"Seek knowledge, even unto China" - Prophet Muhammad

As-salamu alaykum, chapos!

After consulting with the cyber Ulama we have decided to create an open thread where curious posters can take a break from the great posting jihad and ask questions on the nature of Islam or the Muslim experience. So long as they are asked in good faith, from a position of truly wanting to learn, these questions will be answered without judgement.

As for Muslims, all of us are free to answer any of the questions, even ones that have already been answered. This is an open thread, and the input of different Islamic perspectives is valuable to getting a big picture.

To all those reading this, remember: No one person is an authority on Islam. This is why it traditionally the din never had its own clergy. Always have this in mind when researching on Islam.

Alright, now GET TO ASKING!

  • Saif [he/him]
    hexagon
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    Great question.

    Islam has historically had political and legislative dimensions alongside the spiritual ones. In this case, the Caliph, (Khalifa in Arabic), which means "successor" or "steward"/"deputy", is a temporal leader. The reason they are a "successor" is because they inherited the temporal seat of power of the Prophet, but not their prophethood, which is an important distinction. This means the Caliph was in charge, as a political and temporal leader, of the Islamic state that the Prophet built in his struggle against the Quraishi persecution, but the Caliph had no say in the actual doctrine of Islam. They could declare something but in the theology of Islam that didn't make it doctrinally true, and traditionally the Caliphs throughout history rarely attempted to do so because it went against the entire point of the din, it would have probably evoked revolutions.

    In terms of leadership, there really isn't one. Let's approach this question from the perspective of an average Muslim. Who, as a Muslim, do you learn about Islam from? What institutions do you approach to practice your faith?

    Well, first, there is the mosque. The mosque is run by an Imam. What makes an Imam an Imam? Their job description is, essentially, the caretaker of the mosque, and the person who leads prayers. And what makes a mosque a mosque is if Muslims congregate there. There is no ritual where the imams are holy ordained by a higher authority, and you don't need to ask any specific group for permission to build a mosque. Theoretically, anyone could be an Imam right now, by saying their house is a mosque and saying they are its imam. Nobody can deny this claim on a spiritual basis. They can argue no one uses it but that just means you have to attract a following. In this way, the position of Imam and the legitimacy of a mosque develops organically depending on whether the community decides to use it as such.

    Of course, there are other positions that people divest prestige in. Sheiks, muftis, mullahs, etc. These are essentially just learned people. Their word is not automatically correct or holy. Mullah, for example, usually implies they attained a degree in one of the Islamc studies. A Mufti is more specialized in sharia, the legal dimension of Islam. Again, it just refers to the fact that they had a degree in it. Sheik doesn't even have anything like that, you become a Sheik based on enough people calling you that as a form of respect because you seem so knowledgeable. The "Ulama" is a learned class of Islamic scholars. There are some Ulamas given State authority in their countries in the modern day, but the Islamic viewpoint traditionally has dissuaded this kind of behavior.

    None of these people have authority on Islam, either. They can issue "fatwas" - that is, essentially, legal advice based on their interpretation of scripture - but once again, there is nothing that gives their word any higher authority than anyone else's other than the implication that they studied it. For every fatwa a mufti has issued, you can find a fatwa from a different mufti that has the exact opposite opinion. Usually, neither of them would consider the other heretical, nor would they consider you heretical for not listening to them. The ones who do, most Muslims consider them cranks.

    The institutions of Islam, then, are not divested authoratively from one central source. Some countries such as Saudi Arabia attempt to use State power to make one opinion higher than another, but these are outliers - most Muslims, in most countries, and for most of their history, have had the view that Islamic doctrine is up to interpretation by everyone, and that any one person's interpretation could equally be the valid or the correct one. Of course, that does not mean we have to listen to your interpretation, but it does mean I have no authority spiritually over yours - as in, I am not ordained in any holy way to say that you are wrong, I cannot interpret God's will.

    • REallyN [she/her,they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      How was/is successorship to a Caliph determined/how is it deemed legitimate?

      In terms of leadership, there really isn’t one. Let’s approach this question from the perspective of an average Muslim. Who, as a Muslim, do you learn about Islam from? What institutions do you approach to practice your faith?

      Would you say it's similar to the concept in Christianity of the priesthood of all believers?

      • Saif [he/him]
        hexagon
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        How was/is successorship to a Caliph determined/how is it deemed legitimate?

        Ah, the age-old question. How caliphial authority is determined is the basis of the Shia/Sunni split. To make a long story short, Sunnis believe that the caliphate was legitimated by the shura council that occurred after the Prophet's death, essentially a vote by community consensus which elected Abu Bakr as the next leader. Shi'is believe that the Prophet determined Ali, his cousin and son-in-law, as his heir and successor, and that the line should have passed down through his family.

        You would think, then, that it's a question of community election vs line of succession, but you would be wrong, because Abu Bakr's caliphate passed down to Umar because he designated him such. So then it's designation vs line of succession? No, because Umar divested a council to elect his successor before he died, who elected Uthman. So it's designated kingmaker council vs line of succession? No because after Uthman died there was a brief civil war and Uthman's family, the Ummaya, took up the Caliphate and turned it essentially into a kingship, a policy which all successive caliphates adopted and developed. So historically it's basically all been line of succession. However, since as we've established there's no single authority on Islam, theoretically one could, say, declare a democratic Islamic Caliphate, or a communist one, and you aren't really breaking any Islamic doctrine by doing so.

        Edit: forgot to add, yes, the priesthood of all believers concept is very comparable in this sense. Islam is a din that heavily emphasizes the equality of all people under God, and invoking the ability to interpret scripture as belonging to everyone equally is one of the ways it's manifested

        • REallyN [she/her,they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          However, since as we’ve established there’s no single authority on Islam, theoretically one could, say, declare a democratic Islamic Caliphate, or a communist one, and you aren’t really breaking any Islamic doctrine by doing so.

          So a Caliph/Caliphate today wouldn't really have to illustrate some kind of line or connection to the Prophet or his successor(s) to be a "legit" one? and it's more about the rulers relation to Islam and stuff and the first Caliph have that connection because Muhamad was trying to organize the new realm he had created?

          • Saif [he/him]
            hexagon
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            Pretty much - I mean, the Ottomans had zero connection to the original lines of succession but were seen as Caliphs by many Muslims up to 1923. So yes theoretically you can create a Caliphate today, but it would be incredibly difficult to legitimize yourself in the eyes of most Muslims. You would probably need to control a lot of the land that was traditionally part of the first caliphates to even be considered one.

            Though most Shi'i would deny that it's a Caliphate at all unless you can somehow prove to the Twelver Shia that you are the Hidden Imam.

    • Barabas [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      So is the Sunni/Shia split entirely based on the question of successor, or is there any other differences in doctrine that influences it?

      • Saif [he/him]
        hexagon
        ·
        4 years ago

        It definitely started off that way as being based on succession, but some of the Sunni and Shi'i over time have developed the opinion that there are doctrinal differences now. For example, there is a Shi'i belief that the "Imamate" that Ali passed down to his line is not just a political position, but a cosmological marker that they are without sin that was divested in them from the Prophet. The Sunni believe that this is against Islamic doctrine, while the Shi'i believe that not believing this is against the doctrine.