Comments on: What is the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims? http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html High-minded, fanatically malthusian perspectives Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:18:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Amr http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-540951 Amr Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:09:43 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-540951 tdaxp: Thanks for the headup re your post, will give it a look for sure. Regarding my comment above, it was meant as a comment on what Jitendra has said in an earlier comment and not the main article. Sorry if it is not put in the right spot. tdaxp: Thanks for the headup re your post, will give it a look for sure. Regarding my comment above, it was meant as a comment on what Jitendra has said in an earlier comment and not the main article. Sorry if it is not put in the right spot.

]]> By: tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-535300 tdaxp Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:07:59 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-535300 Amr, Thank you for your interpretation of events. I am sure it will help people understand the issue from other sides. I don't recall saying that Islam is not a religion of peace because predominantly Muslim countries fight each other. If you are interested in the history of Christianity, however, you might enjoy my post on Christianity as the older than Judaism [1] (which I think would make it the oldest semitic religion, as Samaritanism lost its high priesthood some centuries ago [2]) [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2010/12/11/christianity-is-older-than-judaism.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan Amr,

Thank you for your interpretation of events. I am sure it will help people understand the issue from other sides.

I don’t recall saying that Islam is not a religion of peace because predominantly Muslim countries fight each other.

If you are interested in the history of Christianity, however, you might enjoy my post on Christianity as the older than Judaism [1] (which I think would make it the oldest semitic religion, as Samaritanism lost its high priesthood some centuries ago [2])

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2010/12/11/christianity-is-older-than-judaism.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan

]]> By: Amr http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-488469 Amr Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:43:40 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-488469 Jitendra : The prophet os Islam did in fact appoint FOUR successors. All of them ruled. The Shia Sunni issue is not a family issue as you say but it is actually a dispute on the basics of the religion. With time this also turned into a political and economic dispute. It has nothing to do with Islam itself, but rather how people have decided to interpret it. How you start with mis-concieved information about a what you call a family dispute and conclude that the religion is not a peaceful one is way beyond me. As if I hear you say that because predominantly Christian countries can fight each other, then Christianity is also not a religion of peace? Jitendra : The prophet os Islam did in fact appoint FOUR successors. All of them ruled. The Shia Sunni issue is not a family issue as you say but it is actually a dispute on the basics of the religion. With time this also turned into a political and economic dispute. It has nothing to do with Islam itself, but rather how people have decided to interpret it. How you start with mis-concieved information about a what you call a family dispute and conclude that the religion is not a peaceful one is way beyond me. As if I hear you say that because predominantly Christian countries can fight each other, then Christianity is also not a religion of peace?

]]> By: Jitendra http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-439250 Jitendra Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:02:08 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-439250 Shias and sunni are culturally, religiously and socially seperated from each other. They have different colonies in Iraq , pakistan and India. They hate each other. They celebrate different festivals and have different holy places other than Makka & Medina. Even though considerded as person of wisdom, the prophet of islam died without appointing his successor and left th muslim world into trouble. Shia sunni dispute is a nonsense arab family dispute over the successorship of political & religious power of Mohammad Such disputes are very common all over the world but nonsense muslims jumped into this family affair and shed blood on the streets. If islam stands for brotherhood, why they shed blood against each other ? Simple reason is that islam was never and is never religion of peace. Shias and sunni are culturally, religiously and socially seperated from each other. They have different colonies in Iraq , pakistan and India. They hate each other. They celebrate different festivals and have different holy places other than Makka & Medina. Even though considerded as person of wisdom, the prophet of islam died without appointing his successor and left th muslim world into trouble. Shia sunni dispute is a nonsense arab family dispute over the successorship of political & religious power of Mohammad
Such disputes are very common all over the world but nonsense muslims jumped into this family affair and shed blood on the streets. If islam stands for brotherhood, why they shed blood against each other ? Simple reason is that islam was never and is never religion of peace.

]]> By: saman http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-277452 saman Sun, 24 May 2009 06:28:53 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-277452 dear Omar, I as Muslim do not take my orders from an Ayatollah since islam is an individual religion, a one-to-one basis with Allah. Visitation of the graves of al aima al saleheen is out of respect and to contemplate these companions roles in developing and strengthing the religion of Islam. I can speak of certainity regarding my family and myself and some people in Najaf. and finally why does it have to be the iranian propoganda to control the middle east. The streets of Iraq has witnessed the shedding of blood by al-qaieda and those proclaiming ansar al sunna to kill and bestow harm on others since Shia are some sort of astryed people in need of self awakening back to the true Islam! if we keep up with history we would find that it was al saud the hashimates who sold their unifying ottoman empire to the harsh rulings of the British and French and not Khomieni and his advertising. again Omar or Ali, Abbas or Mua'wya we are all Muslims and thats what matter. and i agree with you that the prophet and the companions would've been extremely angry if they see how a muslim shed the blood of other on a name, a sect and a way of prayer calling. Salam dear Omar,

I as Muslim do not take my orders from an Ayatollah since islam is an individual religion, a one-to-one basis with Allah.

Visitation of the graves of al aima al saleheen is out of respect and to contemplate these companions roles in developing and strengthing the religion of Islam. I can speak of certainity regarding my family and myself and some people in Najaf.

and finally why does it have to be the iranian propoganda to control the middle east. The streets of Iraq has witnessed the shedding of blood by al-qaieda and those proclaiming ansar al sunna to kill and bestow harm on others since Shia are some sort of astryed people in need of self awakening back to the true Islam! if we keep up with history we would find that it was al saud the hashimates who sold their unifying ottoman empire to the harsh rulings of the British and French and not Khomieni and his advertising. again Omar or Ali, Abbas or Mua’wya we are all Muslims and thats what matter. and i agree with you that the prophet and the companions would’ve been extremely angry if they see how a muslim shed the blood of other on a name, a sect and a way of prayer calling.

Salam

]]> By: saman http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-277446 saman Sun, 24 May 2009 06:14:22 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-277446 Hi Jay Soob, If you would follow the shia in Iran and Iraq and other spots in the world, Imam Ali (peace upon him) should of been the kaliph of the Muslims right after the death of the prophet. They back it up in the ghadeer khumm incident where the prophet peace be upon him ordained the kilapha to Imam Ali and also the quote by the prophet "Im the city of knowledge and Ali its Gate" and it continues "and you only enter the cityfrom its gate". Now regarding your question about Imam Hossien (Peace upon him) and to Shia school of thought he should of been the muslim Kaliph after his elder brother Imam Hasan. I didn't understand though what you meant by a "catalyst"? Hi Jay Soob,

If you would follow the shia in Iran and Iraq and other spots in the world, Imam Ali (peace upon him) should of been the kaliph of the Muslims right after the death of the prophet. They back it up in the ghadeer khumm incident where the prophet peace be upon him ordained the kilapha to Imam Ali and also the quote by the prophet “Im the city of knowledge and Ali its Gate” and it continues “and you only enter the cityfrom its gate”. Now regarding your question about Imam Hossien (Peace upon him) and to Shia school of thought he should of been the muslim Kaliph after his elder brother Imam Hasan. I didn’t understand though what you meant by a “catalyst”?

]]> By: Omar Ali albaghdadi http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-118473 Omar Ali albaghdadi Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:32:30 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-118473 i am sorry, i should have clarified that my argument is against the shia ithna ashar, and similar sects, and not the zaydi shia sect. the zaydi shia sect argue that ali was more fit to become the first caliph, but agree that the other caliphs were equally qualified and hold them in very high regard. however the ithna ashar consider them thiefs, liars and have cursed them, and it is this group who i am aiming my article towards. i am sorry, i should have clarified that my argument is against the shia ithna ashar, and similar sects, and not the zaydi shia sect. the zaydi shia sect argue that ali was more fit to become the first caliph, but agree that the other caliphs were equally qualified and hold them in very high regard. however the ithna ashar consider them thiefs, liars and have cursed them, and it is this group who i am aiming my article towards.

]]> By: Omar Ali albaghdadi http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-118472 Omar Ali albaghdadi Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:27:54 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-118472 thank you for your reply. i hope i have not created a misunderstanding in that i never meant to put doubt on ali's valor, courage, or intelligence. i was not saying he was not fit; far from it, the fact that he became the fourth caliph shows that he was equally deserving. however, he may have been younger than the others who were also nominated, and that he was not present at the time of voting. however, surely the decision cannt be unanimous. if you compare even todays elections, there is no such thing as 100% unanimous voting for one leader in any country. however, one must also remember that ali himself gave his oath of alligience to abu bakr, omar and othman all before him. in addition, his position in the islamic community goes far beyond that of simply a caliph. as you stated in your article, he was a very strong warrior, highly spiritual, and one of the ten people of paradise (in that he was guaranteed a place in heaven, also with abubakir and omar and othman). so the mere fact of receiving leadership in this physical world to a man this spiritual would probably be of modest importance, and i am sure his priority was to ensure the muslim community be guided by the right man rather than for personal greed for power. furthermore, even during abu bakir's ruling, ali was appointed highest religious council, a position which in that community was probably higher than simply caliph, as he was considered one of the wisest people lerned in islam (note the distinction between him being learned in islam, as the sunni believe, and having direct communication with god, as shia believe the ayatollah to be). however, in my article i was merely pointing out in the previous entry that the ideology that shia adopt today is more politically motivated that spirtually motivated, and that most definately, if muhamed, ali, hussein and hassan were present today, they would not agree to their practices (tuqia -lie to conceal real motives-; obsession with death and frequent visitings to the grave, self harm, iisam - that is, their ayatollah is never wrong, to name a few). thank you for your reply. i hope i have not created a misunderstanding in that i never meant to put doubt on ali’s valor, courage, or intelligence. i was not saying he was not fit; far from it, the fact that he became the fourth caliph shows that he was equally deserving. however, he may have been younger than the others who were also nominated, and that he was not present at the time of voting. however, surely the decision cannt be unanimous. if you compare even todays elections, there is no such thing as 100% unanimous voting for one leader in any country. however, one must also remember that ali himself gave his oath of alligience to abu bakr, omar and othman all before him. in addition, his position in the islamic community goes far beyond that of simply a caliph. as you stated in your article, he was a very strong warrior, highly spiritual, and one of the ten people of paradise (in that he was guaranteed a place in heaven, also with abubakir and omar and othman). so the mere fact of receiving leadership in this physical world to a man this spiritual would probably be of modest importance, and i am sure his priority was to ensure the muslim community be guided by the right man rather than for personal greed for power. furthermore, even during abu bakir’s ruling, ali was appointed highest religious council, a position which in that community was probably higher than simply caliph, as he was considered one of the wisest people lerned in islam (note the distinction between him being learned in islam, as the sunni believe, and having direct communication with god, as shia believe the ayatollah to be). however, in my article i was merely pointing out in the previous entry that the ideology that shia adopt today is more politically motivated that spirtually motivated, and that most definately, if muhamed, ali, hussein and hassan were present today, they would not agree to their practices (tuqia -lie to conceal real motives-; obsession with death and frequent visitings to the grave, self harm, iisam – that is, their ayatollah is never wrong, to name a few).

]]> By: Glenn http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-118045 Glenn Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:32:13 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-118045 Excellent entry! (Maybe I should just surf the database of TDXP to find gems like this?) Omar Ali albaghdadi While I understand the Muslim communities desire not to establish a hereditary kingship, or mulk, but is it really justified in repeating these arguments still today? Sure he was of only thirst years of age and considered "untried" to take M. A. Shaban's Islamic History in mind. Yet, considering he was preparing for the burial of the Great Prophet when the election/oath of allegience, or bay'ah, of Abu Bakr took place seems a touch shady. The decision was certainly not unanimous, The Banu Hashim fumed since the shura was not fully represented without Ali there. He had also proven his military prowess as the personal secretary and standard-bearer in many important battles. Also, he was the only one allowed to assist the Prophet in the cleansing of the Ka'ba for God. While the Bedouin Arabs might have disliked the hereditary kingship, it was quite common for the aristocratic Quraysh. All these thoughts in mind, was Ali really not qualified? Excellent entry! (Maybe I should just surf the database of TDXP to find gems like this?)

Omar Ali albaghdadi
While I understand the Muslim communities desire not to establish a hereditary kingship, or mulk, but is it really justified in repeating these arguments still today? Sure he was of only thirst years of age and considered “untried” to take M. A. Shaban’s Islamic History in mind. Yet, considering he was preparing for the burial of the Great Prophet when the election/oath of allegience, or bay’ah, of Abu Bakr took place seems a touch shady. The decision was certainly not unanimous, The Banu Hashim fumed since the shura was not fully represented without Ali there. He had also proven his military prowess as the personal secretary and standard-bearer in many important battles. Also, he was the only one allowed to assist the Prophet in the cleansing of the Ka’ba for God. While the Bedouin Arabs might have disliked the hereditary kingship, it was quite common for the aristocratic Quraysh. All these thoughts in mind, was Ali really not qualified?

]]> By: Omar Ali albaghdadi http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html/comment-page-1#comment-117877 Omar Ali albaghdadi Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:32:02 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/30/what-is-the-difference-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.html#comment-117877 your article is interesting, and has some facts in it, although it does not portray the whole story. Sunni muslims believe in a democratically elected leader, who represents the community and who is able to lead and guide the community. hence following the prophet muhamed's death, muslims (no shia or sunni at the time) chose abubakir to become the next 'leader' and so on. shia believe that this was incorrect and that it must be a blood relative of the prophet who must rule, simialr to a kingdom. all sunnis respect and love the prophets relatives, most of all ali. the reason he wasnt chosen 1st after the prophets death but fourth is of two elements 1) he wasnt present at time of "elections" and 2) he was too young and it was judged others wuld be wiser. he infact became the fourth caliph or leader, but was chosen by merit rather than purly due to his relation with the prophet, which in my opinion would seem like a more respectful and honorable position, highlighting all his attributes. however, the radical ideas of shia islam that one person (ayatollah) can communicate with god through almahdi (a man alive gfor 1400yrs) is ridiculous, and actually originated well after ali's death, and only became wat it is in the last 300yrs or so, purely because of perisan advertisement and adoption of this idea because it suites their culture. they moulded the idea so that it can further their ambition of controlling the area; one only needs to see that the current descendent of muhmaed is ayatollah khomeini who has somehow became iranian; ridiculous since muhamed was an arab. your article is interesting, and has some facts in it, although it does not portray the whole story. Sunni muslims believe in a democratically elected leader, who represents the community and who is able to lead and guide the community. hence following the prophet muhamed’s death, muslims (no shia or sunni at the time) chose abubakir to become the next ‘leader’ and so on. shia believe that this was incorrect and that it must be a blood relative of the prophet who must rule, simialr to a kingdom. all sunnis respect and love the prophets relatives, most of all ali. the reason he wasnt chosen 1st after the prophets death but fourth is of two elements 1) he wasnt present at time of “elections” and 2) he was too young and it was judged others wuld be wiser. he infact became the fourth caliph or leader, but was chosen by merit rather than purly due to his relation with the prophet, which in my opinion would seem like a more respectful and honorable position, highlighting all his attributes. however, the radical ideas of shia islam that one person (ayatollah) can communicate with god through almahdi (a man alive gfor 1400yrs) is ridiculous, and actually originated well after ali’s death, and only became wat it is in the last 300yrs or so, purely because of perisan advertisement and adoption of this idea because it suites their culture. they moulded the idea so that it can further their ambition of controlling the area; one only needs to see that the current descendent of muhmaed is ayatollah khomeini who has somehow became iranian; ridiculous since muhamed was an arab.

]]>