which Islam sect to be followed

[Roshina]

Hmm... he's a Sunni, so obviously he's gonna IMPLY that Sunnism is the *right* sect of Islam -- or then utterly deny that there needs to be sects in Islam.

We need to understand the *fact* that the current sects are a result of different interpretations of Islam (the Quran and Sunnah), and that these differences are perfectly legitimate. Why should either sect have to settle for the interpretation of the other? How do we decide WHICH interpretation is the correct one? We can never know -- we can only make judgments. And part of the problem is deciding which scholars to agree with and follow.

We should also remember that Sunni comes from the Arabic term "Sunnah," which literally means "the way (of the Prophet, pbuh)" and the FULL name of "Shi'a" is "Shi'it-e-Ali" (which basically means supporters of Ali, those who wanted Ali to be the first khalifah). This does NOT mean that Shiites don't believe in hadith, as way too many Sunnis are taught.

I can also explain why there's a NEED to have different sects, if it's gonna be a consequence of different sect. I had to write a huge paper on this for a class recently, and it was a very interesting topic; led to a fruitful discussion in class.

[*Mahzala*]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

I can also explain why there's a NEED to have different sects, if it's gonna be a consequence of different sect. I had to write a huge paper on this for a class recently, and it was a very interesting topic; led to a fruitful discussion in class.

Qrratu, I admire your passion to learn and see the other side of the coin when it comes to many things, and applaud the vastness of your knowledge BUT you cannot bring your own opinions and reasoning into something declared wrong by none other than Rasulullah (SAW). The class you addressed, Allah knows, but I assume was not a group of Mufasireen or Muhaditheen. So clearly, it would have been fruitful. Youve yet a lot of people to convince if your talking about sects my Dear. Put aside the countless Quran ayahs on division in religion, lets just remember the one Hadeeth. Rasulullah (SAW) himself said that his Ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects, all will be in hell fire, except one. How then can you give reasons that sects in a religion is a need and can yield fruitful results?

[Roshina]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

I can also explain why there's a NEED to have different sects, if it's gonna be a consequence of different sect. I had to write a huge paper on this for a class recently, and it was a very interesting topic; led to a fruitful discussion in class.

Qrratu, I admire your passion to learn and see the other side of the coin when it comes to many things, and applaud the vastness of your knowledge BUT you cannot bring your own opinions and reasoning into something declared wrong by none other than Rasulullah (SAW). The class you addressed, Allah knows, but I assume was not a group of Mufasireen or Muhaditheen. So clearly, it would have been fruitful. Youve yet a lot of people to convince if your talking about sects my Dear. Put aside the countless Quran ayahs on division in religion, lets just remember the one Hadeeth. Rasulullah (SAW) himself said that his Ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects, all will be in hell fire, except one. How then can you give reasons that sects in a religion is a need and can yield fruitful results?

Nope, my personal view isn't addressed here. (If it were, I'd be deciding which sect should be followed.) See, the Prophet (pbuh) said that the CORRECT sect is the one that follows Allah and him, right? Now, each sect claims it follows the Prophet and God ... how do we decide which one IS the correct one, then? Let's take the two main ones, for instance. Sunnis, no doubt, believe they're the correct ones AND they're the majority, so it makes sense to some. But Shiites also follow the Quran and hadith.

You know, until the 18th century, Sufism was the most followed, most revered branch of Islam (if it's a branch to begin with, that is). From the 12th century on-ward, Sufism flourished throughout the Muslim world and was THE reason that Islam spread around the world. With time, some Sunni scholars started to consider it an aberration from Islam, and others were like, "Well, let's re-interpret Sufi views so that they are NOT an aberration."
With the arrival of Wahabism, Sufism became one of the least accepted forms of Islamic practices and beliefs.

So, my point is ... it's all about who's doing the interpretation of Islam. ANY sect can defend their views, and this includes non-Sunnis as well. And the problem is deciding which one is the correct one. We make it SO simple when we claim, "What do you mean interpretation? Just follow Allah and the Prophet. Simple." But the problem is in the interpretations of God's words (the Quran) and the Prophet's practices/sayings (hadith), kana.

[shinwari]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

*Waits for Mesbahs response*

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

I like the Ismailis (Agha Khanis). They have a modern "representative from God" who makes sure that their way of life stays in conformity with the modern age... as opposed to the scholars of Ahle Sunnah, who are insistent upon driving us all back to 700AD.

[Roshina]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

*Waits for Mesbahs response*

Yaa daghe, Khwdey ta ugora give your *own* responses, too, sometimes, LOL. Har wakht ba da noro khalko jawabuno ta pa intizar naasta ye :mrgreen:

[Sabawoon]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

I like the Ismailis (Agha Khanis). They have a modern "representative from God" who makes sure that their way of life stays in conformity with the modern age... as opposed to the scholars of Ahle Sunnah, who are insistent upon driving us all back to 700AD.

Aren't Aghakhanis considered Non Muslims cause they do Shirk?

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

I like the Ismailis (Agha Khanis). They have a modern "representative from God" who makes sure that their way of life stays in conformity with the modern age... as opposed to the scholars of Ahle Sunnah, who are insistent upon driving us all back to 700AD.

Aren't Aghakhanis considered Non Muslims cause they do Shirk?

I personally know many Agha Khanis (from Gilgit, Chitral, Baltistan, etc) and I can assure you, they do not do any sort of shirk.... but then again, according to some, Sufis, Shi'ites and Barelvis are all Muskrik.

[zarghoona]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

Heathen are you Agha Khani?

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

Heathen are you Agha Khani?

Nope, I belong to a regular Hanafi family. I'm an agnostic though. There, shoot me.

[Roshina]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

I personally know many Agha Khanis (from Gilgit, Chitral, Baltistan, etc) and I can assure you, they do not do any sort of shirk.... but then again, according to some, Sufis, Shi'ites and Barelvis are all Muskrik.

lol, Heathen.
You're right. It's all a matter of who's deciding what shirk is. Zakir Naik seems to think that Sufism is shirk, too So, yeah!

And I, too, know many, MANY Ismailis (including some Agha Khanis), and I'm taking a class on Shiite Islam, and I don't see where shirk comes into play in their beliefs :S

That goes back to the fact that when you want to study a religion or a sect of a particular religion, the prudent thing to do is to study it from the view of those who practice that belief system. So, if you wanna learn about Shiism, study it from Shiites' perspective, NOT from Sunnis' perspective.

[Roshina]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

Let it also be a reminder that NO one "intends" to create a "new branch." Why? Because the moment you say, "All right, guys! Let's create a new branch! Who wants to follow me?" no one is going to listen to you; in fact, they might kill you because how dare you want to divide the people and declare that the branch most people belong to already isn't the right one?

It is with TIME that it becomes a new branch, that it is accepted as a different sect -- often even several decades after the death of its first leader.

Lemme also clarify my point regarding the "need" for sects. See, I wasn't suggesting that it's good to have divisions. I myself am a strong supporter of unity (actually, who isn't? lol), and I think that THE main reason the Muslims today are suffering is because of our disunity. But I also wanna make it clear that it's not really the *differences* among the various Muslim groups; it's that we don't know how to handle those differences. We need to learn how to respect each other.

What I *was* suggesting, however, was that the expected differences in opinion inexorably lead to the creation of new branches, and we really can't expect all Muslims to be the same. There's a reason we're not commanded to have only ONE scholar or jurist per generation -- for, what if others who are just as educated about Islam don't agree with his understanding, judgments, and/or opinions? It's unfortunate that these differences SHOULD lead to new branches, and I don't think they should, but since they do in reality, we can't do anything about it but accept, tolerate, and acknowledge them.

The Quran tells us to hold strongly to "the rope of God" (Islam), but why does that have to mean you're not allowed to have differences just because they lead to division? What if Side X believes that its interpretation is closer to correct while Side Y believes the same, and NEITHER is therefore willing to accept the other's? We really can't blame them for thinking that way -- until they start applying force and violent to make their point. My question is always: Why should either side have to accept the views of the other side as "more legitimate" or "more correct" than its own views? And how do we decide WHICH side should give up its views for the other, submitting to the views/interpretation of the other side and at last rejecting its own?
God advised us to hold strong to His rope and to avoid division because He knew that division gives birth to disunity, which in turn gives birth to warfare and blood shedding.

See, here's the thing. If the Shiites decide that "Okay, let's all be JUST Muslims, and not Shiites or Sunnis or whatever else we are" (or if the Sunnis say that), then what will that mean? Will one sect have to start accepting and adhering to the teachings/interpretation of the other? And who will decide which one that should be? Because, in practice and in reality, just believing in the same God isn't enough; we share that belief with many other groups of people as well. And just believing in the “same” Quran isn’t enough either, since the Quran is absolutely nothing without its interpretations.

That’s the problem today, that was the problem back in the day right after the Prophet’s death, and that will be the problem till eternity and beyond.

And since we’re talking in theory and how things *should* be, lemme also add that we don’t even have to belong to the same sect, or even the same religion, to be united, do we? Can we not learn to handle our differences more tolerantly? Do we all need to follow just *one* interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah in order to be united?

Remember that hadith that Dukes shared with us on CK, Mesbah? Now imagine that those who believed that the Prophet (pbuh) meant Thing A decided to separate from those who believed he meant Thing B. They woudln't right away say, "okay, we're not amongst you anymore; we're better than you, so we're gonna separate," but times later, those who accepted Side A's interpretation of the Prophet's statement would have had "followers" and Side B would've had its own, and eventually, we'll have had another branch!

That's how it works. And it's inevitable. I don't think it's good or fruitful, but I don't think the problem is the differences of opinion: I think it's the inability to come up with more healthier, more tolerant ways to let each other be.

[Roshina]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

Pasting an excerpt from an essay I wrote recently:

Many Muslims do not support the idea of having to label themselves Shiite or Sunni [i.e., they're "just Muslims"]. Historically, these labels have stimulated much violence in the Muslim world, as each sect seems to believe that it follows the real Islam and proselytizes its own while reproving the other. For example, violence against Sunnis in majority-Shiite regions, such as Iran, is a regular phenomenon today; similarly, the persecution of Shiites in majority-Sunni areas like Pakistan is just as regular an occurrence. Some argue that while this violence is entirely due to different interpretations of historical events in Muslim history as well as in Quran and Sunnah, their differences need not be displayed so boldly and bluntly. Others, however, believe that the differences between Sunnis and Shiites should be recognized, though not emphasized to such an extent that they play a role in engendering violence. For the latter group of Muslims, their identity includes these labels, as being a Shiite or a Sunni reveals haunting events in the Muslim past; for them, to call themselves what they are not – for instance, for Shiites to call themselves Sunnis – is to assume a title that does not belong to them in reality; it is to defer to a creed the interpretation of which does not comply with that of their own. Though both believe in and accept the same Quran and the teachings of the same Prophet, their belief is futile without its interpretation as understood by each sect. Speaking merely in theories does no help: the differences in interpretation need to be acknowledged, and a more creative, intelligent, and nonviolent way needs to be thought of in order to settle these differences. Avoiding violence for Muslims should not have to mean denying their differences, as legitimate as they are, for unity can be achieved alongside diversity. Making fruitless attempts to avoid expressing the differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims does not solve the problem that has been a product of those differences; neither sect should have to accept the interpretation of the other when it can defend its conclusions intellectually. The focus, instead, should be on teaching each other how to accept differences and how to respond to an interpretation that does not coincide with the one people have been taught is the only possible one.

[Roshina]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

I enjoy reading what you post, post some more.

lol ... if you're talking to me, thank you. Glad you enjoy my posts.
And don't you worry none -- I post whenever I feel the need

[tor_khan]

Re: which Islam sect to be followed

I like the Ismailis (Agha Khanis). They have a modern "representative from God" who makes sure that their way of life stays in conformity with the modern age... as opposed to the scholars of Ahle Sunnah, who are insistent upon driving us all back to 700AD.

I admit to having a soft spot for people who are able to get things done. The Agha Khanis little patch of Karachi is one of the tidiest, most organised parts of the city. They also happen to be very active in education esp. in the north of Afghanistan just close to their traditional homebase in northern Pakistan.

Doesn't the Agha Khan (son of a Jemima Khan-alike English heiress and grandson of Hollywood actress Rita Hayworth) spend most of his year on the Côte d'Azur (French Riviera), Monaco, Geneva and Turin? He's worth $1 billion plus. The French Riviera is famous of course for its yachts, Monaco for its casinos and Geneva for its banks.

Sounds like a playboy lifestyle, but maybe I'm mistaken. It could be dawah.