The need to differentiate between theological Shi'ism & Historic Shi'ism

[beardedbaker]

 

This is Seyyed Kamal's view on the importance to differentiate between what he calls tashayu' 'aqaedi (theological shiism), and tashayu' tareekhi (historic shiism):

When looking at all the different theological schools that exist today (school of Ahlul Bayt, Ash'ari, Mu'tazali, Zaidi, school of Ibn Taymiyah, etc), we must look at the sources they resort to to deduce their religious concepts, which are:

1) The Quran (the word of God), and

the valid hadith/narrations (words and deeds of the Infallibles) 

2) The Intellect ('aql): not what we use as a tool to think and understand (even the akhbari accepts this meaning of aql), but as a means to produce new knowledge.

=> this is what he refers to as theological Shi'ism: When a scholar refers to these sources of scripture and uses his intellect to define religious concepts and derive his theological, ethical, social, fiqh framework.

 

Whereas historic Shi'ism can be defined as: all that which past scholars have deduced and derived over the years. This resulted in differing views and opinions and sub-sects. All these differing opinions came as a result of these scholars understanding of the quranic verses and narrations, and their ijtihad and effort to derive their own religious concepts and juristic rulings.  

 

So which is the true Shi'ism? The one that contains the opinions of scholars spanning 14 centuries? If that was the case, then Shi'ism would be filled with contradictions, since nobody can claim that our school of thought contains one united view.

 

The need to differentiate between the two is to make clear that the first (theological shiism) is the main source of reference, and the second has no value. There is no compulsion to be in line with the consensus of past scholars. He might agree or disagree with them (theologically, ethically, fiqhi, etc). The understanding and opinions of scholars is not binding on anybody. You should rely on quranic and valid hadith evidence, and the mind that God gave you to build your worldview, and provide solutions to current problems. 

 

All past scholars and their views are respected, but not sacred. There are no red lines, or established facts when it comes to opinions of scholars. The Quran is sacred. The word of the infallible is sacred, nothing else. 

 

The reason he brought this up in his private lesson, is because there are some who are tampering with the seminary lectures- where he mostly goes through the opinions of other scholars, and only later on s his own opinion- and  are creating clips where they make out his opinion to be that of other scholars, and other shenanigans. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[guest050817]

MashAllah excellent topic.

I have got to pick up my arabic - so many wonderful resources are in fusah arabic.

[Ruq]

1 hour ago, beardedbaker said:

The understanding and opinions of scholars is not binding on anybody. You should rely on quranic and valid hadith evidence, and the mind that God gave you to build your worldview, and provide solutions to current problems. 

 

I wish the the system could overhaul the way it interacts with laypeople. At the moment they dont seek to better educate the public, they just give their opinions without much context or references. Sometimes they dismiss your question altogether because (they say) it isnt relevant to modern times (i had a reply like this from Ayat. Sistani's office when i asked a question about slavery). Surely the job of a 'person of knowledge' is to disseminate that knowledge to raise the the awareness levels of people who arent fortunate enough to of been exposed to that information. This is profoundly disempowering and imo simply not justifiable in this day and age. The offices of the different maraji could select the 30 most asked questions, for instance, and give a detailed explanation for the conclusions expressed in the fatwas pertaining to those questions on their websites with references to Quran and hadith, plus answers to any objections that have been given also. That kind of transparency would be very welcome and healthy.

[Al-Englisi]

Bismillah

Important it is, but you're fooling yourself if you think that we can come up with any consensus regarding theological Shiism. If the difference is supposed to be 'contradictions vs no-contradictions' most people are still going to come up with different and contradicting results from even those sources - making it almost impossible to come up with a definite form (defined structure) which can truly be said to represent the aqaa'id of the Shia. Sure you can get some basic and fundamental premises that everyone agrees on, but even that is in it's most general sense - the details in those will also be debated. Tawhid, Prophethood, Quran, Imamate - certain attributes of the infallible guides (don't sin, can't misguide) - but you get left with a bare minimum version of beliefs (which is not necessarily problematic).  

 

My question is, what would be different with this approach, although this view is shared by many and not particular to one Shia scholar. 

 

Currently, i'm of the understanding that we should only preach the bare minimum ideas and necessary elements of the faith, and after that, think of a different method regarding the teaching of finer details. 

[beardedbaker]

You missed the point of this clip. Consensus isn't a goal of this school. It thrives and grows through ijtihad,which has virtually stopped in the last 2 centuries. Almost every scholar is an imitator these days. Only a handful, Seyyed Kamal being one of them, are producing knowledge in vast amounts through their own reading and understanding of the available reference sources. They have their own methodology, their own world view, and their own opinion on how to solve contemporary problems, problems past scholars didn't face or experience. 

[Al-Englisi]

^ There must be something which can be defined as 'true Shiism'. What is the criterion for that? If the method and results will be the same as historic Shiism, then whats the point of dividing it into two types?

 

If every scholar is allowed to come to their own view about Shia beliefs, and each is held to their ijtehad - then what is problem with what you mentioned in the below quotation:

"Whereas historic Shi'ism can be defined as: all that which past scholars have deduced and derived over the years. This resulted in differing views and opinions and sub-sects. All these differing opinions came as a result of these scholars understanding of the quranic verses and narrations, and their ijtihad and effort to derive their own religious concepts and juristic rulings."

 

I'm trying to think what Sayyid Kamal means by these words (i haven't watched the video, going off your comments).

"The need to differentiate between the two is to make clear that the first (theological shiism) is the main source of reference, and the second has no value."

 

Why is he speaking about this as if it's an already well defined set of beliefs? 

According to your notes, for 'theological Shiism', the scholar uses Quran, authentic narrations and the intellect (`aql). 

But you also define 'historic Shiism' as "all that which past scholars have deduced and derived over the years. This resulted in differing views and opinions and sub-sects. All these differing opinions came as a result of these scholars understanding of the quranic verses and narrations, and their ijtihad and effort to derive their own religious concepts and juristic rulings."

 

What's the practical difference?

Also, Just because Sayyid Kamal doesn't always mention who he's getting his view from, does not mean he is not an imitator, he may not just imitate one person, but let's not attribute the production of knowledge to Sayyid Kamal - he is describing the ideas already spoken about by other scholars (hence the knowledge is already produced). _ But this is not the point of the thread so let's not make it personal about Sayyid Kamal. 

[beardedbaker]

He wasn't trying to point out the practical difference of how each scholar derives his understanding. I thought that was obvious from the last couple of paragraphs. What has happened is that opinions of scholars have become sacred and red lines not to be crossed, and therefore the line between what defines the sect and scholarly ijtihad is being blurred. 

[Al-Englisi]

I'm not attacking the point Sayyid Kamal is bringing up, i think it's very important that be spoken about, and props for him for bring of those scholars who discuss these issues. My questions is - what are the lines that define the sect? and is the sect even 'defined' in a particular way?

The scholars becoming red-lines and untouchables, is a different problem and obstacle, which i don't wish to discuss at this point. 

[beardedbaker]

6 hours ago, Al-Englisi said:

I'm not attacking the point Sayyid Kamal is bringing up, i think it's very important that be spoken about, and props for him for bring of those scholars who discuss these issues. My questions is - what are the lines that define the sect? and is the sect even 'defined' in a particular way?

The scholars becoming red-lines and untouchables, is a different problem and obstacle, which i don't wish to discuss at this point. 

I didn't say you were attacking him.

This thread is about your second point, not the question you posed.

The Sunni school is in a worse state, since their era of ijtihad began at the Saqifah #1. It only ended after the ruling elite decided that too many fiqh schools was detrimental to their rule (there existed tens of fiqh schools), so we ended up with the 4 or 5 madhhabs we have today. 

A perfect way to achieve Islamic unity (one Ummah as the Quran demands): put the historic aspects of sunnism and shiism to one side (opinions of past scholars), and let's work on theological Islam with the Quran and the narrations we all agree on and intellectual research as our means to get there.

Edited January 25, 2016 by beardedbaker