Throughout Islamic history, we observe enmity and conflicts between Sunnism and Shiism, nonetheless there has been also reconciliation between these sects. This article examines the opportunities and challenges of Sunni-Shia convergence in Indonesia. Such a picture will reveal a better understanding of the features of Sunni-Shia convergence in the country and their relationship with the notion of ‘Indonesian Islam’. The hostility between Shiism and Sunnism in Indonesia is triggered by misunderstandings between these sects, politicisation of Shiism, as well (...) as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. These constitute the challenges of Sunni-Shia convergence. One may also observe the ventures of Sunni-Shia convergence which have been undertaken by the scholars of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, and other Islamic civil society organisations. Grounding on these enterprises and the enduring elaboration of ‘Indonesian Islam’, the opportunities of and the prospects for Sunni-Shia rapprochement in the country are envisaged. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Der Islam Jahrgang: 93 Heft: 2 Seiten: 460-471.

Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood, Ashʻarism, and Political Sunnism. By Jeffry R. Halverson. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Pp. vii + 188. $75.

Sunnism constitutes eighty percent of the Islamic world. The most academic and renowned religious seminary in the Sunni world is Al-Azhar University in Egypt, and it is from here that most verdicts on novel issues such as human cloning are decreed and disseminated throughout the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds. The perspective of this seminary and of other significant Sunni jurisprudential councils and figures are alluded to throughout this essay. I lay out the method of legal derivation employed by the (...) Sunni clergy and scholars and then illustrate how they have arrived at their prohibition on human cloning. I demonstrate weaknesses of methodology employed by the major Sunni Muftis within the domain of jurisprudence. (shrink)

Sunni or Sunnism stands for Ahlu As-Sunnah wa al-Jamā`ah which is also called ASWAJA. Many people publish and debate it without clear meaning and reference. This article is a demonstrative-linguistic study that outlines the meaning and reference to the term "Sunni" to understand it clearly. This research shows that Sunnis have at least two groups. First, Sunni Ahlu Al- Ḥadīts, the path of Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taimiyyah, which tends to be puritan and at some point raises hardline intolerant (...) Muslims. Second, moderate Sunnis, who opened the space for fiqh schools other than Ibn Hanbal, and chooses to refer to moderate Islamic thinkers, such as Ash-Shāfi'i in fiqh (Islamic law), Al-Asy`ari in kalam (Islamic theology) and Al -Ghazali in Sufism (Islamic mysticism). The two Sunni groups were both Ahlu as-Sunnah wa al-Jamā`ah. The first group tends to embody the phrase Ahlu as-Sunnah wa al-Jamā'ah terminologically (iṣṭilāḥan), while the second group tends to display the phrase linguistically (lughatan). (shrink)

The Umayyad period. The beginnings of sectarianism ; The Khārijites ; The Shīʻtes ; The Murjiʼites and other moderates -- The first wave of Hellenism 750-950. The historical background ; The translators and the first philosophers ; The expansion of Shīʻism ; The Muʻtazilites ; The consolidation of Sunnism ; Al-Ashʻarī -- The second wave of Hellenism 950-1258. The historical background ;The flowering of philosophy ; The vicissitudes of Shīʻism ; The progress of Sunnite theology ; Al-Ghazālī ; Sunnite (...) theology from 1100 to 1250 ; Theology and philosophy in the Islamic west -- The period of darkness. The historical background ; The sclerosis of philosophical theology ; The vitality of the Ḥanbalites ; The transformation of Shīʻism -- The new dawn. The prospect for theology. (shrink)

Māturīdism is an Ottoman identity and this identity was not limited, as is commonly believed, to the last period of the Empire. It maintained its formal existence throughout the Ottoman history. Nevertheless, the context in which the Māturīdism was located or with which it was associated changed in the course of time. In the early period when the eclectic way of thinking was dominant, Māturīdism as a creed was apparent mainly in the jurists whose ascetic identity was prominent and partly (...) in the mystical currents that were essentially continuations of Yasawiyya. At this point, the Bukhara-centered Ḥanafī legal literature played a distinctive role. At the time of Meḥmed II and in the following period during which the philosophical kalām dominated the scene, the Māturīdism was relatively passive and was in search of a position against the Ash‘arism. The new Rāzian paradigm of thought that began to be felt strongly in the Ottoman lands with Meḥmed II as an attempt of integration into the global circulation of knowledge prevented to a certain extent the visibility of Māturīdism. However, even in this period, Māturīdism was remarkably reflected in the muqaddimāt-i arba‘a literature which was directly sponsored by Meḥmed II. The tradition of philosophical kalām in the Ottoman scholarship, just when it was about to yield significant results, was interrupted due to the struggle against the Ṣafawids. Transformation of this political tension, at the same time, into a fight against Shiism also brought about a constriction in the religious thought of the Ottomans. Shiism and its all other variants were bitterly attacked under the main heading of Rāfiḍa. Unfortunately such a refutational approach proved a boomerang and returned in time striking the Ottoman Ṣūfīs who stood near the line of the Ardabil Shrine before its Shiitization. Ḥanafī fatwā literature was used extensively in the refutation texts against Ṣafawids. This brought to the fore at first the Ḥanafite and then the Māturīdite identity. This paper attempts to analyze this changing emphasis on Māturīdism in the Ottoman period and the political and intellectual factors that supported and nourished it. -/- SUMMARY It can be argued that the debates around Ash‘arism and Māturīdism in the Ottoman period and the resulting meant more than attempts of the members of the two sides to understand each other and that Māturīdism, particularly from the 16th century onwards, was gradually brought fore as the identity of Ottomans. In fact, this identity was not limited, as is commonly believed, to the last period of the Empire; it maintained, in form, its existence throughout the Ottoman history. Nevertheless, the context in which the Māturīdism was located or with which it was associated changed in the course of time. In the early period when the eclectic way of thinking was dominant, Māturīdism as a creed was apparent mainly in the jurists whose ascetic identity was prominent and partly in the mystical currents that were essentially continuations of Yasawiyya. At this point, the Bukhara-centered Ḥanafī legal literature played a distinctive role. At the time of Meḥmed II and in the following period during which the philosophical kalām dominated the scene, the Māturīdism was relatively passive and was in search of a position against the Ash‘arism. In this period, Ottoman scholars still embraced the Māturīdī-Ḥanafī line in their theological views. Ḫiḍir Beg’s al-Qaṣīda al-Nūniyya, and al-Khayālī’s commentary upon it, and the commentary written by Aḥmad b. Oġuz Dānishmand al-Aḳshahrī on al-I‘timād of Abū al-Barakāt al-Nasafī were the most noticeable Māturīdite texts from that time. Besides, al-Khayālī’s supercommentary (ḥāshiya) upon the commentary of al-Taftāzānī written on al-‘Aqā’id of Najm al-Dīn ‘Umar al-Nasafī was also of central importance. However, the new Rāzian paradigm of thought that began to be felt strongly in the Ottoman lands with Meḥmed II as an attempt of integration into the global circulation of knowledge prevented to a certain extent the visibility of Māturīdism. But, this should not be taken to mean that Māturīdism lost its ground of existence. That the Ash‘arite works produced in this new paradigm were transferred to and fully integrated in the madrasa curriculum was not because they were Ash‘arite texts but because they were the most original and highest achievements of the philosophical theology. These texts that aimed at combining all fields of knowledge on a single platform, despite the Ash‘arism they included, constituted the peak of the Islamic thought of the time. In the preference of these texts, the fact that the Māturīdī tradition generally stood, in course of time, distant to the philosophy and chose to continue the kalām in the classical line also played a role. Māturīdī theologians Muḥammad b. Ashraf al-Samarqandī, partly, but Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a al-Maḥbūbī, to a greater extent, were notable exceptions to this general Māturīdī tendency. These figures were theologically Māturīdite, but their framework of producing discourse was the combination of philosophy and kalām as with their Ash‘arī counterparts. Therefore, Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a’s criticism of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and through him, of against the Ash‘arism in the context of muqaddimāt arba‘a was wholeheartedly supported by the Ottoman ulama. Even it was Meḥmed II who sponsored the debates regarding muqaddimāt arba‘a. The works written by such scholars as Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Kastallī, al-Ṣamṣūnī, ‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-‘Arabī, Mollā ‘Arab al-Anṭākī, Khaṭībzāde, Sa‘dī Chalabī during his and his son Bāyazid II’s reigns were the supercommentaries written upon the related chapter of al-Talwīḥ, al-Taftāzānī’s commentary on Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a’s al-Tawḍīḥ where the former responded to the criticism of the latter from an Ash‘arī point of view. The Ottoman ulama, in their workswere forced to choose between the two scholars and they mostly supported Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a and Māturīdism. The tradition of philosophical kalām in the Ottoman scholarship, just when it was about to yield significant results, was interrupted due to the struggle against the Ṣafawids. Transformation of this political tension, at the same time, into a fight against Shiism also brought about a constriction in the religious thought of the Ottomans. The reflex of of identifying oneself through ‘the other’ made, to a certain extent, the theological and philosophical debates regarding faith meaningless, and gradually gave the Ottoman Sunnism a doctrinal and political tone. In such a context, the Ottomans’ paradigm of producing thought in line with the philosophical kalām began to lose its function, and, the focus of scholarhsip shifted; Shiism with its all variants were began to be bitterly attacked under the main heading of Rāfiḍa. When the refutation texts composed from the reign of Bāyazid II onward to criticize the Ṣafawids are chronologically analyzed, it is seen that the contents of the texts evolved from criticism of Rāfiḍa to criticism of Sūfism. Ḥanafī fatwā literature was used extensively in these refutations. So the fatwās issued against Rāfiḍa and Ṣūfīs in malāmatī line in earlier centuries in different contexts for different reasons were employed to criticize the new opponents. This caused two important results: First, such an approach proved a boomerang and returned in time striking the Ottoman Ṣūfīs who stood near the line of the Ardabil Shrine before its Shiitization. Ḫalwatīs, Bayrāmīs, Gulshanīs, Baktāshīs and Mawlawīs were the sufi groups influenced by this situation in varying degrees. Second, Sunnism was exposed to the narrowization and centered around the fiqh, particularly Ḥanafī fiqh, in the context of Ḳāḍīzādelīs who were the main adversaries of above mentioned groups. The culture of catechism (‘ilm-i ḥāl) that came to the fore through the efforts of Ḳāḍīzādelīs was a crystallization and was mainly fuelled from this tension. Such a crystallization led the Ṣūfīs, the opponents of Ḳāḍīzādelīs, to a higher level of discourse deemphasizing the Ḥanafī aspect: They underscored the discourse of Ahl al-Sunna and four madhhabs, and mostly turned towards the Shāfiʿī and Ash‘arī traditions to look for support fortheir views. This process during which the emphasis of sharī‘a and tradition began to come to the fore once again paved the way for the zuhd and fiqh-centered religious thought that was maintained from the time of the Seljukids in Anatolia and was influential until Meḥmed II’ reign. Therefore in the Ottomans, particularly starting with the reign of Suleymān I, an intensive emphasis on Abū Ḥanīfa was witnessed. Abū Ḥanīfa was at the very center of the debates revolving around zuhd and fiqh which came about in the same period and in which the sharī‘a sensitivity was a determining factor. Al-Māturīdī, whose name was overshadowed for a long time by the name of Abū Ḥanīfa, but who became prominent in the tradition with Abū al-Mu‘īn al-Nasafī, had to transfer his gains for a period of time to Abū Ḥanīfa. Emphasis on Abū Ḥanīfa looks like a rope that when pulled, all the tradition comes with it. When the topics began to be discussed in a manner that would also include the theological context, the contribution of the works ascribed to Abū Ḥanīfa, namely al-Fiqh al-Akbar, al-Waṣiyya and al-‘Ālim wa al-Muta‘allim to the discussions would be limited. For this reason, the need to refer to al-Māturīdī or to the theological formation bearing his name was inevitable. So, the literature on the points of disagreements between the Ash‘arism and the Māturīdism developed both vertically and horizontally in the 18th century and, corollary to that, the debates of free will as a corolloary to that, once again brought Māturīdism to the fore. (shrink)

Brigitte Foulon et Mohamed Nachi nous indiquent ainsi que le concept d'ikhtilâf (la possibilité de divergences d'opinions entre les autorités du droit religieux) fut très tôt admis comme légitime dans le sunnisme.

The second half of the third/ninth and the fourth/tenth centuries are of particular importance for the development of the judiciary in the central lands of the Abbasid caliphate. At the end of the mihna period and the victory of Sunnism under al-Mutawakkil (r. 232-247/847-861), the caliphate agreed not to interfere further within the legal sphere, thus allowing the principal schools of law to complete their development toward their classical structure. In Iraq, thanks to the growing independence of the legal (...) sphere and to the political weakness of the caliphate, the qadis increased their judicial freedom. Meanwhile, the political situation in Egypt was very different. The provincial rulers and two successive dynasties, the Tulunids (254-292/868-905) and the Ikhshidids (323-358/935-969), profited from the weakness of the caliphate, and imposed their autonomy de facto. The role played by the judiciary in this process is still unclear, as is the impact of Egyptian autonomy on the development of the local judiciary. In this paper, I discuss the evolution of the relationship between the Egyptian governors and the judiciary, from the accession of Ahmad b. Tulun in 254/868 until the arrival of the Fatimids in 358/969. Several elements are taken into consideration: (1) The institutional links between political power and the judiciary: Who appointed the qadis? How were they selected? Did the government choose to rely on local scholars or did the qadis come from outside the province? (2) The financial connection between the governors and the qadis, which was not only symbolic of the delegation of power, but could also denote the submission of the judiciary to the government. (3) The daily interactions between the qadis and the governors. (4) The judicial practice of the qadis. (5) Their reputation. I study to what extent the judiciary and its control was a political issue for the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids, and how the efforts of these two dynasties to build an Egyptian autonomy had important consequences on the structure of the legal milieu. (shrink)

A reading of Kant as a theological rationalist may cohere with some Mu’tazilite views of morality, but is alien to mainstream Sunnism. Those who seek to engage Muslims would be well-advised to recall that they hold to a law-oriented ethics based in revelation, not on what reason might discover as compatible with God’s mind.

The Prophetic hadith “pray with your leader,” which G. H. A. Juynboll argued originated with Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj, urges Muslims to observe the prayer both at its appointed time and with an imam who delays its performance. An isnād analysis that factors in the different readings of the tradition could not reproduce Juynboll’s result and yielded significantly earlier dates of origin for the oldest two variants: the early 60s/680s and the early 80s/700s. It is argued that the tradition was invented (...) and distributed in reaction to activists who disapproved of Umayyad religious practice, especially the postponement of the ṣalāt. Two of the regime’s representatives in Iraq, the governors Ibn Ziyād and al-Ḥajjāj, were publicly accused of delaying the ṣalāt at the time the tradition was circulated. The tradition constituted thus an early articulation of the quietism that would later become a characteristic of Sunnism. (shrink)

Over the years, there are various research on cultural development seen from socio-historical perspective. The uniqueness of Islam in Malay region as it is diverse and open to outside influences is important to be look at; as it differs greatly from "the Islam" that have been practiced in the Middle East. Based on the discussions, the ulemas or Muslim clerics of this region and the Malays themselves have already practiced the supra-madhhab model as proposed by many contemporary scholars. Using Shia (...) influences in the Malay culture, this paper attempt to show how sectarianism within Islam was never entertained by the Muslims in this region. In fact, Shi'ism was so embedded in Malay culture. Although being dominated by Sunnism, most of the Shia doctrines and pillars were widely accepted and embraced. The axiology of Shi'ism in Malay culture reflected in many religious texts, classical literature and cultural events. However, as sectarianism rising in this region, the Shia influence and its axiology slowly eroded and were victimized by unnecessary foreign interventions. (shrink)

Originally published 1987. The first part of the volume is concerned with "The Roots of the Islamic Tradition and Spirituality". These are seen to include the Qu’ran as the central theophany of Islam, the Prophet who received the word of God and made it known to mankind and the rites of Islam. The second part examines the divisions of the Islamic community with their distinctive pieties and emphases: Sunnism and Shi’ism and female spirituality. Part III is devoted to Sufism (...) – its nature and origin, its early development, its various spiritual practices and its science of the soul. (shrink)

Nombreux sont les versets coraniques qui insistent sur la toute-puissance de Dieu : en maître absolu du Bien et du Mal, il fait ce que bon lui semble, égarant et sauvant qui II veut. Pris au pied de la lettre, ces versets ont inspiré une vision déterministe et fataliste dé l'homme et du monde qui exclut toute possibilité de fonder une éthique rationnelle : le bien et le mal sont entièrement déterminés par la seule volonté de Dieu et l'islam se (...) résume alors à une soumission aveugle aux décrets divins. Tenue pour responsable de l'ankylose de la pensée musulmane, voire des dérives obscurantistes de l'islamisme radical, cette position, qui résulte du triomphe de l'as'arisme dans le sunnisme postclassique, est de nos jours sévèrement critiquée par des théologiens soucieux de promouvoir un islam éclairé. Ceux-ci renouent souvent avec des doctrines mu'tazilites visant à atténuer, d'une façon ou d'une autre, la puissance divine et à reconnaître en Dieu une certaine « impuissance », afin de créer un espace pour l'homme. L'article retrace l'historique de ce débat, qui remonte aux origines mêmes de la théologie musulmane. Many verses in the Koran insist on God's omnipotence: as the absolute Master of Good and Evil, He does whatever he likes, condemning or saving whomever He decides. Understood literally, those verses have inspired a deterministic and fatalistic vision of man and the world, one which excludes any possibility of grounding a rational ethics. Both Good and Evil are totally determined by the will of God alone, and Islam may be summed up as a blind submission to divine decrees. This position, which results from the triumph of as'arism in post-classical sunnism, has been held responsible for the stagnation of Muslim thought, indeed for the obscurantist excesses of radical Islamism and is today severely criticized by some theologians concerned to promote an enlightened Islam. These scholars have often revived mu'tazilist doctrines whose aim is to weaken one way or another, notions of divine power and, by recognizing in God a certain « powerlessness », create a space for human action. This paper retraces the history of this debate which dates back to the very origins of the Muslim theology. (shrink)

Some scholars like to believe that Ottoman Sunni orthodoxy drew its form by virtue of the Ottoman conquest of Syria and Egypt in 1516-1517. Accordingly, early Ottoman understanding of heterodox Islam was replaced with a more orthodox one as core Islamic lands started to exert their influence on the Ottoman peripheries. Many recent academicians counter this traditional argument by suggesting that the role of Arab ulema in the formation of Ottoman Sunnism is quite negligible or highly limited at best. (...) Others interpret establishment of the Safavid Empire in the sixteenth century as main motivation for Ottoman concentration of Sunni Islam in opposition to Shi’i Iran. Despite such disputes on the origin of this “confessionalization”, they are mainly in agreement that the Ottomans more and more enforced the boundaries of Sunni faith and practice within the empire especially beginning sometime in the second half of the sixteenth century. Political administrative and local studies shall confidently shed new lights on Ottoman experiences of Sunni orthodoxy. In this view, Ottoman Syria, which is situated in the middle of all these discussions, allows us to conduct a field study in the context of Sunni-Shi’i polarization during the time under scrutiny. This paper is going to be one of the first empirical articles, which exclusively focuses on Fakhreddin Maanoğlu and Ali Canpolad i.e., one Shi’i and one Sunni officer of the Ottoman Empire. Our departure point in this paper is to reveal to what extent “sunnitization” of Ottoman Empire played an important role in decision-making of the Ottoman administration between 1570s and 1630s. In a sense, this study aimed to test the real impact of sectarian polarization in the empire by comparing two contemporary Ottoman statesmen who belonged to Shia and Sunni sects of Islam as they governed their provinces in Syria. This kind of comparative studies of the Ottoman governors in terms of their distinct sect has been either not fully taken into consideration or totally ignored before. In the meantime, we shall also shortly explore how the Ottoman formidable enemies of the time interpreted the religious sectarianism and identity politics for the sake of their own security and interests. (shrink)

Zygon®, Volume 57, Issue 2, Page 389-392, June 2022.

These conversations between Muslim and Christian scholars produced a lively and informative introduction to the histories of Islamic and Christian theo-political thought. Much was learned over the course of meetings for this project, but future conversations, in order to better appreciate the breadth of theo-political thought in both traditions, will need to expand to include Muslim and Christian discursive traditions beyond the canonical authors explored thus far. Continued conversations should include contemporary expressions of theo-political thought in the Christian and Muslim (...) traditions, alongside non-theists who have a good-faith commitment to including the religious, even if they reject theocentric politics. (shrink)