|Shiite vs. Sunni||Dwayne Barry|
Mar 20, 2003 5:27 AM
|So, I figured I'd find out want the difference is between these two branches of Islam.
What I gathered is Sunni's believe the Koran and Mohammed were the last word on Islam (i.e. Mohammed was the last prophet). Whereas, Shiites believe an Imam (who should be a direct descendent of Mohammed) continues to offer authority that is equal to the Koran/Mohammed (i.e. is a prophet). Quite analogous to the Catholic Pope.
So, who is the Imam now? I got the impression there should be just one. But my impression is you often hear of Imams in various parts of the muslim world.
Any muslims out there or knowledgable people who can clarify this issue?
|Just like Cat-lickers and Pot-lickers, it seems. nm||Spunout|
Mar 20, 2003 7:14 AM
|If this is true...||hycobob|
Mar 20, 2003 7:55 AM
|It sounds like an Iman can make up his (not her) own rules. Kind of like how the "religion of peace" has started condoning suicide bombing.
Let us not forget the crazy SOBs in Malasia. Tribal Muslims (?) who go by truckloads, village to village with spears and machetes beheading and quartering people who aren't with them. I hope I'm not "racist" to want these types not in my neighborhood...either way, they're just damn strange.
Mar 20, 2003 8:38 AM
|Oops, you spoke the truth..the pc police won't like that kind of thing.
Shiites are much fewer in number than are Sunnis and the former are primarily located in southern Iraq, a majority of Iran, and a minority in Pakistan. I am not familiar with the process which one becomes 'the Imam' as Khomeini was considered in Iran. Possibly a vote of high ranking clerics. Whatever it is, these Imams are not considered to be on the same level as the 12 Imams were considered historically.
For what its worth, if you follow the news, you will find that Pakistani Sunnis will murder Shiities in Pakistan on a fairly regular basis. Don't know if the Shiities return the favor, but you probably wouldn't want this crowd in your neighborhood. (Uh oh, the pc people won't like that comment)
|The problem with some muslims...||Dwayne Barry|
Mar 20, 2003 9:03 AM
|is they haven't caught up to the times. Christians did all this stuff to each other 400 or 500 years ago, and those of other religions. So, don't go thinking this has much to do with the fundamentals principles of Islam being incompatable with peace anymore than Christian principles. I'm in the middle of reading a book about the Crusades. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem back from the muslims (around 1098), every non-Christian was executed. Man, woman and child were marched into the church of the Holy Sepulchre (I think) and put to the sword, an estimated 10,000 people. Chroniclers talk about walking through ankle deep blood.
My point is, any religion can be used to justify anything. Muslims just need to embrace the peaceful aspects of their religion and it will be all good. The question is how to bring that about?
|uhhh, Ireland? The bible-belt in the US? Anti-Abortion? GWB?nm||Spunout|
Mar 20, 2003 9:38 AM
|I forgot about Ireland...||Dwayne Barry|
Mar 20, 2003 9:47 AM
|sure hope none of those catholic and protestant types come living in my neighborhood (that's probably not pc, is it?) :)
Of course, it only strengthens my point that any religion no matter how noble it's principles may seem can be used to justify death and destruction.
Mar 20, 2003 11:06 AM
|Several years ago, the IRA blew up some facility in Northern Ireland and killed 20+. They were rebuked by Sinn Feinn among others and actually apologized for the killings. Don't think I have heard any Islamic terrorists apologize about their murders.
The other poster listed "the Bible belt"...what a fool. List the recent terroristic activities by Protestants against Catholics in the South, or vice versa. They don't exist. Racial problems? Some of the largest race riots ever in the U.S. were in Chicago (Definitely not the bible belt) in the early part of the 20th century. That kind of post is insultingly stupid.
In terms of Muslims accepting the peaceful part of their religion, it will be necessary for them to delete or ignore all the Suras written by Mohammed from Medina. It is in those later suras that the roots of Islamic terrorism find their divine inspiration.
|So, what was the point of your post?||Dwayne Barry|
Mar 20, 2003 11:46 AM
|Clearly the vast majority (or all) of muslims that have settled here in the US aren't killing one another over religious differences or non-Muslim Americans for whatever reason.
You seem to be implying that muslims can't be peaceful. When I would think already the vast majority are despite the fundamentalism that exists within their religion.
|So, what was the point of your post?||hycobob|
Mar 20, 2003 12:06 PM
|It would seem the vast majority of Muslims here and abroad don't follow the teachings of these later Imans. Otherwise there might be more terrorist activity.|
|St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre||Me Dot Org|
Mar 21, 2003 8:34 AM
|In 1752, about 10,000 Protestants were massacred by Catholics in one week in France. The Pope had a special medal struck to commemorate the occasion.
Protestants and Catholics have butchered each other, as well as Muslims and Jews, for centuries. Weren't the Crusades a Christian Jihad?
The modern mainstream denominations do not engage in this kind of behavior, but ANY religion can be a little shaky when it gives a lot of power to someone who claims to speak directly to God.
From Jim Jones to David Koresh to Brian Mitchell, to the Ku Klux Klan, there are examples of western religious zealots and organizations that have been responsible for some pretty bizarre behavior.
Do a Google search for "Christian White Race" and see what kind of reasoned Christian Charity you are able to find.