Ok can someone explain the difference here - I have no clue, they are BOTH islamic and love pedo Muhomid, but get upset when you call one the other. They both hate pork and dogs, pray daily and cover their women up. So what is the differance?
The Sunnis are heretics who do not follow Muhammad's chosen successor.
Or something like that.
Either way, 95% of the terrorist groups are Sunni. Shiites tend to not be as enthusiastic about terrorism, because they're more likely to be on the receiving end of it.
Shia are pretty normal and mostly end up hurting themselves due to nutty self harm stuff, Sunnis tend to harm others since pretty much all terrorist groups are Sunni. Though Sunnis tend to follow Islam more so than Shia, Sunnis tend to hate Shias because m-muh heretics.
Suunis are the ones attacking us and blowing shit up. Al-Queda is Suuni, ISIS is Sunni, every terrorist group you have ever heard of is Sunni, except for Hezbollah who are mostly regional and just hate Israel. Nearly every person who has tried to blow shit up in the US or Europe is Sunni, like the times square guy or the shoe bomber,etc.
Basically Sunnis are the worst and most fanatical and violent kind of muslim, which is bad since they are also like 70% of all muslims. Shia are mostly concerned with their own nations.
im hardcore fedora tho
Mohamed didnt chose a successor he let Muslims chose their own successor and there were some disputes and in the end they chosed abu baker meanwhile ali was busy burying Mohamed so at first he wasn't happy by this decision and he gained some followers but in the end he accepted abu bakes rule but after that things got complicated in othmans rule go read a book about it if u want
It's remarkably similar to the Latter Day Saints Reformed and original churches. One followed the son of Muhammad, the other followed a non-relative. Political divisions emerged, and now we have two. (technically 4)
I think he means from an organizational/doctrinal point of view rather than a historical one. In which case, Sunni are the "original" Muslims and Shia are the "break away" ones just as Protestantism is a split off of Catholicism.
Mohamet's death left a power void.
The schism is between is direct line and a nephew.
The branches have menial differences.
Both are medieval-level stone-age goat fuckers who believe fairy tales and blame everyone but themselves for the shit in their lives.
On that aspect they are very similar to jews.
...which is the worst true-to-fact insult, even bigger than an actual caricature of Mohamed fucking a dog.
Theologically, the Sunnis believe the caliphs are the rightful successors to Mohammed, whereas the Shia believe that Mohammed's relatives are the rightful successors.
ISIS is Sunni, started largely because the government after Saddam was no longer inclusive to them.
>taking that pic serious
mena people are happy in general
It stems from the contention over who would lead the Islamic faith after Mohammad died. Shi'ite backed a guy called Ali, who was Mohammad's nephew or some shit. Sunnis didn't back him and didn't see leadership among the faith as being hereditary.
More differences accumulated over time as they two groups remained apart. For instance, Sunnis pray 5 times a day while Shi'ite pray 3 times. Also some discrepancies over the Hadith, but I can't remember exactly what it is. I think one of them considers the Hadith canon, while the other does not.
really? I thought ISIS were Shia and have been killing Sunni - because if they were really Sunni (the majority of middle east) would they not have unified the whole region by now?
I didn't say they were not happy in their homogenous illiterate countries. Most hunter-gatherers and 3rd wolrd country are happier than educated, cut-throat capitalist countries.
But this pic is bull and I have proof.
Canada is 6th on the happiness index.
and we produce the most pussy-lickable lesbian!
A shit-ton of Morrocans try boat-people themselves to France any chance they get.
And they HATE the French more than Americans.
You have that absolutely ass-backward. When is the last time Shi'ites carried out terrorist attacks on the West anyways? I know that fucking nut who shot those people in Australia was Iranian, but he converted to Sunni Islam.
I went to Morocco as a tourist and it seemed like a pretty nice country, hence why I was surprised at the image I originally replied to.
Unlike Madrid, where I had to watch out for gypsy children and pickpockets.
cause of poverty and Maghrebis hate frensh cause of mah colonization
nah basically every extremist you ever hear of is Sunni
you can thank Saudi Arabia for this
they've been leading what's similar to Christian Revivals all across the world the past several decades converting people to their extremest version of Islam
Sunnis are the Jews of Islam.
Saudi Arabia, for instance, accepts the blanket of US military protection while trying to undermine the US economy and turning a blind eye to domestic support for ISIS.
Iran on the other hand makes it no secret that they think the West is owned by Jews.
No, it's the opposite. Sunni Islam is orthodox, whereas Shia Islam constitutes a schism comprised of further schisms.
It is said that Mohammed formed the final and perfect covenant with God, and this is an interpretation to which the Sunnis subscribe. There's no room for additional messages by virtue of the "final" message being declared both perfect and final. Shiites, however, have incorporated more messages from supposed relatives (starting with Ali) of Mohammed into their practices and are viewed as heretics.
Heretics are not viewed kindly by true believers of Islam -- it's a form of blasphemy.
that was uncalled for
(gasp! someone actually retracting an insult on 4chan? end times are near...Moot left the building)
Sure absolutes do not define a nation...or any humans.
But seriously you must be young.
Ask anyone over 40 how they feel about French occupation.
It doesn't matter when the last time was - history from 100yrs or 1000's of years ago is irrelivant to the current situation.
Haha - I HAVE been reading and it seems the press/news are just as confused as i am.
So is this the ISIS plan: to spread Islamicphobia or to unite Islam under one branch? Since they are representing the majority (sunni) and getting rid of the shia - then what's the problem?
FYI - I think this division is bullshit conspiracy. There is only one Quaran, one set of rules. Unlike the catholics who can't decide what parts of the bible are cannon, and what scriptures are authentic or not - ie dead sea scrolls.
Older people loves the French even more, you don't know how Morocco was before the occupation....
It's not really the subject, but try to watch this :
>FYI - I think this division is bullshit conspiracy.
the ass faggotry in this thread lol
if u faggots dont know the difference between the two how the fuck do u come here and speak on matters like u know what u are talking about. I just got a huge awakening in this thread, /pol/ genuinely doesnt know shit
he's one of those enlightened Muslims. you see, he and his are roughly 20-30% of Trinidad and Tobago. So they're a threat. a real threat. in fact, one of his senior members engaged in a rebellion that saw the death of a few members of parliament.
Lemme guess; middle-class urban Morrocans? Sure as administrators, clerks and merchants *loved* the power and money coming from the occupiers.
Most of the lower classes sure didn't love them.
really - just like the "jews are behind everything" "911 was inside job" ISIS is a CIA construct?
If it is true, then why are the sunni's remaining so quiet, you don't see any video statements by sunnis or shia's against ISIS - both seem to support them, so both must be the same.
ISIS kill sunnis that support the west and kill shia too all in the name of Islam. It seems ISIS are fucking with our heads, and it has worked. There is no division between the two - BOTH represent Islam.
The only real difference is that Shi'ia have more saint like figures and shrines to the dead. Sunnis tend to have stricter interpretation of what the Quran allows, and prohibit everything else.
While the distinction was a retroactive theological disagreement regarding who should lead the Ummah after the Prophet Muhammad died. Sunni's supported Abu Bakr, the Prophet's right hand man and father-in-law, and have claimed that the caliph should be elected. Shi'ia supported Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law, and have claimed that the caliph should be an Imam chosen by God as in a blood descendant of Prophet Muhammad. Abu Bakr ended up the first caliph and later the followers of Ali were slaughtered. It was historically a source of conflict between factions vying for control of the Caliphates which would favor one over the other to garner support. For most of history, Shi'ia have been on the short end of the stick.
Really it only matters today because with the rise of Salafism (Islamic fundamentalism) in the last 100-150 years, the more regional practices and customs that naturally emerge in every religion were declared heresy. This lead to a lot of shrines, saints, and local traditions being burned to the ground. The House of Saud which unified Saudi Arabia backed a Salafi scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (Wahhabism) and spread his super fundamentalist beliefs throughout the Muslim World (Ummah) with their oil money by building mosques, madrasas, selling Qurans with very selective interpretations included, and having imams on their payroll.
tl&dr: Saudi Oil Money and Indoctrination paints Shi'ia as heretics that dumb Sunnis persecute and Shi'ia have sworn a blood oath of revenge.
well. you can say that they're against each other, but would hate us equally. you see, for their Mahdi to come, us infidels has to convert or die. at least most of us. Then the Mahdi will come and preach to whomever among us is compliant, then the Mahdi will go to the Jews and grab from among them who is compliant.
But for the Mahdi to come a great many of us will have to die.
Once again you're wrong. The Shia world has been fighting Islamic State for months now in Iraq. Iran has boots on the ground and two or three generals have been killed by IS. You're so fucking stupid its making me think you're a troll.
One side derived from following mohammeds cousin as caliph. While the sunni believed mohammed father in law was the rightful caliph. The sunni hunted down and slaughtered many of the shia who went into hiding, later the shia arose behind a descendant of that cousin.
The Sunni consider shia heretical for not believing abu bakr the first caliph and for their interpretation of the quran as being an evolving one. With the current religious leader being the absolute authority on everything, rather than some old texts written by scholars in the years following the death of mohammed and the spread of islam. So funnily enough the shia can be thought of as the more progressive of the two sects. Also there were many different saints and things that the shia or sunni consider important or unimportant and thats a point of contention too. For example the shia have far more shrines to saints and the sunni think this is idolatry and it pisses them off or something.
>learned from ck2
For the record you've stated that Islamic State is a Shia organization, that you believe the Sunni/Shia divide isn't real and is a Western conspiracy theory, and that the Muslim world is slaughtering once another to lull us into a false sense of security. Its long past time to stop posting.
Most of the people who try to flee into Europe from Morocco are sub-Saharans from Mauritania. There's a fuckhueg desert border between the two countries which is incrediblly easy to cross undetected and the Moroccans don't have the manpower or money to stop it.
Moroccans are not the enemy. They are one of America's oldest ally, but Americans tend to forget that.
Fuck off I am no troll.
> Shia is fighting ISIS
> Sunni hate Shia
Can no one else see the illogical nature of this?
This kinda makes a bit of sense - ISIS are doing the dirty work for BOTH groups.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
> Shi'ia have sworn a blood oath of revenge.
Is this not ISIS motto?
don't know about Isis though. they're a bit of a wild card. always thought Iran would have ushered in this age of terror because Iran was chasing after the bomb for the very reason to revitalize the world of Islam. I Remember reading something some years ago about their fixation on the Mahdi. And then i thought, uh huh.
But with the emergence of Isis, Iran's nuclear aspirations has been shelved, some what. sure they're still chasing the bomb but their strengths has been divided.
>I Remember reading something some years ago about their fixation on the Mahdi. And then i thought, uh huh.
*sigh* so you buy into western propaganda. Iran is (and has been) a rational actor, they're not going to bomb the world into oblivion to usher in a make believe legend. The people holding all the power (i.e. military brass) aren't fervent believers. Iranian decision makers don't base their actions on beliefs they don't even hold stock in themselves. You're a deluded Westerner and it shows.
Don't put words into my mouth. I did not state any such thing. I pointed out how confusing the divide is, and I was under the impression that ISIS were Shia, based on some statements I had seen in the past. So sorry to upset you!
> western conspiracy?
That is your interpratation - Muslims are not capable of conspiracy theories?
> stop posting?
Is it because I am asking questions that you do not have the interlect to process - you would preffer to just have bigot race/religion hate posts here, because it is easier to "bash" than "discuss".... so you don't like what I am saying - whatcha gonna do - decapitate me??
there's no 'sigh' to be had good sir. it's not like some one said it. their leader, what's his face had said something about it. then there was this big thing about the younger ones may not be into that type of thing because of their modernization. the older guys wanted to keep it old school and the younger kids wanted to keep it marginalized. a few months after that some girl got shot for her beliefs during a demonstration. she was a self described feminist or something. it was a screwy vid too, they shot her and she's there dying on film. forgot her name.
shia isnt really a Persian thing only the fist shia strong empire was in north Africa not Persia
I say blood oath because Shi'ia doctrine emphasizes how they are oppressed victims wronged by the world of heretics not unlike Jews.
Iran has supported Hezbollah and their shenanigans in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon.
Saudi Arabia is the one supporting ISIS, and they have their hands in everything in the Middle East besides Israel. Why? Because Israel is their wonderful scapegoat for why the Muslim people never see a dime of that oil money outside of the royal family.
Jesus you're so uninformed its painful.
> their leader, what's his face
>a few months after that some girl got shot for her beliefs during a demonstration. she was a self described feminist or something. it was a screwy vid too, they shot her and she's there dying on film. forgot her name.
Neda Agha-Soltan. A student protestor during the Green Movement, she wasn't shot for being a "feminist". She was shot by fanatical militiamen called Basij.
Honestly your post is horribly written and I can barely understand your train of thought. Specify what the fuck you're talking about. Have you considered killing yourself yet?
>Shia Islam is the Iranian interpretation
its not shia is a thing made by Arabs but Iranians changed things the stogerst shiaa caliphate was not Persian it was a Berber caliphate that started in Algeria and Tunisia when iran was still sunni
wassup my firendo i regret what i said 1 2 3 VIVE L'ALGERIE
It's not a great analogy because modern Sunnis are the one's obsessed with returning to scripture and doing away with clergy a la Protestantism. Shi'ia are generally considered the one that branched off, but they are known for religious councils and ceremony that parallel Catholicism.
Depends. If you are living in the West and marry in then no one would care. If you are in your native countries, it will probably lead to a lot of honor killings and fighting like the Hatfields and McCoys.
so why is Israel so quiet about Isis,and why is Saudi Arabia building a wall; or perhaps it's all show boating. Intrigued am I.
Wow. never found out who killed what's her face, only that some one shot her who may or may not be affiliated with the fanatics associated with that old dude you mentioned. right after it happened i think i lost interest and was on to something else. too much going on to be overly absorbed in any one thing. never got back to that; "militiamen called Basij."
well thank you for updating me. but yeah, Iran's building the bomb to usher in the Mahdi, so it's probably best they don't ever get their hands on a nuke. Isis however is another matter entirely. who would they nuke if they had one, Iran, Iraq, Syria?
reminded i am of that billy joel song; the fire rises brother.
Saudi Arabia isn't really monolithic. When I say they are backing ISIS, I mean a handful of princes are while another handful are sucking off the US, and another handful genuinely hate Israel. Remember Osama bin Laden came up from this same group of people.
I liken it to the Crusades. You have this army that you need to point at something other than your own country, so why not a holy war against the infidels? But they will never touch Israel because once they're gone the magnifying glass will be put on the Saud family.
The Shia look to be correct
Shias believe that the arrival of the Mahdi will be signalled by the following portents:
1.The vast majority of people who profess to be Muslim will be so only in name despite their practice of Islamic rites and it will be they who make war with the Mahdi.
2.Before his coming will come the red death and the white death, killing two thirds of the world's population. The red death signifies violence and the white death is plague. One third of the world's population will die from the red death and the other third from the white death.
3.Several figures will appear: the one-eyed Antichrist (Masih ad-Dajjal), the Al-Harth, Al-Mansur, Shuaib bin Saleh and the Sufyani.
4.There will be a great conflict in the land of Syria, until it is destroyed.
5.Death and fear will afflict the people of Baghdad and `Iraq. A fire will appear in the sky and a redness will cover them.
Shia traditions also state that the Mahdi be "a young man of medium stature with a handsome face" and black hair and beard. "He will not come in an odd year [...] will appear in Mecca between the corner of the Kaaba and the station of Abraham and people will witness him there.
I heard in a Bernard Lewis interview that he was attending a seminar in Indonesia and an Indonesian speaker said that "It's such a shame God revealed the most perfect religion to the worst group of people" and everyone broke out into applause.
Do Malaysians and Indonesians really despise Arabs? Actually, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia are huge Muslim countries and are also not Arabs. How does the Muslim world in general view Arabs?
Hell, I even heard from a former politician of Indonesia that Arabs spread poisonous propaganda about Islam and that is what causes every single problem in the Muslim world.
What's your take on this, Malaybro?
I'd say it's more Israel is blamed for why the Middle East isn't one big nation under Shariah law that's as advanced as Wakanda. They think that without Israel, all the military dictators and kings would just come together for the common good of the Muslim people. They are of course lying to themselves.
Israel is really closed in on all sides. there's literally no where they can go for safety. i think it's probably thanks to the emergence of isis that they'll probably be safer than they've been in years.
>Most hunter-gatherers and 3rd wolrd country are happier than educated, cut-throat capitalist countries.
Sunnis say that only an Arab like Muhammad can lead their religion at the highest level while Shia believe that any ethnicity can lead at any level. That is just about the only real difference.
its exactly the opposite of that
Sunnis believe they can choose their leader
Shias believe only God can appoint the new leader,
The current Ayatollah of Iran Ali Khamenei is descendant from Muhhamads daughter family
I just looked it up and you are correct about the Sunni electing their leaders and Shia using descendents of Muhammad. I cannot amend my earlier statement as I can only acknowledge my error now and not make that error again in the future.
We are both correct in identifying Iranian Shia and all Christians as cuckholds.
There many sects even within Shia, and Sunni.
Shia's follow different Hadith.
Shia believe the people people who narrated and wrote the Sunni hadith books (i.e. Sahih Muslim, and Sahih Bukahri) are liars.
They have their own Hadith books
(I think their view is that Aisha was 19 when married, but There are still child marriage done by Shias today).
Some differences from Shia, Sunni, and Wahabi ( a sect generally regarded as Sunni due to belief in the same hadith)
Sunni - Hair, side of face and body
Shia - Hair, side of face chin and body
Wahabi - Entire body including Face
Not allowed for all 3
5 Times a day for all three
Some minor differences in physical movements
Some sects of Shia carry rocks to pray with
Again there are MANY different sects within sects so the difference would depend on which sect you want to know about. Some sects of shia and sunni are very distinct from the norm and can almost be considered a new sect.
Muhammad was a political leader of the Islamic caliphate. So you have to take into consideration that although he was the Muslim Prophet he still had to rule a government. Muhammad's companions favored Abu Bakr and picked him. Others favored Muhammad's Son in Law, Ali. Those that favored Ali became known as "Shias" (The Party of Ali) who argued that Muhammad's family was divine & opposed Abu Bakr. So originally the problem was political, and only political.
Later on issues emerged within the Islamic faith. If Muhammad's Son in Law is divinely guided, then his rulings on Islamic issues are also valid. So if one had questions regarding Islam that the Qur'an did not cover, then Ali's response would be considered valid. However those that didn't believe Ali was divine, used other scholarly sources. So it then became a religious issue.
Shias are divided into a few camps though: Twelvers & Ismailis being the molst popular. Twelvers believe that Ali was divine, his successors are divine, and his 12th successor disappeared and would one day return in the end of times or something like that. Ismailis believe the succession didn't end with the 12th and still have a leadership to this day. Aga Khan IV is their current leader. Then there's the Assads who are Alawite Shias who believed God made a mistake with Muhammad and should have picked Ali. It gets to a heretical level where other Islamic Shias believe in some Trinity: Ali, Muhammad and Allah.
Continued: The issue escalated in 1979 when the Shias had an Islamic revolution in Iran and threatened the monarchy by preaching Republicanism. To counter Shia Islamism the Saudis promoted their counter-Islamic ideology known as Wahhabism (It existed already in Saudi Arabia, but wasn't globally popular as it is today). So they tried to make a point that the Shias were pagans, secret Jews, and did some crazy ass shit. of course it was a lie, but it was to discredit their movement to preserve the Gulf monarchy status quo. Now there's a regional rivalry between Iran vs Saudi Arabia, where one is Sunni and the other is Shia. So they're using sectarianism against one an other, but the issue is more nationalistic than religious. However left-wing liberals who see themselves as intellectuals say the issue is religious, not political and live in a bubble.
After Muhammad died, there was a question of who would lead the Muslim people,
The Sunni's believe that the Caliph (Muslim political leader) should be chosen by the Ummah (Muslim population), they picked Abu Bakr (Muhammad's uncle & father in law)
The Shia's believe that Muhammad should choose the successor, and he picked his nephew, Ali.
After the schism occurred, several other differences arose, and many different sects splintered off from there.
After Muhammad died, the people who lived with him and knew his religion best immediately fell into war with each other.
Fatima, Muhammad's favourite daughter, survived the early years among the unbelievers at Mecca safe and sound, yet died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only six months after her father died. She even miscarried Muhammad's grandchild after having her ribs broken by the man who became the second caliph.
Fatima's husband Ali, who was the second convert to Islam and was raised like a son to Muhammad, fought a civil war against an army raised by Aisha, Muhammad's favourite wife - and one whom he had said was a "perfect woman." 10,000 Muslims were killed in a single battle waged less than 25 years after Muhammad's death.
Three of the first four Muslim rulers (caliphs) were murdered. All of them were among Muhammad's closest companions. The third caliph was killed by allies of the son of the first (who was murdered by the fifth caliph a few years later, then wrapped in the skin of a dead donkey and burned). The fourth caliph (Ali) was stabbed to death after a bitter dispute with the fifth. The fifth caliph went on to poison one of Muhammad's two favourite grandsons. The other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph.
The infighting and power struggles between Muhammad's family members, closest companions and their children only intensified with time. Within 50 short years of Muhammad's death, even the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under pagan religion, lay in ruins from internal Muslim war...And that's just the fate of those within the house of Islam!
Muhammed ate a poisoned kebab. Muhammed's arab empire immediately began tearing itself apart with the power-hungry grabbing for power in a bloody mess. Not surprising, since the whole reason he cooked up Islam in the first place was to try to provide a common culture to all these tribal arab assholes to were always at each other's throats and could never manage to become a unified imperial power.
Muhammed named his successor, and the Shia followed that guy who was the Prophet's right-hand guy. But, now, there was this Merchant (surprise surprise a powerhungry jew--probably the one who killed their muslim sandjesus) said NO GOYIM LISTEN TO ME, I SHOULD BE LEADER BECAUSE OF REASONS :^), and he founded the Sunni sect
This. Shia have a hierarchical clerical structure albeit with a few different branches like say the Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox Church. They're clerical hierarchy is roughly based on descent from Muhammad. They're dominant in Iran & Southern Iraq.
Sunnis are completely decentralised with dozens if not hundreds of differents sects some of which go from extremes of being ultra-liberal cool with gays (or at least saying it's God's place to judge them not man), booze, & women not covering to crazy whackjobs ultra-conservatives like ISIS. Like how Protestants range from chilled out liberal Anglican/Episcopalians to wacky U.S. Conservative evangelicals. They're centred historically on Saudi Arabia, Turkey & North India (now Pakistan).
And yes like Catholics & Protestants in Northern Ireland the differences get used as an excuse for people to fight each other.
The Shia denomination follows Mohammad's chosen successor and is basically a more authentically Mohammedan experience.
The Sunni is basically a hijacking of Islam by the very same rich, fat-cat ruling Meccan tribe (the Qurayshi) who Mohammad started Islam in the first place, to oppose. They took over the bulk of the moment pretty much right off the bat and turned it into a much more small-minded thing of ultraviolence and pedantics.
If you have to choose between the two, choose Shia. But that's if you only absolutely have to choose Islam at all. Otherwise, don't even choose Islam.
Shias and Sunnis are on opposite sides of the first muslim civil war. Shia think Ali should have been the first caliph while Sunnis maintain Abu Bakr was right to be crowned caliph. Sunnis love Aisha, Abu Bakr and Omar and Shias hate them.
Today Sunnis are batshit crazy all over the place while Shias are either neutral or gravitate towards Tehran to protect themselves from sunni nutjobs
How come none of these religion's gods can manage to keep a simple impossible to interpret base of knowledge for them to not kill other people over?
Is he just the biggest troll in the universe and they want to keep feeding him?
My quick google search says yes, but even inside the 'Sunni' split there are of course different denominations, the Kurds that are currently fighting ISIS are also Sunni apparently, the majority of Egypt and Syria, and probably others etc.
Kind of makes one wonder why these idiots are worth fighting for, if they could be isolated they could just have their own internal bloodbath.
Hezbollah is a pretty much a shia movement.
though it isn't sectarian which is why even sunnis, kurds, Palestinians, Christians, etc etc all support them, and why they is clearly a number 1 target for the US/ Saudi/ Israel.
Guys, I think you have to distinguish between Sunni and Salafi (Wachabi). Sunni is a broader term which means a muslim who follows the Sunna (the first commentary to Quran). Sufis, for example, are alse Sunnis technically, but their are mortally hated and considered heretics by the Salafi.
That said, most of the known 'alqaeda-like' terrorists organizations like Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIS, Jabhat anNusra, etc. - are Salafi. That means they are radically fundamentalist and wish to 'recreate the islam as it was in days of mohammad'.
>Following the Sunna
>Wanting to recreate Old School Islam
What's the difference ?
also even non salafi groups like the muslim brothers have shown they're capable of terrorism as the russian foreign ministry has noted
Oh how we wish it was like in those days..
I am telling you now, these are nothing like they were, unless the prophet sold slaves, blew up mosques, and buildings etc etc. then no
its a common misconception,
as soon as the prophet reclaimed medina, he made a constitution protecting all religions to be freely practiced withing it, then you have todays traitorous wahabi dogs using everything just to make profits.
Mohammad started Islam to oppose the fat-cat corrupt rulership of the Qurayshi tribe, who controlled the religious center of Mecca and all its finances.
Mohammad's movement attracted followers, which attracted the attention of the Qurayshi, who feared any threat to their supremacy and ran Mohammad and his followers out town, and even tried to hunt them down.
Mohammad and his followers supposedly won one battle against the Qurayshi but, after that, they were outnumbered and Mohammad was forced to concede to the Qurayshi. He agreed to become a mere figurehead while they would retain all power over his new movement Islam, which they saw strong potential in, to turn into a juggernaut to amass power for themselves.
From that point on, Mohammad retained his inner core of followers and they chose to pass rulership down by lineage, and that became Shia.
The Qurayshi-ruled faction became the majority of Islam (90%) and it became known as Sunni. Even Mohammad's child bride, Aisha, was from the Qurayshi tribe.
That's everything in a nutshell.
So does that put them as the true followers of Islam, contrary to those that claim Islam is a religion of peace?
As it is, I thought all of the unholy trinity were looking forward to the end times, quite literally all hoping for an apocalyptic end, how the fuck can any of them claim to be peaceful?
the entirety of Arabia were polytheistic pagans, with the worst imaginable mentality, except for a minor percentage (including the prophet) followed Abrahamic teachings wether you may call it Judaism or Christianity whatever
Mohammad himself was from quraysh, just like Abraham before him etc etc. though he was mocked, slandered and beaten by the leaders of quraysh and their sheep.
if it wasn't for his uncle who raised him (was the leader at the time) they would have had no remorse whatsoever in killing him.
put simply, islam was foiling their plans and running the entire business of the qurayshi leaders by guiding them to the truth, worshipping one god, who doesn't constantly require shekels, freeing slaves, and giving their life meaning etc etc
they were the large majority who chose to be silenced in the name of unjustice, who constantly fabricated the religion, and finally waged war on the path of true islam, the followers of ali,
you can thank Aisha for that. she literally armoured up, got unto a camel and ran into battle, even though she was fighting against her own blood brothers, remember that their father, was one who opposed and brought many hardships against the prophet and his family
so yeh, pretty much killing shia is part of sunni theology, which absolutely cannot be denied, yet we are still the minority
Cannot argue with that. I was just saying what THEY believe they try to achieve.
Yup, the muslim brothers are an example of non-salafi (sometimes even anti-salafi) radicals.
I don't know, man. I honestly tried to study islam at some point, but all there is is just too ambiguous and uneven, that it is really-really hard to say, who of them the real Mohammad would support if he appeared today.
Lol, most of the shit posted is funny, fucking 'muricunts suddenly are scholars in Islamic history. Fucking heathens.
>yfw Ali didn't oppose his predecessors at all and was fine with the Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman as Caliphs. And when Othman was killed, he didn't want to be Caliph but the people insisted and he eventually agreed.
When Ali was the Caliph, who do you think opposed him and killed his son Huessein? Pro tip: Shia fgts did. Hussein was deceived by them when they promised allegiance to him if he went to Iraq (Karbala I believe), when he arrived, they backstab him and murder his family. Why do you think they whip themselves till this day as a sign of 'regret' or to 'repent' from what their sect has done. >irony
Shia = Scum, a minority who are being used by Iran to further Iranian influence in the region, look at Syria Iraq and now Yemen. And you think the Shia fgts are 'better' than the 'Sunni' ISIS? Look at their atrocities in Syria, they've beheaded women and children just yesterday but that shit wasn't in the news at all!
I've never understood why polytheism is such a big horrible evil, supposedly. All I can see is that having a separate god for every hair on your head becomes overwhelming, chaotic, and petty, and everything might degenerate into malign wantonness and silliness.
Also, I don't see why monotheism is automatically supposed to be this great improvement, if the only remaining god-system is oppressively dysfunctional. On the other hand, I guess one god-system is easier to administrate.
Who the hell knows? This is why I generally avoid religion to begin with, and just focus on logic and reason, and being logical and reasonable. Serves me best of all.
I guess the main drawback to a polytheism system is you might have to sacrifice stuff to multiple sources. Though that might not be a drawback considering you might have to bribe multiple priests to get to heaven too in monotheism.
The difference is that after Muhammads (pbuh) death the Shia wanted his cousin and follower Ali to be the caliph, while the Sunnis wanted Abu Bakr who was his father in law (Asishas father) father and Muhammads (pbuh) companion to be the caliph. The Sunni were a majority.
Imam Ali was the 4th caliph, right after Umar and Uthman. This is the key difference between Sunni and Shia.
They both follow the Qur'an and Sunnah.
The people with the most gods will have an unfair advantage in the afterlife battle Royale
There's no reason for it, but it's the first and second commandment, though it's more a command rather than a fact
>I am the lord thy God
>Thou shalt have no other gods before me
There are mentions of other gods in the bible and such, no names of course, but basically any enemies of the chosen people are usually worshiping some other god or something.
Funniest but kind of off topic, god loses, to iron chariots.
>And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Judges 1:19
The 'monotheism' still involves human sacrifice, just happens to be one instead of many.
Statists like monotheism. It appeals to their desire to be God, or if not get to be him then at least be the bootlicker.
but polytheism makes a lot more spiritual sense since you aren't stuck with headscratchers like IF GOD SO GOOD THEN WHY WAS HE A WRATHFUL JEALOUS GENOCIDAL PETULANT PSYCHOPATH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?
Yeah this is the real stuff. Originally the dominant merchant tribe that people are talking about here, the Quraysh, controlled mecca which was a huge shrine to all the different pagan gods the arabs worshiped at the time. People would make their pilgrimage there just like the do now, to worship the idols of these gods that were located there. They would dance around the Ka'aba naked, real old school pagan stuff.
They saw Muhammad and Islam as a threat to their power and their revenue from being in charge of the pilgrimage site. What they tried to say was okay maybe Allah is a real god and people can worship him, we can have Allah be over them the old gods and be more powerful than them, but all these other gods still exist too, because otherwise we can't charge people shekels for making the pilgrimage to mecca every year, which was quite a lot of dosh.
Muhammad was not having any of this and said "there is but one god..." etc and in the end ended up taking over the Ka'aba and taking all the pagan idols out of there (there were 360) and smashing the fuck out of them and saying that the Ka'aba is now only for the worship of one god, Allah. This pissed off the Quraysh because it was messing with their revenue stream and at the time no one knew if this Islam thing was going to really take off so they wanted to hedge their bets. It turned into a big fight and Muhammad had to eventually retreat to Medina after they kicked him out of Mecca.
In the end long story short Muhammad won the wars and made it back to Mecca, took all the idols out of the Ka'aba and smashed them again and said this is only a shrine to Allah. At the end of his life he tried to pass Islam to his descendants, but the Quraysh merchant tribe had been waiting for this chance and seized control of it so that they would have back what they always wanted which was control of the product. The Quraysh are the sunni, Muhammad descendants are the shia.
The problem with polytheism is that worshippers tend to play favorites, which leads to a pretty unnecessary foundation for tribal dischord - instead of the normal seperations of tribalism based on escalating degrees of ethnic diversity, you now have a whole new source for individuality with its own aims, leading to internal corruption and ambition that will inevitably conflict with established power bases.
Hilariously, this factionalism makes polytheism easier to kill off when monotheism comes calling.
Actually, I read that Mohammad ultimately had to cave in and broker a final agreement with the Qurayshi outside the gates of Mecca before they'd even let him back in, and the agreement was that they'd retain actual power and he'd be a figurehead.
In other words, Mohammad's enemies actually won in the end, and his victory really never happened in any real functional sense beyond just appearances and the history books.
In effect, what the world ultimately got with Islam was a "switched at birth" religion where the actual child was essentially stillborn and replaced with its evil twin.
omffgggg u stupid idiot, another stupid fucking salfi Saudi cock sucking poster'
ur argument is so inconsistent its driving me insane
sahih bukhari v6 p28
look how much alis wife hated them, she cursed them with her last breath, from your "infallible sources"
Ali didn't go full out war against them because he was a patient man,
why did abu bakrs daughter, the prophets wife wage war on him then?? stupid fucking slut
Shia could mean anything, Hussein himself cursed the shia of YAZID aka, followers of YAZID, yet he was a SHIA of his FATHER ALI, and obviously agreead with his MOTHER, daughter of the PROPHET who cursed abu bakr, prophets saying " who ever angers my daughter, angers me, who ever angers me, angers allah." did abu bakr anger allah??
they (Pakistani minority allawis) whip themselves from REGRET? u stupid imbecile
why are abu bakrs sons shia? generals in the battle against their sister Aisha??
No wonder Iran is non sectarian, makes sense doesn't it you faggot.
yes the shia fgts are better than the isis fgts supported by Saudi salafi fgts and their bitches
SAUDI ARE BEHEADING NOT SHIA YOU RETARD
You are ridiculous.. -- Fact
> In effect, what the world ultimately got with Islam was a "switched at birth" religion where the actual child was essentially stillborn and replaced with its evil twin.
Just like with communism.
Yeah this is accurate. He made an agreement with them when he got back, Islam was so powerful by then and getting stronger that he was able to force them to accept him and turn the ka'bah into a shrine to allah.
They were still powerful and ended up making some kind of power sharing agreement with him, we can never know now how much power each side really had.
Both had different plots for later, Muhammad planned on passing on control of Islam to his descendants, the Quraysh planned on seizing control of Islam after Muhammad's death. In the end both partially succeeded and we have the Sunni/Shia split.
>The Qurayshi-ruled faction became the majority of Islam (90%) and it became known as Sunni. Even Mohammad's child bride, Aisha, was from the Qurayshi tribe.
So was Ali, he was from the same tribe as well, but not from the same clan.
shism is the prophets teachings, and his 12 chosen descendants in his family line. sunnis have all the evidence they need that they are the true core of islam, but they parted ways, opposed them, waged war on them,
FUN FACT!! EACH ONE OF THOSE DESCENDANTS WAS POISONED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS,
EXCEPT ONE WHICH HAD HIS HEAD SEVERED ON THE BATTLE FIELD, ALL THESE GOVERNMENTS SUNNIS RESPECT AND ADMIRE, AND LOOK AT THEM FOR ROLEMODELS, AND YOU SEE HOW ISLAM IS LOOKING NOW..
it was a prophecy
its much like when moses and jesus had 12 diciples..
Correct, just to clarify, the kaaba was returned to it's original state, when it was built by Abraham (pbuh) who also believed in the monotheistic God, and submitted his will to god and worshipped him
This is what the prophet followed before 40 when the quran was revealed to him.
it was the CORRECT religion as it was considered "Islam" being at one with God, following his teachings an looking for guidance mentally and spiritually. this is what the prophet was before
correct, as mentioned earlier even the prophet was
>Correct, just to clarify, the kaaba was returned to it's original state, when it was built by Abraham (pbuh) who also believed in the monotheistic God, and submitted his will to god and worshipped him
Look, uh, I don't care what anyone believes if it makes them feel better but you should try and understand on some level that the Ka'aba was not built by Abraham.
The pagan gods that were worshiped there, chiefly Hubal, were worshiped by the Nabataeans and are actually from historical periods that predate Christianity. It was a center for worship for all the old pagan gods that the people of that region held sacred in various forms going back into pre-recorded history.
When Islam became the new religion they supplanted it and made up a new story about "Ibrahim" building it, and made it a center of worship for the new religion in order to completely replace the old traditions, the same way Christians build churches right over top of many of the old pagan shrines in Europe.
It doesn't mean that any of these stories are more or less real than the pagan ones, in the end they are all exactly the same; stories that people tell each other to make life a little easier to bear.
If a new religion spreads there a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years from now they will do the same thing, they will make mecca the center for their new religion and claim it was built by one of the earlier figures of their religion and that pagans and muslims corrupted it and they were just "returning it to it's original state".