Sunnis and Shias

Historically its not really been an issue. Its only been exacerbated by sectarian rulers from The Gulf Arab states and the Islamic regime in Iran. Then there's of course the various terrorist groups which pick off people for having the audacity for being the 'wrong' sect.

My parents grew up not even knowing which sect they belonged to, nowadays its a life or death question in somewhere like Iraq or Syria.
 
Kaos said:
Historically its not really been an issue. Its only been exacerbated by sectarian rulers from The Gulf Arab states and the Islamic regime in Iran. Then there's of course the various terrorist groups which pick off people for having the audacity for being the 'wrong' sect.

My parents grew up not even knowing which sect they belonged to, nowadays its a life or death question in somewhere like Iraq or Syria.
Click to expand...

AmI wrong in thinking though that particularly (perhaps only) in those states (Iraq, Iran, Gulf states and Saudi) the Sunnis have ruled the Shia for much of modern history if not longer?

It seems that Sunnis seriously oppress the Shia in these states. The trouble in Saudi mentioned in the article I linked to was a surprise to me, primarily because I didn't know the Royals there were Sunnis, but after I started to think that this seems to be a reoccuring theme in the region.
 
sonny-and-cher.jpg
 
Dans said:
AmI wrong in thinking though that particularly (perhaps only) in those states (Iraq, Iran, Gulf states and Saudi) the Sunnis have ruled the Shia for much of modern history if not longer?

It seems that Sunnis seriously oppress the Shia in these states. The trouble in Saudi mentioned in the article I linked to was a surprise to me, primarily because I didn't know the Royals there were Sunnis, but after I started to think that this seems to be a reoccuring theme in the region.
Click to expand...

Since Ottoman ruling Sunnis have been the de facto 'ruling sect', but thats to be expected considering they outnumber Shias 9:1 globally.

But its not always a numbers game. In Iraq and Bahrain where the majority population are Shia, they've often been the ones being oppressed by a Sunni minority regime. Now that the Shias are in power in Iraq, they seem to be 'returning the favour'.

If you ask me the cause of all this is the Wahabist doctrine originating in Saudi Arabia, which teaches Sunnis that Shias are heretics. Unfortunately this sentiment is echoed by the Royalists which only fans the flames. Of course, the treatment towards Sunnis by the newly-empowered Shia in Iraq does little to quell this rift.
 
As long as there are idiots in power then there will always be warring people. If there was a truly democratic regime in the middle east where people could have some trust in the equality of the system, then maybe we would see some calm.
 
They will never ever get along unless Islam is altered, or reformed and that will probably never happen either.
 
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/2013719220768151.html

As the author suggests it might be a tad overplayed and a lot of the Iran vs Saudi angle when talking about politics is conjecture. But sectarianism is certainly a noticeable and important issue with regards to extremist factions and terrorist groups.

The point about converging peacefully on Hajj is interesting but having said that a lot of Shia's (and many non-Shias to be fair) take serious issues with the destruction of holy sites in Mecca (for logistic reasons etc) so it's not all plain sailing there.

The thing that often goes unreported is the disgraceful treatment of minority sects within Islam, the Bahai's, Sufis, the Ahmadis and the Ismailis who are derided (with no sense of irony) as dangerous cults with severe state-sanctioned restrictions imposed on their freedom to practice and many violent pogroms against the communities.

Which is probably the biggest hypocrisy I find in those who are vociferously pro-Palestinian within Muslim communities, their sociopathic attitude towards Ahmadis.
 
Wolverine said:
I know plenty of Sushis.
Click to expand...
You can only be one though so how does it work out? Shia beliefs clash terribly with Sunni beliefs. Zaidi shias? Maybe they're a lot closer to Sunnis but still, the beliefs are different.
 
Relevated said:
You can only be one though so how does it work out? Shia beliefs clash terribly with Sunni beliefs. Zaidi shias? Maybe they're a lot closer to Sunnis but still, the beliefs are different.
Click to expand...

It's more political than theological, but many find a way to coexist without much issues.

But in shia mosques, we always refer to them as "our sunni brothers and sisters". The most virulent stuff, as always, is online and of course its hard to deny the political struggle. But it's less of an issue with Muslims in western countries but you'll always get the nutters who'll call each other kafir.
 
Wolverine said:
It's more political than theological, but many find a way to coexist without much issues.

But in shia mosques, we always refer to them as "our sunni brothers and sisters". The most virulent stuff, as always, is online and of course its hard to deny the political struggle. But it's less of an issue with Muslims in western countries but you'll always get the nutters who'll call each other kafir.
Click to expand...
Okay so here's a dilemma. One person associates infallibility with the 12 imams, curses A'isha, Umar, Uthman, Abu Bakr, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Zubayr ibn al-Awam etc how can he possibly get along with a Sunni who practices his Islam properly? For example, the Hanafi madhab makes takfir on Shias who do the above.
How would they get along if, say, they live in the same household?
 
The only way you'd get along is if you don't have gheerah over those companions, but then there's the issue of the imams.
 
Relevated said:
Okay so here's a dilemma. One person associates infallibility with the 12 imams, curses A'isha, Umar, Uthman, Abu Bakr, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Zubayr ibn al-Awam etc how can he possibly get along with a Sunni who practices his Islam properly? For example, the Hanafi madhab makes takfir on Shias who do the above.
How would they get along if, say, they live in the same household?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that hypothetical would exist in a Su-Shi marriage/household, the kind that get together I'd imagine.

They would more likely have views on things like Muharram and some of the kookier things some Shias practice like corporal mortification (i.e. zanjeer) but like I said many couples I know who are married and are managing it fine. I certainly don't think the type that do get married are very religious/conservative either. But many sunnis I know respect the different views and can have healthy debates on issues even those pertaining to Ahl al Bayt or some of the other touchy issues.
 
Wolverine said:
I'm not sure that hypothetical would exist in a Su-Shi marriage/household, the kind that get together I'd imagine.

They would more likely have views on things like Muharram and some of the kookier things some Shias practice like corporal mortification (i.e. zanjeer) but like I said many couples I know who are married and are managing it fine. I certainly don't think the type that do get married are very religious/conservative either. But many sunnis I know respect the different views and can have healthy debates on issues even those pertaining to Ahl al Bayt or some of the other touchy issues.
Click to expand...
Are you shia? Do a lot of the do the Zanjeer thing or just a minority? Is it in any shia scripts or is it just like a thing that's done?
 
Allah SWT says in the Qur'aan "Lakum dinukum waliyadin" (Unto me my religion, and to you yours)

According to that verse there should be no need for conflict due to religious beliefs, or differences. We can, and should live with our differences and accept diversity. Community harmony and cohesion is absolutely vital for a vibrant and progressive society.
 
Sultan said:
Allah SWT says in the Qur'aan "Lakum dinukum waliyadin" (Unto me my religion, and to you yours)

According to that verse there should be no need for conflict due to religious beliefs, or differences. We can, and should live with our differences and accept diversity. Community harmony and cohesion is absolutely vital for a vibrant and progressive society.
Click to expand...


Why do people then try to manipulate the scriptures or derive other meaning when things are so clearly written? Honest question. People who are educated, who read the holy books be it sunni, shia, hindu, christian whatever. How do the priests, maulana or ISIS manage to convert other educated people in hating each other in the name of religion calling each other kafir or kill someone who is a muslim just because he practises islam or he is not a sunni but a shia or a ahmedi?

All the scriptures do say that a human should learn to accept each other and live in harmony. I just find it absurd because you have a small portion of idiots egging and trying to convert people to fight for jihad by killing other innocent people which i am sure islam is not about at all.
 
Witchking said:
Why do people then try to manipulate the scriptures or derive other meaning when things are so clearly written? Honest question. People who are educated, who read the holy books be it sunni, shia, hindu, christian whatever. How do the priests, maulana or ISIS manage to convert other educated people in hating each other in the name of religion calling each other kafir or kill someone who is a muslim just because he practises islam or he is not a sunni but a shia or a ahmedi?

All the scriptures do say that a human should learn to accept each other and live in harmony. I just find it absurd because you have a small portion of idiots egging and trying to convert people to fight for jihad by killing other innocent people which i am sure islam is not about at all.
Click to expand...
People's beliefs are rarely determined by solid evidence and sound reasoning. There's sure to be a psychological block/bias that makes these people ready to believe what they want rather than what's written. I very much doubt these young people go to their local Imams and, ask if their actions are valid, and the significance of their actions. I don't even think they talk it through with their parents or community elders of the consequences of their actions. Throughout history people have always been attracted to fighting wars for a multitude of reasons. Maybe a thrill, an adrenaline rush, or chance to be a hero? Anyway religionists don't have a monopoly in radicalisation. There have been plenty of young men in history who have been easily swayed to fight for their country or other reasons majority of us find lame.
 
Relevated said:
Are you shia? Do a lot of the do the Zanjeer thing or just a minority? Is it in any shia scripts or is it just like a thing that's done?
Click to expand...

I am Shia indeed, although would not claim to be a particularly devout one. Zanjeer used to have more of an appeal before. There are alternatives such as blood donation drives encouraged instead with highlighting of the health risks. It is considered illegal in the UK (for under 18s) but there is a vocal minority who are in favour of it, it isn't mandated by anything (more a bizarre cultural thing) and I think it's a bizarre, barbaric practice personally.
 
Sultan said:
Allah SWT says in the Qur'aan "Lakum dinukum waliyadin" (Unto me my religion, and to you yours)

According to that verse there should be no need for conflict due to religious beliefs, or differences. We can, and should live with our differences and accept diversity. Community harmony and cohesion is absolutely vital for a vibrant and progressive society.
Click to expand...

Ameen :)
 
Sultan said:
People's beliefs are rarely determined by solid evidence and sound reasoning. There's sure to be a psychological block/bias that makes these people ready to believe what they want rather than what's written. I very much doubt these young people go to their local Imams and, ask if their actions are valid, and the significance of their actions. I don't even think they talk it through with their parents or community elders of the consequences of their actions. Throughout history people have always been attracted to fighting wars for a multitude of reasons. Maybe a thrill, an adrenaline rush, or chance to be a hero? Anyway religionists don't have a monopoly in radicalisation. There have been plenty of young men in history who have been easily swayed to fight for their country or other reasons majority of us find lame.
Click to expand...


Guess you are right Sultanji, was just a bit perplexed with all the recent events and hatred between subsects of Islam.
I knew you have sunni and shia, just thought they were similar to catholic and protestants kind of stuff. Did not know they hated each other so much.

Only after reading up a bit i understood the difference between them.
 
Relevated said:
Okay so here's a dilemma. One person associates infallibility with the 12 imams, curses A'isha, Umar, Uthman, Abu Bakr, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Zubayr ibn al-Awam etc how can he possibly get along with a Sunni who practices his Islam properly? For example, the Hanafi madhab makes takfir on Shias who do the above.
How would they get along if, say, they live in the same household?
Click to expand...

Half my family is shia, the only point of contention that comes up is the time for iftar. The rule is when in rome...
 
They should make a holy game between a team made up of Sunnis and a team made up of Shias. Whoever wins, he's right. Moyes would probably be interested to manage one of them
 
Witchking said:
Guess you are right Sultanji, was just a bit perplexed with all the recent events and hatred between subsects of Islam.
I knew you have sunni and shia, just thought they were similar to catholic and protestants kind of stuff. Did not know they hated each other so much.

Only after reading up a bit i understood the difference between them.
Click to expand...
The bolded part is important.

There was hardly a suicide bombing in the Mid East, Pakistan, or Afghanistan prior to 2001. This focusing on Sunni/Shia issues and blaming religion is deflecting the blame away from policies and politicians. What we are witnessing is major players justifying their agendas and mistakes of the last decade. Basically a war or a conflict has to be marketed to be palatable to the audiences back home watching news channels.
 
Once the US were to leave Iraq civil war easily predictable in Iraq. Same will happen in Afghanistan. The colonialists have a history of dividing nations, and a number of us on here and many commentators predicted Iraq would be carved out into three countries.

Sunni/Shia differences have always existed but it has never really been a major issue. A lot of these events we are now witnessing reflect on the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. That illegal invasion is one of the main causes of turmoil and this rise in extremism. A lot of these terrorists organisations have been born out of mistakes by Bush and his hawkish sidekicks over the last decade.
 
Disagree wholeheartedly. This is a global ideological phenomenon centuries in the making that draws its legitimacy from a literalist reading of the Quran and the Hadith. It's not reducible to blaming foreign policy mistakes by the US.

But of course, it's so much more convenient to do so.
 
JohnDoe said:
Disagree wholeheartedly. This is a global ideological phenomenon centuries in the making that draws its legitimacy from a literalist reading of the Quran and the Hadith. It's not reducible to blaming foreign policy mistakes by the US.

But of course, it's so much more convenient to do so.
Click to expand...
Islam, and Sunni/Shia theological differences have existed for 1500 years. This global ideological phenomenon conveniently appearing over the last decade is a deflection of responsibility.
 
To suggest that this has spontaneously appeared since the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and that there was no jihadist violence before then, which seems to be what you're saying, is just a blatant lie (the so-called War on Terror was sparked by a jihadist attack for Heaven's sake). There are thousands upon thousands of foreign fighters who join up with ISIS, despite having no connection whatsoever to Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are dozens, if not hundreds of jihadist organizations all over the world, including countries where the US has never intervened. And the fact that it's global by definition means it's not linked in any narrow sense to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thomas Jefferson about meeting the envoy to Tripoli in 1785 regarding the Barbary states' attacks on American ships and enslavement of American personnel in the Mediterranean, "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury":

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
Click to expand...

That was way before US foreign policy, and yet this is basically the exact same rhetoric used by the likes of al-Qaeda, ISIS etc. nowadays. To ignore the obvious religious component in this is absurd.
 
Last edited:
JohnDoe said:
Disagree wholeheartedly. This is a global ideological phenomenon centuries in the making that draws its legitimacy from a literalist reading of the Quran and the Hadith. It's not reducible to blaming foreign policy mistakes by the US.

But of course, it's so much more convenient to do so.
Click to expand...
The middle-east mess is largely due to colonial fork-ups.
 
Sultan said:
Once the US were to leave Iraq civil war easily predictable in Iraq. Same will happen in Afghanistan. The colonialists have a history of dividing nations, and a number of us on here and many commentators predicted Iraq would be carved out into three countries.

Sunni/Shia differences have always existed but it has never really been a major issue. A lot of these events we are now witnessing reflect on the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. That illegal invasion is one of the main causes of turmoil and this rise in extremism. A lot of these terrorists organisations have been born out of mistakes by Bush and his hawkish sidekicks over the last decade.
Click to expand...

More than dividing nations the colonialist created artificial ones divided by artificial borders. Considering the tribal nature of societies here the religious and ethnic frictions were then inevitable, waiting to erupt when the central administration showed any sign of weakness.

Still, for all the superpowers' mistakes after WWI I doubt the ME would have been stable if it wasn't for Sykes-Picot. It's impossible even now to come up with any conceivable allocation of the Ottoman empire territory among people varying in religion, sect, tribe or ethnicity which would have promised better stability.
 
JohnDoe said:
It was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
Click to expand...
It's not in the Qur'aan I know. A lot of additions (verses/interpretations) to the Qur'aan have come into existence over the last decade to justify the actions of USA and terrorists alike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.