Post by Drychnath on Feb 23, 2005 13:50:10 GMT -5
While reading about the popular Islamist who looks to be the front-runner for the new Prime Minister in Iraq, I began to wonder about the nature of clerics in Islam, as compared to priests and pastors in Christianity.
Now, there are fairly well-known divides within Islam (it is no more monolithic than Christianity); most notably that of Shiite and Sunni (who disagree about whether Muhammed declared a specific heir - Shiites contend he did, and follow that line of holy men. Sunnis elected a caliph to carry on Muhammed's duties). What we have in Islam (at least in the Middle East), is a network of clerics (imams and such), who inherit their postitions from their fathers, and serve as religious authorities. What caught my attention during this particular train of thought, was the contrast between Islamic and Christian holy men.
There are two schools of thought on holy personages in Christendom. The Catholic, Orthodox, and (I think) Anglican churches all hold priests and the church to be a necessary intermediary between the layperson and God. The Protestant churches (minus Anglican - again, I think) hold rather that preachers, churches, and indeed any authority at all is unnecessary, and that only the Bible wields divine authority. Thus pastors and the like are merely individuals highly educated on the subject of the Bible and of profound faith, and are their to provide guidance and advice, as needed.
What intrigues me about Islam, is that it seems to me that despite their being no single Church of Islam in the manner there was a Catholic Church, the clerics of Islam are still necessary intercessors with Muslims and Allah. There position is not quite the same as that of a priest; in the first, they hold to no uniform beliefs, and in the second, are not systematically appointed. They appear instead to be a halfway fusion of the two Christian concepts. These clerics of Islam inherit their position usually through long tradition. Their purpose appears to be interpreting and teaching the work of the Qur'an, but in contrast to the pastors and deacons of Protestantism, they are authoritative - at least within their own groups. The success of a given cleric is then almost entirely dependant on their own charisma and teachings.
What do you think?
I dunno how clear that came across, but that's where the thought was going. Feel free to ask for clarification or to correct me if I have some sort of glaring error. I was wondering if Western (and American in particular) opposition to charismatic legitimacy was at the heart of our disputes with Islamic states. I'll post that as a question in the Culture section if this post goes anywhere.
Now, there are fairly well-known divides within Islam (it is no more monolithic than Christianity); most notably that of Shiite and Sunni (who disagree about whether Muhammed declared a specific heir - Shiites contend he did, and follow that line of holy men. Sunnis elected a caliph to carry on Muhammed's duties). What we have in Islam (at least in the Middle East), is a network of clerics (imams and such), who inherit their postitions from their fathers, and serve as religious authorities. What caught my attention during this particular train of thought, was the contrast between Islamic and Christian holy men.
There are two schools of thought on holy personages in Christendom. The Catholic, Orthodox, and (I think) Anglican churches all hold priests and the church to be a necessary intermediary between the layperson and God. The Protestant churches (minus Anglican - again, I think) hold rather that preachers, churches, and indeed any authority at all is unnecessary, and that only the Bible wields divine authority. Thus pastors and the like are merely individuals highly educated on the subject of the Bible and of profound faith, and are their to provide guidance and advice, as needed.
What intrigues me about Islam, is that it seems to me that despite their being no single Church of Islam in the manner there was a Catholic Church, the clerics of Islam are still necessary intercessors with Muslims and Allah. There position is not quite the same as that of a priest; in the first, they hold to no uniform beliefs, and in the second, are not systematically appointed. They appear instead to be a halfway fusion of the two Christian concepts. These clerics of Islam inherit their position usually through long tradition. Their purpose appears to be interpreting and teaching the work of the Qur'an, but in contrast to the pastors and deacons of Protestantism, they are authoritative - at least within their own groups. The success of a given cleric is then almost entirely dependant on their own charisma and teachings.
What do you think?
I dunno how clear that came across, but that's where the thought was going. Feel free to ask for clarification or to correct me if I have some sort of glaring error. I was wondering if Western (and American in particular) opposition to charismatic legitimacy was at the heart of our disputes with Islamic states. I'll post that as a question in the Culture section if this post goes anywhere.