What's the deal with Shia and Sunni? Is it Catholic/Protestant 2.0?

What's the deal with Shia and Sunni? Is it Catholic/Protestant 2.0? And don't leave me hanging, who's the good guy in this whole mess?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >who's the good guy in this whole mess?
    Easily Shia...
    Living next to a Sunni actually lowers your life expectancy/

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >who's the good guy in this whole mess?
    God's chosen people of Israel, at last in their rightful place after 2000 years of exile.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >God's chosen people of Israel, at last in their rightful place after 2000 years of exile.
      Ah yes, so the Shias then...

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >who's the good guy in this whole mess?
    You're asking who's the lesser evil.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    shia.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ibadi

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    the split all goes back to who was the rightful successor to the prophet mohammed, sunnis believing it was mohammed's son in law and the shias believing that it should have been mohammed's right hand man abu bakr.

    the rift while initially political has now acquired major significance as difference in ritual and jurisprudence have multiplied over the centuries.

    Shias generally have a bit of a protestant bent to them as individual initiative, study. and interpretation is encouraged. shias are generally a bit more 'liberal' in the western sense than sunnis.

    there is no good guy. people will be people

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >, sunnis believing it was mohammed's son in law and the shias believing that it should have been mohammed's right hand man abu bakr.
      pretty sure you have that backwards

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        sunnis believing it was mohammed's father in law and the shias believing that it should have been mohammed's left hand man abu bakr?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >sunnis believing it was mohammed's father in law
          Yes, that was Abu Bakr

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      sunnis believing it was mohammed's father in law and the shias believing that it should have been mohammed's left hand man abu bakr?

      Incredibly moronic post, Shias support Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad's young cousin, while Sunnis elected Abu Bakr. This is not the center of the dispute, as Sunnis later elected Ali as caliph as well. The split occurs after the First Fitna, with Shias rejecting the authority of the Umayyads, and it is chiefly a political issue after that point. Shi'ism takes on a recognisable form only after Karbala with the martyr cult of Husayn. It is premised in a fundamental rejection of Sunni authorities and persecution complex, and I don't mean this to degrade it, that is simply a common trend with all Abrahamic religions. In that sense, Shi'ism is actually fairly trad, resembling Christianity. Its theological claims are generally dubious at best though.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This is not the center of the dispute, as Sunnis later elected Ali as caliph as well.
        That's irrelevent since they believe the caliphate is inherited not elected sounds like you have no idea what you're talking. Ali's entire tenure was a civil war as well

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The inheritance doctrine was developed retroactively and definitely did not exist at that exact moment in time. I am talking realistically, not according to their internal gymnastics.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The inheritance doctrine was developed retroactively and definitely did not exist at that exact moment in time. I am talking realistically, not according to their internal gymnastics.
            The frick? The shia wanted Ali to be Caliph because they thought it was his birthright. So saying it doesn't matter because the sunnis think he's their 4th caliph doesn't make sense at all. You're soeaking only anachronisms but the only anachronism here is the concept of 4 rashidun caliphs which was formulated in the 9th centuries. The shia claim is very straightforward

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The shia wanted Ali to be Caliph because they thought it was his birthright
            No, his right by appointment maybe, but "birthright" is not appropriate for this.
            Shi'ism did not yet exist during what we would call the Rashidun Caliphate, there was only the thought that "but I remember Muhammad saying Ali is mawla..." which would eventually escalate into Shi'ism, there was no incredible depth or agitation to it yet.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >birthright" is not appropriate for this.
            It literally is. He was the father of Muhammad's grandchildren

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was not his right by birth but because Muhammad appointed him. At the moment Ali was born he had 0 rights.

            >No, his right by appointment maybe, but "birthright" is not appropriate for this.
            When Ali died his son immediately took over his position. It was birthright

            Depends on if Ali was already appointed when the son was born I can't be assed to check that right now

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, his right by appointment maybe, but "birthright" is not appropriate for this.
            When Ali died his son immediately took over his position. It was birthright

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the rift while initially political
      This is bullshit. The calilhate was originally the chief religious authority. The early term for shia before shia was Din Ali (religion of Ali). Did 6ou just read through a wikipedia article or something?

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >2.0
    It predates the Protestant reformation by almost a thousand years. Hell, it predates the Great Schism between East and West by hundreds of years as well.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What's the deal with Shia and Sunni?
    After Muhammad died the Caliphate became monopolised by the elite Meccan aristocracy, which pissed off the family of Muhammad and the Medinan companions, led by Ali (the son-in-law of Muhammad). There were a bunch of civil wars between the Banu Umayya, the bluest of Meccan bluebloods, and a bunch of disaffected and marginal Muslim groups gathering around the descendents of Ali to take power from them. Eventually the narrow political issue lost steam, but after a while theological differences emerged from the Shia absorbing weird Messianic and Gnostic beliefs about Ali and his descendents, while the scholars patronised by the Umayyads and later Caliphs focused on writing autistic fanfiction about Muhammad to justify their legal rulings.

    It's a lot more complicated than that but that's the very basic gist.

    >Is it Catholic/Protestant 2.0?
    Not really. Theologically and organisationally one could say Sunnis are like Protestants and Shia are like Catholics, but it's a very imperfect analogy. And different to Christianity, where Catholics were historically dominant (like Sunnis have been) and Protestants the insurgent denomination (like Shia have been).

    >who's the good guy in this whole mess?
    Both and neither of them, I guess. Sunnis have historically been more oppressive because they've been on top most of the time, but these days the theocracy in the region trying to bring about the apocalypse is Iran and their assorted client militias of mostly fellow Shias.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's a lot more complicated than that but that's the very basic gist
      That's an incredibly shitty take. Ali was not supported by the Ansar (medinans). They had their own canidate. Ali's folowers were mainly yemeni clans who followed him to mesopotamia. I don't know where the bullshit idea that it was political and didn't involve religion at all came from. It literally does not make any sense. The Caliph was the supreme religious authority until the abbasids lost some of their authority to the ulama. The original title in use was Khalifat Allah (viceregent of God).

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That's an incredibly shitty take. Ali was not supported by the Ansar (medinans).
        Ali literally appointed the Ansar to governorships after taking over as Caliph. They were his supporters. Yes, later the Medinans supported Ibn Zubayr, but only after Ali's support base moved to Iraq and Arabia lost its political role with the generation of the Companions ending.
        >I don't know where the bullshit idea that it was political and didn't involve religion at all came from
        I don't know why you're divorcing politics from religion, but okay. Name one theological/doctrinal/confessional dispute between the Alids and Umayyads in the 7th century that was not directly political.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Ali literally appointed the Ansar to governorships after taking over as Caliph. They were his supporters
          Why are you revealing your ignorance? The majority of the ansar supported their own man during saqifa. They were oy Ali's supporters

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is it Catholic/Protestant 2.0?
    Yes
    >And don't leave me hanging, who's the good guy in this whole mess?
    None of these religions are good

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    In the beginning, I dare say the Shias were the good guys. Mohammad's whole family (not only Ali) got underservedly fricked by a political dispute, and I'm not even talking about Abu Bakr and Umar, but about the Umayyads, who grabbed the power for themselves, and clearly didn't care about the Islam as a religion (they only cared later in a way to retroactively justify their claim to power).

    After centuries of theological divergences, however, I would say the Sunnis became the superior version of Islam. Shias are still too autistic about their mythologizing of Ali and his sons, while Sunnis really elevated Islam to be a religion above the mere redundant disputes of power from 1500 years ago, and actually developed philosophy, theology and political entities far beyond that.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >After centuries of theological divergences, however, I would say the Sunnis became the superior version of Islam. Shias are still too autistic about their mythologizing of Ali and his sons, while Sunnis really elevated Islam to be a religion above the mere redundant disputes of power from 1500 years ago, and actually developed philosophy, theology and political entities far beyond that.
      Weird delusions. Muhammad and his companions are the perfect humans to follow for eternity which is why you habe hadiths. You literally cannot question them in anyway. In reality the only difference here are the people each sect likes
      >shia - Ali worship
      >sunni - companion worship

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Weird delusions. Muhammad and his companions are the perfect humans to follow for eternity which is why you habe hadiths. You literally cannot question them in anyway. In reality the only difference here are the people each sect likes
        I've been through this before.
        The Shias definitely are the correct muslims.
        The Sunni cared more about personal interests rather than strictly following the teachings of Muhammad.
        The Sunni are the stupid commoners. The shia are the enlightened elites.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Weird delusions. Muhammad and his companions are the perfect humans to follow for eternity

        Only a gay would follow another man and submit his sexual and worldly desires to him.

        Why would you want muhammad to monopolise on all the girls? Why would you cut off the most pleasurable extension of the penis?

        If you were cornered and it was either contert and loot the infidels or die and be looted, sure, the former is a better deal. But unwillingly, while you have a choice. That's just the result of what extreme inbreeding does to your brain.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Sunnis really elevated Islam to be a religion above the mere redundant disputes of power from 1500 years ago

      YET THOSE gay-HEADS blow themselves up to fight the descendants of their enemy, 1500 years ago

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    > who's the good guy
    Good guy never existed

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sufis

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *