Can anyone in the US military, active or retired, explain the difference between a Sunni or Shiite Muslim?
I also wonder if you know the military history of the United States and why you think I asked this question? It would behoove you to see the similarities between Iraqi citizens and their U.S. military problems compared to the early American colonists of the late 1700's in New England with their British problem.
I think if Bush could tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, maybe then he could better explain why the US military is STILL in Iraq. I wonder who the betting houses have their money on, if there IS supposedly a western influenced resolution to the region.
JoeBroch...thank you for the info you provided. I was asking the question for facts, not subjective emotional impulse response based on what Lillian wrote.
You're right, Lillian...I don't understand what's pertaining to my question, which is why I asked. I will ask another question regarding the two groups you named later.
No one wants to take a stab at the US/Iraq of 2007 comparison to the American colonists/British of 1776, huh?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
See the resource box for the reference the below comes from:
The Islam religion was founded by Mohammed in the seventh century. In 622 he founded the first Islamic state, a theocracy in Medina, a city in western Saudi Arabia located north of Mecca. There are two branches of the religion he founded.
The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.
Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed. In 931 the Twelfth Imam disappeared. This was a seminal event in the history of Shiite Muslims. According to R. Scott Appleby, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, "Shiite Muslims, who are concentrated in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, [believe they] had suffered the loss of divinely guided political leadership" at the time of the Imam's disappearance. Not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure.
Another difference between Sunnis and Shiites has to do with the Mahdi, “the rightly-guided one” whose role is to bring a just global caliphate into being. As historian Timothy Furnish has written, "The major difference is that for Shi`is he has already been here, and will return from hiding; for Sunnis he has yet to emerge into history: a comeback v. a coming out, if you will."
In a special 9-11 edition of the Journal of American History, Appleby explained that the Shiite outlook is far different from the Sunni's, a difference that is highly significant:
... for Sunni Muslims, approximately 90 percent of the Muslim world, the loss of the caliphate after World War I was devastating in light of the hitherto continuous historic presence of the caliph, the guardian of Islamic law and the Islamic state. Sunni fundamentalist leaders thereafter emerged in nations such as Egypt and India, where contact with Western political structures provided them with a model awkwardly to imitate ... as they struggled after 1924 to provide a viable alternative to the caliphate.
In 1928, four years after the abolishment of the caliphate, the Egyptian schoolteacher Hasan al-Banna founded the first Islamic fundamentalist movement in the Sunni world, the Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun). Al-Banna was appalled by "the wave of atheism and lewdness [that] engulfed Egypt" following World War I. The victorious Europeans had "imported their half-naked women into these regions, together with their liquors, their theatres, their dance halls, their amusements, their stories, their newspapers, their novels, their whims, their silly games, and their vices." Suddenly the very heart of the Islamic world was penetrated by European "schools and scientific and cultural institutes" that "cast doubt and heresy into the souls of its sons and taught them how to demean themselves, disparage their religion and their fatherland, divest themselves of their traditions and beliefs, and to regard as sacred anything Western."14 Most distressing to al-Banna and his followers was what they saw as the rapid moral decline of the religious establishment, including the leading sheikhs, or religious scholars, at Al-Azhar, the grand mosque and center of Islamic learning in Cairo. The clerical leaders had become compromised and corrupted by their alliance with the indigenous ruling elites who had succeeded the European colonial masters.
Osama bina Laden is a Sunni Muslim. To him the end of the reign of the caliphs in the 1920s was catastrophic, as he made clear in a videotape made after 9-11. On the tape, broadcast by Al-Jazeera on October 7, 2001, he proclaimed: "What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted. ... Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more [than] eighty years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated."
Juan Cole, a well-known historian of the Middle East, has pointed out on his blog, Informed Comment, that the split between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq is of relatively recent origin:
I see a lot of pundits and politicians saying that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq have been fighting for a millennium. We need better history than that. The Shiite tribes of the south probably only converted to Shiism in the past 200 year s. And, Sunni-Shiite riots per se were rare in 20th century Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites cooperated in the 1920 rebellion against the British. If you read the newspapers in the 1950s and 1960s, you don't see anything about Sunni-Shiite riots. There were peasant/landlord struggles or communists versus Baathists. The kind of sectarian fighting we're seeing now in Iraq is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.
In December 2006 the New York Times reported that it is not just ordinary Americans who find it difficult to remember the difference between Sunnis and Shiites:
SURPRISE quiz: Is Al Qaeda Sunni or Shiite? Which sect dominates Hezbollah?
Silvestre Reyes, the Democratic nominee to head the House Intelligence Committee, failed to answer both questions correctly last week when put to the test by Congressional Quarterly. He mislabeled Al Qaeda as predominantly Shiite, and on Hezbollah, which is mostly Shiite, he drew a blank.
“Speaking only for myself,” he told reporters, “it’s hard to keep things in perspective and in the categories.”
Not that he’s alone. Other members of Congress from both parties have also flunked on-the-spot inquiries. Indeed, some of the smartest Western statesmen of the last century have found themselves flummoxed by Islam. Winston Churchill — in 1921, while busy drawing razor-straight borders across a mercurial Middle East — asked an aide for a three-line note explaining the “religious character” of the Hashemite leader he planned to install in Baghdad.
“Is he a Sunni with Shaih sympathies or a Shaih with Sunni sympathies?” Mr. Churchill wrote, using an antiquated spelling. (“I always get mixed up between these two,” he added.)
And maybe religious memorization should not be required for policymaking. Gen. William Odom, who directed the National Security Agency under President Ronald Reagan, said that Mr. Reyes mainly needs to know “how the intelligence community works.”
Yet, improving American intelligence, according to General Odom and others with close ties to the Middle East and the American intelligence community, requires more than just a organization chart.
A cheat sheet is in order.
The Review asked nearly a dozen experts, from William R. Polk, author of “Understanding Iraq,” to Paul R. Pillar, the C.I.A. official who coordinated intelligence on the Middle East until he retired last year, to explain the region. Here, a quick distillation.
What caused the original divide?
The groups first diverged after the Prophet Muhammad died in 632, and his followers could not agree on whether to choose bloodline successors or leaders most likely to follow the tenets of the faith.
The group now known as Sunnis chose Abu Bakr, the prophet’s adviser, to become the first successor, or caliph, to lead the Muslim state. Shiites favored Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law. Ali and his successors are called imams, who not only lead the Shiites but are considered to be descendants of Muhammad. After the 11th imam died in 874, and his young son was said to have disappeared from the funeral, Shiites in particular came to see the child as a Messiah who had been hidden from the public by God.
The largest sect of Shiites, known as “twelvers,” have been preparing for his return ever since.
How did the violence start?
In 656, Ali’s supporters killed the third caliph. Soon after, the Sunnis killed Ali’s son Husain.
Fighting continued but Sunnis emerged victorious over the Shiites and came to revere the caliphate for its strength and piety.
Shiites focused on developing their religious beliefs, through their imamsSource(s): http://hnn.us/articles/934.html
- Anonymous5 years ago
They both live by Islam, but Iran is Shiite. The only way I can explain this they supposedly live from the Qur'an (koran). But they are sects, similar too some of our religion would be like the Baptist and Methodist, we may believe a little different but under the same God. They shiite and sunni Muslims are battling for who are the correct sect to rule Islam. Islam is not a peaceful religion it is chaotic and misery. In essences they kill one another, their own people, because basically they are confused.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I've already seen the comparisons so you are about 4 years too late. So, I gather in your mind, that only way that Iraq will ever have peace is if they are under a brutal dictator slaughtering the Shiite and Kurds? Or there are actually few Sunni, so it would be okay to wipe out their existence. You are talking to a nation comprised of every culture on earth and we coexist, so maybe you can understand how we KNOW it can work. Iraq has a choice, they either work together or cease to exist. You are the one who does not understand.
- AmericanPatriotLv 61 decade ago
SUNNI & SHIITE: it's like the METHODISTS (who SPRINKLE) going around blowing up and murdering BAPTISTS (who SUBMERGE when baptizing) and if they get some other Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Presbyterians, Catholics while they do that, oh well.
They are BOTH of the Islamic faith, but are of different sects.
(USN, retired/in-country Viet Nam vet/proud Patriot Guard Rider)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
As far as their terrorist organization and goals:
Sunni terrorist are sponsored by al Qaeda
Shite terrorist are sponsored by Iran
They all fight each other and the US.
Their goals are to dominate and take over as much territory as possible.
Ultimate goal is to kill the Saudi Royal Family and capture Mecca...Source(s): Vet
- David BLv 61 decade ago
question 1...yes I could.
#2...aside from an unwelcome military force in the country, little ground exists for comparison, more for contrast.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Wow, you are pretty smart aren't ya...me just a dumb soldier, only pull trigger and scratch head. Yeah, i can answer both of your questions, but you are already right in your own head and will not listen anyway.
- 1 decade ago
Not much but the Shiite Muslims are closer in name to what they really are.
- 1 decade ago
Iam a military personel, active, & what I can tell you is that this guys ain't nothing much different bout' them is just that they can pop a foreigner anywhere,anytime, anyhow...
- shazaamazamLv 41 decade ago
Amuslim is a muslim and Georgie could'nt find oil in Texas.