Interesting write-up and I can appreciate the bias, lends it credence. Some similarities between this and arguments between Christian denominations over authority and even holy text compilation, didn't realize this.

Thank you !

It's been a while since my introductory courses to Islam some 38 years ago.

Thank you for sharing.

It is interesting. It seems the earliest Shia train of thought follows the general pagan practice of 'priest king' ordering of society, but with an abrahamic interpretation. You even see a bit of 'Priestly-God-King' here as Islam pulls heavily from the OT and also Christ's revelation as the Priestly-God-King. As Christ reunited the priesthood and kingship as well as recreated communion between man and God. Clearly, Mohammed understood this about Christianity, judiasm, samatarism, other abrahamic descendants keeping some version of the OT and this reunification.

The idea of separate priesthoods from kingships is distinctly abrahamic compared to the rest of the world. Where the rest of the world gets kings who are '2/3rds divine' because the king is a god and whose conception was a ritualistic invitation with the god as well. So lots of crossover of priesthood and governmental authority.

What would sunni's say their ordering is? If their political authority (Mohammed's line) did not also pass down at the same as religious authority where is the religious authority bestowed and how was the conferred? How does this jive with the idea that there has to be a physical theocractic government of islam on earth?

Do Shia's and then further down Ismalis believe their needs to be a physical theocractic government of islam?

Christianity side steps this problem because it makes no claims about reigning an earthly kingdom. So its authority comes solely through churches. Churches who are have historically been in tension with governments.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Thank you for sharing.

It is interesting. It seems the earliest Shia train of thought follows the general pagan practice of 'priest king' ordering of society, but with an abrahamic interpretation. You even see a bit of 'Priestly-God-King' here as Islam pulls heavily from the OT and also Christ's revelation as the Priestly-God-King. As Christ reunited the priesthood and kingship as well as recreated communion between man and God. Clearly, Mohammed understood this about Christianity, judiasm, samatarism, other abrahamic descendants keeping some version of the OT and this reunification.

The idea of separate priesthoods from kingships is distinctly abrahamic compared to the rest of the world. Where the rest of the world gets kings who are '2/3rds divine' because the king is a god and whose conception was a ritualistic invitation with the god as well. So lots of crossover of priesthood and governmental authority.

What would sunni's say their ordering is? If their political authority (Mohammed's line) did not also pass down at the same as religious authority where is the religious authority bestowed and how was the conferred? How does this jive with the idea that there has to be a physical theocractic government of islam on earth?

Do Shia's and then further down Ismalis believe their needs to be a physical theocractic government of islam?

Christianity side steps this problem because it makes no claims about reigning an earthly kingdom. So its authority comes solely through churches. Churches who are have historically been in tension with governments.

---

The Sunnis divide authority (broadly) in the following way:

1. Caliph - worldly authority. No caliph in modern times, so a true wielder of Islamic political authority does not exist. This is why groups like ISIS seek to establish a "Caliphate." If you ask me - though I'm not a Sunni - the abolishing of the Ottoman Caliphate even as a figurehead by Ataturk was a massive mistake.

2. Ulema - theological/jurisprudential authority - the Ulema are the body of Sunni scholars, aligning with one of four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii, and Hanbali) and one of the Sunni schools of theology/Aqidah - ex. Ashari, Athari, Maturidi, Mutazili, etc. The Ulema interpret the religious texts, make commentaries on the Qur'an, on Hadith, etc. and a subset of Ulema, called the Mujtahids, provide jurisprudential advice and rulings because they are essentially judges and religious scholars molded into one. At various times, the Caliph and the Ulema have clashed as Caliphs have sometimes tried to (unsuccessfully) take some theological authority for themselves, or at least make the Ulema bend to their will.

3. Sufi Masters - esoteric/mystical spiritual authority - though often at tensions with the Ulema, the Ulema don't really exercise what I would term to be mystical or true spiritual authority over classical Sunnism. That belongs to the various strands of Sufism that permeate the Sunni tradition. Sunnis will attach themselves to these Sufi masters (sheikhs, Imams) who seek to gain closeness with God through various mystical practices, meditation, remembrance, etc. Sufism has often allowed practices that have been considered heterodox by the Ulema, but they have coexisted for a long time. Although these are Sunni Sufi masters we're talking about (there are also Shi'i Sufis) they will often trace their chain of authority back to a famed Islamic Sufi Master, almost all of these chains culminating somehow either in the figure of Muhammad and Ali. Sufi masters typically hold Ali in high regard and do accept some of the same aspects of his spiritual authority as Shi'as do, but do not affirm a hereditary or ongoing Imamate.

Sunni governments and their forms of government have always had some sort of balancing of the above. Take for example the Ottoman Empire, or the Mughal Empire, where the Sultans and Emperors would work in concert with the Ulemas while sometimes following a Sufi Master on a personal level, attending classes and lectures and engaging in mystical forms of worship with said master. Sometimes Sufi orders gained immense power through their patronage by a king or leader.

As for whether Shi'a religious belief necessitates a theocratic government - I don't necessarily think so, but we have to touch on Twelver Shias and Ismaili Shias differently because Twelvers do not have a present Imam, but Ismailis do.

For Ismailis - there has not been an Ismaili state in a long time, but there never has really been a tripartite division of authority in that manner. The Fatimid Caliphate was the first instance of an Ismaili state. In there, the Imams from the line of Ali ruled as Imam-Caliphs - they exercised dual authority as pontifex maximus (to the Ismailis) and Caliph (to all Muslims who ruled under them). During the Fatimid Caliphate, the Imam-Caliphs generally did not try to en-masse convert their followers to Ismailism, choosing to exist as a ruling elite in Egypt while spreading Ismailism elsewhere. For the most part, they allowed Sunnis to maintain their own ulema, Christians to continue under the Coptic patriarch, Jews to follow their personal religious law and rabbis, and patronized Sunni scholars they happened to agree with, and even had Sunni-Shi'a debates in the university they founded at al-Azhar in Cairo. The Fatimid Imam-Caliphs also delegated jurisprudential authority to their own Mujtahids and had a system of courts with trained jurists, but the Ismaili jurisprudential school was established as a unified system by a chief jurist in consultation with the Imam-Caliph. Ismaili theologians did exist, but everything was done under the Imam's umbrella, and they did not have religious authority outside of the Imam - thus they were often criticized as "philosophers" rather than theologians. As for spiritual, esoteric authority - the Imam himself was essentially considered to be the ultimate Sufi master, from which students could learn in closed sessions of spiritual knowledge, and he was considered to have the ultimate chain of mastery - his father, and his father, and his father before him, all the Imams leading all the way back to Ali and Muhammad.

As Caliphs, they wielded autocratic political authority, though they relied on a diverse bureaucracy with Sunni, Coptic and Jewish courtiers, Sunni soldiers, and often had viziers that were Sunni, Coptic, or Jewish.

There were other principalities and kingdoms that embraced Ismailism. Their princes/kings ruled independently but swore spiritual allegiance to the Imam - during the Fatimid caliphate, the Sharifid rulers of Mecca and Medina swore spiritual allegiance to the Imam, as did the Zirids in North Africa, the Soomro dynasty in Sindh (modern day Pakistan), the Sulayhid dynasty in Yemen, the Adil Shahi dynasty in modern day south India, etc. Those were not theocratic states but monarchies that deferred on religious matters to the Imam.

In modern times, the Ismaili Imams have stressed the Imamate as a nonpolitical, supranational entity, and have stated that their spiritual role is their primary role, although the welfare and physical well-being of the Ismailis is also of their concern (hence the AKDN and their humanitarian efforts in areas where Ismailis live). They have not pretended to any sort of political authority despite being treated as royal heads of state when they visit other countries. I'd imagine if a new Ismaili state somehow sprung into being, it would be a constitutional monarchy of some sort, with democracy replacing the vizierate and bureaucracy of the Fatimid Caliphate - but it would not really be a theocracy because, just as in the time of the Fatimid Caliphate, the Imam did not only rule over Ismaili subjects, and they are not particularly interested in mass conversion of people to Ismailism. So his religious/spiritual role would continue to only extend to Ismailis, who are not concentrated in any one region of the world anymore.

The Twelvers, on the other hand, are different because their Imams never tasted political authority. Until the Safavid Dynasty converted Persia to Twelver Shi'a Islam in the 1500s, the Twelvers were a historical footnote. The Ismailis had been the majoritarian sect of Shias until the Mongol genocides of Ismailis in the 13th century. The last Twelver Imam, the Twelfth Imam (hence the name), disappeared sometime in the late 800s as a child and supposedly ruled through a few intermediary "speakers" due to persecution (this could have been real, the Ismaili Imams did this at times, too) but after the mid 900s, the last speaker said that the Imam had gone into occultation and would not return until the end times. Since then, the Twelvers have been Imamless. How does an Imamless religion function for hundreds of years when the Imam is the central figure of the religion?

The Twelvers essentially developed their own ulema, just like the Sunnis - the same body of scholars that now rules Iran. They also were willing to designate political authority to pious Twelver rulers - for example, the Safavids kings of Persia, who never claimed to be Imams, only acting in the name of the Hidden Imam and in concert with the Twelver ulema. They also developed their own Sufi masters and orders who claimed to teach spiritual and esoteric and mystical knowledge on behalf of the Hidden Imam. For the Twelvers, like Ismailis, all authority flows from the Imam, but because the Imam is Hidden and not Present, all of it must be delegated, in a manner that is not that distinct from the Sunnis.

Does that mean that Twelverism requires a theocratic state? I don't think so. The seizure of power in 1979 by the Twelver Ulema over the Twelver "king" (the Shah, who did very publicly act like he was a pious Shi'a Twelver, going on pilgrimate to Shi'a sites, etc.) was kind of an unprecedented event. Never before have the Ulema ever seized authority in that manner, in any Sunni or Shi'a country or state. The entire concept of the Wilayat al-Faqih (Government/Guardianship/Trust of the Scholar) is a concept invented by Khomeini in the 70s. It never happened before in the history of Shi'ism in general.