The More You Know: Divisions in Islam

[senatorlamb]

Excerp from http://www.newstatesman.com/200702120009
(http://www.newstatesman.com/200702120009)
The clash between Sunni and Shia Muslims across the Arab world is already the greatest single cause of strife around the globe. It is taking place within countries and between countries. It has been brewing for years, but only now do governments appreciate the dangers. The hanging of Saddam Hussein in late December took the problem to a new level. Sunnis saw the timing of the execution, on the eve of Eid al-Adha, one of their most significant festivals, as a deliberate insult. Shias worldwide celebrated the death of a man whom they saw as an oppressor. Now the United States and the rest of the western world are attempting, belatedly, to stabilise a situation that they themselves played a major role in creating.


Two years ago, King Abdullah of Jordan warned that a "Shia crescent" was being established across the region. He was referring to the growing influence of Iran in Iraq, Iran's support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the strong alliance between Tehran and Syria. The resurgence dates back to the 1979 Iranian revolution, when the religious Shia regime of Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the secular, pro-western shah of Iran. The eight-year Iraq-Iran war could have turned into a Sunni-Shia conflict, particularly as, in the eyes of many, Saddam appeared to be fighting on behalf of all the Sunni regimes in the Gulf. That it did not was because thousands of Iraqi Shias saw it as an Arab-Persian conflict, rather than a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shias in both countries.


Shias constituted the bulk of the Iraqi opposition in exile, and Saddam's downfall ensured that it was only a matter of time before the majority group would seek to regain control. The Sunnis' refusal to accept the change coincided with the arrival of extreme elements associated with al-Qaeda and other Sunni organisations in Iraq. Now, two parallel battles are raging in Iraq: the one of resistance to the American-led occupation, the other a sectarian war.

[BoiledFrogs.]

thats like old school news sad thing to say it existed ever since shias' came to show

[aminorthreat55]

I think one of the more important facts in this relationship is the fact that it's been going on for nearly 1400 years.

[BoiledFrogs.]

I think one of the more important facts in this relationship is the fact that it's been going on for nearly 1400 years.
i was wondering if you know when shia's came into existence?
way to lazy to search

[MTC]

I wonder who they hate more; the opposite sect, or americans?

[senatorlamb]

i was wondering if you know when shia's came into existence?
way to lazy to search

the sunni/shia split came after the death of the prophet muhammed. at its simplest, it was a disagreement on who would be Muhammed's successor. A quick glance at Wikipedia should do the trick because I'm too lazy to write a history lesson. lol.

[aminorthreat55]

the sunni/shia split came after the death of the prophet muhammed. at its simplest, it was a disagreement on who would be Muhammed's successor. A quick glance at Wikipedia should do the trick because I'm too lazy to write a history lesson. lol.
I think that was in 632 AD, yes?

[BoiledFrogs.]

I wonder who they hate more; the opposite sect, or americans?
americans? i guess

[lonely planet]

well, they both hate americans, its incredible, i once read a statistic somewhere that said up to 35% of muslims are now "radicalized" im sure that includes both sects, so aslong they're hating or killing someone its ok

[thejetstolehome]

and the winner for most ignorant first post in the history of AP.net is....

well, they both hate americans, its incredible, i once read a statistic somewhere that said up to 35% of muslims are now "radicalized" im sure that includes both sects, so aslong they're hating or killing someone its ok

[lonely planet]

its whats known as realism, islam is not "the religion of peace" as if heard it called, the way its being promoted, is completely manipulating youths to murder it the name of allah. im not saying islam in it self pushes people to kill, but the way its being practiced, pushes for extream intolerance

[thejetstolehome]

if you know it's being manipulated then why are you refuting that it's a religion of peace?

[lonely planet]

its not because of what it became, today islam is a religion of war, not peace and civility its manipulation has changed it i'll give you an example: the danish cartoon that was run in a newspaper, dipicting the profet mohamed(sp?) and there wee riots and the like, not to mention numerous people were killed. That is not "the religion of peace"

[thejetstolehome]

so you're basing your judgement of a religion based on the actions of a few? that's an incredibly fair assessment! god, how could anyone assume that you were ignorant?

[lonely planet]

wow someone needs to read more carefully, i sated a satistic in my previous post saying that 35% of muslims were radicalized now they defined that as willing to resort, or to commit acts of violence to protect of further the causes/beleifs of islam, i would hardly call more then 1/3 a few

[thejetstolehome]

wow someone needs to read more carefully, i sated a satistic in my previous post saying that 35% of muslims were radicalized now they defined that as willing to resort, or to commit acts of violence to protect of further the causes/beleifs of islam, i would hardly call more then 1/3 a few

can you actually get a source to that? who took the poll? when was it taken? how was it measured? it's a ridiculous statistic. if i wanted to, i could get a poll to say that 35% of Christians are radicalized because a few went and bombed a few abortion clinics but that doesn't make it so.

[thejetstolehome]

its not because of what it became, today islam is a religion of war, not peace and civility its manipulation has changed it i'll give you an example: the danish cartoon that was run in a newspaper, dipicting the profet mohamed(sp?) and there wee riots and the like, not to mention numerous people were killed. That is not "the religion of peace"

yea that's indicting the whole religion. i could easily say Christianity is a religion of war because the United States is, though unofficially, a Christian nation as the majority of people here, especially those in power, are Christian and we're in a war right now; but it's a ridiculous claim to make so i don't--and neither does anyone else.

[lonely planet]

i read it a while ago, in a book called: "america Alone: the end of the world as we know it" in the book he states the origins of the poll honostly i dont remeber them, but seeing that personally i hate bullshit polls, i can garantee you that its a fair poll. and if you really crave information now take a look at this: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks it lists all the attacks in the past 3 months, enjoy

[lonely planet]

yea that's indicting the whole religion. i could easily say Christianity is a religion of war because the United States is, though unofficially, a Christian nation as the majority of people here, especially those in power, are Christian and we're in a war right now; but it's a ridiculous claim to make so i don't--and neither does anyone else. They are killing in the name of islam. The us is not killing in the name of religion, in this case the religion is causing the violence

[thejetstolehome]

They are killing in the name of islam. The us is not killing in the name of religion, in this case the religion is causing the violence

the case could be made that the US is killing against the name of Islam.

[thejetstolehome]

i read it a while ago, in a book called: "america Alone: the end of the world as we know it" in the book he states the origins of the poll honostly i dont remeber them, but seeing that personally i hate bullshit polls, i can garantee you that its a fair poll. and if you really crave information now take a look at this: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks it lists all the attacks in the past 3 months, enjoy

that still doesn't convince me that Islam in and of itself is a religion of war. those are individuals perverting the faith to justfiy murder.

[lonely planet]

and now i shall refer you once more to my statistic, and whilst i must go, i will say this: wether you find it ignorant or not, its unfortunatly the truth, islam is a much more violent religion then many others in this world, numbers dont lie, muslims are reponsible for many more acts of violence due to religion then many other religions, ill let you do the math on your own, and btw if you knew the origins of the war and its initial ideals etc, you would know that we were trying to protect ourselves, no mater how bad intelegence was, we were protecting our country

[thejetstolehome]

as for the situation in Iraq, i don't think the "insurgents" (what a horrible term to use) are fighting more for a political reason than a religious reason at this point. followers of Islam or not, i'm pretty sure they'd be fighting to get someone they don't want out of their country.

[thejetstolehome]

and now i shall refer you once more to my statistic, and whilst i must go, i will say this: wether you find it ignorant or not, its unfortunatly the truth, islam is a much more violent religion then many others in this world, numbers dont lie, muslims are reponsible for many more acts of violence due to religion then many other religions, ill let you do the math on your own,

what about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? those killed millions. many of the reasons Muslims create violence could be politically motivated. obviously the Palestine/Israel situation is deeply rooted in religion, but i think that even if religion were taken out of it, the Palestinians would be still be pissed and would fight the fact that Israel was dropped into their land.

and btw if you knew the origins of the war and its initial ideals etc, you would know that we were trying to protect ourselves, no mater how bad intelegence was, we were protecting our country

really? what big threat did Iraq pose? were they ready to invade us or Kuwait again? where's that link with Al Queda we were supposed to be breaking up? was Saddam ressurecting the Third Reich to take over the world? there was no threat from Iraq.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

and now i shall refer you once more to my statistic, and whilst i must go, i will say this: wether you find it ignorant or not, its unfortunatly the truth, islam is a much more violent religion then many others in this world, numbers dont lie, muslims are reponsible for many more acts of violence due to religion then many other religions, ill let you do the math on your own, and btw if you knew the origins of the war and its initial ideals etc, you would know that we were trying to protect ourselves, no mater how bad intelegence was, we were protecting our country


except that the intellegence that was telling us what we needed to be protected from....was wrong, so really what you just said makes no sense.

and i agree with thejet that even if religion was removed totally i think the violence in Iraq would most likely still be taking place at this point.

[Love As Arson]

First off, one should note that while there are ethnic conflicts, many cohabitate with one another in various cities, without the conflict one currently finds. In fact, in Baghdad, the majority of marriages transcend ethnic divisions. As such, it would behoove us to look at the material conditions of the area we are speaking of and determine what conflict is causing the sparks to fly between the two. It is quite easy to simply ascribe it to religious divisions, however, religious conflicts are generally the result of other, tangible problems facing the society; for example, a country's infrastructure is destroyed, there is a power vacuum, a nation structuring elections along ethnic divisions and using certain ethnic groups to engage in violence against one another, etc.
As to the argument that Islam is innately violent, one must again look at the material conditions from which a specific idea has arose. When one looks at the Middle East, one finds a history of imperialism, which stratified societies between the majority of the poor and an elite, while simultaneously creating arbitrary borders that were once clearly defined in order to extract wealth easier. In such conditions, the people seek out a paradigm that structures a way in which to respond to this aggression and western governments have eviscerated the secular movements, so the religious movements are left to provide an interpretation of Islam given the social context. One can see similar movements arising out of Christianity in Latin America, where imperialism was pervasive, with Liberation Theology; a socialist message with the conception that Christ would deliver the oppressed from the capitalist market. One has priests armed with guns and weaponry in order to lash out against those that would support free marker policy. The social context provided one the means to interpret the text accordingly. An American Muslim or Christian has a different social context with which to interpret their respective doctrines, as they live in prosperous country, and are not on the receiving end of oppression, so their viewpoints to interpret the text as peaceful. As such, to posit that it is a logical extension of a religion is a superficial, and incomplete, analysis because it fails to take in account the social context each individual processes their interpretation through.

[thejetstolehome]

agreed.

[BoiledFrogs.]

so you're basing your judgement of a religion based on the actions of a few? that's an incredibly fair assessment! god, how could anyone assume that you were ignorant?
i second that
there is like a billion muslims out there