Introduksi
Daftar Arsip
Indeks Arsip
Kompilasi Arsip
Fan Pages
Komentar
Free E-Book
ISLAMIC HISTORY
41. How did Islam spread throughout the world?
This process varied depending on the location and historical period. Islam in its early years unified the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, and this new unity led to conflict with the nearest major powers, the Byzantine and Persian empires. The result was a major spread of Muslim rule and the establishment of a Muslim empire; but Muslim rulers in this empire did not force, and often did not even encourage, conversion to Islam.
Conversion to Islam, even in areas under the control of Muslims, was a gradual process that took place over many centuries and was fostered through interaction, intermarriage, trade, and efforts by Sufis (spiritual seekers). Professor Ira Lapidus in his book, A History of Islamic Societies writes: “The question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary.” (p. 198)
In areas like Indonesia (now the largest Muslim-majority country) and other parts of Southeast Asia, Islam spread mostly through traveling merchants and Sufis. In sub-Saharan Africa (mostly West Africa, but also parts of Ethiopia), Islam spread mostly through trade and commercial relations. Rulers would sometimes adopt Islam while much of the population continued to practice their traditional religions. In many areas currently or formerly ruled by Muslims, large segments of the population have maintained their ancestral religions. For example, Christians are a significant minority in largely Muslim Lebanon, and Hinduism remained a majority faith through centuries of Muslim rule in South Asia.
This is not to say that Muslims have never violated the principle stated in the Qur’an that “there is no compulsion in religion.” Some forced conversions occurred, for example, in the Horn of Africa during the 17th-century wars between Christian Ethiopians and Muslim Somalis, as they did in other times and places.
Today we believe that forced conversions or denying the religious rights of people of other faiths are as much a violation of Islamic principles as the forced conversion of the Germanic tribes under Charlemagne or the forced conversions of Native Americans or enslaved Africans are seen as violations of Christian principles in the eyes of most modern Christians.
SUNNI AND SHIA DIVISION
42. What is the main difference between Sunnis and Shi’as?
The majority of both Sunnis and Shi’as share the core beliefs of Islam—the oneness of God and the prophethood of Muhammad—and adhere to the Five Pillars.
Historically, the difference originated from the question of succession after the death of the Prophet Muhammad and is related to differing views about appropriate leadership for the Muslim community. While both the majority of Sunnis and Shi’as assign special status to and revere the descendants and family of the Prophet Muhammad, Shi’as believe that succession to the spiritual and political rule of the Muslim community lies only with the family and certain descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Specifically, Shi’as believe that God chose Muhammad’s cousin Ali, who was married to his daughter Fatima, to be the Prophet Muhammad’s successor, and that Muhammad indicated this before his death. In support of their position Shi’as reference a sermon by the Prophet Muhammad shortly before his death at a place called Ghadir Khumm, in which he stated “to whomsoever I am mawla, Ali is also their mawla.” The point of contention is the meaning of the word mawla; the Sunni interpretation of mawla here is “friend,” whereas the Shi’a interpretation is “master,” which includes political leadership. Shi’as also view Ali as the first in a line of Imams, or preeminent religious leaders, whom they regard as the spiritual and political successors to Muhammad.
In contrast, Sunnis believe that that the Muslim community was free to choose the most qualified person as ruler and that Muhammad did not appoint any particular person as his political successor, although he lauded his kinsmen, descendants, and companions as the spiritual heirs of his teachings.
This difference in interpretation affected not only political leadership but also the development of Islamic theology, as each group had different methods of exegetical approach to the Qur’an and different criteria for authenticating Hadith. The main differences between them today are their sources of knowledge and religious leadership. In addition to the Qur’an and Hadith, the Shi’as rely on the rulings of their Imams and resulting variations in beliefs and practices.
43. How and when did the division occur between Sunnis and Shi’as?
The Sunni and Shi’a schism began as a dispute over political succession and eventually evolved into a theological one as well, not unlike the schism of 1054 between the Eastern and Western Churches.
Shi’as maintained that the right of succession for the leadership of the nascent Muslim community after the death of the Prophet Muhammad went to Ali, the cousin and son in-law of Muhammad, while Sunnis believed that the choice of Abu Bakr, father in-law and close confidant of Muhammad, and of the subsequent two caliphs or rulers was valid. When Ali was finally chosen as the fourth caliph or ruler, his rule was short-lived, and after his death his rival Muawiyyah quickly asserted his power and established Umayyad rule.
Many practices of the Umayyad dynasty, which had adopted a pattern of rule and succession that was starkly at odds with that of the Prophet Muhammad and the early caliphs, disturbed many Muslims, which led to a number of revolts by various groups. One of these revolts was led by Hussein, Ali’s son and the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. When Hussein, who is revered by both Shi’as and Sunnis alike, was brutally killed along with many of his family members by the Umayyads at Karbala in Iraq, this crystallized the belief among supporters of Ali (Alids) that governance should have remained with the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Subsequent attempts to overthrow the Umayyads by another son of Ali and by others such as Abd ‘Allah ibn al-Zubayr, a grandson of the first caliph Abu Bakr, were unsuccessful until the Abbasid revolution in 750. While the Alids had supported the Abbasids, another branch of the Prophet’s family, believing that they would turn over rule to the Alid line, they were soon disappointed when the Abbasids claimed rule for themselves. In response, the Alids fomented a number of small and unsuccessful rebellions. Under increasing repression by the Abbasids, their political movement took on a more theological character.
The term “Shi’at Ali,” or “the faction of Ali,” at some point became merely Shi’a while the term “Sunni” came to include those who agreed upon the validity of the rule of all of the first four caliphs. While today there are theological differences between these two major Islamic sects, they are in agreement on the cardinal points of faith and practice.
44. Why is there so much conflict between Sunnis and Shi’as today? Does the conflict impact Muslim Americans?
Much of the conflict between Sunnis and Shi’as is more political than religious. For instance, in Iraq before the Second Gulf War, Sunnis dominated the government. After the war, rule was shifted to Shi’as, and this has produced tensions that have often been exploited by extremists on both sides.
In three Arab Spring countries (Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain), the sectarian divide has also been among the many factors playing a role in the conflicts, but the conflicts began for the same political and social reasons that they erupted in other Arab Spring nations. In Syria, the current ruler Bashar Assad and his father Hafez Assad belong to a minority Shi’a sect that has ruled for decades over a majority Sunni population. Assad’s allies are Shi’a—Iran and Hizbollah—who want to keep the status quo, while Saudi Arabia and Turkey—Sunnis—have supported the opposition. So while the two sides appear to be divided along sectarian lines, the conflict there is more a fight between an oppressive dictator and his political opponents than a specifically religious conflict.
In Yemen, the Shi’a-Sunni divide has also played a role, with Saudi Arabia and Iran also supporting opposing sides in the ongoing war there. In Bahrain the Shi’a minority has protested the Sunni government, often suffering repression as a result.
Shi’a-Sunni conflict in Pakistan has its roots in the ruling party’s political exploitation of sectarianism to win the favor of Sunni religious authorities at the expense of the Shi’a minority who continue to suffer from persecution.
While these conflicts are of concern to Muslim Americans who have family in the countries involved, the sectarian conflict has not impacted the larger Muslim American community, in part because Sunni and Shi’a leaders in this country have made concerted efforts to prevent discord and demonstrate unity.
No comments :