Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post - Islam

**Airbornelawyer** · 02-16-2004, 19:34

This thread seems to be discussing two separate topics:

First, is the fact that there is no central authority in Islam the explanation for why extremist interpretations can be fomented as easily as mainstream ones?

Second, if there were such an authority, would the "mainstream" be one of these extremes?

There is no firm answer, but I would note that the lack of a Roman Catholic Church-like hierarchy has not prevented Islam from developing codes of laws and theological principles any more than it has prevented the SBC from doing so. I would also note that Shi'ism is far more hierarchical than Sunni Islam. Still, even in Shi'ism, the authoirty of a grand ayatollah or ayatollah is a function of his scholarship, not his office, and an ayatollah's opinion on a matter of faith carries greater weight than a layperson only because of his learnedness, and only to the extent that other Muslims agree with him.

In what may point to an answer to the second question, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini specifically argued against this tradition and claimed that Islam needed a single central authority to interpret Islam for the masses he considered little better than sheep. The system created in post-revolutionary Iran was an attempt to institute this, but the vast majority of Iranians - from sheep to ayatollah - reject this. Even where they defer to the political authority of the Supreme Council of Guardians, most Iranians do not grant them exclusive spiritual authority. And most non-Iranian Shi'ites reject them out of hand (probably why certain Iraqi grand ayatullahs and ayatullahs were assassinated in the past year).

It doesn't really answer the second question, though, because the very rejection of Khomeini's objective by most Shi'a, even those who respected Khomeini himself, seems to indicate that if a single authority - a Shi'ite Pope - came to be, it would likely be less extreme than what Khomeini wanted.

In Sunni Islam, the picture is far more complicated. Sunni Islam has even more divergence of opinion and of practice, and nothing analogous to ayatollahs in stature. The authority of Sunni imams is limited to their individual ability to persuade (although some have official state positions which give them greater prestige). The senior scholars at Cairo's Al-Azhar University have a great deal of influence, however. Probably the leading authority on Islamic law today, though, is a Qatari, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. I would recommend reading his essays and fatwas to get an idea of what approaches the "mainstream", at least in most of the Arab World.

02-16-2004, 19:34	#12
Airbornelawyer Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,952	This thread seems to be discussing two separate topics: First, is the fact that there is no central authority in Islam the explanation for why extremist interpretations can be fomented as easily as mainstream ones? Second, if there were such an authority, would the "mainstream" be one of these extremes? There is no firm answer, but I would note that the lack of a Roman Catholic Church-like hierarchy has not prevented Islam from developing codes of laws and theological principles any more than it has prevented the SBC from doing so. I would also note that Shi'ism is far more hierarchical than Sunni Islam. Still, even in Shi'ism, the authoirty of a grand ayatollah or ayatollah is a function of his scholarship, not his office, and an ayatollah's opinion on a matter of faith carries greater weight than a layperson only because of his learnedness, and only to the extent that other Muslims agree with him. In what may point to an answer to the second question, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini specifically argued against this tradition and claimed that Islam needed a single central authority to interpret Islam for the masses he considered little better than sheep. The system created in post-revolutionary Iran was an attempt to institute this, but the vast majority of Iranians - from sheep to ayatollah - reject this. Even where they defer to the political authority of the Supreme Council of Guardians, most Iranians do not grant them exclusive spiritual authority. And most non-Iranian Shi'ites reject them out of hand (probably why certain Iraqi grand ayatullahs and ayatullahs were assassinated in the past year). It doesn't really answer the second question, though, because the very rejection of Khomeini's objective by most Shi'a, even those who respected Khomeini himself, seems to indicate that if a single authority - a Shi'ite Pope - came to be, it would likely be less extreme than what Khomeini wanted. In Sunni Islam, the picture is far more complicated. Sunni Islam has even more divergence of opinion and of practice, and nothing analogous to ayatollahs in stature. The authority of Sunni imams is limited to their individual ability to persuade (although some have official state positions which give them greater prestige). The senior scholars at Cairo's Al-Azhar University have a great deal of influence, however. Probably the leading authority on Islamic law today, though, is a Qatari, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. I would recommend reading his essays and fatwas to get an idea of what approaches the "mainstream", at least in most of the Arab World.
Airbornelawyer is offline