Is "secular Shi'ite" an oxymoron?

[barbaraann]

I keep reading that Allawi is a secular Shi'ite but I have seen the pictures of that festival where they make themselves bleed and I just can't believe it.

Would a "secular Shi'ite" anything like a "hedonistic Jehovah's Witness?" Or a "jet-set Amish?"

[Enquiringkitty]

1. Yes! You see , most American don't know much about Shi'ite

but they have a good grasp of what "secular" means so if they are secular ... they must not be so bad. It's just a word game to make us swallow what is put before us.

[barbaraann]

2. Oh, I hadn't thought of that.

It's tough to keep up with Karl.

[wellst0nev0ter]

3. Yes, There Are Such Things As Secular Shi'ites

Shiism, just like Protestantism, is broken down into different sects that ranges from liberal to ultra-orthodox.

[Enquiringkitty]

4. Yes! most American don't know that. A friend of mine was making broad

statements about how bad Muslims are so I told her, "Yes, You are right ... and all Christians church leader's in America molest children too. She hung up on me! Most American have no idea as to what the Koran says or how many sects there are. Most people here in Arkansas can't name all of the Christian sects we have here in America and most I've spoken to think that Buddhism is a cult who doesn't believe in a God......lol

[NuttyFluffers]

5. if i remember my religious history right...

shi'a has been one of the more unusual religious movements in that it was/is a 'religious secular movement.' (head explody probably begins now)

basically the shi'a saw mixing religion with the day-to-day politics of governance would corrupt both the state and (more importantly) religion; one of the reasons, issues of succession and power grabs, part what led to the death of the last descendent of muhammed, shows that mixing both causes problems. so, oddly, as islam started religious existence as both a religious system and a political system due to necessity, shi'a found that this would not do.

so they wanted to let the sunnis control the political sphere whereas they would stay outside of it and try to keep the gov't honest by working to keep the encroachment of both into the other from happening -- essentially secularism, but from the religious angle that religion be free from the taint of state politics, whereas most of europe came to it that the state be free from the taint of religion. this explains why shi'a gov't states (the political power holding elite, not the general populace) were essentially unheard of throughout history, and even today out of the 25+ islamic countries only 1, iran, is a shi'a ran gov't.

but, sometimes around 1800s a phenomenon occured (along with most religions), a new strain of a fundamentalism streak appeared in shi'a. and for one of the rare times (or first time, i have to double check) a shi'a state gov't came into existence. seems like the original respect and push towards a secular society (from the religious angle) started to be attacked as insufficient against the modern stresses of colonialism, industrialization, etc. supposedly there's still a lot of heated discussion to this new reading of shi'a's role in society/power dynamics not being true to the shi'a viewpoint.

like i said, bizarre -- but beautiful! what you are seeing now in terms of gaining reins of political power is a definite kink in the history -- but a lot of religions are freaking out lately these past 100+ years. i'd expect to see more freaky-deaky things as the fundamentalists clash in some last hurrah before we all start settling down from the modern/post-modern shocks.

(ps: please look it up! don't take just my word for it. i could've been reading garbage books and kooky websites without knowing it)

[gottaB]

6. Not at all

Jimmy Carter was famous as an evangelical Christian President. Was he also a secularist? I believe so because (a) secularisim is intrinsic to American government, and Jimmy Carter presided over the government; (b) secularism is a political value espoused by liberals in particular, and Jimmy Carter was a liberal; and (c), Jimmy Carter appointed many liberal judges to the federal courts.

A lot of Presidents have openly and, well, even profusely, espoused their faith. JFK for instance. But JFK was also among the most secular of Presidents, in deed and in word. Partly that reflects a reaction to anti-Catholic prejudice, but it was also because secularism was a one of Kennedy's liberal ideals.

The ascendancy of the anti-secularist fundamentalists is of rather recent vintage. A lot of it started as a reaction against Carter, whom some evangelicals accused of betraying their cause. The Republicans nurtured such resentments and stoked anti-liberal anger in order to win votes. In a way it was a natural extension of Nixon's Southern strategy. (Recall that there were genuine liberal Republicans at one time, mostly in the Northeast.)

So today we have a situation in which Bush could be regarded as secular by definition (a), but not by (b) or (c). And there is a strong indication that Bush is trying to, with some success, radically restructure the government in such a way that (a) would not apply. Yet there is still a possibility of having a President that is both a devout Christian and a secularist.

[Inland]

8. I'll buy that, and go a step further

In ethnic politics, you can be a nonpractioner, even a nonbeliever, and still be a member of the group. That's not entirely by choice, either, in a polity where religious and ethnic identity determines your political affiliations.

[Bridget Burke]

7. Not an oxymoron.

As someone else said, "Shi'ite" is somewhat equivalent to "Protestant." Some Protestants are fiery Evangelical/Fundamentalist types who want to make a country run according to their religious beliefs. Many more are moderate folks who keep things in better proportion. And there are some lukewarm Shi'ites who'll have a beer on occasion; these guys do NOT want to live in a theocracy.

And Shi'ites are not necessarily violent enemies of the Sunni. The two can co-exist quite well, just as Protestants & Catholics usually manage to do.

Colonialism prefers to present the "governed" as violent, simple folk who need to be "protected"--the better to exploit them. Better to encourage divisions between people--if they unite, they might work together to toss out the invaders.

[Az]

9. Its quite simply

A Shi'ite that recognises the necessity of having a secular government.