daCuk said:
Sorry to derail the conversation, but this is a question to OttomanScribe:
Are there different interpretations (or currents) of the Qu'ran as there are of the Bible (as you can see by the myriads of Christian denominations)? As a person that does not know a lot of Islam, it has always appeared to me as a monolithic-block belief, where basically every believer has the same beliefs, in opposition to Chistianity, where a Catholic thinks way different to a Mormon, and a Jehovah Witness thinks differently of a Right-Wing Pentecostalist?
I would say that in some ways it is a bit more monolithic than most other religions, though there are still points of difference, they exist on a few different levels.
The interpretations are less exclusively about the Qur'an though, as, unlike the Christians, Muslim understandings come from a few different sources, the Qur'an is one of the primary ones, but the others include the Hadith (the sayings and guidance of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and the practices of the Muslim community in Medina in the period of the Salaf (the three generations after the Prophet's passing).
Throughout history, one can identify three main groups, the
mainstream, the
sect and the
schizmatics. The mainstream are the majority of the Muslims, who are Sunni, and generally have a consensus on most things. The sect are the various forms of Shi'ism, which are in a minority and seperate themselves from the mainstream (my Shi'a brothers may disagree on any points I make, as is their right). Their seperation was initially political but ended up being both theological and legal. Then you have the schizmatics, who were originally the Khwarij, literalists who waged war against the Salaf, and in the modern day are represented by the Wahhabist/'Salafi' movement. This group are made up of a minority who declare all others to be monafiqun (hypocrites) or kafirun (non-Muslims), they are often literalist, though not always, in both the law and theology.
Fiqh: Islamic legal jurisprudence known as 'fiqh' (which translates literally as something like 'the right way of doing things' is probably one of the larger points of difference amongst different Muslim groups. The mainstream of the 'Ahlul Sunnah' (the Sunnis) have four different legal schools, though these schools have a consensus on the vast majority of legal issues. A Sunni can, with clear conscience, follow any of the four, and some take rulings from all four (though this is often discouraged). Their points of difference vary, one example would be on whether one can eat prawns, the Hanafi says no, the Shafi'i says yes. These four schools are called the Shafiyya, Hanafiyya, Hanbaliyya and Malikiyya, or the schools of Imam Shafi'i, Imam abu Hanifa, Imam ibn Hanbal and Imam Malik.
They have these names because they are each based upon the legal methodology of a different Muslim scholar. These methodologies account for their differences, an example would be that the Hanafi places great power in the hands of a scholar in terms of independant reasoning, while the Hanbali places far more emphasis on the 'word of the law' in the sense of avoiding at all costs using the reasoning of the scholar. These debates can be seen in modern American constitutional law (word of the law versus intent etcetera).
The Shia't Ali (the sect) are currently quite different on fiqh matters to many Sunnis, they pray quite differently and have different legal positions on many things. Their law is based primarily on the rulings of numerous 'rightly guided Imams' who come from the lineage of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). Some of these Imams are also claimed by the Sunnis lol. Imam Jafar as-Sadiq for example is revered as a great scholar by Sunnis, and as an Imam by Shia. The distinction was thus much less before the coming of the Safavid Empire of Persia. They reject the books of Hadith compiled by the Sunnis, and reject the right of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and (radiAllahu anhu), the first three Caliphs, to make legal decisions.
The schizmatics, the Wahhabi movement, claim a Sunni identity, and some are to a large extent. Their law however is like an extreme version of Hanbali law, for this reason they are often called 'neo-Hanbalis'. They are literalists, both in fiqh and in other forms of thought, and arose in their current form as a rebellion against Ottoman rule, coming out of the Nejd, in what is now Saudi Arabia. They now form a majority in that country, and have influence in many others. They still, thankfully, remain a minority.
One of the main differences I can identify between the three is the transmission of the law. A traditionalist Sunni for example, will take their fiqh from a Sheikh (literally 'old man', a teacher) or a Sheikha. This person will have an 'ijaza' or 'qualification' to teach, given to them from another Sheikh or Sheikha. That Sheikh will have had an ijaza from another, who will have one from another etc. etc. reaching back into the past, finally to the Salaf and the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). An ijaza is not like a university degree, where one can get a bare pass. It is something that one must exemplify and show that they have not only learnt, but have made a practice of that learning.
The Shia, and I can't claim expertise on this, have a system almost similar, though with less intact chains of scholars, that is far more heirarchical. Their Ayatollahs and Imams dictate to others what positions they can hold, and that dictate is to a large extent binding. The means through which this would occur amongst Sunnis would be debate. The Wahhabist movement rejects the idea of the sanad (chains of transmission or scholars) and instead say that anyone who reads enough can become a scholar and give legal advice/rulings.
Aqidah: theology, or aqidah, means literally 'that which is firmly affixed' and refers to core beliefs. The differences between Sunnah, Shia and Wahhabi are not that great at the core of aqidah, though they do diverge at some point.
The two Sunni schools of aqidah are the Ash'ari and the Matarudi. These two groups are almost impossible to distinguish, their differences being in things like their idea of salvation and a few other points. They are visciously against any anthropomorphism (ascribing human ideas to God).
The Shia don't really diverge in their aqidah from the Sunni, though I am not that familiar with the picky points of their theology.
The Wahhabist differ in a major point, their Qur'anic literalism leads them to various points of anthropomorphism, though not neccesarily to the point of unbelief. Verses that refer to the 'right hand' of God for example, are not interpreted by most Sunnis to mean 'God has hands'. Many Wahhabis say that one should take it as it is, that God has hands, these 'hands' are just 'laytha kamithlihi shay' (unlike created things). This is a major point of differnce, the wahhabis say the Sunnis disbelieve and the Sunnis say the same of the Wahhabis. Of course neither group is a monolith, and not all Wahhabis have the same understandings.
Politics: an important thing to note is that politics has played a serious role in the differentiation of the three groups. Shiism has formed a rallying point for those who wish to rebel against the established political authority of the Caliphate. The schizmatics have similarly been a rebllious movement, but their goals have been more about reform than usurping the authority of the Caliph.
I am of the Ahlul Sunnah, so this explanation, long explanation, is very pro-Sunni.. clearly lol. So take that into account. I hope I answered sufficiently. I'm sorry it went on, and I'm only really scraping the surface here, if you have more questions, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to tell you
Of note is that I consider both the Shia and the Wahhabis to be Muslims. The Shia have a problem in that they contradict Allah's command 'don't form sects' and the Wahhabis are problematic in that they make permissable many things that were never permissable, and they attack the great traditions of the Ummah and spread division. That makes them a problem, it doesn't make them non-Muslims
edit: there is another group, the 'progressives' or the 'reformists'. I don't consider them to be of significance, as they diverge from the core of Islamic scholarship to the point where they are almost beyond discussion. These include 'Quran alone': people who reject the hadith and focus exclusively on the Qur'an. They also include the 'Modernist' groups, who look to 'rework' the Sha'riah in the light of technological developments and Western pressure. While there is some good in such movements, in general they are radically secular, and their concept of the religion ends up being worse than even the schizmatics, at least in my opinion.
