Skip to main content

On Sectarianism in Islam

As time progresses from a religion's birth, it is more likely for a religion to split into several different sects as per the different interpretations and teachings that come about in these times, on the part of several religious figures in a particular religion. We have seen many Christian divisions - Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, among others - as well as several Jewish divisions - Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, among others - and even divisions in Islam like the Sunnites and Shi'ites.

However, the sectarian division of Islam in its later years was prophesized and explained by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself.
"Awf ibn Malik reported that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said, 'The Jews split into 71 sects: one will enter Paradise and 70 will enter Hell. The Christians split into 72 sects: 71 will enter Hell and one will enter Paradise. By Him in Whose hand is my soul, my Ummah will split into 73 sects: one will enter Paradise and 72 will enter Hell.' Someone asked, 'O Messenger ofAllah (Peace be upon him), who will they be?' He replied, 'The main body of the Muslims (al-Jama'ah).' Awf ibn Malik is the only one who reported this Hadith, and its isnad is acceptable." And in another version of this Hadith the Prophet (Peace be upon him) goes onto say that the saved sect, "...Are those who follow my and my Sahaba's path" (Tirmidhi, vol. 2, pg. 89)
This is just one of the same set of prophecies as explained by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This should not be surprising: at each time in a certain religion's history, a "pioneer" comes about with his own interpretation of a certain religion. For example, Muslims in Turkey have brought about the Sufi sect of Islam. Those in Lebanon have brought about the Druze sect, though it is strongly argued that the Druze are not Muslims or even close to them. Of course, there is also the main sectarian division between the Sunnites and the Shi'ites, who argue that the Archangel Gabriel missed by a mile and should have gone to Ali, who was destined to be the "Last Prophet".

As a Sunnite, I worship God and believe in the Message, the Holy Quran, that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). In that, I believe as well his words and his actions mentioned in the Hadith. And thus, I believe him when he says that his followers, the Orthodox Muslims, or the "Ahl al Sunna wal Jama'ah" are the only ones amongst the Muslim sects that are going to Heaven.

However, the political sects of Islam are being exploited to bring down and disunite the Muslim ummah (community), as is what is happening in Iraq and Lebanon: Sunnites and Shi'ite political sects are being pitted against each other due to underhanded actions on part of the Coalition (in Iraq) and the Israelis (in Palestine, and have a degree of influence on Lebanon). This is not new: sectarianism has always been a source of disunity in the past, as can be seen during the rise of Protestantism, and the case in Northern Ireland. It is also due to the notion that none of the sects will be able to find common grounds in certain cases, as each member of a sect has a conviction that his/her sect is the one that conforms most to their religion's teachings.

I have a handful of friends who are Ahmadi and Shi'ite, and I used to ask them about their beliefs. It just struck me that, in the end, we are all Muslims who worship One God and believe in the Message that was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him), even though we may differ in certain peripheral beliefs. On the other hand, such sectarianism has been the source of political strife and disunity, and only until Muslims realize that the Way of the Ahl-al-Sunna wal Jama'ah is the right path will we be able to destroy all such strife, and return to the Golden Days of Islam, when Muslims were at the forefront of almost everything.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...