What is the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims?

[Marina14]

(please forgive any mispellings)

 

[AgnosTheist]

the difference is mainly political: the manner of succession. sunnis believe its by council vote, shias believe its by blood. but they are identical in core religious beliefs.

 

[Marina14]

the difference is mainly political: the manner of succession. sunnis believe its by council vote, shias believe its by blood. but they are identical in core religious beliefs.

So then why all the fighting between them if their core religious values/beliefs are identical?

 

[jwashu]

It’s really more complicated than that…

When Mohammad passed on there were arguments as to how Islam should be governed.

One group believed it should be from a political and power standpoint. The others believed that Islam should always be lead, at the head, by a blood descendant of the Prophet.

Since the Sunnis had the power and the political clout they won out initially. However Mohammad’s Grandson had a lot of supporters and was poised to rule Islam.

However he was murdered by Sunni extremists just outside Bagdad… The big Shia celebration in Iraq is to celebrate and mourn his loss.

Since that time almost all political power and wealth has been held by the Sunni Muslims… partially because of their belief system. Shias on the other hand were often the poor and the devout (not saying that Sunnis aren’t there are just certain difference).

Like say Calvinist and Catholics. A true Calvinist believes that members of the Elect are often blessed with material wealth and power… thus many prosperous people would tend to enjoy that belief system. While many Catholics are prosperous as well, that is not a sign of salvation in the Church.

So back to Islam though… after over a thousand years this power base has become destabilized. Iran, after the 1977 revolution became the first Shia Islamic nation. Iraq, at least initially after our invasion, became the first Shia Democracy… Yet all of our oil partners are Sunni and these groups loath each other more than any Irish Catholic vs Protestant ever could. Yet it was Sunni extremist who attacked us…

There are old wounds and divisions in Islam that go much deeper that we Christians tend to imagine… situations which we were obviously not prepared for prior to our invasion of Iraq.

If you are interested in the differences I would suggest, *The Shia Revival *by Vali Nasr. It’s definitely an eye opener.

Joe

 

[Marina14]

It’s really more complicated than that…

When Mohammad passed on there were arguments as to how Islam should be governed.

One group believed it should be from a political and power standpoint. The others believed that Islam should always be lead, at the head, by a blood descendant of the Prophet.

Since the Sunnis had the power and the political clout they won out initially. However Mohammad’s Grandson had a lot of supporters and was poised to rule Islam.

However he was murdered by Sunni extremists just outside Bagdad… The big Shia celebration in Iraq is to celebrate and mourn his loss.

Since that time almost all political power and wealth has been held by the Sunni Muslims… partially because of their belief system. Shias on the other hand were often the poor and the devout (not saying that Sunnis aren’t there are just certain difference).

Like say Calvinist and Catholics. A true Calvinist believes that members of the Elect are often blessed with material wealth and power… thus many prosperous people would tend to enjoy that belief system. While many Catholics are prosperous as well, that is not a sign of salvation in the Church.

So back to Islam though… after over a thousand years this power base has become destabilized. Iran, after the 1977 revolution became the first Shia Islamic nation. Iraq, at least initially after our invasion, became the first Shia Democracy… Yet all of our oil partners are Sunni and these groups loath each other more than any Irish Catholic vs Protestant ever could. Yet it was Sunni extremist who attacked us…

There are old wounds and divisions in Islam that go much deeper that we Christians tend to imagine… situations which we were obviously not prepared for prior to our invasion of Iraq.

If you are interested in the differences I would suggest, *The Shia Revival *by Vali Nasr. It’s definitely an eye opener.

Joe

Thanks Joe,

Your answer makes a lot of sense.

My daughter’s best friend is a Muslim from Iraq and I asked her mom who was born and raised there, but she didn’t know. The first time she’d ever heard of the Shiite’s existence was on FOX News when this war started.

Thank you very much!

 

[Kadaveri]

Hi Marina.

So you know this up front, I’m a Sunni Muslim.

The previous replies are correct in that the division between Sunni Muslims and the Shi’a are primarily politically inspired, not theologically. There are some theological differences which developed later, but overall the Shi’a have still remained remarkably close to mainstream Muslims in their doctrines.

Personally, I regard it as more accurate not to conceptualise this as two groups of Muslims, Sunni -vs- Shi’a, as that’s rarely how this works out. The differences between them are very rarely a case of Sunni = A, Shi’a = B; but a case of Sunni = A, Shi’a A + B. What I mean to say here is that the Shi’a almost never reject or significantly modify those beliefs held by Sunni, but rather take them, and add things to it, mostly 'Ali related material. Some examples of this are:

Sunni creed: There is no deity but God, and Muhammad is God’s Messenger.
Shi’a creed: There is no deity but God, and Muhammad is God’s Messenger, and 'Ali is God’s viceregent.

Sunni holidays: 'Eid Al-Fitr (marks the end of Ramadan), 'Eid Al-Adha (celebrates the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son), 'Ashura (celebrates the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt).
Shi’a holidays: 'Eid Al-Fitr, 'Eid Al-Adha,** 'Ashura **(happens to be the day 'Ali’s son Hussein was killed, and so the Shi’a also mark this as a day of mourning), **'Eid Al-Ghadir **(the day they claim 'Ali was appointed Muhammad’s successor), Imamat Day (the day 'Ali was chosen Caliph), Yom Ali (Ali’s birthday).

Sunni pilgrimages: Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem.
Shi’a pilgrimages: Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, **Najaf **(where Ali was killed and is buried), **Kerbala **(where his son Hussein was killed and buried), **Damascus **(where the tomb of 'Ali’s daughter Zainab is).

Wherever there’s a difference between Sunni and Shi’a, look for Shi’a emulation of 'Ali and you’ll most likely find the root of it.

 

[Kadaveri]

Now, to expand upon Jwashu’s post I’ll give some historical basis of the split. As it stands now, Sunni Muslims make approximately 90% of the world’s Muslims, and Shi’a the other 10% (mostly focused around Iran). The word ‘Sunni’ comes from Sunnah, which means ‘tradition’, and in the context of Islam the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); thus Sunni are the traditionalists/orthodox Muslims. The word ‘Shi’a’ can be roughly translated as ‘partisans’, or those who go in another direction, since the Shi’a split off from the Sunnis to form their own religious community over a political dispute.

The origins of the split go right back to the death of Muhammad (pbuh). After he died in 632AD, the Muslims had to choose a new leader. The accepted way to do this way through Shura, that is, the few dozen or so of Muhammad’s closest companions would be, and discuss amongst themselves who would be the most suitable candidate. They met, and decided to elect Abu Bakr, one of the first converts to Islam and Muhammad’s closest friend) as Caliph.

There were a small group of Muslims (mostly from the Persia), who didn’t agree with this choice, feeling that leadership would be best kept within the Prophet’s family. The Persian Empire had a hereditary leadership system, so this is what they most likely were most comfortable with. They believed that 'Ali bin Abi Talib, Muhammad’s cousin and closest male relateive, should have been chosen as Caliph (although 'Ali didn’t actually want it). They didn’t cause any trouble at first, but this is where the divisions that lead to the split took rout.

Abu Bakr would rule for two years, but then caught a fever and died. The second Caliph elected was Umar bin Al-Khattab, again supporters of 'Ali being Caliph were displeased, though 'Ali did not want to run. After Umar’s death he nominated six men whom he believed to be the suitable candidates to replace him, 'Ali was one of them, another was Uthman bin Affan. The Shura couldn’t reach a consensus over which of these two (from the six initially nominated) would be better, so the asked Uthman and 'Ali of their opinions. Uthman told them to choose 'Ali because he was better, but 'Ali told them to choose Uthman because he was better. To make their decision, the Shura took each one of them individually and asked them if they could promise to continue the policies of Umar, Uthman answered that he promised he would, 'Ali answered that he probably would be couldn’t promise it. Upon this, the Shura chose Uthman as the least risky option.

Uthman would rule for twelve years, before a coup in Egypt by the region’s governor, Muhammad bin Abi Hudhaifa, lead to a crisis. Ibn Abi Hudhaifa wanted Uthman removed from power, but Uthman refused to do anything to stop him. Ibn Abi Hudhaifa soon marched upon Medina with a few hundred of his supporters and laid siege to Uthman’s house swearing that they would kill him. Uthman had many supporters, including 'Ali’s sons Hasan and Husain who defended his house, but Uthman didn’t want to push the Caliphate into civil war by responding with more violence (his famous quote is, “I do not want to spill the blood of Muslims to save my own neck”). Eventually the rebels broke into his house, and stabbed him to death while he sat reading the Qur’an.

Upon this, the Islamic world was pushed into even deeper crisis, and a new leader had to be found quickly to resolve the situation. 'Ali was the first choice, but he refused to accept it saying he would better serve the nation as a counsellor, not a chief. Two other men were also nominated, Talhah bin Ubaydullah and Abu ‘Abdullah Zubayr, they both refused however, saying that 'Ali was by far the better man than them. Seeing that the Caliphate needed a new leader immediately and he was the only real candidate, 'Ali was convinced to accept the responsibility. Along with the general Muslim population, there was also 'Ali’s small group of supporters who had vouched for him to take the position of Caliph ever since Muhammad’s death. After seeing 'Ali passed over three times over 24 years by people not even related to Muhammad, they were delighted that their man had finally been placed as their leader.

 

[Kadaveri]

'Ali immediately pushed forward a rigorous campaign to bring the Muslim world back into a state of stability and bring those regional governors under control. Upon being chosen 'Ali was expected to hunt down and punish those who had murdered Uthman, but he did not do so straight away, saying that he was not in a position to do that yet, which was fair. But the high tensions and emotions running through meant some people didn’t think the issue over rationally (that’s how I see it anyway) and accused 'Ali of not caring about Uthman. The leader of those Muslims campaigning for justice to be delivered upon Uthman’s murderers was 'Aisha, Muhammad’s wife and the daughter of Abu Bakr. Her role in this is the reason the Shi’a often curse her, as they see her actions as opposing 'Ali.

With the problems he already had to deal with, 'Ali wasn’t going to allow the Muslims to fall into civil war. Without hesitation he forced those protesting about the freedom of Uthman’s killers to disperse, and convinced 'Aisha (who later asked him to forgive her for causing so much trouble) that it would be in the interests of the Muslims if she stand down. 'Ali then went on to reform the leadership structure of the regional provinces outside the Hejaz (Islam’s powerbase in Arabia), which had broken down after the rebellion against Uthman. Now, one of the regional governors (of Syria) who had been appointed during Uthman’s reign, a man named Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan, turned out to be very ambitious, often exceeding the bounds of his authority in the way he governed, and so his loyalty was questioned, he was also suspected of corruption.

'Ali recalled Mu’awiyah back to Medina, most likely to remove him as governor of Syria. But Mu’awiyah refused to surrender any of his power, and raised an army to defend his position. But 'Ali had the rest of the Muslims firmly behind him, and Mu’awiyah, seeing that had little chance of success after 'Ali’s army laid siege to Damascus, sued for negoiations, 'Ali agreed. 'Ali’s most fanatical followers were angered by this decision, believing that 'Ali should have killed Mu’awiyah and his supporters for such treachery (which 'Ali could very easily have done). These were the Kharijites.

After a few months, 'Ali and Mu’awiyah agreed a settlement, Mu’awiyah would resign as governor, with the condition that 'Ali would also resign as Caliph, and new men would take each position. The Kharijites were even more incensed at this, feeling that 'Ali had betrayed his cause. 'Ali went on to resign as Caliph, but Mu’awiyah, instead of also resigning as governor of Syria, declared himself the new Caliph! 'Ali, shocked at Mu’awiyah treacherous actions, regretted ever negoiating with him, and decided to march his army to Damascus and put a stop to Mu’awiyah for good. Before he was able to do so however in 661 AD, he was murdered by Abdal-Rahman bin Muljam, one of the Kharijites (and, ironically, one of the strongest supporters of 'Ali being Caliph until this episode).

This meant that Mu’awiyah had no realistic challenger, and was able to rule as Caliph. 'Ali’s son Hasan was elected Caliph by the Shura in Medina after 'Ali’s murder (and he is sometimes counted as the 5th rightly guided Caliph, along with Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and 'Ali), but he was never able to claim any true power, and retracted his claim so as not to be responsible for a civil war.

For 'Ali’s supporters, this turn of events was just too much to bear. They’d been waiting 24 years for 'Ali to be made Caliph, and for him to be finally elected, be murdered and his position usurped under such terrible circumstances, was the ultimate slap in the face. This was the moment where the Shi’a, began to truly break off from the rest of the Muslims. The political dispute between Sunni and Shi’a then is not them being on different sides here, both agree that 'Ali was a righteous ruler, and that his killing was a terrible act, and neither liked what Mu’awiyah did. Where the difference lies is how they react, Sunnis, for the most part I think take the view that bad things happened, but that it’s best to accept that the past can never be changed and move on. The Shi’a, on the other hand, reject this approach and forever bear a grudge against the rest of the Muslim world for this injustice. They could never forgive that their champion had been betrayed, usurped, and then murdered; and they could never, and still never accept the rest of the Muslim world bearing this injustice and carrying on. A one sentence explanation of what’s at the heart of the Sunni/Shi’a divide I’ve read is that is that the Shi’a are really nothing more than a small group of Muslims who have a thirteen century long grudge against the majority.

 

[Kadaveri]

This sense of betrayal and the world being against them was exacerbated even more by events that would take place almost twenty years later. When Mu’awiyah died in 680 AD, many were hoping that the Shura system could be replaced instead of the monarchy he had announced upon being made Caliph. This was not to be however, Mu’awiyah’s son Yazid I, became the next Caliph and inherited his father’s armies to enforce his position. Yazid was widely regarded as being a total religious hypocrite, negligent of his religious duties and merciless in repressing any perceived opposition. 'Ali’s younger son Hussain (Hasan had already passed away at this point) refused to accept such a man be allowed to claim leadership of the Muslims, so he and about seventy of his followers marched to Damascus (where the capital had been moved from Medina by Mu’awiyah) to gather support for his removal. They only reached as far as Kerbala (not Baghdad) however, before being surrounded by thousands of Yazid’s soldiers, who then slaughtered them all.

Again, the difference between Sunni and Shi’a was not being on different sides, but on how to react. Sunni Muslims regard Husain as a martyr, who died standing up to tyranny, the Shi’a agree on this point, but go much further in their commemoration of this event. Husain was killed on the day of 'Ashura, which is the Islamic Yom Kippur, celebrating the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt to the Promised Land under Moses (pbuh). Shi’a however, mostly forget about this, and instead focus on Husain’s killing on this day, and so have a day of communal mourning and cursing of Yazid, some Shi’a even go so far as to publically injure themselves to express their grief, which you may have seen in coverage of it in Iraq or Iran, but these are definitely on the extreme end.

And I must disagree Jwashu’s post on this event depicting it as a conflict between Sunni and Shi’a. Firstly the Shi’a had not distinguished themselves theologically at this point, and could not be regarded as being a different type of Muslim, Hussain and his supporters rebelled for political, not religious. And secondly Hussain was not killed by ‘Sunni extremists’, there were no Shi’a by the modern definition at this point to differentiate Sunnis from anyway, he was killed by soliders of Yazid’s army in a purely political act. Yazid was not a religious fanatic (in fact, he wasn’t religious at all). Attaching religious significance to this event is misleadering, and best avoided.

And so, the differences between Sunni and Shi’a revolve around the political crisis that developed in the Muslim world about twenty years or so after Muhammad’s death, and the injustices therein which the Shi’a have never been able to let go. Theologically there are but a few differences, infact most Christians are quite surprised at how minor these are (as compared to religious split theologically based like Catholics/Protestants). These also stem from politics, since the Shi’a, feeling betrayed by their Muslim brethren, believed that these could no longer trust them nor the Islam they were practising, and so over the centuries they recreated Islam in their own image, so to speak. Shi’a Islam is characterised by themes of sorrow, grief, persecution and martyrdom; their religious festivals exclusive to them are not celebrations, but days of mourning over historical injustices.

The most overt way Shi’a doctrine differs is their religious leaders. Sunni Islam, has no Pope, has no spiritual leaders or any form of clergy. The leader of the Muslims, the Caliph, is viewed as a purely temporal and fallible political leader, not God’s representative on Earth or any such thing. In line with their forefathers claim that only a relative of Muhammad (and later, a descendent of 'Ali) had a legitimate right of leadership over the rest of the Muslims, the Shi’a would gradually develop a concept of the Imamate, infallable leaders descended from 'Ali whose writings were considered as much an authority as the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the only two sources considered legitimate by Sunnis). They would also institute a system of a formal clergy (something Sunnis don’t have), the chief leaders being the Ayatollahs with effective power over life and death, and lower down the Mullahs.

However, although this difference would appear profound, the Shi’a have remained remarkably close to the rest of Islam in how they have reconstructed their religion, and so they remain much closer to Sunnis than say, Protestants ended up in respect to Catholicism. Except for the Shi’a obsession with anything related to 'Ali, you’ll find little other difference. This is why I say that Shi’a are really just Sunni Muslims who, out of excessive reverance for 'Ali and the historical injustices revolving round his role in the Caliphate, have a irreconciable grudge against the rest of the Ummah. They’re not truly a divergent religious sect.

Peace (apologies for the length).

 

[Kadaveri]

ada

 

[paarsurrey]

the difference is mainly political: the manner of succession. sunnis believe its by council vote, shias believe its by blood. but they are identical in core religious beliefs.

Hi

I agree with your above post.

As long as the Sunnis and Shias believe that Quran is the foremost source of guidance, the differences were only interpretational and minimal.

The differences increased when both Factions adopted different Sources of Hadith mostly contradictory with each other, having no basis in Quran.

Later both sides had different history resources increasing the bitterness.

Thanks

 

[zerinus]

'Ali immediately pushed forward a rigorous campaign to bring the Muslim world back into a state of stability and bring those regional governors under control. Upon being chosen 'Ali was expected to hunt down and punish those who had murdered Uthman, but he did not do so straight away, saying that he was not in a position to do that yet, which was fair. But the high tensions and emotions running through meant some people didn’t think the issue over rationally (that’s how I see it anyway) and accused 'Ali of not caring about Uthman. The leader of those Muslims campaigning for justice to be delivered upon Uthman’s murderers was 'Aisha, Muhammad’s wife and the daughter of Abu Bakr. Her role in this is the reason the Shi’a often curse her, as they see her actions as opposing 'Ali.

With the problems he already had to deal with, 'Ali wasn’t going to allow the Muslims to fall into civil war. Without hesitation he forced those protesting about the freedom of Uthman’s killers to disperse, and convinced 'Aisha (who later asked him to forgive her for causing so much trouble) that it would be in the interests of the Muslims if she stand down. 'Ali then went on to reform the leadership structure of the regional provinces outside the Hejaz (Islam’s powerbase in Arabia), which had broken down after the rebellion against Uthman. Now, one of the regional governors (of Syria) who had been appointed during Uthman’s reign, a man named Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan, turned out to be very ambitious, often exceeding the bounds of his authority in the way he governed, and so his loyalty was questioned, he was also suspected of corruption.

'Ali recalled Mu’awiyah back to Medina, most likely to remove him as governor of Syria. But Mu’awiyah refused to surrender any of his power, and raised an army to defend his position. But 'Ali had the rest of the Muslims firmly behind him, and Mu’awiyah, seeing that had little chance of success after 'Ali’s army laid siege to Damascus, sued for negoiations, 'Ali agreed. 'Ali’s most fanatical followers were angered by this decision, believing that 'Ali should have killed Mu’awiyah and his supporters for such treachery (which 'Ali could very easily have done). These were the Kharijites.

After a few months, 'Ali and Mu’awiyah agreed a settlement, Mu’awiyah would resign as governor, with the condition that 'Ali would also resign as Caliph, and new men would take each position. The Kharijites were even more incensed at this, feeling that 'Ali had betrayed his cause. 'Ali went on to resign as Caliph, but Mu’awiyah, instead of also resigning as governor of Syria, declared himself the new Caliph! 'Ali, shocked at Mu’awiyah treacherous actions, regretted ever negoiating with him, and decided to march his army to Damascus and put a stop to Mu’awiyah for good. Before he was able to do so however in 661 AD, he was murdered by Abdal-Rahman bin Muljam, one of the Kharijites (and, ironically, one of the strongest supporters of 'Ali being Caliph until this episode).

This meant that Mu’awiyah had no realistic challenger, and was able to rule as Caliph. 'Ali’s son Hasan was elected Caliph by the Shura in Medina after 'Ali’s murder (and he is sometimes counted as the 5th rightly guided Caliph, along with Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and 'Ali), but he was never able to claim any true power, and retracted his claim so as not to be responsible for a civil war.

For 'Ali’s supporters, this turn of events was just too much to bear. They’d been waiting 24 years for 'Ali to be made Caliph, and for him to be finally elected, be murdered and his position usurped under such terrible circumstances, was the ultimate slap in the face. This was the moment where the Shi’a, began to truly break off from the rest of the Muslims. The political dispute between Sunni and Shi’a then is not them being on different sides here, both agree that 'Ali was a righteous ruler, and that his killing was a terrible act, and neither liked what Mu’awiyah did. Where the difference lies is how they react, Sunnis, for the most part I think take the view that bad things happened, but that it’s best to accept that the past can never be changed and move on. The Shi’a, on the other hand, reject this approach and forever bear a grudge against the rest of the Muslim world for this injustice. They could never forgive that their champion had been betrayed, usurped, and then murdered; and they could never, and still never accept the rest of the Muslim world bearing this injustice and carrying on. A one sentence explanation of what’s at the heart of the Sunni/Shi’a divide I’ve read is that is that the Shi’a are really nothing more than a small group of Muslims who have a thirteen century long grudge against the majority.

Thank you for your interesting and well rounded short history of early Islam.

zerinus

 

[Orionthehunter]

If you are interested in the differences I would suggest, *The Shia Revival *by Vali Nasr. It’s definitely an eye opener.

Joe

I don’t claim to be an Islam expert. Heck, I’m not even an expert on Catholicism.

While nothing I read written by Kadaveri do I find “inaccurate” it is from a Sunni perspective. In fact, it is correct that from a Sunni perspective much of the difference can be attributed to “political” differences. The book recommended by Joe above articulates the Shia perspective slightly different and the difference is “theological”. Shia emphasize their theology in a way that is much less temporal (which ends up playing out practically in “political” differences).

I would like to use two extremes in Christianity to point out how this difference manifests itself with the two sects of Islam. On one hand you have the Joel Osteen theology that our temporal, physical blessings are signs that we have/are pleasing God. On the other hand, you have those who believe in extreme austerity and that our temporal, physical blessings are a distraction from God and spirituality.

Similarly (but less extreme), Sunni’s have no problem combining temporal and spriritual matters/accomplishments as they are a sign of being right with God. Shia resist a focus temporal matters/accomplishments as they see it as a distraction from matters/accomplishments spiritual.

Also, Kadever’s perspective that Sunni is A and Shia is A+B is similar to the perspective of Evangelicals that they are A and Catholicism is A+B. Shia would say that they are a more complete Islam while theologically Sunni’s are a less complete brand of Islam simlar to a Catholic perspective that Evangelicals are theologically Christianity lite.

For non-Muslims, the difference has profound implications. Because Sunni’s are less abashed about combining temporal and spiritual matters, they are generally less tolerant of non-Muslims. You can see this just by the mere existence of Christianity in Shia areas is tolerated while in Sunni areas, they have been eliminated by extermination or forced relocation or forced conversion.

 

[manualman]

This is a superb discussion and much needed education in today’s world. Thanks to all!

Do I hear correctly that an “imam” is by definition a Shiite cleric?

Sunnis have no clergy? Nobody in charge of teaching at the mosques?

 

[MugenOne]

Wanna hear another crazy idea about Shia/Sunni split. Some Shiites believe that the Angel Gabriel was supposed to visit Ali and start a new religion with him. On the night of the visit, Mohammed switched room with Ali because he wanted to sleep in Ali’s crib. The poor Angel Gabriel showed up and started revealing God’s revelation to Mohammed instead of Ali. You know, the rest is history and they’ve been at each other throat ever since.

Ain’t that story funny? Godlike beings make mistake.

 

[jwashu]

Thank you Kadaveri! Obviously my information is a bit one sided, it was very nice to read your perspective. I will definitely try to pick up some material written from a Sunni perspective.

Reading my note again I do want to apologize if I sounded disrespectful to either side.

From a political perspective I have to admit I find America’s postions in regards to the middle east and understanding other cultures lacking at best. Yet in my haste I made similar grammatical errors.

Thanks!
Joe

 

[Marina14]

This sense of betrayal and the world being against them was exacerbated even more by events that would take place almost twenty years later. When Mu’awiyah died in 680 AD, many were hoping that the Shura system could be replaced instead of the monarchy he had announced upon being made Caliph. This was not to be however, Mu’awiyah’s son Yazid I, became the next Caliph and inherited his father’s armies to enforce his position. Yazid was widely regarded as being a total religious hypocrite, negligent of his religious duties and merciless in repressing any perceived opposition. 'Ali’s younger son Hussain (Hasan had already passed away at this point) refused to accept such a man be allowed to claim leadership of the Muslims, so he and about seventy of his followers marched to Damascus (where the capital had been moved from Medina by Mu’awiyah) to gather support for his removal. Sunni Muslims regard Husain as a martyr, who died standing up to tyranny, the Shi’a agree on this point, but go much further in their commemoration of this event. Husain was killed on the day of 'Ashura, which is the Islamic Yom Kippur, celebrating the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt to the Promised Land under Moses (pbuh). Shi’a however, mostly forget about this, and instead focus on Husain’s killing on this day, and so have a day of communal mourning and cursing of Yazid, some Shi’a even go so far as to publically injure themselves to express their grief, which you may have seen in coverage of it in Iraq or Iran, but these are definitely on the extreme end.
And I must disagree Jwashu’s post on this event depicting it as a conflict between Sunni and Shi’a. Firstly the Shi’a had not distinguished themselves theologically at this point, and could not be regarded as being a different type of Muslim, Hussain and his supporters rebelled for political, not religious. And secondly Hussain was not killed by ‘Sunni extremists’, there were no Shi’a by the modern definition at this point to differentiate Sunnis from anyway, he was killed by soliders of Yazid’s army in a purely political act. Yazid was not a religious fanatic (in fact, he wasn’t religious at all). Attaching religious significance to this event is misleadering, and best avoided.
And so, the differences between Sunni and Shi’a revolve around the political crisis that developed in the Muslim world about twenty years or so after Muhammad’s death, and the injustices therein which the Shi’a have never been able to let go. Theologically there are but a few differences, infact most Christians are quite surprised at how minor these are (as compared to religious split theologically based like Catholics/Protestants). These also stem from politics, since the Shi’a, feeling betrayed by their Muslim brethren, believed that these could no longer trust them nor the Islam they were practising, and so over the centuries they recreated Islam in their own image, so to speak. Shi’a Islam is characterised by themes of sorrow, grief, persecution and martyrdom; their religious festivals exclusive to them are not celebrations, but days of mourning over historical injustices.
The most overt way Shi’a doctrine differs is their religious leaders. Sunni Islam, has no Pope, has no spiritual leaders or any form of clergy. The leader of the Muslims, the Caliph, is viewed as a purely temporal and fallible political leader, not God’s representative on Earth or any such thing. In line with their forefathers claim that only a relative of Muhammad (and later, a descendent of 'Ali) had a legitimate right of leadership over the rest of the Muslims, the Shi’a would gradually develop a concept of the Imamate, infallable leaders descended from 'Ali whose writings were considered as much an authority as the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the only two sources considered legitimate by Sunnis). They would also institute a system of a formal clergy (something Sunnis don’t have), the chief leaders being the Ayatollahs with effective power over life and death, and lower down the Mullahs.
However, although this difference would appear profound, the Shi’a have remained remarkably close to the rest of Islam in how they have reconstructed their religion, and so they remain much closer to Sunnis than say, Protestants ended up in respect to Catholicism. Except for the Shi’a obsession with anything related to 'Ali, you’ll find little other difference. This is why I say that Shi’a are really just Sunni Muslims who, out of excessive reverance for 'Ali and the historical injustices revolving round his role in the Caliphate, have a irreconciable grudge against the rest of the Ummah. They’re not truly a divergent religious sect.
Peace (apologies for the length).

Kadaveri,
Thank you for such a thorough explanation! I should think that I may never have any additional questions now :bounce: Thank you!
Marina

 

[Kadaveri]

For non-Muslims, the difference has profound implications. Because Sunni’s are less abashed about combining temporal and spiritual matters, they are generally less tolerant of non-Muslims. You can see this just by the mere existence of Christianity in Shia areas is tolerated while in Sunni areas, they have been eliminated by extermination or forced relocation or forced conversion.

I don’t see any evidence of this. There are plenty of Sunni areas where Christians communities have existed for centuries, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Western Iraq, Palestine (around Bethlehem), to give some examples. Moreover the Shi’a areas of the Muslim world (Iran and Eastern/Southern Iraq) aren’t especially tolerant towards Christians.

I don’t think either Sunni or Shi’a can be said to be more tolerant towards non-Muslims, both have their fair share of good and bad.

Manualman:

Do I hear correctly that an “imam” is by definition a Shiite cleric?

Sunnis have no clergy? Nobody in charge of teaching at the mosques?

In Sunni Islam, an ‘Imam’ is the person who leads a communal prayer. It’s not a formal position as such, any Muslim can do it; though at a Mosque it’s usually only a respected person of the community who does it.
However the Shi’a have a very different view. In their religious community, an ‘Imam’ is the closest equivalent of the Catholic Pope in the role they play. They are the infallable descendents of 'Ali, a position passed down father to son. The last of which, Hujjat bin Hasan, they believe to have went into ‘hiding’ around 939 AD, and will return some time in the future to conquer the world for the Shi’a.

And yes, Sunni have no formal clergy. The person in charge of teaching at Mosques is simply that, a teacher or manager. They don’t hold any *spiritual *position, nor are they higher in any religious hierarchy.

MugenOne:

Wanna hear another crazy idea about Shia/Sunni split. Some Shiites believe that the Angel Gabriel was supposed to visit Ali and start a new religion with him. On the night of the visit, Mohammed switched room with Ali because he wanted to sleep in Ali’s crib. The poor Angel Gabriel showed up and started revealing God’s revelation to Mohammed instead of Ali. You know, the rest is history and they’ve been at each other throat ever since.

Ain’t that story funny? Godlike beings make mistake.

This isn’t the view of mainstream Shi’a. Although I do acknowledge you clarified your statement with ‘some Shi’a’, those who believe this are a tiny minority fringe group, the vast majority (at least 95%) of Shi’a denounce as heretical.

Jwashu:

Thank you Kadaveri! Obviously my information is a bit one sided, it was very nice to read your perspective. I will definitely try to pick up some material written from a Sunni perspective.

Reading my note again I do want to apologize if I sounded disrespectful to either side.

From a political perspective I have to admit I find America’s postions in regards to the middle east and understanding other cultures lacking at best. Yet in my haste I made similar grammatical errors.

Thanks!
Joe

No problem. I appreciate that you’ve clearly taken some efforts to understand this issue, and you didn’t sound disrespectful to either side.

Marina14:

Kadaveri,
Thank you for such a thorough explanation! I should think that I may never have any additional questions now Thank you!
Marina

You’re most welcome.

 

[zerinus]

And yes, Sunni have no formal clergy. The person in charge of teaching at Mosques is simply that, a teacher or manager. They don’t hold any *spiritual *position, nor are they higher in any religious hierarchy.

Who are the people in Sunni Islam who issue edicts and fatwas that are considered binding on the community? Does not that mean that they must have a recognizable spiritual “authority” of some kind? Among the Shi’ah it is the Ayatollahs that do it.

An unrelated question: What is the source or origin of the so called “five pillars of Islam”? I think you know what I am referring to.

zerinus

 

[manualman]

In Sunni Islam, an ‘Imam’ is the person who leads a communal prayer. It’s not a formal position as such, any Muslim can do it; though at a Mosque it’s usually only a respected person of the community who does it.
However the Shi’a have a very different view. In their religious community, an ‘Imam’ is the closest equivalent of the Catholic Pope in the role they play. They are the infallable descendents of 'Ali, a position passed down father to son. The last of which, Hujjat bin Hasan, they believe to have went into ‘hiding’ around 939 AD, and will return some time in the future to conquer the world for the Shi’a.

And yes, Sunni have no formal clergy. The person in charge of teaching at Mosques is simply that, a teacher or manager. They don’t hold any *spiritual *position, nor are they higher in any religious hierarchy.

Thanks so much for the education. Two more, if I may:

Is Hujjat bin Hasan the one sometimes called the Mahdi, or is that something else? Do Sunnis not have a vision of a conquerer?

What is a mullah?