This is what i surmise so far... just like in the south, where there were family fueds that caused lots of deaths, there is really no reason that sunnis and shiites kill each other.
Maybe they just claim to be either just to have a reason to kill their neighbor? It just doesn't make sense why one would claim such a life or death difference because of a belief in a difference in family ties from the religion's founder.
2006-12-11 15:09:58 · 7 answers · asked by grouchy bato 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
theologically they are much more similar than say...catholics and non-catholics. but people have never needed much reason to fight.
look at rwanda. those people's ethnic distinction was entirely fabricated by the European colonizers. There was no real ethni, social or linguistic distinction. but once you made the distinction political, then people fight for power, and hate grows
2006-12-11 15:19:54 · answer #1 · answered by Cornelius O 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The difference is solely religious, comparable to the difference between the Catholic church and the Protestant church.
The divide is traced back to shortly after the creation of Islam and a disagreement about who should be the leader of the religion. Sunnis think that the leader should be chosen by the people, Shiites think the leader should be a descendant of Mohammad. Shiites believe that their leader, Hussein (not Saddam), will return at the end of the world.
2006-12-11 15:17:18 · answer #2 · answered by NoGodsNoMasters 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mohammad the Islamic prophet had a brother in law named Ali & when Mohammand died the Muslim people were split on who should take over for Mohommad the Sunnis wanted one guy and the Shiites wanted Ali. Well the Shiite lost and they've been fighting about it ever since.
2006-12-11 15:15:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are different sects. That is, like the difference between cuban and a mexican. They are both latin, but different blood roots.
The arabs countries and surrounding areas were different sects usually because they had different kings or princes at one time. Then someone either conquered, or joined many together, much like Saud did in Saudi Arabia.
religiously there are some differences between who was mohamed's predecessor, I beleive. (bunker above seemed to explain it a bit better there).
Another thing; Sunni's are the majority of muslims worldwide, shia make up the majority in Iraq, and Saddam was a sunni, and gave special privelidges to sunni.
2006-12-11 15:16:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sunnis have faith that Muhammad replaced into the final prophet and extremely final messenger of Allah (God). The Shiites even have faith this yet they say that Ali replaced into meant to be the final prophet. it somewhat is the standard distinction between the two. another distinction is that in the process Shia Islam the Mahdi (messiah-like determine) is extra emphasised interior the theory than in Sunni Islam, even with the undeniable fact that theoretically Sunnis even have faith interior the Mahdi.
2016-12-30 07:13:45 · answer #5 · answered by belis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are different interpretations of Islam. I believe that the origination of division was based on who would be the successor to the Prophet Mohamed.
Although they differ in theological beliefs, the vast majority of both sects are able to work together. It is a small segment within these groups (and several other groups) that are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. Most of the Muslims that I have met (and I have known quite a few) are very tolerant. They have no problems with Christians.
2006-12-11 15:35:06 · answer #6 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's sort of like the Irish Catholics and Protestants fighting.
2006-12-11 15:18:46 · answer #7 · answered by luosechi 駱士基 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋