• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

◊◊◊◊◊ vs Sunni

As far as I recall the Shias see the cousoin of Mohammed, who was called Ali as his natural successor, adn the Sunnis do not agree. Got the following from About.com

Both Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith. The differences between these two main sub-groups within Islam initially stemmed not from spiritual differences, but political ones. Over the centuries, however, these political differences have spawned a number of varying practices and positions which have come to carry a spiritual significance.
The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation. The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions of the Prophet."

On the other hand, some Muslims share the belief that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself.

The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).

From this initial question of political leadership, some aspects of spiritual life have been affected and now differ between the two groups of Muslims.

Shia Muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession. Sunni Muslims counter that there is no basis in Islam for a hereditary privileged class of spiritual leaders, and certainly no basis for the veneration or intercession of saints. Sunni Muslims contend that leadership of the community is not a birthright, but a trust that is earned and which may be given or taken away by the people themselves.

Shia Muslims also feel animosity towards some of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, based on their positions and actions during the early years of discord about leadership in the community. Many of these companions (Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, etc.) have narrated traditions about the Prophet's life and spiritual practice. Shia Muslims reject these traditions (hadith) and do not base any of their religious practices on the testimony of these individuals. This naturally gives rise to some differences in religious practice between the two groups. These differences touch all detailed aspects of religious life: prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc.

Sunni Muslims make up the majority (85%) of Muslims all over the world. Significant populations of Shia Muslims can be found in Iran and Iraq, and large minority communities in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Lebanon.

It is important to remember that despite all of these differences in opinion and practice, Shia and Sunni Muslims share the main articles of Islamic belief and are considered by most to be brethren in faith. In fact, most Muslims do not distinguish themselves by claiming membership in any particular group, but prefer to call themselves simply, "Muslims."
 
If I remember correctly, the initial split was based upon whether Muhammed named Ali, his son-in-law, as his successor (as head of the faith) during a trip shortly before Muhammed's death.

The Shias believe that Muhammed named Ali as his successor and regard Ali as the first Imam. The sequence of Imam's was unbroken until the tenth (I think) Imam, who withdrew from the world when he was young (Shias believe this literally) and is known as the Hidden Imam.

The Sunnis do not believe that Muhammed named a successor and began the institution of the Caliphate, in which a sequence of Caliphs lead their faith.

What is sweetly weird is that Sunnis recognize Ali as the fourth (I think) Caliph. So Ali, the question of whose leadership split Islam into two, ended up leading both of the branches. Not that this resulted in the repair of the breach.

Sunnis have had the reputation of being slightly more pragmatic and worldly than the Shias.
 
Overman said:
◊◊◊◊◊ vs Sunni
Click to expand...
614_big.jpg
 
The facts are most welcome, but nothing about this nonsense is clear.
It’s my firm belief that this medieval dogma will propel the whole world to disaster.
 
A small correction - I heard on the news today that the Hidden Imam was the twelth (not the tenth) Imam and that his shrine (along with the shrines of the tenth and eleventh Imams) was the one damaged by explosives in Iraq today.
 
It is important to remember that despite all of these differences in opinion and practice, Shia and Sunni Muslims share the main articles of Islamic belief and are considered by most to be brethren in faith. In fact, most Muslims do not distinguish themselves by claiming membership in any particular group, but prefer to call themselves simply, "Muslims."[\quote]

Yet it is amazing that these small differences of opinion on matters that happened over 1000 years ago are still enough to cause people to blow each other up and cause general misery.

It always seems to me that things like this are just used an an excuse by people who just want to cause mischief or engage in some primal desire for tribalistic violence. Its the same phenomena that drives football riots etc.
Click to expand...
 
Dcdrac said:
As far as I recall the Shias see the cousoin of Mohammed, who was called Ali as his natural successor, adn the Sunnis do not agree.
Click to expand...

The Shias then went on to divide themselves a couple of time over the succession. For example, the argument over the rightful seventh imam created the Ismaelite branch (whose most famous members were the assasin sect).
 
If you were in Ireland, the ◊◊◊◊◊ Muslims would be the ones that are'nt very good at it.
 
LW said:
The Shias then went on to divide themselves a couple of time over the succession. For example, the argument over the rightful seventh imam created the Ismaelite branch (whose most famous members were the assasin sect).
Click to expand...
Their best known modern descendents are the Druze, who, IIRC, come in two flavours.

Islam is no more fissiparous than Christianity or Socialism, of course.
 
The Sunni-Shia division reflects, to a great extent, a division between Arabs (in the traditional, Arabian Peninsular sense) and non-Arabs in the Muslim world. There's no good evidence that Muhammad meant his religion to be universal. During the early Arab expansion non-Arabs weren't allowed to convert, on pain of death. Subsequently they could convert, but only via an Arab sponsor/patron (a neat piece of social engineering). Arab influence waned very rapidly, there just weren't enough of them and by its nature Arabia can't support a large population. Within a century they were hiring Turkish mercenaries to do their fighting, and soon after they were mere figureheads. Arabs had their 15 minutes of fame, and, in my opinion, they still have a chip on their cultural shoulder about it. A close look at al-Qaeda, for instance, reveals an Arab-supremacist movement. Their non-Arab dupes don't have wide-enough horizons to see that.

The Turks stuck to the orthodox, Sunni position of their figureheads. The civilised Muslims of Persia and the Fertile Crescent, who were the real source of Islam's splendid culture, took to Shi'ism and Sufism. Come the Mongols, and Shi'ism was devastated. Turks and Sunnism dominated in the aftermath, which stretched into modern times. (When the Mongols Rule 8 you, you stay Rule 8ed.)

We're now in a period of transition, which has been complicated by the presence and importance of oil. Had it not been for that, Iran would probably have become the regional power after the Ottoman collapse, and nobody in the West would care.
 
CapelDodger said:
Islam is no more fissiparous than Christianity or Socialism, of course.
Click to expand...
I have not heard that word fissiparious before. Could you explain why you are using it in context to this subject?
1.Reproducing by biological fission.
2.Tending to break up into parts or break away from a main body; factious.

Because according to definition #2 when you refer to Christianity being this way you are mistaken. Faith in Christ is what unites us, not divides us.
 
I think he's refering to the scisims wich created Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, etc. (Northern conservative fundimentalist baptist, council of 1912...) As they've broken appart from each other but still calling themselves Christians. The Sunni and Shia still consider themselves "Muslim", so the analogy is apt.

Trif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom