Is it dishonest and confusing to pretend there is only one Islam?

[danieldemol]

Is it dishonest and confusing to pretend there is only one Islam?

It seems to me like apologists don’t want the good readers of RF to know that there are a number of sects of Islam.

As such instead of saying, “My Islam teaches” or “[insert sect here] Islam teaches” they instead say “Islam teaches” then proceed to insert their personal opinion, even if it is disagreed with by other Muslims, sometimes even when it is disagreed with by the majority of Muslims.

I believe that aside from concealing the truth of the diversity within Islam (which comes across to me as a bit misleading), it leads to confusion, as you have people saying Islam teaches contradictory things.

Additionally, it misleads us as to which Muslims you are representing, and hinders fruitful study of the different branches.

 

[epronovost]

Isn't something every religious person does they say "my religion says X" and not "my interpretation of the teaching of this sect/branch of X says X". It's a rethorical shorthand. There is nothing wrong in that. The interlecutor has a duty to know at least the most basic things about religions like that they are all pretty much split in dozens of sects and branches. If not, the fault falls on them.

 

[exchemist]

Is it dishonest and confusing to pretend there is only one Islam?

It seems to me like apologists don’t want the good readers of RF to know that there are a number of sects of Islam.

As such instead of saying, “My Islam teaches” or “[insert sect here] Islam teaches” they instead say “Islam teaches” then proceed to insert their personal opinion, even if it is disagreed with by other Muslims, sometimes even when it is disagreed with by the majority of Muslims.

I believe that aside from concealing the truth of the diversity within Islam (which comes across to me as a bit misleading), it leads to confusion, as you have people saying Islam teaches contradictory things.

Additionally, it misleads us as to which Muslims you are representing, and hinders fruitful study of the different branches.

I don't think that saying "Islam teaches......" implies there are no differences of view or sects.

Seeing as there is such a thing as a religion called "Islam", that must be defined by a certain body of scripture and teaching that is common to all versions, mustn't it? In which case, so long as the speaker is talking about those common things, it is fair enough to say "Islam teaches".

But no doubt you are right that some muslims will speak as if their version is the only one, just you will find plenty of Christians on RF who claim a sort of "No True Scotsman" exceptionalism, whereby only their own tiny sliver of Christianity is the "real" thing and all the rest are imposters, deluded or even damned.

Maybe a thread on the various muslim denominations and sects would be informative. I confess I don't know as much about this as I should. I am aware of the big schism between Sunni and Shia and that the Shia followed Ali as spiritual successor to Mohammed, rather than Abu Bakr, and also that Sunni Islam has subsequently included sects or movements like Sufism and Wahabism, but I know little about them.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Other religious folks do this as well. Christians don't often say "Baptists teach" or "Presbyterians teach."

Possibly this is because of Christians all believing their sect is the one true sect, or they just don't see specific differences.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Maybe a thread on the various muslim denominations and sects would be informative. I confess I don't know as much about this as I should. I am aware of the big schism between Sunni and Shia and that the Shia followed Ali as spiritual successor to Mohammed, rather than Abu Bakr, and also that Sunni Islam has subsequently included sects or movements like Sufism and Wahabism, but I know little about them.

This is correct, as a vague generalization.

To explain for others:

At it's foundation, Sunnism and Shi'ism, initially are distinguished by a defining epistemic integrity which solidifies the nature of them each.

Now Sunnism's epistemic basis is around the four Madhhabs in interpretation and application, the four caliphs in terms of identity and the sunnah of Muhhamad in name (though the term "Sunni" obviously is just a term). The first Caliph, that of Abu Bakr (the father of Aisha, a late wife of Muhammad) was decided by a portion of the Muslim community via public consensus to be the first political leader following The Prophet's death.
For the most part, Sunnism is concerned with it's rich history of interpretation within it's four Madhhabs and with a specific emphasis on the companions (sahaba) of Prophet Muhammad as a reference point with understanding Muhammad through them.

Now Shi'ism's epistemic basis is also theologically and ontologically based, one axiom this is derived from the Qur'an that there in never a time on earth where there isn't divine guidance. During Prophet Muhammad's life he often made many references to Ali's (his son and law, and the husband of his daughter Fatima az-Zahra) importance to him. There are many instances of this. Nonetheless, the Shi'i view consists of an understanding that emphasizes the inward (batin) and outward (zahir) aspects of the Qur'an and in particular an epistemic understanding that the most authoritative understanding of the Qur'an comes through first Muhammad, then his Progeny.
Ali Ibn Abi Talib was Muhammad's son in law but Muhammad's daughter Fatimah was his progeny. Ali and Fatimah had two sons. To cut the explanation short, the Shi'i view has a line of esoteric intiation through the Progeny.
The two main forms of Shi'ism are Ithna Ashari (Twelver) and Ismaili (main form being Nizari).
Shi'ism doesn't place as much emphasis on fiqh in comparison to Sunnism but it's primary school is known as Usuli, which is based around a more rationalistic exegesis in order to derive legal rulings.

Both Shi'ism and Sunnism have different Hadith collections but share the same Qur'an. Sunni and Shi'i Hadiths often do overlap but chains of narrators are different, etc.

As for Sufism, it's not a 'sect' or a 'branch', it's a practice within Islam - properly known as Tasawwuf. Most Sufis are Sunnis, but there are a few Shi'ite Sufi orders (called Tariqas).
Sufism is a tradition of initiation claiming to go through Ali (who I mentioned), so there is a distinct understanding of esotericism in Islam tied to Ali.
Sufism is often wrongly described as "mysticism". While it does contain some mystical practices in many Tariqas, it remains an esoteric practice. It's hard to really describe other than that it understands the Qur'an in the most deepest ways. Like everyone else, Sufis strongly adhere to the Sharia (and it's inner realities).

As for Wahhabis and Salafis, they are strands that are often associated with 'fundamentalism' within Sunnism. They are basically the only true reform movements in Islam but they are also the cause of much of terrorism (oh the irony! )
Both of these strands of thought overlap, they tend to have quite an emphasis on the "heretical" (to borrow the non-native term) scholar (who was lauded and heavily opposed by the orthodox at the time) Ibn Tamiyyah, alongside this there tends to be a strong emphasis on the notion of the Salaf (basically the generations after Muhammad himself) as being the 'true embodiment of Islam'. Basically those reformists take quite heavily towards what is dubed Takfirism (excommunication) where they often declare fellow Muslims as being kafir etc. Yes it's a mess, yes they get a lot of attention by everyone who is ignorant to everything Islamic, yes it's a pain in the arse.


This is a basic but comprehensive break-down.
And for those reading, no there are no similarities between the "Protestant/Catholic" split and Sunnism/Shi'ism, they are typologically unrelated and therefore completely inapplicable comparisons.

The only comparison in Christianity that I can give that mirrors the Sunni/Shi'i thing, would be the conflict between James (author of that epistle) and Paul. Except for, it'd be like if James' religion wasn't buried in the dust of history by Paul's
- and if Paulian and Jamesian Christianity both lived for 1500 years for the most part alongside each other mostly in good standing with each other, defining each other by their commonalities rather than differences.

 

[dybmh]

Is it dishonest and confusing to pretend there is only one Islam?

It seems to me like apologists don’t want the good readers of RF to know that there are a number of sects of Islam.

As such instead of saying, “My Islam teaches” or “[insert sect here] Islam teaches” they instead say “Islam teaches” then proceed to insert their personal opinion, even if it is disagreed with by other Muslims, sometimes even when it is disagreed with by the majority of Muslims.

I believe that aside from concealing the truth of the diversity within Islam (which comes across to me as a bit misleading), it leads to confusion, as you have people saying Islam teaches contradictory things.

Additionally, it misleads us as to which Muslims you are representing, and hinders fruitful study of the different branches.

I've been involved in conversations where this happened recently. You asked which sect denies plurality of Allah. Allah is not plural. All Muslims agree on this. If they don't they're not Muslims.

I also cannot help but notice that it seems like you are trying to "out" Muslims on RF who are hiding their actual religion.

You don't need to be afraid of Muslims Daniel, especially on RF.

 

[stvdv]

It seems to me like apologists don’t want the good readers of RF to know that there are a number of sects of Islam.

True IMO. They should be on RF for a while, and study RF Rule#8. That could take care of this "problem".
Many religious people do have an issue stating "IMHO", and prefer "my way is the highway" instead.
That is the major problem with most religious people, in my experience over the years.
So these apologists are no exception to this, it seems, reading your OP.

 

[stvdv]

Is it dishonest and confusing to pretend there is only one Islam?

It seems to me like apologists don’t want the good readers of RF to know that there are a number of sects of Islam.

As such instead of saying, “My Islam teaches” or “[insert sect here] Islam teaches” they instead say “Islam teaches” then proceed to insert their personal opinion, even if it is disagreed with by other Muslims, sometimes even when it is disagreed with by the majority of Muslims.

It is dishonest and misleading, but what else to expect from evangelists, trying to impose their way being the highway (for all)
But above all, it is arrogant, and they are belittling people who think different, by just including them into their own view.
They don't take the view of others seriously, by ignoring that others think differently (I'm not sure if they do it knowingly though).

 

[columbus]

The interlecutor has a duty to know at least the most basic things about religions like that they are all pretty much split in dozens of sects and branches. If not, the fault falls on them.

I quite disagree.
If a religionist makes a claim about their religious group, they have the responsibility to be excruciatingly accurate. That often means distinguishing between their own opinions, the teachings of their sect, and teachings common to all sects.

People they're making the claims to have no responsibility to understand what they're talking about, much less make those distinctions.
Tom

 

[firedragon]

As such instead of saying, “My Islam teaches” or “[insert sect here] Islam teaches” they instead say “Islam teaches” then proceed to insert their personal opinion, even if it is disagreed with by other Muslims, sometimes even when it is disagreed with by the majority of Muslims.

I agree.

You do worse.

 

[Jim]

Is it dishonest and confusing to pretend there is only one Islam?

It seems to me like apologists don’t want the good readers of RF to know that there are a number of sects of Islam.

As such instead of saying, “My Islam teaches” or “[insert sect here] Islam teaches” they instead say “Islam teaches” then proceed to insert their personal opinion, even if it is disagreed with by other Muslims, sometimes even when it is disagreed with by the majority of Muslims.

I believe that aside from concealing the truth of the diversity within Islam (which comes across to me as a bit misleading), it leads to confusion, as you have people saying Islam teaches contradictory things.

Additionally, it misleads us as to which Muslims you are representing, and hinders fruitful study of the different branches.

I think that nothing that anyone is thinking of when they say “Islam” includes everything that everyone calls “Islam,” so no one really knows what anyone else means when they say “Islam.” If people really wanted to communicate, I think they would always try to clarify what part of all that they’re considering, but who’s really trying to communicate, in debates about Islam?

 

[danieldemol]

You do worse.

Rofl do tell

 

[danieldemol]

You don't need to be afraid of Muslims Daniel, especially on RF.

Rofl, i’m not afraid of Muslims, let me assure you of that.

 

[danieldemol]

Maybe a thread on the various muslim denominations and sects would be informative.

I found this link covering the major sects: Islamic Sects, Schools, Branches & Movements — Information is Beautiful

I suppose it would be difficult to cover the numerically insignificant sects, but it would be interesting if they were listed somewhere all the same.