The Shi’a-Sunni Split, Part 3

So, the more that I thought about this post, the more I kept on thinking it would be a crash-course in Middle Eastern history, and honestly, in my ~1500 word cap for this post, I simply could not do it justice.  As a result, I decided to BRIEFLY describe the succession of Caliphates and explain how they allowed Shi’a to survive.  Mind you, there’s been a lot of other people who have claimed to be Caliphs.  Later Ottoman Sultans began identifying as Caliphs, the Ahmadiyya Muslim movement in northern India has a Caliph – even ISIS has a Caliph.  It really doesn’t take much to call yourself something, but only a handful of people have had the capability to realize the actual power of a Caliph.

Europe and the Middle East in 750

So to start today’s story, we’re going to fast forward to the year 750, which is, I admit, skipping a lot.  The Byzantines had more or less given up on the whole idea of maintaining their African empire, as the local Berber and Vandal populations had risen up against them while the Umayyad armies swept across the Maghreb.  Under the newly-converted Berber Tariq ibn Ziyad (whose story I’ll tell you someday), the Muslim armies conquered essentially all of Spain, aside from the mountains in the north, where the Basques held out.  Meanwhile, the Byzantines had been too busy dealing with the Slavs and Avars in the North and the Lombards in Italy to wage a prohibitively expensive war against the Umayyads.

The Umayyad popularity was largely based on their battlefield success.  In fifty years, they had conquered Visigothic Spain, Sindh, in what is now Southern Pakistan, the Caucasus Mountains, and all of the northern coast of Africa.  A series of defeats in the mid-8th Century, however, left the Umayyads with very few friends.  The first of these came in 718, at the Siege of Constantinople, in which an army of as many as 120,000 Arabs (likely exaggerated but technically possible at the time).  The Byzantine Emperor Leo the Isaurian’s signature victory had a number of consequences within his own empire, but in the Caliphate, it set off a chain reaction of losses.  In 725, in India, against the Kingdom of Avanti, the Muslim armies suffered what appears to have been a major defeat.  Very little information still exists about this, but the momentum of Muslim conquest in India clearly slowed after this.  Meanwhile, in the West, what was at least at the time considered a major defeat at the hands of the Franks in Battle of Tours resulted in the abrupt halt of Muslim advances into Europe (I know some people like to downplay Tours, but I’ve never heard a good explanation as to why a follow-up expedition was never even planned).

The lack of historical material about the latter two battles makes their importance somewhat difficult to determine, but what happened soon afterward, with the overthrow of the Umayyad clan, would imply that these were hardly inconsequential to the people of the time period.  The revolt of the Abbasid clan in 750 saw everyone save the Arab tribal establishment turn on the unpopular Caliphs.  Even the Shias sided with the mainline Abbasids.  The Umayyads would re-emerge six years later in modern Spain and Portugal and would set up their own “Caliphate” there, but they would never expand their influence much beyond the Iberian Peninsula.

Now, what does all this have to do with the Shi’a, you might ask?  I’m glad you did, because that makes a great segue into my next point… Multiple different Islamic states is what preserved the existence of the Shi’a faith.  For the first 150~ years of Islam’s existence, the entire faith was under a single political head.  With the Umayyad revolt in Spain, and sixty years later, the Tahirids’ revolt in Persia would make the break-up of the Islamic Empire permanent. With this development, the descendants of Ali could flee to more tolerant nations to escape persecution.

In 909, the first Shi’ite state was established in North Africa.  Over the remainder of the 10th Century, they would come to control Egypt and would establish the city of Cairo.  Under the Caliph Mansur, the Shias would come to control Jerusalem.  Mansur’s an interesting guy in a lot of ways, and his disappearance in 1021 is almost a fitting end to such a bizarre life.  All that was found of him was his donkey and bloodstained garments.

Mansur changed his policy on religious minorities several times, even saying a couple of things that almost sound like he thought all religions were basically the same (this is not orthodox Islamic teaching).  He was known to impulsively condemn men to death, and he and his men destroyed the famed Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem  This led to his moniker “the Mad Caliph” in the West, but in Isma’ili Shi’a, he is considered a sage teacher.

The Crusades, which broke out less than a century after the death of Mansur, would weaken both the Fatimids and the Abassids so greatly that both of them would suffer on as puppet governments for another century and a half, until the Mongol invasions acted as an impetus for their final overthrow.  The fragmentation of the Islamic Empire allowed for the survival of fringe groups like Shi’a, which, in the top-down regime of the Caliphs, would not have been able to survive.

Today, four majority-Shi’a countries exist – Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain, with significant minorities existing in Pakistan, India, Lebanon, and Syria.

Distribution of Islamic Sects and Schools

Now, about 1300 years removed from the Shi’a-Sunni split, more splits have occurred within the sects themselves, although within the Sunnis, most all Hanafis would call the Maliki Muslims, the Shafi’i would call the Hanbali Muslims, etc.  The only intra-sect split that has become a large, faith-determining issue is the Isma’ili-Jafari split in Shi’a.  For the most part, however, Shias and Sunnis do not consider one another to be true followers of the prophet.

So, hopefully this somewhat meandering post covers the bases that my first two posts did not.  If you have additional questions, feel free to comment, and I’ll do what I can to answer.  Some questions might be better posed to an actual Muslim, however. 🙂

Thanks for reading,

Paul

The Shi’a-Sunni Split, Part 2

So last time we left off on Ali’s victory over Aisha at the Battle of the Camel.  In the moment, it seemed like Ali had some momentum behind him, but he still faced a number of issues.  For one thing, it was not as though everyone in the Caliphate suddenly got along after they were conquered.  Less than forty years before, Syria and Mesopotamia had been on opposite sides of the bitterest Byzantine-Sassanid Persian conflict ever (this was briefly mentioned in my post a few days ago, but once again… it’s a story for another time), and now they were supposed to just get along?  Faith and religion can be incredible uniting forces, but they don’t change the fundamental tendencies of people.  People will still hold grudges and they will not suddenly become amnesiacs, simply because they all worship the same god suddenly.

Although the contemporary sources don’t cite this as a major problem, reading between the lines is not difficult.  There are certain regions of the Caliphate that consistently pose problems for central control, and the Syrian-Mesopotamian-Arab rivalry would be a repeating issue.

Another issue was the rise of the Khawarij, better known as the Kharijites.  Literally meaning “outsiders,” the Kharijites were purists of the highest order, and they would pose issues for many a Caliphate for years to come.  The root of early Kharijite ideology comes from Uncle Ben’s famous quote, “With great power comes great responsibility,” and the Caliphs were certainly claiming great power.  The problem was that they were not always responsible, or at least their behavior was not above reproach, so the Kharijites would invoke takfir (a less formal means of excommunication for Muslims) against them.  A precursor group of the Kharijites had even been the ones responsible for the murder of Caliph Uthman.  After a battle with Muhammad’s own widow, the Kharijites, who had originally supported Ali, seem to have begun to question his authority as Caliph.

Map of the Mediterranean 650

From Basra, Ali marched his army toward Muawiyah, and the two armies met at Siffin in Syria.  The details of the battle are a little unclear, but it appears to have ended with the refusal of both sides to continue fighting fellow Muslims, due to the Qu’ran’s explicit commandments against just such an act.  Other accounts cite concern of what would happen to their families should the Byzantines counterattack or should the Persians reorganize and revolt (mind you Persia had only truly been subjugated for about fifteen years at the time).

Now, in retrospect, we can see that a Byzantine attack was somewhat unrealistic.  Emperor Constans II was in defense mode, and although the Byzantine navy remained the unquestioned superpower of the Mediterranean Sea, his land army was busy fighting off Slavs in the Balkans.  The Muslims do not seem to have understood this, and both sides withdrew after considerable bloodshed.

To outsiders, the general opinion was that Muawiyah had won, and this narrative was reinforced by the permanent break of the Kharijites with Ali.  Trusting in his tentative truce with Muawiyah, Ali proceeded to pursue the Kharijites until he and his son Hasan drew them into battle at Nahrawan in Iraq in 659.  Ali’s faction was victorious, but he solidified himself as Enemy No. 1 for the Kharijites, despite their being more ideologically opposed to Muawiyah.

In 661, while in prayer, Ali was assassinated by a Kharijite with a poisoned blade, and his son Hasan claimed succession.  Hasan personally decapitated his father’s assassin, but if his father’s claim had been questioned by Muawiyah, Hasan’s was outright contested.  Ultimately, Kharijite resistance never really allowed Hasan to assemble an army of any note, and when Muawiyah arrived in force with his army of Syrians, Hasan had little choice but to surrender.  He would live out the last eight years of his life in Medina, keeping his head down and publishing theological writings, but there remained a substantial number of Muslims, particularly in modern-day Iraq, who continued to hold Hasan as the rightful Caliph.

The Umayyad Caliphate, which Muawiyah established in 661 after Hasan’s surrender, would go on to be almost unarguably the least popular Caliphate of the four major Caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, and Fatimid) and less than a hundred years later, their rule would implode.  During this time, the rift between the followers of Hasan and his direct descendants in the male line and the less-organized majority, whose head was decided far less systematically.  To this day, the Shi’a remain more organized than Sunnis, particularly in the Ithnā’ashariyyah’ (called “Twelver” in English) branch.

I suppose it might be useful here to see what “Sunni” and “Shi’a” actually mean, because this really helps when you’re trying to understand the sect.  Sunni (which is the sect that today constitutes, conservatively, 85% of Muslims is derived from the word sunnah, meaning “habit,” “custom,” or “tradition.”  Today, Sunnis are typically more ritualistic than the Shi’a, as you probably noticed in their Five Pillars in my post yesterday.

Shi’a is an abbreviation of Shia-ne-Ali (followers of Ali).  Essentially, Shi’a means “follower,” and, as a result, their works tend to emphasize the teachings of the Imams (the direct descendants of Ali).  Now, there are disputes among Shias about who the rightful Imam was/is, the majority believing in the Occultation (in essence, Muhammad al-Mahdi’s disappearance in 941, to return at an unknown date).  Because so much of their faith is based on theological writings, rather than tradition, Shi’a belief tends to be a little more analytical and systematic than Sunni (I’m painting with really broad strokes here).

So, there’s a number of other theological differences between Sunnis and Shias that I’m going to try to quickly sum up here (they can’t be quickly summed up).  As we mentioned yesterday, Shias do not believe that they will actually see Allah when they go to heaven.  There are also some differences in prayer.  Sunnis cross their arms while they pray, but Shias keep their hands by their sides.  Additionally the five times a day thing for Sunnis doesn’t apply to Shias; Shias condense it all into three times a day.  Most of the leading Sunni scholars are now dead, and modern-day Sunnis do most of their theological work either with the Qu’ran itself, the Hadiths, or with the writings of prominent Sunni scholars, but the Sunnis lack a central body of “theological government” like the Shias have.  The Marja’ (often called Grand Ayatollahs) are the highest rank in the Shi’a clergy, of whom there are currently 64 (this is not a fixed number).  Below these are the Ayatollahs, and below them are the Muitjahids (essentially, people who have shown enough competency in Islamic jurisprudence so as to form their own opinions).  Mutijahids are not obligated to follow a Marja’, but a Muqallid, (literally, a follower of a Marja’) does not have permission to create his own theological opinions and must follow one more educated and well-versed than himself.

So, next time we’re going to go over how it is that Shi’a survived (which is an interesting story on its own) and why today, the country with the largest Shi’a population in the world is Iran.  As kind of a teaser, here’s a little chart of countries by Shi’a population.

The Shi’a-Sunni Split, Part 1

So this is a delicate subject, and I’m going to try to treat it as such, but before I start, I should note that I am not a Muslim.  As a result, many of my comments will perhaps seem critical of the faith.  Do not misconstrue it as such, but simply know that this is my view of the matter, and I find that there is a concerning lack of understanding of how and why this split happened.  Today, we’re just going to be laying the groundwork for the split, going through the Battle of the Camel (you’ll know what that means by the end) and covering some basics of Islamic theology such as the Umma.  By the end of this series hopefully you’ll understand the basics of the Shi’ite-Sunni split, as well as a little about other major groups such as the Ibadi and Sufi.  A short disclaimer here, I learned most of what I know of Islam from Sunnis, and what I know of the Shi’a comes from my own research.  As a result, I might phrase things in a way that sounds a little Sunni-esque.  This is not intentional, it’s just the way I learned it.  There will be no images (aside from one diagram) used for these posts out of respect for the Islamic faith.

So, let’s begin.  Islam teaches about much of what would be considered the Judeo-Christian Old Testament.  Adam, Noah, Abraham, and others are all mentioned in the Qu’ran, and Muhammad, in many ways, viewed himself as the last in a succession of prophets going back to more or less the creation of man.  On the other hand, Muhammad viewed himself quite differently than the others, for it was his message by which people would be saved.  As a result, all Muslims recite the Shahada “the testimonial word,” that declares, “There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God.”  Typically, the Muslim god is called “Allah” in English, but Allah simply means “God” in Arabic.  From here on out, I’ll be using Allah to reference the Muslim deity.

Along with Shahada, Sunnis believe Muhammad mandated four other principal teachings, which are today known as the “Five Pillars of Islam.”  These are:

Shahada.  An almost mantra-like expression of faith, upon which the believer is to meditate.  This is the first step one takes in order to become a Muslim.

Salat.  This is the Islamic tradition of prayer, which consists of five daily prayers – Fajr, Dhuhr, ‘Asr, Maghrib, and ‘Isha.  These prayers may be performed anywhere, but if available, prayer in a mosque is best.

Zakat.  One of the originally most attractive features about Islam is charity.  Today, Muslims donate more to charity than any other active faith, and in the highly stratified society that Muhammad presented his message in, this resonated with people.  Like Salat, Zakat breaks down into five basic parts: on must declare one’s to Allah his intent to give, the zakat must be given on the day it is due, afterwards one may not exaggerate one’s spending, the giver must give zakat according to what he has, and the zakat must be given in the place where one earned it.

Sawm: Sawm handles the entire Muslim diet, but specifically it refers to ritual fasting, particularly during the month of Ramadan.  This year, Ramadan will start on June 6 and will continue until July 5.  During Ramadan, Muslims may not eat while the sun is still up, although special exceptions are granted by most groups to diabetics, nursing mothers, the old and infirm, etc.

Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca.  This is to be done during the month of Dhu al-Hijjah (will be September 2 to October 2 in 2016), and every Muslim is obliged to do this at least once in their life.  Once within a certain distance of Mecca, the traveler will don the Ihram a simple garment of two white sheets.  Whilst in Mecca, one walks around the Kaaba seven times, touches the Black Stone known as Istilam and symbolically “stones the devil.”

Now, non-Sunnis might phrase the Five Pillars differently, but pretty much none of them would dispute that the Five Pillars are good things to do.  Please note that the Five Pillars of Islam are not listed in the Qu’ran.

Shi’a promotes an alternative set of pillars, which are more theological in nature rather than practical.  Most Shi’ites would say that you need to understand these five tenants before practicing the five Sunni pillars, called Usul-e-Deen.

1. Tawheed: The Oneness of Allah.  This one’s pretty self-explanatory.
2. ‘Adl: The Justice of Allah.  Also, not hard.
3. Nabuwat: Prophethood/Apostleship.  In essence, this is about the nature of the succession of prophets all the way down to Muhammad.
4. Imamat: Leadership (more on this next time, but this is the first difference between Shi’a and Sunni)
5. Mi’ad: The Day of Judgment.  Shi’ites do not believe that they will ever see God.  This is a somewhat contentious issue.

From there, a Muslim may practice Islam with the ten Furu’-e-Deen, which includes the Sunni Five Pillars.  For the sake of brevity, I won’t go into all those, because we have a little history to get to.

Anyway, one of Muhammad’s most attractive teachings was the Umma – that when one becomes a Muslim, one’s old identity is gone and one is absorbed into the new tribe and nation of Allah.  For a man from arguably the most powerful Arab tribe (the Quraysh) to offer membership to all in his tribe was revolutionary, and although Arab tribal identity did not evaporate overnight (largely due to some events we’ll cover next time), Islam and the Umma offered something that the traditional faiths could not – unity.

After Muhammad died, people began to realize that he hadn’t really left much of a succession plan.  Like I said before, this is not meant to be a critique of Muhammad; it’s just an observation.  Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s good friend, became the first Caliph in 632, upon the Prophet’s death, but he died two years later, leaving the Caliphate to Umar.  Under Umar, Islam experienced its most rapid growth, sweeping over Palestine and Egypt, but upon his death in 644, it was less clear as to who should be the new Caliph.  Ali ibn Abi Talib was Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, but he was passed over for Uthman ibn Affan.  Uthman, fair or not, was increasingly viewed as nepotistic, and on July 17, 656, he was murdered by a mob of protestors.

Muhammad, Uthman, and Ali’s Family Tree.  Their names are in purple.

What followed is known as the First Fitna.  After the death of Uthman, the Umayyad clan desired to keep the Caliphate within their line.  Ali, however, contended that the Banu Hashim clan (both his and Muhammad’s clan) held the superior claim.  Muawiyah, the de facto leader of the Umayyads, viewed Ali as having been complicit in the death of Uthman.  While Muawiyah assembled his forces in Syria, Aisha, Muhammad’s widow, took an army of 30,000 to Basra, where she was met by Ali.  In the ensuing battle, Aisha was counseled to mount the camel and ride through the battle (hence the name “Battle of the Camel” to get the men to stop fighting one another.  Aisha’s forces crowded around the camel to keep their leader safe, but Ali’s forces managed to cut the back legs of the camel, and Aisha fell from her mount.  She fled, only to be captured by Ali.

Ali pardoned her, but Aisha would never again involve herself in politics.  Although the situation seemed to have calmed itself, the lines had already been drawn between to camps in the Islamic world.  The full Shi’ite-Sunni split had not yet fully begun, but the gap between the two factions could not be resewn.

To be continued… 🙂

The Robber Council and the Monophysite Controversy

With the legalization of Christianity under Constantine I and its subsequent transformation into an organized religion at the Council of Nicaea in 325, Christian doctrine came under more intense scrutiny and debate than ever before; unfortunately, the people making the decisions regarding doctrine were not always the best-versed theologians themselves.  This was mostly because the Emperor was regarded as a spiritual leader, subject to the authority of no cleric.

When Theodosius II began his solo reign in 416, the church was experiencing a number of controversies regarding the nature of Jesus, and his appointment of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople only worsened matters.  Theodosius was no theologian, and, with a certain interpretation of his life, was not very intelligent in general.  While travelling in Syria, he heard Nestorius’ preaching and was very impressed, so upon the death of Sisinnus, the old Patriarch, Theodosius appointed the charismatic Nestorius.  Nestorius, as it turned out, had many unorthodox beliefs – including his belief that Jesus was not actually the Son of God.  Rather, he posited that the Son of God and Jesus – a normal guy – were simply united in the same body, and, when necessary, the Son of God would take over.  Most of the time, though, Jesus was simply doing his thing as a normal, if more moral than average, man.  In 431, the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, called for a church council to condemn Nestorius, and the ensuing proceedings of the First Council of Ephesus confirmed Nestorius as a heretic.  Nestorius was condemned as a heretic, along with several other church leaders.

The controversy was not over yet, however, and Theodosius was arguably the least qualified man to resolve it.   Theodosius had the additional problem of having a “heretic” for a wife in Aelia Eudocia, and she and Theodosius’ vehemently orthodox sister Pulcheria constantly vied for influence over the emperor.  Meanwhile, a new heterodoxy was forming in the shape of Monophysitism.

Typical diagram of Monophysite doctrine

This might seem like splitting hairs (and it probably is), but to the people at the time, it was incredibly important.  The Monophysites claimed that any understanding of Jesus as having two distinct natures is in and of itself heretical, and they attempted a sort of a coup against the “religious establishment” (the bishops of Constantinople, Rome, and Antioch) in the Second Council of Ephesus.  Theodosius approved the proceedings under the Monophysite Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril’s successor Dioscorus, and Bishop of Rome Leo I (also known as “the Great” for reasons I don’t really have time to go into here), Patriarch Flavianus, and Bishop Domnus of Antioch were all condemned by the Council, but before any action could be taken, Theodosius died, and Pulcheria became the new “empress.”  By law, she could not be the actual ruler, but she could choose to marry someone who would become the new emperor.

Pulcheria viewed the Second Council of Ephesus, as most modern scholars and theologians do, as an attempt by the southern clergy to take over a church that unto that point had been heavily dominated by the Greeks, and her first order of business was to reverse its verdicts as quickly as possible.  As a result, she married the general Marcian, who immediately set about undoing the “Robber Council.”

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the mainline Christian doctrine regarding the “Hypostatic Union” (the synthesis between God and Man in the body of Jesus) was clarified, and almost all Christian sects adhere to it to this day, save the Coptic Church and a few other eastern churches.  For her efforts to correct the doctrine, Pulcheria was later canonized by the Catholic Church.  The debate was not to end here, however, as Dioscorus refused to accept the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon (to this day, the Coptic Church describes itself as “Non-Chalcedonian”).  The great Byzantine Emperor Justinian attempted to solve the controversy by calling the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, but the council ultimately devolved into condemning those who condemned Cyril of Alexandria.  The topic of Christology (the study of the nature of Jesus) would remain dormant for almost a hundred years – largely because of the number of existential threats to the Empire that arose in those days with the invasion of the Avars from Central Asia and increasing pressure from the Persians to the East.

The Byzantine-Persian War of 602-628 was, in essence, the final victory of the Byzantines over the Sassanid dynasty in Persia, which had, for years, been a menace on the eastern border.  The war raged back and forth, pushing the Byzantines to the brink, but a coup staged by Heraclius against Phocas the Usurper placed the Empire under more effective leadership and allowed Byzantium to, eventually, be victorious over the Persians.  Heraclius’ popularity was at an all time high in the 630s because of Persia’s subsequent implosion and its subjugation by the Rashidun Islamic Caliphate.  The Byzantine people did not yet appreciate how dangerous the Caliphate would become, and Heraclius seems to have understood them as some funny sect of Judaism.

Heraclius attempted to leverage his popularity, however, by positing “solutions” to the Christological debate.  His first attempt was “Monoenergism.”  He simply said that Jesus’ nature was simply one “energy,” which was left up to the reader to interpret.  Serious scholars immediately criticized this doctrine as a political cop-out, so in 638, Heraclius switched his view to “Monothelitism,” which said that the seemingly contradictory natures of Jesus were united by a single Telos, meaning “purpose” or “goal.”  In this context it is often translated as “will;” however, fierce opposition from Rome never allowed this doctrine to take root, and in 641, Heraclius died, and the main proponent of Monothelitism was gone.

Ultimately the issue of Christology was largely resolved, inasmuch as it has been, by political events.  Around the time of Heraclius’ death, Egypt fell to the expanding Caliphate, and suddenly, the Monophysite Copts (another term for “Egyptian Christian” which has now become an official denomination of Christianity) were more concerned with the survival of their faith than they were with Christology.  Monothelitism fell out of favor with the common people, and it was eventually condemned by another ecumenical council in 680.

Ultimately, as with many theological issues, the Monophysite debate became too entangled with politics to maintain any scholastic legitimacy, and because of this, it never became the honest discussion it should have been, considering its importance to Christian theology.  Nowadays, it’s mostly done in hair-splittingly detailed debates at seminaries, but it’s interesting to note how debates like these tend to unfold.  For more reading on this, look up Procopius (he’ll mostly handle that space between the Council of Chalcedon and Heraclius) and Dionysus Exiguus.