Normally I would curse you for your incommodious edits, but I've developed a soft spot, considering you've acknowledged my correctness. I think I'll just savor this moment.
Well, the Safavids knew they had lost, and recognized all authority and influence had been drained from them. Most of the Shi'ites in existence at the time lived under their dominion. The Ottomans, more or less, left them alone, to which stagnation and declination occurred. Iran was in a weak position for centuries, which is why the current Islamic Republic, while controversial (even amongst Muslims), has done its undeniable part in rejuvenating and revitalizing the Shi'ite and Iranian power (by non-violent means to its neighbours).
Hmm so between 1500 something and 1900 something Iran was a weak declining power? How does that explain that they were relatively the most highly educated country at the time of Ottoman decline? So it would seem that Shah Ismail did a lot of damage, 300-400 years worth. Its odd that after the Safavids, the Iranians were ruled by the Qajars who were also Turkic in origin. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Uh...what?! Following the events I detailed, Iran was weak and vulnerable. I have never read that they were a "highly educated country" (what do we measure that by, anyway?), but it doesn't change the fact that Iran had been weak for centuries before the modern Republic. If education means strength, then even Cuba could potentially be a superpower (see their astonishingly high literacy rates).
I don't see how you have said anything different from what I posted. The split was there, as you and SAM and anyone else who looks at the situation can plainly see, for a long time before the Western powers came along and took advantage of it. The Muslim religion has split, in the past, and there is nothing preventing it from splitting again in the future, as the Islamic world adjusts to modern science and economic reality.
I disagree, I think we will always have a variety of opinions about religion within Islam. I do not think that any split will ever be permanent. Personally I was not able to pick out the Shias from the Sunnis at Mecca.
How many centuries counts as "permanent" ? Has any significant split - the Sufis, the Bahais - ever disappeared without the deaths of its adherents ? Religions split as they grow and survive. All of them. Can you pick out the Catholics from the Protestants in Jerusalem ? They have no trouble picking each other out in Belfast, or Baghdad.
Of course. e.g. when the al Azhar university included the Shia madhabs into an originally Sunni only university and passed a fatwa saying there was nothing illegitimate about being a Shia. This was 300 years after Shah Ismail. So I'd say the split will disappear when it will become meaningless. Not if they accept that syncretism is better for society, Hinduism being a good example. I probably could not pick out the Catholics from the Muslims, which supports what I said. Oh? How do they pick out a Shia from a Sunni in Baghdad? And vice versa?
And I'd say don't bet the mortgage. The answer is not "of course" based on what you think is certain to happen one of these centuries; the answer is no, none of the several splits in Islam have reformed and disappeared. And from the looks of things in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, we might be headed for serious religious violence - again - in the Middle East. What happens when the common Satanic enemy of all Muslims fades in influence, the Central Asian oil centers gain more influence and put more force behind their sectarian (say Taliban) beliefs, and China moves in with agenda of its own ?
Why predict? Why not see what is happening now? Saudi Arabia hires Stanford University to start a western style university in the kingdom; the king also plans an economic city and makes a move of reconciliation towards Ahmedinejad and invites him for Hajj, Iran makes a move to help Iraq with a ceasefire, China and India both remain neutral and sign pacts with both sides, the Russians will go with the Chinese on most things since China has contracts with them for the next 50 years. Dubai and Kuwait buy out large chunks of LSE and NYSE and plan on becoming the next financial centers or at least compete with them. They have credit economy proof banking to start with, which London and New York are both interested in modifying and developing. Saudi Arabia starts its own Guantanamo but with a moe reform oriented flavor rather than torture and subjugation. Pretty good stuff so far, if you ask me. Now if we can only get the Americans out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and preferably far away from East European countries where they want to set up their "defensive" missile stations.
It is in your predictions that the currently visible and obvious splits in the Islamic religion reconcile and merge. What is happening now is that Muslims are living in the inheritanceof a few religious splittings from the original Islam. One can predict good, or evil, or more likely a mixture, from these sectarian divisions in the faith. And you find all this somehow different from religious splits in general ?
Its like my Korean friend tells me, "We keep hearing from the Americans how much we hate the North Koreans; its all news to us"
Tell that to the Baghdad dispossessed. Or the worshippers at the Golden Dome of Samarra. The Catholics and Lutherans don't hate each other in my area. They don't even in Ireland, in most places. But there is a split, in Christianity. It has in the past, and may in the future, lend itself to political manipulation, support violence, etc. There is no assumption of hatred here. It's just an observation: Islam (like other religions) has split - more than once. The Bahais and the Sufis don't necessarily hate or suffer hatred, but they are not and will not become without conversion Wahabis. The Shia and the Sunni are not members of the same denomination or sect ("sect", from the act of cutting or splitting), and no ecumenical civility and common cause at times and places will change that.
Like I said, the divide and rule policy really stinks. The Hindu Muslim partition in India, the Sinhalese-Tamil divide in Sri Lanka, the Sunni-Shia split in places like Afghanistan, the Christian-Muslim divide in Sudan, the Catholic-Protestant divide in Ireland, all imposed by policy, shows how insidisious such movements can be and how long lasting their effects. What we need is to get rid of the influence of countries that arm and fund smaller groups within a country to foment civil wars. Or at least to increase awareness of their manipulation of the people. Sufism is not a Madhab, its just training in mysticism, Sufis can be Sunnis or Shias. Wahabbism too is not a separate order, its just what we call the Saudi system, the Bahais are a different matter, they insist they are not Muslims, but al Azhar says they are.
Wow, it's been forever since I checked in here. As to the question of whether Baha'is are an offshoot of Islam, I would say this: 1. Baha'is don't consider themselves Muslims any more than Christians think they are Jews. 2. Muslims look to the Qu'ran first. Baha'is don't...they have their own Scriptures. 3. Baha'is use a different calendar and have different holy days. 4. Baha'is do perform hajj, but to Haifa and Bahji...not Mecca. 5. Baha'is believe Muhammad is a Prophet, but not the last one. They will look to what Baha'u'llah said first just like a Christian would look to what Jesus said before they looked to Moses. I hope this helps.
Well then - welcome back Booko Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'd agree - Baha'ism seems to be a major split and now a completely new religion while the Sunni and Shia appears minor, along with many of the other divisions in basic beleif. Islam is no different than any other belief system in this regards. Michael
Not only do these Muslims consider these other "Muslims" not to be Muslim, they burned down their mosque today: Muslims set fire to mosque belonging to Ahmadiyya sect.
I often have to wonder, if Islam is a religion of peace and supposedly supports the notion of "Universality" then why would Muslims burn down the mosque of some other Muslims just because they want to teach a beleif in something very slightly different? They still follow the basic guidelines and the God and most of the same Prophets. But this isn't good enough? They have to be 100% identical? Why? And why would the government ban a religion like the Ahmadiyya? Could the concepts of monotheism, "perfect" books and "last" prophets be at the philosophical root of all this 'burn, burn' and 'kill, kill' mentality? Seems so, Michael Seems pretty bad when even Muslims are afraid of Muslims :bugeye: That really says something ... doesn't it?
Thank you! Just a quibble, but the proper name is Baha'i Faith. Baha'ism is an old name that turns up in references from a century ago. Well, the Baha'is have yet to encounter any lasting sectarian divisions, but they're young so it's too early to consider that any sort of permanent feature. To answer this question, it may be helpful to look at the histories of other religions as well. Consider the Reformation in Western Europe, for one example. Earlier on in the history of Christianity, Christians actually killed each other over the tiniest differences in Trinitarian doctrine. To say "Islam is a religion of peace" is to refer to its foundation found in the Qu'ran and what it says. One could say the same of the Gospel itself, of course. But it would appear from an examination of religious history that no matter if the Founder taught peace people do manage to rationalize that away if they wish. I wouldn't say it has no effect, as it may well make an existing bad situation worse, because it's easier to justify the violence. However, I don't see that as the cause of the violence. Here we go back to the earlier question of the Baha'is. They're definitely monotheistic, believe their books are perfect (well, it's not a term Baha'is would use...they would say "most accurate"). OK, so they don't say their prophet is the "last" -- but that isn't an issue in interdenominational violence anyway. So despite all those things in common with Islam, you don't see violence. Perhaps it's something else then? My suggestion for causes would be to look more carefully at issues of money and power. When there's killing going on, either for quasi-religious grounds or purely political ones, or even cultural ones, usually it's one or both of those in play. In the case of oppressing the Ahmadiyya, it may be just a matter of "market share," though of course it will all be couched in terms of "apostates" and "kufir," quite possibly even within the minds of the leaders spurring the violence. Human self-delusion is a dangerous and all too common phenomenon. Muslims are not immune any more than the rest of us. Consider the actions of the Iranian mullas in this context also. Anyone who steps beyond their "beliefs" will also be persecuted. They have a lock on power and they mean to keep it. It's really nothing new -- it's been that way pretty much for at least the last couple of centuries. All it says to me is that Islam has now (regrettably) arrived at the same point in their history as the Christians did a few centuries before. Hm...now what were the Christians up to after 14 centuries? Oh...about the same thing Muslims are going through now. Hah, sometimes it seems like you could almost put a note on your calendar to expect this stuff. But there is a bright side here...just as Christians largely pulled themselves out of the Reformation violence, so too will the Muslims pull themselves out of this low point in its history.
