Shiite and Sunni's. Whats going on?

I have been trying to find things about Shiites and sunnis...i have not have any luck.
What is the history of these two?
Whats going on?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This will explain it:

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm

"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)."

Sunni's are the worlds majority making up 85% of worlds muslims. Shia predominates in places like Iran for example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, which is why the Shias who believe in nepotism have Presidents and the Sunnis, who don't, have Kings, Emperors and Sultans.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, does that mean Shias prefer to elect their leaders while Sunnis prefer self-appointed dictators?

:shrug:

 

No it means like the Democrats and Republicans they switched groups a long time ago and no one noticed.

Note that countries with religious leadership are highly resistant to being infiltrated and toppled of their leaders.

Its an evolutionary advantage.

 

That explanation is pretty good. Generally the differences in perspective of political in nature.e Islam is not only a religion, but a political ideology as well. Sunnis, known as, "Ahlus sunnah wa al jama'a" (the people of the sunnah and the parties) believe that leadership can be passed to anyone, regardless of their heritage or familial ancestry, as long as they are pious and righteous Muslims, furthermore this is generally decided by a Majlis e Shura (consultative council, elected by the community). Shi'a, from Shi'at e Ali (Party of Ali), believe that the leadership, religious and secular, should remain with the Prophet's family from the line of his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali (radhi allahu anhumaa). However, it is important to note that Sayyid (descendants of the Prophet) do not have to be Shi'a, infact most of the modern descendants of the Prophet are Sunni. It is not necessarily true that the conflict has been one of lineages and heritage, as Iran used to be a Sunni country before the advent of Safavi Turkish control. Egypt used to Shia Fatimid, but was conquered by Salahuddin after the Fatimids could not fight the Crusaders, this led to Egypt becoming Sunni. The traditional center of Shias has always been Lebanon, which even today is 60% Shia.

As far as religious doctrine, Sunnis and Shias are basically the same. Its in the political realm where they differ. Iraq used to mixed Sunni-Shias, with a high rate of intermarriage between them. Only after the invasion by the US, isolation of Sunnis, and arming of Shia radicals, did the situation erupt into a civil war. Baghdad used to by 50-50, Sunni Shia with mostly mixed neighborhoods, not it is 90% Shia, the Sunnis have basically been ethnically cleansed. The Americans rely on Shia dominance as they see the Sunnis as more resisting of occupation.

 

Are you sure? The much touted [and fake] Awakening is Sunni

 

From an American military standpoint, this is how they think. Naturally, all true Muslims oppose the occupation of Iraq, Suni or Shia. The only problem is the collaborators on both sides.

 

Thanks for not answering the question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That would be the lie that Muslims would offer due to the fact they refuse to acknowledge their own internal problems of fundamentalism.

I would wonder why you have to lie about it, DH?

 

So the fact that Iraq was without a civil war for hundreds of years, before Saddam or the Americans, is negligible? You deceive only yourself.

However, what can we expect with Atheists. If you do not accept God, there is nothing to hold one back from lying or inventing false charges against others. The end result, without God, is social decay, anarchy, and the rise of selfishness.

 

????????? Iraq did not exist before 1932, before then, the land was part of the Ottoman Empire.

Now as for conflict in Mesopotamia, Sumer, Akkadian Empire, Babylonia, and Assyria, there is a long and bloody history of killing thta goes back for eons.

 

There was no land and no people? In 1932 the people and land mysteriously appeared? Ah Forrest.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nations are formed by the people. Nations by NAME, come and go, people remain. Gently flowing and ebbing in the same place, for thousands of years.

Unlike Israel, which mysteriously appeared, complete with Europeans (foreigners) in 1947.

Conflict? As does Rome, Greece, Byzantium, Scandinavia, China, Japan, etc. Human nature. Don`t try to limit conflict to Arabs and Muslims.

 

Is it true that Hezbollah developed because they were marginalized by a government where only a christian can be elected president and a sunni as vice president when the majority in the country are actually Shia? Who created this system where the government can only be dominated by Christian and Sunni?

Thanks Diamond for your explanation.

 

Now if you care to notice this part of the post;

 

When France left the region with their 'independence,' it divided Bilad Ash-Shaam into two territories, Syria and Lebanon. Syria was supposed be the Muslim state, Lebanon the Christian dominated state. The Shias of Lebanon were marginalized by the French and left to fend for themselves following the invasions from Israel. Palestinians entered southern Lebanon, Shia dominated region, to escape the genocides in Israel by Zionist militas and settlers. The Lebanese Maronites, a specific branch of Eastern Christianity, established militias to hunt down and massacre the Shias of Lebanon and Palestinian refugees. However, it is important to realize that many of Palestinian immigrants to come to Lebanon were Christian and many Lebanese Christians to this day support the liberation of Palestine from Israel, who is the enemy of all Arabs, Muslim or Christian. These militias have always been assumed by most Arabs to be the agents of Israel, as this was during the Lebanese civil wars. The Israeli supported massacre of the defenseless Palestinian Sabra and Shatila refugee camps happened during this time, in which Ariel Sharon (future PM of Israel) was directly involved. Due to constant invasions (independence-1982 onwards) and lack of sympathy from the central powers of Lebanon for the safety of Shias and Palestinians in Lebanon, Hezbollah was established. it's main goal being to patriotically defend Lebanon from Israeli invasion, which it succeeded in 2006. Demographics over time led to the dominance of Shia Lebanon and Palestinians in southern Lebanon, efforts of Hezbollah and Syria to fortify southern Lebanon have proven to be very effective in stopping the Israeli advance into Lebanon and Syria. Most of the Sunni organizations in Lebanon are sympathetic to Hezbollah and Shia Lebanonese, it even has Christian allies such as the Amal movement. It is mostly those in the upper elite, who have a vested interest in suppressing Southern Lebanese and keeping religion outside of politics who are opposed to Hezbollah. After 2006, Hezbollah has become even more popular in Lebanon and will continue to be so. It even has military allies from amongst the Christians. Numerous Sunni groups also participated in the 2006 defense of Lebanon.

 

It is only you who attempt to deceive, DH.

What 'holds me back' from those things you consistently practice here is simple rationale and reasoning in which I view such as beneficial to me and to those I interact with, whereas you view it as something that is simply punishable by your god. You don't possess the capacity to figure it out for yourself, a result of your childhood indoctrination, no doubt..

 

It depends on what you consider an advantage.

See any Romans around?

 

Interesting.
I tend to mentally compare the Shiite/Sunni divide with the Catholic/Protestant divide.

In the Christian faith, it was the Catholics, who like the Shias believe in succession, who supported Kingship.
It was the Protestants in Europe who brought in non divinely appointed leaders.

Nepotism usually involves children and other relations.
Why did this lead to a presidential system in the Shia muslim faith and not a royal one?

 

Probably because of the way it came about. The Caliphate was supposed to be based on merit, but when the Mongols invaded, their brutality silenced the clerics who were supposed to be the critics of the state. The Mongolian system was all based around reverence of the Khan. And when the Mongol Caliph embraced Shia Islam, he overthrew 600 years of Sunni Islam in Iran, Iraq and Yemen and converted the populace to his way of thinking, where the Khan [who was based on merit and the ability to lead] led the pack. The clerics were marginalised until the Islamic revolution, but perversely, continued the same practice of electing first among the chosen equals.

Meanwhile, in the Hejaz as well as in the Emirates, the emir, who was the administrator under the Ottomans, became the most pliable tool for divide and rule. Armed with money and weapons from the western colonial powers, they established little kingdoms where the adminstrative divisions existed and rebelled against the Ottomans, fighting with the British against them for nationalistic freedom [haha]. And the Sauds and Kuwaiti and Omani kingdoms were born.