Religious: Shi'Ism in India and eastward

I didn't know Shi'ism was that widespread. Maybe that could be the basis for a POD--a pan-Shi'ite resistance to the Mughals?

Sounds cool. Also, William Darymple's book White Mughals includes a vivid description of Shia festivities in Hyderabad under Sunni rulers (the Nizams). There, he points out that sectarian strife was much less than it was today, with Sunnis and even Hundus participating. This did draw the ire of a contemporary writer (Abdul Lateef Shustari, an immigrant from Persia who was hostile towards the 'Indianization' taking place in the Deccan and elsewhere), though.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Welcome to the Board.

Since you are new, you may not know that bigotry, such as stating a group is "the most treacherous of people" is a violation of Board policy. As this is the case I will simply inform you that we have a very high standard of behavior here.

Consider this to be your one and only warning on the issue.


CalBear in Mod Mode.
My first post, mostly lurk here. Interesting points.

Shia Islam is based on myths and stories such as dissapeareance of Imam, with roots based on the only reason that Ali had the right to succession to Caliphate etc. They lament on Hussian being killed by Yazid, when they them selves betrayed him after calling him to Kerbala. Shia Islam is devoid of logic, and is more about emotions and secrecy, and despite being only about 10-15% of all Islamic population has hundreds of sects within it.

As far as evangelizing Sunni's is concerned, its very hard to achieve that as Sunni scholars has peeled open the hypocrisy of Shia Islam. Throughout the history if you look at it, Shia Muslims have acted as the fifth column in most Sunni kingdom, they were and are the most treacherous of people (assasins etc) history has ever seen.
 
I didn't know Shi'ism was that widespread. Maybe that could be the basis for a POD--a pan-Shi'ite resistance to the Mughals?

Unfortunately pan- Shiite doesn't mean much when the Hindu majority doesn't care one way or the other. It's not as if these are majority Muslim states, let alone majority Shia
 
Welcome to the Board.

Since you are new, you may not know that bigotry, such as stating a group is "the most treacherous of people" is a violation of Board policy. As this is the case I will simply inform you that we have a very high standard of behavior here.

Consider this to be your one and only warning on the issue.


CalBear in Mod Mode.


Sorry, I probably should not have lumped the whole group. I take that back.
 
Do you guys think that Shia'ism lost out because of the way its structured?

The more I learn about Shia'ism the more I see it in line with Catholism, where Grand Aytollah is a figure like a Pope. I have found that its very secretive as well, most of the knowledge resides with Aytollahs and Imams and general masses are largely isolated from that knowledge base.

Compare that to Sunni, there is no central figure, though there are many scholars who even interpret the religion differently. So its very much decentralized thus more conducive to growth and free thinking.
 

Philip

Donor
Do you guys think that Shia'ism lost out because of the way its structured?
More likely, it 'lost out' as a side effect of political developments.

The more I learn about Shia'ism the more I see it in line with Catholism, where Grand Aytollah is a figure like a Pope. I have found that its very secretive as well, most of the knowledge resides with Aytollahs and Imams and general masses are largely isolated from that knowledge base.

Compare that to Sunni, there is no central figure, though there are many scholars who even interpret the religion differently. So its very much decentralized thus more conducive to growth and free thinking.
There is a large group of people at the door who like to speak with you. They have chosen Jabir ibn Hayyan, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Al-Kindi, and Al-Farabi as their spokesmen.
 
There are various areas where Shia Emirs created states/peoples as I remember it, mostly the Ismailis. A dark-horse possibility is that the Safavids try a more aggressive missionizing drive east and this produces ultimate knock-on effects to create larger Shia communities.
 
My first post, mostly lurk here. Interesting points.

Shia Islam is based on myths and stories such as dissapeareance of Imam, with roots based on the only reason that Ali had the right to succession to Caliphate etc. They lament on Hussian being killed by Yazid, when they them selves betrayed him after calling him to Kerbala. Shia Islam is devoid of logic, and is more about emotions and secrecy, and despite being only about 10-15% of all Islamic population has hundreds of sects within it.

As far as evangelizing Sunni's is concerned, its very hard to achieve that as Sunni scholars has peeled open the hypocrisy of Shia Islam. Throughout the history if you look at it, Shia Muslims have acted as the fifth column in most Sunni kingdom, they were and are the most treacherous of people (assasins etc) history has ever seen.

Well, there *is* a reason for that in that Shia Islam is invariably connected with religious opposition to overmighty rulers. Couple this with the Shia being the more woo-woo elements of Islam from a theological POV, well....
 

Ak-84

Banned
Sounds cool. Also, William Darymple's book White Mughals includes a vivid description of Shia festivities in Hyderabad under Sunni rulers (the Nizams). There, he points out that sectarian strife was much less than it was today, with Sunnis and even Hundus participating. This did draw the ire of a contemporary writer (Abdul Lateef Shustari, an immigrant from Persia who was hostile towards the 'Indianization' taking place in the Deccan and elsewhere), though.

The Shia-Sunni divide has historically been less on S Asia then in the ME. Being a (often disliked) minority tends to bring people together.

Still happens incidentally.
 
Sounds cool. Also, William Darymple's book White Mughals includes a vivid description of Shia festivities in Hyderabad under Sunni rulers (the Nizams). There, he points out that sectarian strife was much less than it was today, with Sunnis and even Hundus participating. This did draw the ire of a contemporary writer (Abdul Lateef Shustari, an immigrant from Persia who was hostile towards the 'Indianization' taking place in the Deccan and elsewhere), though.

I read that and think that Darymple overlooked the fact that in South as opposed to North India sectarian strife has never really been particularly bad on the whole. Hyderabad is very much in South India and as such you don't get the same tensions you would in Delhi or the Punjab. Farther South in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala there's even less interreligious strife.
 
I read that and think that Darymple overlooked the fact that in South as opposed to North India sectarian strife has never really been particularly bad on the whole. Hyderabad is very much in South India and as such you don't get the same tensions you would in Delhi or the Punjab. Farther South in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala there's even less interreligious strife.

Why so, technically? The mere effect of not having muslims foreign powers around on northwest, comin' in at times in the past? Or well, less muslims south?
 
Why so, technically? The mere effect of not having muslims foreign powers around on northwest, comin' in at times in the past? Or well, less muslims south?

One reason is that Islam came to South India much earlier than North India- in Kerala, for example, it's said to have arrived while the Prophet was still alive. Thus, it integrated itself peacefully into the religious environment. Thus later conquerors had some sort of model of cooperation to work with.
 
One reason is that Islam came to South India much earlier than North India- in Kerala, for example, it's said to have arrived while the Prophet was still alive. Thus, it integrated itself peacefully into the religious environment.

Eh, to be fair, i'd expect more passion then at first - soon around the Prophet? the religious zeal must have had been hot...

But you do have a good point, a long time to' digest' and integrate it. Was there even conversions from Islam then?
 
Eh, to be fair, i'd expect more passion then at first - soon around the Prophet? the religious zeal must have had been hot...

But you do have a good point, a long time to' digest' and integrate it. Was there even conversions from Islam then?

Yup there were conversions but not a majority. You have to remember that South India was very much linked with the Middle East and with South East Asia. Thy were used to digesting outside influences, much more so than the North. Kerala, especially, already had large Jewish and christian populations so they were used to Abrahamic religions.
 
Top