Why can't radical Sunnis and radical Shi'ites just get along?

will they leave the U.S alone then?

If the al queda guy is that dumb, so be it.

 

To answer the thread topic, it's because of corruption at the top and at the very root. You can actually pin point it to the day the Prophet PBUH passed away. Someone lied about what the Prophet PBUH said, and it has gotten progressively worse since.

Also, Al Qaeda are enemies of many many many Wahhabis/Salafis. I would liken it more to a fungal growth off the Salafi branch.

 

Historically Sunni/Shia makes Israeli/Palestinian seem like a passing fad. It is like the Hatfields and McCoys.

 

There is no better way to consolidate power than to unite your followers against an outside agency. Just about any difference can be exploited with enough propaganda. Leadership and especially ecumenical leadership cannot tolerate questioning as it threatens the illusion their devine legitimacy.

In the two factions of Islam you have two sets of old men with slightly differing interpretations saying that they are the true way of Mohamed. Since they can't both be right, unvarying and infallible then obviously they must become enemies.

 

Or the catholics versus protestants a few centuries ago. Islam is a few hundred years younger than Christianity so it just takes them for them to catch up.

BTW, I think organized religion is just a way for power hungry people to get sheep to do what they want. Its is and always has been about power and/or money.

 

wrong response.sorry!

 

yeah I guess, but I am still surprised that Al-Qaida would consider shias to be a bigger enemy than Christians or Jews. That just does not make much sense to me. Are they really that obsessed with hating a minority within Islam that they consider them to be worse than non Muslims? Kinda strange

 

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

Iraq used to be controlled by a Sunni minority. Lebanon was a genuine plurality. They are both legitimately now to varying degrees places where Shia power is in ascendancy.

It isn't really possible that Christians or Jews or Yazidi will ever be the dominant faction in any of those countries. (The Maronites and other Christians are strong in Lebanon, but have been declining for more that 100 years. They could, I suppose, stage a comeback, but it isn't likely.) Conversely, it is conceivable that many states which are now Sunni or Shia could have a shift of power to the other school of thought.

That is the source of the fear. Sunni can assimilate Shia, and Shia can assimilate Sunni much more easily that other religions could assimilate any Muslims. This is the same as the way that some Protestants sought an alliance with the Ottomans during wars associated with the Reformation. The Muslims were viewed as too different to be a threat. But the Catholics and Protestants were fighting for the same Christian souls.

And since the great seat of Shia scholarship rests in Qom, in Iran, and Sunni thinkers radiate outward from Saudi Arabia, it becomes a political metaphor between two military and economic powers who can legitimately be seen as competitors in those areas.

 

It's very silly IMO. But it's important to get an understanding of why this is the case. Here are some of the main problems:

1) Some Sunnis believe a non-believer created Shiism in order to divide the Muslim community. (To me, this should necessitate co-operation between Muslims rather than hatred)

2) The Shiite have very harsh words for some companions of the Prophet PBUH, and in some cases, openly curse them. On the Sunni side, the companions are some of the most highly regarded people to ever live. Sharp sharp contrast here. This is why 99.9% of people named Omar are Sunni rather than Shiite - because the Shiite are highly highly critical of him (again, sometimes they curse) while the Sunnis consider him to be a top example to follow among the early Muslims.

3) The Shiite (admittedly very few of them) dispute some things in the Quraan - sometimes they say a word has been removed. This argument is silly as the Quraan says that you can not corrupt it.

4) There are a minority of Shiites whom accuse the Prophet PBUH's wife of adultery. This is in spite of the fact that the Prophet PBUH meditated and decided that she did not (factual according to both sides).

5) Bukhari is the top compiler of the Prophet's words. Keep in mind that the Quran is not the Prophet's words. The shiite hate Bukhari - I'm not sure why, but I assume it is because ther are certain things excluded/included in his collections which they disagree with. Again, many resort to cursing in this instance - unacceptable behavior in Islam, regardless of your sect or the person being cursed.

6) Here is the root: Sunnis believe that the Prophet implied for them to democratically elect his succesor while Shiites believe that the Prophet implied only to select his succesor from "The People of the House" i.e. his bloodline. The root of this disagreement is a sermon which is the most witnessed in the Prophet's lifetime. Despite that, each sect has documented its own version of what the Prophet said and obviously, each version reflects what I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph (democracy vs. bloodline). It's at this point that a group of people started following the "People of the House" as successors and another group followed the Rashidun Caliphate. Ali (Prophet PBUH's cousin) is the central figure for Shiites - they feel he should have succeeded the Prophet PBUH as leader of the Muslim nation.

Now the irony of it all. Subsequently, Sunnis glorified the companions and Shiites glorified Ali and his descendants. In my opinion, the average Shiite and Sunni are engaging in some form of Shirk - the greatest sin in all of Islam, which is basically partnering a non-divine being/thing with The divine being in any way. So idol worship falls under this category. They've both attributed superhuman powers to their own sides. They've created their own books which, in my opinion, scientifically speaking can not possibly contain this much contrast/contradiction if they were done at the same time and were equally vigilant with source materials.

This goes to the point where some Sunnis claim that Shiite are not Muslim and some Shiite claim that Sunnis are not Muslim. Again very childish since it is not up to anyone to determine if anyone else is Muslim or not - that classification can only stick if a personal declaration is made publicly.

More irony: Today, Shiite states are more closely following democracy than Sunni states.

Silly silly dispute, as they usually are in these cases. I don't know why everyone can't see that the only real difference is at the source of conflict (Prophet's final speech) and that everything after is a result of the hatred caused by people who want to create rifts. Really sucks for me.

 

Very interesting information Mathloom and Ottomaton.

Unfortunately any religion that gets beyond the cult size is likely going to suffer from sectarianism, and even a lot of cults breakdown over differing interpretations. Heck Buddhist have fought other Buddhists over religious reasons.

 

It's religion, people suppose kill each other.

 

The whole purpose of OBL and Al Qaeda was to purify Islam and to make Saudi and other states "true Islam" (in their mind). The whole anti-Western thing kind of developed later and became a popular way to look at them, but that's not the actual purpose of the organization. The West is kind of secondary in that we're involved in the Middle East and so we're enemies because of that (remember, one of their first "demands" was that we get our troops out of Saudi Arabia).

 

You must mean Egypt and not Saudi Arabia.

 

Actually, most of it stems from the Umayyad caliphate seizing control of the Muslim ummah after the end of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. A lot actually comes from before that, with the assassination of Caliph Uthman.

Muawiyah I was horrible (for lack of a better word) person, despite what was seen as a "sincere" conversion. Before Caliph Ali's assassination, he had the governor of Egypt (appointed by Ali) executed and had his remains stuffed into a donkey. Who was the governor of Egypt? He was the son of the 2nd Calpih, Abu Bakr, the sister of Aisha (wife of the Prophet), and brother-in-law of the Prophet.

His son (Yazid) was no better, and was never deserving of the Caliphate (especially through some shrewd sense of dynastic rule).