produced unjust societies, I do not care who is right. I do not honor this historical split. When you look at it, those who became Sunni, killed the family of the Prophet and those who are Shi’I reconstructed inherited leadership. How can any of this be right?
I find Dr. McCloud's argument intriguing but I would not go as far as she does. I don't have a problem calling myself "Sunni". But then, I would insist that being Sunni does NOT mean giving uncritical approval of those who fought against Ali (ra), Hussein (ra) or the rest of the family of the prophet. It certainly doesn't mean giving uncritical approval to the governments which followed Ali (ra). In fact, some time ago I realized that ALL four Sunni imams of fiqh (Abu Hanifa, Malik Ibn Anas, Imam Shafii and Ahmad ibn Hanbal) were put in prison or otherwise punished by the rulers of their day for taking certain political stands. So even though Sunni political theory may have a certain conservative streak, there is also room for principled disobedience of the government.
Overall I would say that as Muslims (whether Sunni or Shia) we should combine and balance 1) love of family of the prophet, 2) sufficient recognition of their high spiritual status, 3) an understanding of the mistakes of the early Muslims 4) a great deal of adab when discussing the same, and 5) an acceptance of the qadr of Allah when it comes to early Muslim history. And I would suggest that by emphasizing these points we might find more common ground and mutual understanding between Sunnis and Shias.
Sunni sites on Ahl al-Bayt:
Ahl al-Bayt Homepage
Ahlul Bayt (a Naqshbandi site)
Muslims of the Americas Ahlul Bayt site
Previous Grenada entries on Su-Shi issues:
sunni - shia
is love sushi... or is that su-shi?
even more su-shi love
5 comments:
"Actually since both sides have produced unjust societies..."
This statement reminds me of what Dr. Sherman Jackson said in his keynote speech, that (paraphrasing) people of the Muslim world suppose a connection and continuity to the "Period of Sacred history" and through this validate themselves.
Here Dr. McCloud is invalidating them, but through the same argument, not because of a break in continuity.
To be frank, I am not suprised because this idea is upheld in most western institutions, i.e. that the Muslim World is the product of its sacred texts, thier interpretations, and thier sacred history.
And since the Muslim world is a material failure, thus the Muslim religion is a failed religion.
I think that when we can get past the issue of having to validate ourselves according to some lost birth right, ethnic connection, or feigned allegiance to an esoteric group, only then will we realize that Allah sent Islam as a complete religion that doesnt faulter in its principles (both legal and ethical), and is thus applicable at all times and in all places.
Allah knows best
Hmmm interesting. Could you tell me a little more about what you have in mind. I'm not sure if I'm getting you.
When you criticize the idea of looking at some kind of ethnic connection to derrive one's validity I think I would agree with you in a lot of ways. For instance, Muslims shouldn't just look to some mythical golden age like Islamic Spain. We should look to the future and figure out how to make contemporary Muslim societies better.
At the same time, when you are talking about "sacred history" I'm not sure which aspect you are criticizing exactly. I mean isn't the sunnah part of "sacred history"? Aren't we supposed to have some connection with that early period?
Yes the the ethnic connection goes like this:
Black = Africa
Latino = Spain
White = (one or more) Turkey, the Balkans, and now the new-found notion that the ancient druids were Muslims! :)
As if Islam ceased to be based on faith.
What I mean by the connection to "Sacred History" is this:
Many in the Muslim world CLAIM a connection to that period of "Sacred History", and not only a connection but that they are the vanguard of true and correct Islam.
Through this supposed continuity of extra-academic tradition (custom, cultural & social norms, etc.) they claim to be MORE Muslim and thus have the right to represent Islam better than anyone else.
Many a time often than not, this is done to the exclusion of considering the "Sunnah" as a historically verified and transmitted text.
In essence, people in the Muslim world operate on a "Folk Islam" whose norms are claimed to connect back to "Sacred History".
As a logical statement I would put it like this:
1. To be valid you must connect with "Sacred History"
2. Our "Folk Islam" is the only one connected with "Sacred History"
3. Thus we are the only valid representatives of Islam
Now to refute Islam some Orientalists will verify this logic, because it serves their goals:
1. "Folk Islam" representatives are the only valid representatives of Islam
2. Residents of the "Folk Islam" world live in poverty, ignorance, and destitution
3. Islam causes poverty, ignorance, and destitution
So the "Folk" Islamiyyin validate their representation of Islam through a false sense of continuity to the period of "Sacred History".
The Orientalists invalidate Islam through the same claim to representation of Islam, by looking at the results of thier societies.
Dr. McCloud on the other hand used the same argument to invalidate the "Folk" Islamiyyin's claim to representation by looking at the results of thier societies.
She does not, however, refute thier continuity to that period.
So the Problem is not with "Sacred History" but with the concocted continuity of that Sacred History.
Everyone that seeks to validate or invalidate Islam and Muslims is doing so through a cultural analysis of Islam and its people, instead of anaylizing Islam in its Legal and ethical standpoints.
Some will claim superiority for themselves through it.
Others will invalidate Islam through its results.
And still others will invalidate the academic (legal and ethical) traditions of the Muslims through its results.
So Islam is being approached as a culture, not as a "complete religion that doesnt faulter in its principles (both legal and ethical), and is thus applicable at all times and in all places.
"
I don't know if I clarified myself or made things a bit murkier :)
Allah knows best
was-salam
Thanks, I think I have a better idea of what you meant but I would probably say it differently. I definitely wouldn't want to equate a "cultural Muslim" or an "ethnic Muslim" with someone who is Muslim in a religious or spiritual sense. "Folk Islam" shouldn't be mistaken for authentic orthodox Islam in all its universality.
But I"m still a little uncertain about how that fits into the Sunni/Shia issue. Do you think "Sunni" and "Shia" also becomes an ethnic identity? Or do you think that an Islam which is "applicable in all times and places" would go beyond the distintion between Sunnis/Shias?
I guess the way it fits in is that labels have always been hijacked for ulterior political and social motives.
I guess this all came up because the logic of Dr. McClouds statement that reminded me of Dr. Jacksons statement that ....
well you know the rest :)
Post a Comment