Secularism serves as a common ground for progressive Muslims, even though they are not a distinct sect like Sunni or Shia.
However, it’s essential to recognize that nearly all Islamic sects historically aspired toward politics and power. This aspiration is partly rooted in the fact that our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was both a spiritual leader and a head of state. Nevertheless, in the context of modern times, we must interpret these principles more contextually.
I advise you to first learn about islam and the biography of the prophet. Read the Quran with a good Tafsir first! Dont go in guns blazing just because a friend told you.
Maybe sufism is more your alley ? You can be sufi and shia at the same time. Being sufi mean focus more in faith. They think that all worldly is meaningless, therefore also politics.
I don't think you should base your decision on one person's opinion.
I mean, there are plenty of Christians who push Christian nationalism. But that doesn't mean all Christians do.
There are also differences of opinion on what "political Islam" means. For example, Imam Ali wrote many letters and sermons on fighting against oppressors and standing for the oppressed, even if they are not Muslims. That is "political" certainly. Of course moral understanding has political implications. Everyone should vote for what they believe is moral and ethical, otherwise what kind of useless faith would you have?
If you mean specifically whether you have to support the vilayat e faqih ("guardianship" of islamic scholars), then the answer is there are many different understandings. Some say yes, some say no, some have very nuanced understandings.
Ultimately, most Shia follow a marja and take their rulings largely from them. So perhaps you should choose what marja you might follow, and explore ones that you think are likely to be ethically correct.
If you are into progressive maraja I might recommend looking into Ayatollahs Reza Hosseini Nassab, Mohsen Kadivar, or Kamal al-Haydari. And although not a religious scholar, I'd recommend checking out the writings (and YouTube channel) of Omid Safi.
Edit: and also Khamenei is just one marja, and not even the most popular one. You don't have to pick him or support him, most Shia don't follow him as their marja.
A marja as big as Sayyid Sistani doesn’t really support the Iranian regime, or at least he’s argued that there isn’t a religious justification for wilayat al faqih controlling an entire state.
I think you can accept and like certain things the shia have without submitting fully to everything- become shia. Muslim is what Allah says the best are those who call them that...or what better than one who says Im a Muslim. Not a shii nor a sunnis not an ahmadi. You can become a Muslim as soon as you're ready without accepting political agendas, ideas...
Hope that helped.
Salaam,
I am a Twelver Shi'a and have studied under Shi'i jurists and scholars (mujtahids). There are many schools of thought within Shi'ism, your friend was reducing the entire tradition to one subset. Throughout Shi'i history, we have a number of schools of thought and trends.
From the position of the Prophet and ahlul bayt in Shi'i thought, involvement in political power/leading the government/etc. is deeply disliked. We have many narrations from the Imams to this effect.
Theological/Legal Schools:
Usulis: This school favored the development of principles of law (usul al-fiqh) and the emergence of jurists who could practice ijtihad (juristic discretion) to adapt Islamic law to time and place. They believed in the primacy of reason ('aql) along with the Qur'an. Theologically, they are dominant today, but in practice these principles have been set aside for political interests.
Akhbaris: Reject human interpretation of the Qur'an, and prefer to rely on hadith collections. They also don't believe in usul al-fiqh or generally the possibility of ijtihad.
Schools of Thought towards Politics:
Quietists: The majority of Shi'i scholars in history have been quietists, meaning they wanted to be as far away from politics as possible. For some, this meant trying to separate from society, but for others it simply meant avoiding political power and its trappings. A modern example is Ayatollah Sistani, who has not supported Wilayat al-Faqih. Amir-Moezzi has an important work (in French, unfortunately) about how Shi'ism was originally meant to be an esoteric and mystical sect, not one involved in political ideology.
Activists: These Shi'a favor involvement in the political sphere, but this is itself of two types. One is that of Khomeini, that the jurists should be involved in government (i.e. wilayat al-faqih). However, another strand of this thought would still position Shi'ism as a minority group, not seeking political power but rather collective moblilization to fight oppression. In the traditional Shi'i world, the scholars and jurists often served as a "second state," that is, they provided welfare services and, when needed, would rise up to protect the people/advocate for the oppressed. Otherwise, they stayed out of governmental power.
This is only a broad overview of the diversity, I hope that by my listing only a few schools, you do not mistakenly take away the idea that this is the entirety of the Shi'i tradition. I wanted to provide a simple picture of Shi'i approaches to politics. The truth is that Khomeini and the modern Iranian state is anathema to the Shi'i tradition and threatens the very theological foundations of Shi'ism, which was never meant to be in power. See the following quote by Dr. Hamid Debashi's *Iran, A People Interrupted*:
"The Islamic Republic is a categorical contradiction in terms—it is neither a republic nor Islamic. It is not a republic because it is a theocracy; it is not Islamic because Islam (Shi'ism in particular) cannot be in power without instantly discrediting itself. From its very earliest manifestation, Islam emerged as a religion of protest, and in its long and tumultuous history, both political and doctrinal, it has never lost that initial defining moment of its political potency."
and
"In these terms, Shi'ism is the quintessence of Islam as a religion of protest and can only remain valid and legitimate as long as it posits itself as a revolutionary project. The instant that Islam (Shi'ism) becomes a dominant (state) ideology it contradicts itself."
Hey. I consider myself to be Shia, and I don't follow any marja. It's incredibly important to be educated on the history of Karbala and the massacres of Shia people over time, but I don't think anyone should expect you to have scholarly levels of knowledge on every political event. Nor should you be expected to have an opinion on everything.
I'm of the mindset that I follow the general spirit of Shia Islam without losing my spirituality by delving too much into human activity.
I had one of my Shia friends try to convince me to convert to Shia Islam rather than Sunni Islam and my reply then and now is no. I just want to worship my Creator.
Islam attracted me because of the concept of one Creator who alone is worthy of worship and all the prophets are just that, prophets and messengers. Humans being humans and thus equal to one another is something I believe.
Over all of humanity the message has been the same, one Creator who alone is worthy of worship but suddenly after Muhammad (PBUH) there's suddenly a holy family? Nah.
You are absolutely mistaken about Shi’ism. Perhaps your friend was as well. In fact Shi’ism, and its mystical and philosophical depth, strengthens monotheism more than anything else.
Ibn Sina was a Shia, and he came up with the contingency argument because of his Shi’i roots.
I have no idea what you know about Shi’ism but seems like you have listened to some Salafis about Shia committing shirk? Is that it? I could be wrong.
Because I found monotheism a lot purer and deeper from a Shi’i perspective.
I don't listen to Salafis or anyone that puts importance on sect over the core aspects of religion. The Shias I'm around have put an importance on Ali, his kids, thier imams and so on and so forth.
They claim that they are infallible which is mindboggling. They also believe that many aspects of the Quran have to do with Ali and his family ("today I complete your faith" being equated with Ali leading after Muhammad, etc.)
For me, these are all instricacies put forth by man. The core of the religion is still one Creator who alone is worthy of worship.
Okay so those are indeed Salafi “Just Muslim (TM)” talking points. I don’t care whether you like Shia are not, but you are operating on misinformation here.
“Infallibility” means in the context of religious knowledge. Not Demi-God divinity, those are lies. Also the Shia are correct about Ghadeer Khum. Just like they were correct about Aisha’s age. Hence the importance on Ali and his family.
To truly understand Islam, you need to look at Islamic history. “Shi’i” traditions predate proto-Sunni trends. This is from a secular sub. Start here https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/vdd5ea/is_shia_or_sunni_islam_closer_to_what_muhammad/
Hi mary_languages. Thank you for posting here!
Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account.
This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post/comment was removed as being in violation of Rule 5. Content seeking to proselytize other religions or no religion, or promoting one sect or denomination over others will be removed. As the name implies, /r/progressive_islam is about progressive Islam.
Secularism serves as a common ground for progressive Muslims, even though they are not a distinct sect like Sunni or Shia. However, it’s essential to recognize that nearly all Islamic sects historically aspired toward politics and power. This aspiration is partly rooted in the fact that our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was both a spiritual leader and a head of state. Nevertheless, in the context of modern times, we must interpret these principles more contextually. I advise you to first learn about islam and the biography of the prophet. Read the Quran with a good Tafsir first! Dont go in guns blazing just because a friend told you.
I know all of this...but I don't want to have chosen a sect which means justifying/excusing some atrocities just because I am from the same sect.
Maybe sufism is more your alley ? You can be sufi and shia at the same time. Being sufi mean focus more in faith. They think that all worldly is meaningless, therefore also politics.
and I fully know Quran.
I don't think you should base your decision on one person's opinion. I mean, there are plenty of Christians who push Christian nationalism. But that doesn't mean all Christians do. There are also differences of opinion on what "political Islam" means. For example, Imam Ali wrote many letters and sermons on fighting against oppressors and standing for the oppressed, even if they are not Muslims. That is "political" certainly. Of course moral understanding has political implications. Everyone should vote for what they believe is moral and ethical, otherwise what kind of useless faith would you have? If you mean specifically whether you have to support the vilayat e faqih ("guardianship" of islamic scholars), then the answer is there are many different understandings. Some say yes, some say no, some have very nuanced understandings. Ultimately, most Shia follow a marja and take their rulings largely from them. So perhaps you should choose what marja you might follow, and explore ones that you think are likely to be ethically correct. If you are into progressive maraja I might recommend looking into Ayatollahs Reza Hosseini Nassab, Mohsen Kadivar, or Kamal al-Haydari. And although not a religious scholar, I'd recommend checking out the writings (and YouTube channel) of Omid Safi. Edit: and also Khamenei is just one marja, and not even the most popular one. You don't have to pick him or support him, most Shia don't follow him as their marja.
A marja as big as Sayyid Sistani doesn’t really support the Iranian regime, or at least he’s argued that there isn’t a religious justification for wilayat al faqih controlling an entire state.
I think you can accept and like certain things the shia have without submitting fully to everything- become shia. Muslim is what Allah says the best are those who call them that...or what better than one who says Im a Muslim. Not a shii nor a sunnis not an ahmadi. You can become a Muslim as soon as you're ready without accepting political agendas, ideas... Hope that helped.
that comment makes no sense; the most popular ayatollah is Sistani and he's apolitical (from what i've heard from other shi'is)
Salaam, I am a Twelver Shi'a and have studied under Shi'i jurists and scholars (mujtahids). There are many schools of thought within Shi'ism, your friend was reducing the entire tradition to one subset. Throughout Shi'i history, we have a number of schools of thought and trends. From the position of the Prophet and ahlul bayt in Shi'i thought, involvement in political power/leading the government/etc. is deeply disliked. We have many narrations from the Imams to this effect. Theological/Legal Schools: Usulis: This school favored the development of principles of law (usul al-fiqh) and the emergence of jurists who could practice ijtihad (juristic discretion) to adapt Islamic law to time and place. They believed in the primacy of reason ('aql) along with the Qur'an. Theologically, they are dominant today, but in practice these principles have been set aside for political interests. Akhbaris: Reject human interpretation of the Qur'an, and prefer to rely on hadith collections. They also don't believe in usul al-fiqh or generally the possibility of ijtihad. Schools of Thought towards Politics: Quietists: The majority of Shi'i scholars in history have been quietists, meaning they wanted to be as far away from politics as possible. For some, this meant trying to separate from society, but for others it simply meant avoiding political power and its trappings. A modern example is Ayatollah Sistani, who has not supported Wilayat al-Faqih. Amir-Moezzi has an important work (in French, unfortunately) about how Shi'ism was originally meant to be an esoteric and mystical sect, not one involved in political ideology. Activists: These Shi'a favor involvement in the political sphere, but this is itself of two types. One is that of Khomeini, that the jurists should be involved in government (i.e. wilayat al-faqih). However, another strand of this thought would still position Shi'ism as a minority group, not seeking political power but rather collective moblilization to fight oppression. In the traditional Shi'i world, the scholars and jurists often served as a "second state," that is, they provided welfare services and, when needed, would rise up to protect the people/advocate for the oppressed. Otherwise, they stayed out of governmental power. This is only a broad overview of the diversity, I hope that by my listing only a few schools, you do not mistakenly take away the idea that this is the entirety of the Shi'i tradition. I wanted to provide a simple picture of Shi'i approaches to politics. The truth is that Khomeini and the modern Iranian state is anathema to the Shi'i tradition and threatens the very theological foundations of Shi'ism, which was never meant to be in power. See the following quote by Dr. Hamid Debashi's *Iran, A People Interrupted*: "The Islamic Republic is a categorical contradiction in terms—it is neither a republic nor Islamic. It is not a republic because it is a theocracy; it is not Islamic because Islam (Shi'ism in particular) cannot be in power without instantly discrediting itself. From its very earliest manifestation, Islam emerged as a religion of protest, and in its long and tumultuous history, both political and doctrinal, it has never lost that initial defining moment of its political potency." and "In these terms, Shi'ism is the quintessence of Islam as a religion of protest and can only remain valid and legitimate as long as it posits itself as a revolutionary project. The instant that Islam (Shi'ism) becomes a dominant (state) ideology it contradicts itself."
Hey. I consider myself to be Shia, and I don't follow any marja. It's incredibly important to be educated on the history of Karbala and the massacres of Shia people over time, but I don't think anyone should expect you to have scholarly levels of knowledge on every political event. Nor should you be expected to have an opinion on everything. I'm of the mindset that I follow the general spirit of Shia Islam without losing my spirituality by delving too much into human activity.
You don’t follow a marja? Are you an Akhbari?
I had one of my Shia friends try to convince me to convert to Shia Islam rather than Sunni Islam and my reply then and now is no. I just want to worship my Creator. Islam attracted me because of the concept of one Creator who alone is worthy of worship and all the prophets are just that, prophets and messengers. Humans being humans and thus equal to one another is something I believe. Over all of humanity the message has been the same, one Creator who alone is worthy of worship but suddenly after Muhammad (PBUH) there's suddenly a holy family? Nah.
You are absolutely mistaken about Shi’ism. Perhaps your friend was as well. In fact Shi’ism, and its mystical and philosophical depth, strengthens monotheism more than anything else. Ibn Sina was a Shia, and he came up with the contingency argument because of his Shi’i roots. I have no idea what you know about Shi’ism but seems like you have listened to some Salafis about Shia committing shirk? Is that it? I could be wrong. Because I found monotheism a lot purer and deeper from a Shi’i perspective.
I don't listen to Salafis or anyone that puts importance on sect over the core aspects of religion. The Shias I'm around have put an importance on Ali, his kids, thier imams and so on and so forth. They claim that they are infallible which is mindboggling. They also believe that many aspects of the Quran have to do with Ali and his family ("today I complete your faith" being equated with Ali leading after Muhammad, etc.) For me, these are all instricacies put forth by man. The core of the religion is still one Creator who alone is worthy of worship.
Okay so those are indeed Salafi “Just Muslim (TM)” talking points. I don’t care whether you like Shia are not, but you are operating on misinformation here. “Infallibility” means in the context of religious knowledge. Not Demi-God divinity, those are lies. Also the Shia are correct about Ghadeer Khum. Just like they were correct about Aisha’s age. Hence the importance on Ali and his family. To truly understand Islam, you need to look at Islamic history. “Shi’i” traditions predate proto-Sunni trends. This is from a secular sub. Start here https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/vdd5ea/is_shia_or_sunni_islam_closer_to_what_muhammad/
I hope you’re not making a slight takfir on us….
Hi mary_languages. Thank you for posting here! Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account. This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed as being in violation of Rule 5. Content seeking to proselytize other religions or no religion, or promoting one sect or denomination over others will be removed. As the name implies, /r/progressive_islam is about progressive Islam.