What's the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims?

sunni = arab supremacists and durka durka ultra-violence

shia = shouldn't even be muslim but are for some reason also they have civilization

shia are pagan crypto-zorastrians and sunni are goat-fucking tools of israel

Sunni behead you with their right hand
Shiia behead you with the left.

Shiism is a bunch of rubbish made by Persians practicing a false form of Islam mixed with Iranian paganism.

>>66310067
Shia Muslims are like Baptist, Pentecostal and other may may religions. Sunni are traditional muslims who believe in Quran, Sunnah/Hadith/Spoken Tradition and their school of thought i.e. Mazhabs. Shia focus on establishing state, how it should be and are actually pretty militant and Sunnis are more concerned with religion than material or political affairs.

>>66310067
Shias tend to stick to their countries and not shit up others (ie Iran)
Sunni savages are the scum of the earth (see Sweden, Britain, Germany and France)

File: 1300044776986.jpg (17KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x250px

>>66310197
>Shias tend to stick to their countries and not shit up others

>>66310197
Iran is not totalitarian rathole? They don't shit up Afg and Pakistan?

>>66310197
shias don't MOVE to other countries to ruin them but they're not afraid of funding terrorist memery all over the world

>>66310067
>keep calm i'm a muslim not a terrorist
how the fuck is that supposed to makes anyone cam down?

>>66310252
Also Iran started the war in 1980 because they believed they had to go through Iraq to get to Israel.

Its like pile of shit divided by a car wheel. Both are same stinky crap like it should be

>>66310252
Name one country Sunnis moved to and succesfuly ruined

Shias are far more peaceful and I like them much better

The Middle East was pretty secular before the Iranian Revolution happened. It was a combination of that and the failure of secular Arab nationalism that inspired everyone to seek this radical back to basics 7th century Islam.

File: CEQ1RYOWoAMTSdq[1].jpg (37KB, 600x368px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x368px

sunni: always angry because they are parched

shia: calm because of steady supply of tasty beverages

>>66310291
Any non shia muslim country for one

>>66310316
That's because you are Iranian, you moron. Also you seem to be on /int/ about 16 hours a day refreshing the page and waiting for an Iran related thread to pop up.

>>66310291
sunni muslims are a literal cancer. there hasn't been a single country to which they've been able to immigrate to that they've haven't been a detriment to.

>>66310322
That be KSA, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Tunisia. All horrible places?

>>66310361
Nice post about nothing fagget.

There are no livable Muslim countries no matter what brand of Pisslam they practice.

>>66310378
yes

Who is your husbando: Ali or Omar?

>>66310415
Cool story bro.

Shiites aren't better at all, there's just less of them.

>>66310291
hi

>>66310378
Malaysia is literally the only halfway decent country you listed and it is still a shithole compared to singapore.

>>66310067
Shia muslims don't blow shit up.

>>66310458
For that, we should be thankful the Spanish Christianized the Philippines or they'd be Yet Another Pisslamic Shitpile.

>>66310067
Sunni:Praise someone who killed Muhammad's stepson.
Shia: Dont praise someone killed Muhammad's stepson.

More infos >>>/his/

>>66310465
No, they just fund the people who blow shit up.

>>66310465
>tfw you don't have a smug hezbollah pepe in front of the beirut marine barracks to post right now

>>66310067
The difference is that they believe different people are the rightful heirs of Muhammad. It's that fucking stupid.

The guy who converted Iran to Shiism killed like 1 million people in the process.

>>66310542
a reformer with results

File: meme_tv.jpg (154KB, 610x427px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 610x427px

>all these ignorant whities saying Shia Islam is Persianified Islam
You do know that all Iranian mullahs have Lebanese descent and it was the Lebanese who were taught by Iraqis to be Shia?

Now, Iran has a well-funded propaganda arm who've convinced dumb people that they're innocent victims of Zionism and KSA are the real baddies who fund terrorism when this is at best a half-truth. KSA isn't a direct state sponsor of terrorism while Iran is.

That is not to defend KSA because they're a comparatively worthless shithole with nothing going for them other than the black stuff under their soil. But let us not pretend Iran is more respectable, reedeemable, and totally not hardcore Islamists or terrorism sponsors.

>>66310661
Saudi Arabia doesn't allow Jews on their soil at all while Iran doesn't care as long as you're not an Israeli citizen or promote Zionism.

>>66310173
The Crusades actually first started when the Abbasid Caliphate dissolved and the Shiite Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, which inherited Palestine, started denying Christian pilgrims access to the holy sites there.

Thus, point one about Shiism being quite militant and point two that it's not an Iranian mutation of Islam because it existed in places like Egypt long before Iran converted in the 16th century.

>>66310661
hello judah, how was birthright?

>>66310067
Way back when Muhammad died, there was a succession dispute. Sunnis backed one guy, Shiets backed another. They hate each other to this day.

Ironically, both of the two contenders for successor backed the same guy to come after them, so apart from that one split it's literally the same progression.

>>66310889
I wonder if anyone in Iran actually is aware that their ancestors permitted the Jews to return from exile in Babylonia and rebuild Jerusalem.

>>66311044
yeah, they promote it as like a smug nationalistic thing

>>66311066
Well it's more along the lines of Cyrus the great being one of the first almost universally agreed upon good leaders of the ancient world. The man was held in high esteem even before the advent of hellenic greece.

Persian nationalism is a cancer.

>mmmmuh Darius
>mmmmuh Sassanids
>mmmuh Shah Abbas
>WE WUZ
>oh wait, you write in a modified Arabic script, have Arabic names, and practice a religion that Arabs imposed on you by the sword

>>66311134
This is a load of barnacles.jpg

All there is of Middle Eastern culture came from Persia or Mesopotamia. Arabs were desert dwelling ooga boogas with no technology or culture.

Why are Muslims so Angry? The Real explanation for the rise of Radical Islam has more to do with history and politics as it does with religion.

The world was shocked by the brutal Paris attacks on November 13th. The group calling themselves ISIS took responsibility for them. Coming just months after the Charlie Hebdo shooting by individuals linked to Al-Qaeda, it left millions wondering what explained the wave of radical Islamist terror in the West. Why are Muslims so angry?

For many commentators in the West, such as Bill Maher and Sam Harris, the explanation is simple: Islam as a religion is fundamentally backward and violent and therefore must be confronted with force in order to save Western values such as freedom and democracy. In this sense, it is little more than a rehashing of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory, or even the much older, tired, and racist “White Man’s Burden.”

The real explanation owes much more to the Middle East’s history and politics than it does to badly thought out, Islamophobic theories on religion. As early as the 1940s, Western governments had identified Middle Eastern oil as a “stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” We would do well to underline the strategic power of oil. It is the keystone resource of the world. Without oil there is no transport, obviously. But there is also no agriculture, as it has been mechanized and oil is used in fertilizers. There would be no electricity, and therefore, no functioning offices, schools, or factories. There would be no plastics, nor any other materials with which to build. In short, who controls oil controls the world.

Western powers, particularly the US, UK and France, have been dedicated to controlling the Middle East and opposing any independent, nationalist or democratic movement that would challenge Western corporations’ right to siphon off trillions in exorbitant profits into Swiss banks. In order to oppose these secular, democratic movements, the West has found some willing allies: radical Islamist groups.

The powers have funded, trained and supported virtually every extremist Muslim in the region group for five reasons:

1. “As a global counterforce to the ideologies of secular nationalism and Soviet communism”
2. “As “conservative muscle” within countries to undermine secular nationalists and bolster pro-Western regimes”
3. “As “shock troops” to destabilise or overthrow governments”
4. “As proxy military forces to fight wars”
5. “As political tools to leverage change from governments”.

The two British objectives in installing or maintaining radical Islamists in power are:

1. “Influence and control of key energy resources, always recognized in the British planning documents as the number one priority in the Middle East.”
2. “Maintaining Britain’s place within a pro-Western global financial order.”

In Egypt, the UK and France supported the Muslim Brotherhood in an attempt to overthrow the passionately secular and independent nationalist President Nasser. To that end, they even invaded the country in 1956.

In Iran, the CIA overthrew the progressive nationalist Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had dared to nationalize the oil industry, much to the chagrin of the Anglo-Iranian oil company. He was replaced by the brutal Shah of Iran. His repressive regime directly led to the 1979 revolution.

In Palestine, Israel and its Western backers nurtured the extremist Islamist party HAMAS in the hopes that it would be a counterweight to the secular, popular, and, therefore, dangerous Fatah party of Yasser Arafat.

In Afghanistan, the West backed the Mujahedeen against the Soviets, Margaret Thatcher calling the organization “genuine freedom fighters.” The Independent called Osama Bin Laden an “anti-Soviet warrior” who was putting the country “on the road to peace.”

In Libya, the West armed and supported Al-Qaeda, the organization that bombed the World Trade Center in 2001 in an effort to destroy the independent and secular strongman Colonel Gaddafi.

>>66311392
doesn't really take into account the iranian revolution and its consequences but pretty much true for the brotherhood and al quieda

And the most radical, regressive Islamist regime of them all, Saudi Arabia, is the West’s key ally in the region, making a mockery of any ideas of “clash of civilizations.” The US in particular takes particular care to make sure their client state does not fall to democratic protesters. The Saudi regime trains thousands of clerics in the most radically regressive interpretation of Islam and sends them throughout the Muslim world. It also funds a myriad of television, pumping out similar messages, all with the tacit approval of Washington, London and Paris. With Saudi funding, General Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan carried out a program of radical Islamization of his country. President Reagan shared nuclear technology with the dictator.

The great irony is that Western governments fund and support groups that seek their destruction. It highlights just how low a priority keeping their citizens safe is. Much more important is increasing the wealth and power of their elites.

Fifty years ago much of the Muslim world was decidedly secular and relatively progressive. But any hope of a return to a moderate age was crushed in the 1990’s, 2000’s and 2010’s with a succession of Western wars of aggression that obliterated much of the region. Afghanis, Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians have witnessed devastation, and the destruction of their societies. The US even helped incubate ISIS in Iraq and Syria in order to undermine the Assad regime. It should be noted that pre-war Iraq and Syria were famously secular societies, yet now they are the center of the Islamic State. If you’d seen your family killed and your town destroyed, you might be radicalized too.

In short, for decades, the Western powers have stamped out any secular, nationalist alternative to their rule by proxy with the help of jackbooted Islamist militants who are then given free reign to build up their power and influence in the vacuum. This history is not hidden from Muslims. And it has built up huge anger and resentment of Western governments. It is not because Muslims in the Middle East hate “Western” values of freedom and democracy that there is so much resentment of the West. Rather, it is precisely because they share those same values and are denied them by Western-backed dictators and radical groups that there is such resentment. As far back as 1958, the Eisenhower administration reported that there is such resentment of the US in Egypt because the US “is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress” and “desires to keep the Arab world disunited and is committed to work with “reactionary” elements to that end.” Some things never change.

But the attackers were European, not Asian. They were people who had been shunned by an increasingly intolerant society. Comparing Muslim refugees to cockroaches has become mainstream in Europe while the Washington Post reported that Americans see Muslims as apes, or worse. With little economic prospects they were forced to live in ghettoized communities in the dingy suburbs, constantly told they have no place in Western society. Outcasts, they were easy fodder for Islamist groups preaching hate.

This is exactly what ISIS wants. ISIS wants Westerners to hate refugees. ISIS’ goal is to create a real “clash of civilizations” in order to drive more Muslims into its arms. The only two groups who wish for this scenario to be a reality are Islamic extremists and Western governments.

The social science on countering extremism in the West is clear. Providing young Muslims chances of a life of dignity and opportunity is key, as is the secession of wars in the Middle East and support for radical Islamist regimes.

So, far from being enemies, the Western powers and radical Jihadist groups share similar interests. For every terrorist bombing the Islamic State commits in the West, governments can introduce new rounds of repressive measures. The anti-terrorism act was passed in the wake of the September 11th bombings and was used to arrest occupy and student protesters in England. Today, the Paris shootings serve as an excuse for the US government to ban encryption, which had nothing to do with them. Ahead of the Paris Climate Conference, the French government has used emergency laws to arrest climate activists.

They also serve as justifications for more invasions and more wars in the Middle East. The British government is currently trying to stir up support for bombing Syria. These wars then further provoke anger and a terrorist backlash, as governments concede. It is a vicious circle. Western governments are continuing to wage war in the Middle East and to promote radical Islamists in order to control the oil of the region, despite the fact that this makes its citizens exponentially less safe. To their governments, a few dozen, or even a few thousand deaths is a small price to pay to control the most stupendous source of strategic power.

Until we realize that we have more in common with ordinary Muslims and confront the reasons for their anger, the cycle of violence will continue.

File: this is a load of barnacles...jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>66311554
>>66311529
>>66311500
>>66311500
>>66311462
>>66311425
>>66311392
>>66311370
>>66311344

File: 1311603778372.jpg (32KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 323x323px

Oh look, it's the old "If only we supported secularist dictators, the ME would be sunshine and lollipops" canard.

Firstly, all those guys like Nasser and Mossadeq were not "independent" champions of the Arab masses against Western imperialism, they were actually Soviet puppets to advance Moscow's interests in the region.

Secondly, the rise of Islamism had to do with the essential failure of Arab nationalism to defeat Israel and fulfill most of its other promises.

Third, why the actual fuck do you think Western countries would benefit from Islamofascism? I mean, if we really wanted to steal their oil that bad, wouldn't the best way to go about doing that not involve funding Al Qaeda to cause wars, anarchy, and terrorism everywhere? You generally don't want that shit going down if you intend to conduct business somewhere.

Both are inferior to Ibadism.

>>66310067
Sunnis believe Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph while Shias believe that Ali was the rightful caliph.

There are also numerous nuanced differences, like when the dates of holidays are are a bit different. Shias pray with their hands by their sides instead of straddled along their chest. Shias are also pissed off at Sunnis that the sons of Ali were killed by Umayyads (the first was poisoned, I think, and the second killed in battle). etc etc etc.

>>66311724
Leftists have a hilariously one-sided view of Cold War geopolitics. While they always are forever whining about the CIA overthrowing X shithole regime, they manage to overlook how the USSR was doing the same exact thing.

It's like Animal Farm--four legs good, two legs bad.

>>66311724
>Oh look, it's the old "If only we supported secularist dictators, the ME would be sunshine and lollipops" canard

Well, we should. I mean, guys like Assad are definitely preferable to ISIS, no?

>>66311814
Sure, in the same way that lung cancer might be preferable to brain cancer.

>>66311814
They are, but not for the reasons >>66311500 suggests. It's more a case of "The savages can't handle democracy so you basically just have to impose a secular strongman to whip them into behaving" than his claim that said secular strongmen would bring light to the Arab world if only it weren't for those goshdarn evul US imperialists.

>>66311814
No.
Assad is measurably worse than ISIS.

But we tried to overthrow Mubarak and Assad so Islamofascism could take those countries over.

Shi'ism is islamo paganism and is chock full of esoteric practices. They are weird but they aren't as troublesome and I think the united states have really overestimated the threat posed by Iran.

>>66311854
Go to bed, Obama.

>>66311791
Then again, the whole theory backfires when you consider that Jimmy Carter helped in the overthrow of the Shah who was a loyal US ally and not a Soviet ally. Now what sense would it make to want your own ally deposed?

>>66311901
>implying I'm democratic
I look at things how they are. Assad has killed more people.
ISIS is scary, sure, but they're just goatfuckers who found a few humvees and an oil field.

Assad, like I said, has done more damage in every conceivable way.

>>66310067
Sign in Italian
Seems no country is safe from enrichment

>>66311880
You mean Obama did because he's a complete idiot.

>>66311956
>Jimmy Carter helped in the overthrow of the Shah

is this what they're teaching at liberty university these days?

>>66311956
But didn't Bush do same with Iraq?

>>66312011
neocons planned on invading iran but never got around to it because they were incompetent

>>66312004
Bush had a naive, almost pie in the sky belief that Iraq could become a parliamentary democracy which went flatly against sociopolitical reality. I think his basic intentions were good, but he didn't realize that Mudslimes cannot into civilization.

>>66312057
But why then pick on Obama and Carter for doing the same? Unless you're a Republican shill that just likes to beat up on Democrat presidents while ignoring your boy's mistakes.

>>66312088
In the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a disaster for all concerned and the country had been a pariah state for years. That was not the case with Iran in 1979 which was a US ally and a perfectly functioning country.

Also Jimmy Carter is a very, ah, untrustworthy guy who has a boner for all things Islamic. I mean, he called the election of Hamas in the West Bank "a beautiful election".

And of Obama, I have no clue if his attempts to assist Islamofascism in taking over Syria were due to sheer stupidity and ignorance of what was going on, or willful malice.

>>66311849
And no, I don't believe for a second that secular nationalism would have elevated the ME to developed nation status but for US and British meddling. Arabs just don't have the cultural traits needed for that and nationalism in of itself doesn't mesh with them because of their tribal mindset.

>>66310282
>Also Iran started the war in 1980 because they believed they had to go through Iraq to get to Israel.
stop pulling shit out your ass

>>66310463
>Singapore
Being the most important port of south east Asia might have been a little help for them to gain wealth.
Malaysia is a decent country and so is partially Turkey. I would always choose Malaysia to live in over Australia.