Posted on 12/16/2006 6:51:54 PM PST by Valin
By now, most people know that Sunnis and Shiites make up the two major sects in Islam, but very few are aware that Sunnis adhere to four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence: Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafii and Maliki.
These schools vary from the most conservative Hanbali to the most tolerant Hanafi. The Hanbali is the literalist school and, as such, promotes strict adherence to literal interpretation of the Koran and the Prophet's sayings. An act that does not conform to either is regarded as out of the ordinary (bidaa), and in the Hanbali view all "bidaas" are acts gone astray (thalalah), and all thalalahs are destined for hellfire.
There is no room for conscious mistakes in the Hanbali tradition and even less in the Wahhabi sect that adheres to it. This tradition is very different from the one advocated by the Maliki school, which is predicated on knowledge. Imam Malik, the founder of the tradition, was a scholar of science, mathematics, logic, philosophy and jurisprudence. All these are reflected in the school's teaching of religion and the concept of faith.
Indeed, while the Hanbali school leaves little room for initiative or novel interpretation, the Maliki leaves too much. What is clear, however, is that the Maliki school opposes religion as a burden and refuses the literalist tradition as a path. Intentions play a huge role in the acts of individuals; reason a larger role; and in some instances, attention to the general at the expense of the specific an even larger one.
Islamic jurisprudence is predicated on the following sources: the Koran, the Sunna (way of the Prophet), Kiyass (measurement to a comparable dictum in the first two sources), Ijmaa (consensus by religious scholars) and Ijtihaad (one's own initiative at doing right). To determine if one's actions are religiously correct, they need to be passed through the first four criteria, and if no answer can be found, then one is permitted to do one's best to do right. Here intentions become paramount, for in the final analysis one is responsible for his own actions.
As such, Maliki societies of North Africa tend to be far more religiously and socially tolerant and free than the Arab peninsula. In North Africa, there is no chopping of heads or hands or religious police. There are movie theaters and nightlife, libraries and bookstores with materials on everything except criticism of indigenous regimes. The interesting aspect of this school has been the absence of religious institutions, which permitted indigenous ones to emerge.
However, the most liberal and lax of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence is the Hanafi school. It is even more liberal than the Maliki because it evolved to cater to non-Arab Muslims. Just as Catholicism had to adapt to believers in Africa by incorporating some local traditions or Latin America by developing liberation theology, the Hanafi schools accommodated the societies it came into contact with. The major adherents to the Hanafi schools can be found in non-Arab Asia.
The final school is the Shafii school. Its founder was a student of Malik but differed from Malik in that he institutionalized his teacher's teachings. His greatest success has been in Lower Egypt, China and Southeast Asia where, like the Hanafi tradition, his brand of Islam catered to non-Arab Muslims.
I don't expect many in the West to know or care about the differences between Islamic schools. But for anyone to judge the majority of Muslim believers by acts or edicts of the minority made up of conservative Wahhabis is silly. The Wahhabis are not bad; they are merely afraid of straying from what they believe to be the righteous path. I don't agree with their philosophy and firmly believe there are many paths to righteousness, but I am not their judge.
Islam has no clergy as is the case in Christianity, and hence the concept of God is not uniform. How a Muslim perceives God is highly personal. And unlike Christianity, which identifies and humanizes the father with the son, Islam doesn't make it easy to understand God. It is much harder to be a Muslim because the purpose of the faith is not to understand God but to understand oneself. Unfortunately, some Muslims have not gotten that message yet.
It's like debating which color shoes the beheaders are wearing -- doesn't make a speck of difference, really. We DO understand Islam, all that we ever needed to know. No confusion here in the West whatsoever....
We decimated the enemies countries in World War II, why can't we decimate the enemies countries now? Especially when we have weapons of mass destruction.
Two points
Question: And then what?
Question which countries would that be?
_______
First Iran, and then what? If they don't submit to our wishes and dismantle all of their armies the way Germany did, hit them again, rinse, repeat, until they're all dead or their populations overthrow their regime, or they surrender completely.
Any sabre rattling by any other lunatic country gets the same treatment.
History takes time?
Yes, ignore the Nazi threat and it takes a LOT more time and death to destroy the menace.
The Emperor thought he was God, so did a good portion of his population, Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed them he wasn't and the cold slap of reality hit them between the eyes, how much time did that history take before they surrendered.
Let history repeat itself before needless millions die, crush the enemy until they lose their will and surrender, I thought this was a war.
Or we can let this process play itself out until they get nuclear capability and kill millions of Americans and THEN use overwhelming force, I prefer my history quick.
Do you really think there is any long term resolution to the muslim problem, I don't. The only thing they understand and respect is power and force, give it to them until they surrender and disarm. They are a threat to the world and need to be disarmed.
A proper start would be to make Islam illegal since it is a proven menace.
another dazzle 'em with bullshit* article.
I know for a fact that the majority of the adherents of islam are ignorant, stupid, primitive, murdering savages, which they have been proving daily for genrations.
The only time they have not been thus is when they have been decisively stomped into the mud, where they are more at home: Lepanto, the Siege of Vienna.
What complex about that?
It seems the Nuke Mecca Crowd is content to dismiss an article based on its title alone. For those of us who read it, it was very interesting.
And FYI, some branches of the Maliki school are so conservative that they dissuade proselytizing by Muslims who live in non-Muslim lands.
"I don't expect many in the West to know or care about the differences between Islamic schools"
EXACTIMENTE!!!
In the long run, they main difference is an argument about best to forcibly spread their contagion - and enforce it.
Wow.
Funny thing is, no one is jumping up and down wanting to nuke them.
It's the other 99.9% of the killer maggots.
"No confusion here in the West whatsoever...."
Plenty of confusion in our understanding of Islam. If we realized what Islam was all about we would immediately refuse entry of any Muslim.
Maybe you didn't read post #29?
Hmmmm, in North Africa, we have Sudan, Darfur, Libya, Egypt, and various other places not known for huge amounts of freedom or tolerance. Maybe more than the Saudis, but that's not saying much at all.
The major adherents to the Hanafi schools can be found in non-Arab Asia.
Hmmmm, Indonesia, Bali, and various other horendously violent Muslim populations...the most liberal? Very scary indeed.
Thousands of words = thousands of years.
What a joke. Another apologist for an insane cult.
Mark
In other words, all four traditions fall under the SNAFU school, which is adheres to a FUBAR concept of God.
It's worked every other time, how are we going to break their will if every time we kill another terrorist another one straps on a suicide belt.
We need to kill them in massive numbers and civilians be damned, the killed our civilians on purpose, when we kill their civilians it will be "collateral damage" and the collateral damage will contain much more than 50% of people who want to kill us anyway.
Once they realize that they either surrender or die they will get the message, the message they're getting now is that they can outlast us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.