Sectarianism and Islamic History

Obviously questions surrounding succession to the Prophet Muhammad were the first to implicate tensions in the nascent Muslim community. It is important to point out, however, that there were really no doctrinal disputes during this period (notwithstanding certain developments surrounding Muhammad b. al-Hanifiyaa and the practices of al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi in Basra). Doctrinal issues did not emerge within the Muslim polity until well into its imperial enterprise. It is crucial to point out the imperial component of Muslim politics. The special status accorded to the first four Caliphs in the Sunni Muslim tradition does not suggest a whimsical nostalgia for the companions of the Prophet, but reveals a deeper appreciation for the authority of Muslim leaders before they eventually became rulers of empires. The reverence that Shi'a Muslims have for the Imams mirrors this affection by esteeming moral leadership over the imperial leadership of the state.

During the reign of the Umayyad dynasty (661-750 CE), doctrinal issues began to emerge in the Hijaz and southern Iraq. The most vivid of these was the issue of free will versus pre-determination in Islamic belief. The question was whether we as human beings possessed free will or were our actions determined by God. Obviously this deeply philosophical and theological question raised even greater questions about the nature of God's omnipotence and judgment. Yet, what is more important for our purposes is that it raised questions about the Muslim state and its rulers as well. If all things were predetermined, were not the rulers in place a reflection of God's plans for the community? In other words, should we as Muslims oppose rulers that God has apparently put in place for us? The Umayyads informally endorsed this position by marginalizing Muslim scholars and preachers who opposed it. Hasan al-Basra (d. 728), the famed Muslim personality, continued to openly oppose the doctrine and wrote a letter to the Umayyad Caliph Abdul-Malik, citing the sunnah of the Prophet in support of free-will. The issue, of course, was not resolved but it is important for us to reflect on the debate's significant political roots. When we question our ability to act freely, we are questioning our ability to change the world-a deeply political question. When we question who should rule the Muslim polity, as did the Shi'a and Kharijites, we are also questioning who should not. Can this community be led by kings and, on occasion, pre-modern tyrants? If not, what is our mandate, as Muslims, to change it?

These questions were at the forefront of the Abbasid revolution (c. 750). The Abbasids opposed the Umayyads as imperial kings and "superficial" followers of the Prophet. There were many who supported the Abbasid revolution: Arabs, non-Arabs, Shi'a and others. Jaf'ar al-Sadiq, the prestigious and influential sixth Imam in the line of twelve, is reported to have attended meetings in regards to the Abbasid campaign. The Abbasid regime quickly assumed imperial characteristics themselves, however, and sidelined movements that opposed the imperial enterprise.

Between the eight and eleventh centuries Muslim life could be classified as socially stable and politically transformative. They led the world in philosophy, literature and medicine and ruled much of it by the sheer nature and ingenious of the Imperial infrastructure. Avenues of economic development and cultural exchange under the Arab-Islamic empires were expanded to unprecedented degrees. Yet, in spite of this socio-economic strength, this period also saw the rise and fall of the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Fatimad Dynasties as well as the appearance and disappearance of the Buyids and Seljuks (amongst others). It was during this period of political transformation that the issue of legitimacy was most pressing-and since Muslims were responsible for these transformations they had to account for the substance of it all, dialogue and debate was in high gear.

Early catalogues on Islamic 'sects" such as al-Shahrastani's Book of Creeds and Sects, are largely ignored and difficult to find these days. In this work the author attempts, and largely succeeds, in writing an objective treatise on religious belief. Today, rather, many mosques are armed with small evangelical style pamphlets, that offer simple religion for people on the go. Thoughtful and systematic works are largely marginalized. A reasonable question to ask is, "why are such works missing today?"