Posted on 04/02/2011 7:41:16 PM PDT by george76
Tensions and violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims are often in the news in countries like Iraq, Pakistan and Bahrain, but why are they at daggers drawn?
swissinfo.ch: How did it come about that a Sunni minority should rule over a Shiite majority, as for example in Bahrain, where there are currently popular protests?
Arnold Hottinger: This is a matter of power which has historical roots. Bahrain has a Sunni government but the majority of the population – 70 per cent - is Shiite. The example of Iraq, which also has a Shiite majority, can be easily explained in the same way.
Iraq belonged to the Ottoman Empire. The Turks were Sunnis and installed a Sunni governor in Baghdad. Later, when the British were in power in Iraq, they kept the Shiites down and promoted the Sunnis.
There were no direct descendants left by around the ninth century. The Shiites believe that the last Imam has disappeared into eternity and will return. This is a kind of Messianic belief...
Iran is the only Shiite state. There the belief has developed that each of the faithful should choose a spiritual leader. If a cleric has many followers he may be called an Ayatollah.
It is important to point out that the Iranian Shiites are very different from the Arabic-speaking Shiites.
The Persian Shia Islam is strongly mixed with the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism. The Persians, today’s Iranians, have a different language, history and culture.
(Excerpt) Read more at swissinfo.ch ...
And we are continually told that islam is a religion. It is not a religion. It is an ideology with intent to rule according to shria law. That makes it a political entity and not a religion.
>> What divides Sunni and Shiite Muslims?
My ignorance of the disparity in their hatred for Christians like me.
good point — it is exactly what we should be doing. Why are we involved in Libya? And let Bahrain be the flash point between the Sunnis and Shias
yes, the head of the Ismailis is the Aga Khan. his grandfather and father both married many Europeans and he has 3/4th European blood (or more). The Ismailis are more “open” than other Moslems as the Aga Khan interprets the Koran for them and does tend towards peacefulness.
They do have differences of opinion on a lot of central beliefs besides the historical reasons.
Besides the Sunnis and Shias, there are Ibadis (Oman), Druze (Lebanon, Israel, Syria), Allawis (Syria), Ahmadiyyas (Pakistan mainly) and Bahai'is (Iran, India etc.)
Sunnis are divided into 4 groups based on interpretation (Hanafi etc.) -- not much difference but the Wahabbis and the Sufis are sub-groups that display quite divergent paths
Shias are divided into 12evrs, 7evers and I believer 5 evers depending on the number of Imams they hold as being "true". They are Ismailis, Bohris, Dawoodi Bohras, etc.
the best option that I have discussed with others is to induce Iranis to convert en-masse to Zoroastrianism (or rather to RETURN to Zoroastrianism). In recent reports the numbers of Zoroastrians has soared to 2 million from 50,000 and there may be millions of hidden, secret Zoroastrians in Iran as many Iranis are truly fed up with Islam which they see as an Arab conspiracy to put down Persia (which if you go to the origins of Islam may very well be true)
And they're still flagellating themselves over this during Ashura centuries later...
What do you expect from servants of Satan?
Sorry, but not quite.
After Mohammad's death, according to sunnis & shi'ites, there were 3 "Caliphs" plus 1. They include: (Aba) Abu Bakr, Umar (Omar), Uthman (Osman), and Ali ibn Abi Talib being the 4th Caliph.
The dispute between Shi'ites & Sunnis, which began immediately after Mohammad's death, was not simply because there was no designated successor to Mohammad by Mohammad; it was also about who was the rightful successor to Mohammad to wage war on infidels (non-believers) & to bring Islam by the sword, among other ways, to other lands.
Sunnis argued the rightful successor, to Mohammad, had to be chosen/elected by Moslems or the Ummah (Moslem) community. Shi'ites believed the rightful successor was already designated thru hereditary lines to Mohammad, in which case they said, the most rightful/legitimate one, was Ali (Mohammad's cousin & son-in-law).
Ali, therefore, is considered the 4th Caliph in Islam, and the 1st Shia Imam (the 1st "Guardian" of the Shi'ite sect). Shia Islam in Iran dictates that the other 11 Shia Imams are Ali's descendants by "bloodline" - the 12th (hidden) Imam being "Mehdi or Mahdi" will appear "at the end of time".
When the despicable Safavid rulers of Iran in the 16th century AD enforced Shia Islam on Iranians & made Shia Islam the official state religion, their subhumans brutally forced Iranians to say out loud "Ali is Vali" (Ali is the Guardian). Hence, A basis for the Velayat_e Faghih (the guardianship/rule of Shia jurisprudence) AKA Khomeini's doctrine. Ring a bell ?
I understand your wiki link is about Ali's son "hussein" (the 3rd Shia Imam). Hussein was beheaded, hence the Ashura mournings and self-flogging in the Shia twelvers world. Well, they are nutjobs. Tho, based on Sunni "traditions" ("sunnah") alone, I would venture to say the Sunnis have the potential to be more democratic & secular. Tho, it isn't solely about theology; it is about Arab culture, which can't be changed easily, and certainly not quickly.
Thanks for the information.
Apologies, meant to say: I understand your wiki link is *Not* about Ali’s son “hussein”.
Thank you.
I didn’t make it clear that it was the murder of Uthman that set up Ali’s part as the last of the Rashidun.
Since Ali, too was murdered, Hasan’s takeover/rulership and the further murder (’the martyr’) Hussein, in my opinion, still an issue of succession..’
As far as I’m concerned, succession has always been the actual foundation of Islamic black flags of ‘revolution.’
I know the wiki link didn’t go to anything specific about Hussein. I don’t like to think about him.
IIRC, Hasan & Hussein were brothers anyway. And here I thought fratricide was a no, no at these levels.....
Sunnis like to use a sharp knife to behead their victims, while Shiites prefer a dull knife.
“Sunnis have the potential to be more democratic & secular
Frankly, abd ul-Wahab wasn’t much on securlarism. Once these folks go purist, and read all the Quran—even the parts not always translated for Western eyes and ears—fanatacism is the principal path for them.
When Al-Qaradawi speaks from a Sunni viewpoint of being able to speak about Islam ‘evolving’ or ‘changing,’ I think we have all the info we need. Twelver or Sunni, they intend to kill us. Just for breathing.
There is no such thing as ‘radical’ Islam. People who came up with that idea are selling the West the Brooklyn Bridge.
In Islamic countries, there are only Muslims, and those who don’t really believe, but go along out of fear.
It is the ‘herecy of Bab’ which originated in Iran, too, remember. We know it as Bahai.
I wonder what’s in the water over there for all these world views.
When I was very small, I learned that the 3 Kings (well, maybe 2 of them anyway) were Zoroastrians.
“There are better sources for those interested in the origins of the divisions...”
At the end of the article’s continuation, a commenter lists several mistakes make by Mr. Hottinger. An interesting tidbit not listed here is that Assad the head of Syria belongs to the Shia offshot sect called Alawi. Only 6% of Syrians are Alawites. Even worse than the 30:70 split in Bahrein.
Perhaps, first and foremost, the Assads are Ba’athists, and that civil fascist, even religious, designation is remarkable, as well.
I decided to look into the charges that the Libyan east is Al Qaida. I found that the overthrown King Idris (by Qadaffi 40 years ago) was Sannusi Sufi. Previous rulers in this line were very pious, and rejected the more athletic manifestations of Sufi. These rulers also managed to resolve disputes in surrounding areas and get along with other tribes as they were fairly relaxed in their interpretations of Islam so far as forcing others to toe the line. Thus it sounds as though they might not appreciate the extreme rigidity of Al Qaida.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I had the impression that another difference was that the Sunni Caliphate was much more oriented to luxury, wealth and display, with the Ottoman sultans extreme examples of this tendancy. The Shiite were more oriented to piety and simplicity. In fact one of the complaints about the current Grand Ayatolla, Kemenei, is that he is living too rich and ostentatious a life with his 10,0000 well paid personal body guard and his spendthrift wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.