Sunni -vs- Shiitte

[flowery]

The death toll of in Iraq alone tops all of your examples combined.

The Shiites are the reason for this ^

 

[Osomir]

The death toll of in Iraq alone tops all of your examples combined.

The Shiites are the reason for this ^

For existing? ISI has been targeting innocent civilians based on their religious affiliation for years, close to a decade now. Most have done nothing wrong, so your claims that it's all their fault seem highly partisan and down right disgusting.

 

[irosie91]

The death toll of in Iraq alone tops all of your examples combined.

The Shiites are the reason for this ^

For existing? ISI has been targeting innocent civilians based on their religious affiliation for years, close to a decade now. Most have done nothing wrong, so your claims that it's all their fault seem highly partisan and down right disgusting.

Osomir-----calm down-----whatever is your background-----the mutual
blame thing is nothing new-----be not deceived as was I------long ago
I considered the shiites to be THE VICTIMS----but that is only because
the very first hatred I heard expressed in this long standing feud
came from a sunni. ----then I had conversation with a shiite---which is
when I first learned such expressions as "we will drink their blood"

no need to drag this thing on and on and on.......is there? I blame
it all on fatimah------All feuds emanate from the kitchen.
If only Queen Catherine had the good sense to JUMP----Cromwell
would not have hanged lots of people. Most of the people who die
as a result of feuds are completely innocent

 

[MHunterB]

Shedding blood over ideas is wrong. One more reason that Civil Law MUST trump Religious Law whenever the two conflict, and Civil Law must be designed to protect the minorities.

When you finish reading the links in my previous post ,, you'll discover that some problems in the Middle East is not because of the ideas, but because Iran is a non-Muslim Nazi country hungry to kill children and steal the lands

very simple

And that is different from the other ME nations which are Muslim Nazi countries hungry to kill children and steal the lands - HOW, exactly?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Muslim - Schmuslim.... it's all ancient stories. The fact that the Middle East is burning "along sectarian and religious lines" is heartbreaking

Again ,,

It is the IRAN'S and Shiites fault ,,no Islam

Most of the most violent sectarian militias in the world are Sunni, not Shiite, In fact, Shiites tend to be much more vulnerable populations than Sunnis.

Again... I do not give a shit as to who is right and who is wrong in this dispute, I'm saying that fighting to the death over 1700 year old words on paper makes us all look stupid from space.

It's no fucking wonder we never get any visitors.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Shedding blood over ideas is wrong. One more reason that Civil Law MUST trump Religious Law whenever the two conflict, and Civil Law must be designed to protect the minorities.

When you finish reading the links in my previous post ,, you'll discover that some problems in the Middle East is not because of the ideas, but because Iran is a non-Muslim Nazi country hungry to kill children and steal the lands

very simple

Simple......

So it has nothing to do with a religious difference?





Then why do all of your links focus the religious differences?








Here's simple:

Stop killing each other over which ancient story is a better predictor of what happens when a Monkey gets killed.

`​

 

[AVG-JOE]

The death toll of in Iraq alone tops all of your examples combined.

The Shiites are the reason for this ^

So..... stop killing each other over unprovable theories.




Please.

 

[syrenn]

Google Search June 05, 2013: Conflict Sunni Shiite

That is a LOT of blood.​

It's embarrassing to an average Monkey in this here and now....

I'm not sure which is worse... living at a time when there's so much bloodshed over so little, or living when so little can be done by the rest of the Monkeys to stop it.

Not that this is the most embarrassing couple of decades for an average Monkey life to have been lived...​

ppsssttt

religion of peace.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Shiites are the reason for this ^

For existing? ISI has been targeting innocent civilians based on their religious affiliation for years, close to a decade now. Most have done nothing wrong, so your claims that it's all their fault seem highly partisan and down right disgusting.

Osomir-----calm down-----whatever is your background-----the mutual
blame thing is nothing new-----be not deceived as was I------long ago
I considered the shiites to be THE VICTIMS----but that is only because
the very first hatred I heard expressed in this long standing feud
came from a sunni. ----then I had conversation with a shiite---which is
when I first learned such expressions as "we will drink their blood"

no need to drag this thing on and on and on.......is there? I blame
it all on fatimah------All feuds emanate from the kitchen.
If only Queen Catherine had the good sense to JUMP----Cromwell
would not have hanged lots of people. Most of the people who die
as a result of feuds are completely innocent

Queen Catherine? How ancient is that story?


I rest my case.

 

[Osomir]

Again... I do not give a shit as to who is right and who is wrong in this dispute, I'm saying that fighting to the death over 1700 year old words on paper makes us all look stupid from space.

It's no fucking wonder we never get any visitors.

And again it is wrong to suggest that they are merely fighting over 1700 year old pieces of paper, that is not how Sunnis and shiites are defined, it also has more to do with modern political power, sort of like ethnic political fighting which often leads to ethnic cleansing. Power structures in the Middle East generally revolved around two things: Ethnicity, and jurisprudential affiliation. That structure hasn't changed much and has little to do with anything resembling religious theology. It is political in nature.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So stop dicking around with Sharia Law and establish a Civil Law that ALL can live under without changing their life or beliefs.

P.S. - Killing each other over ethnicity and/or jurisprudential affiliation is almost as stupid as killing each other over religious ideology.

 

[Osomir]

whatever is your background-----

My background is in print journalism which covers conflict with a regional emphasis on Africa and the Middle East. The "disgusting" comment comes from the fact that he is taking a very highly historically persecuted and vulnerable population that is currently being targeted in Iraq for nothing more than their religious affiliation by Al Qaeda and blaming the victims for their mass slaughter. That's pretty disgusting. It isn't a new tactic for Al Qaeda either, before AQAP was formed Al Qaeda tried to establish itself in Yemen and engaged in wide scale sectarian attacks, it caused their organization to fail (which is why AQAP doesn't engage in sectarian violence the way that the ISI in Iraq does).

My stance has nothing to do with emotion, it is a simple historical fact that shiites have traditionally been vulnerable populations within the Middle East and have routinely been heavily persecuted. That status alone has really morphed the branches of shiism into what they are today religiously. It's also why Shiite sects tends to be a little more mystical than Sunni sects, it is the result of religious development under heavy persecution.

Him suggesting that Shiites are most often the main prosecutors of sectarian violence and persecution simply stands all of Islamic history on its head.

Don't get me wrong not all shiites are saints (Hezbollah is a Shiite organization as was Amal) and it is really inappropriate to simply lump all shiites together given the wide variety of different schools of thought and different regional organizations there are within the overarching shiite label (the same could be said of Sunnis too, but is especially true for Shiites).

 

[Osomir]

So stop dicking around with Sharia Law and establish a Civil Law that ALL can live under without changing their life or beliefs.

I don't think you're quite understanding what I am trying to say. Religious affiliation generally also goes hand in hand with political affiliation in the Middle East (in some regards) just like ethnicity in say Kenya can go hand in hand with political affiliation. That isn't something that depends on Shariah law and it isn't something that would be solved under a civil law set. It's power politics.

And that isn't meant to be a justification, it's merely an explanation of the current situation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So, until one side actually does wipe out the other side, peace is impossible?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Stupid.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So, until one side actually does wipe out the other side peace is impossible?

[YOUTUBE]RsUscVoZcMQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Osomir]

So, until one side actually does wipe out the other side peace is impossible?

It's a valid question to ask, and it was one of the largest issues with regards to potential peace in Lebanon. Yes peace is possible, we have countries with large religious and ethnic divides that are able to do it (though many have had turbulent pasts). It probably isn't for Iraq as long as the ISI exists though.

 

[irosie91]

whatever is your background-----

My background is in print journalism which covers conflict with a regional emphasis on Africa and the Middle East. The "disgusting" comment comes from the fact that he is taking a very highly historically persecuted and vulnerable population that is currently being targeted in Iraq for nothing more than their religious affiliation by Al Qaeda and blaming the victims for their mass slaughter. That's pretty disgusting. It isn't a new tactic for Al Qaeda either, before AQAP was formed Al Qaeda tried to establish itself in Yemen and engaged in wide scale sectarian attacks, it caused their organization to fail (which is why AQAP doesn't engage in sectarian violence the way that the ISI in Iraq does).

My stance has nothing to do with emotion, it is a simple historical fact that shiites have traditionally been vulnerable populations within the Middle East and have routinely been heavily persecuted. That status alone has really morphed the branches of shiism into what they are today religiously. It's also why Shiite sects tends to be a little more mystical than Sunni sects, it is the result of religious development under heavy persecution.

Him suggesting that Shiites are most often the main prosecutors of sectarian violence and persecution simply stands all of Islamic history on its head.

Don't get me wrong not all shiites are saints (Hezbollah is a Shiite organization as was Amal) and it is really inappropriate to simply lump all shiites together given the wide variety of different schools of thought and different regional organizations there are within the overarching shiite label (the same could be said of Sunnis too, but is especially true for Shiites).

I find your answer VERY interesting -----because of the way in which I learned
about shiite vs sunni. ----I came into contact with lots of muslims from south-
east asia----LONG LONG ago--------and since we were all young ---and studying
--in the same field-----I made lots of friends among the far from home young
professionals I noticed the HATRED very quickly. Pakistanis hated Iranians ---
and Iranians hated pakistanis even more-------
OBVIOUS!!!! -----but there was an indian muslim I noted----who virtually
wooed---the iranians. To make a long story short----he was a shiite.

being young and of tender heart----I came to the conclusion that it was the
shiiites who were the victims ------because the pakistanis seemed more
strident in their HATRED ( "there are some people in pakistan so crazy that
they bang themselves with whips......" )

Over time ---I got over my overt sympathy for shiites-----sorry---but they
are just as barbaric "SOMEDAY WE WILL DRINK THEIR BLOOD"----did
not impress me as 'nice'

Your comment on mysticism as a response to oppression interests me---
The jewish movement CHASSIDISM ------also developed in response to
oppression-------in fact it has its roots in mysticism that developed during
the time ---much earlier---of roman oppression.

It seems to me that SUFISM ----developed around the time of the
break-up of the Islamic empire------including the loss of the Iberian
Penninsula--------the "andalusian" thing----but I am not sure

 

[Osomir]

being young and of tender heart----I came to the conclusion that it was the
shiiites who were the victims ------because the pakistanis seemed more
strident in their HATRED ( "there are some people in pakistan so crazy that
they bang themselves with whips......" )

I don't really think it is a matter of one group being better or worse than another. I don't think we should even lump Muslims into two categories like sunni and Shiite, I find it a rather shallow classification system that doesn't really do a good job of encompassing or even defining most Muslims in the world and even when it does, it ignores the high levels of diversity within each larger community.

There are a couple of things that are historical and modern fact though.

1.) Shiites do tend to be more vulnerable populations historically given the dominance of Sunni jurisprudential schools over time.

2.) Most sectarian violence in the world today can really be captured in a couple of countries IE Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan and most of the violence in these areas tend to be Sunni groups targeting either ethnic minorities, or religious groups such as Shiites. Which directly contradicts flowers statements.

Over time ---I got over my overt sympathy for shiites-----sorry---but they
are just as barbaric "SOMEDAY WE WILL DRINK THEIR BLOOD"----did
not impress me as 'nice'

Most Muslims of both branches have little interest in conflict, which is why i hate the classification and generalization game.

Your comment on mysticism as a response to oppression interests me---
The jewish movement CHASSIDISM ------also developed in response to
oppression-------in fact it has its roots in mysticism that developed during
the time ---much earlier---of roman oppression.

It seems to me that SUFISM ----developed around the time of the
break-up of the Islamic empire------including the loss of the Iberian
Penninsula--------the "andalusian" thing----but I am not sure

The development of Sufism is a good example, as are expressions of regional Islamic practice that wed Islam with historical traditional beliefs of that area (you see that a lot in Christianity too). All Shia literally means is "follower of" there used to be a huge number of these groups which have lessened over time, but going back to main Shiite branch concepts such as the occultation and greater occultation the sort of language that revolves around shiite practice tends to coincide well with what one might expect from historically persecuted peoples (like Christians).