Whats the difference between a Suni and Shiate muslim?

Question

Why do they hate each other so much?

Answer 1

The split among the Muslims may not be characterized as religious. There is some difference on the details of some of the Islamic rules, and this is only a difference in interpretation of some of the Qur'anic words or the Prophet's statements. This has led to the establishment of various schools of thought. Fundamentally, the difference is political, and the germ of it began immediately after the death of the Prophet.

It is a well-known fact that Islam concerns itself with both spiritual and worldly aspects of man's life. The Prophet founded a Muslim state of which he was the head. He administered all religious, political and social affairs. He never showed his companions any sign of separation between religion and state. The well-being of the community and the prevalence of justice among its members are, in his teaching, as important as the devotional work which is required of the individual.

The integration of secular and spiritual affairs in the Muslim state at the time of the Prophet was so crystal clear that no Muslim at the time of the Prophet doubted the need for the establishment and continuity of a Muslim government. Thus, when the Prophet died, in 632, no question was raised about the need for a succeeding ruler. They all agreed on this, but they disagreed on who is to rule.

While Ali, the cousin of the Prophet, and some of the Hashimites (clan of the Prophet) were busy with the holy funeral, some of the Muslims were gathering at a place, called "Saqifat Bani-Sa'idah" to select a new leader.

The Muslim community of Madina, the capital of the Muslim state, was comprised of the natives of Madina and those who immigrated to Madina. Most of those immigrants (who are called Muhajireen) were from Mecca. The natives of Madina were composed of two tribes, namely "Khazraj" and "Ous". These natives were called "Al-Ansar" (the Helpers). There was some rivalry between the immigrants and the natives of Madina. There was, also, a rivalry between the two Madinite tribes.

The conferees who were gathering to select a successor were mostly Madinites, and they were aiming at choosing one of them for the high office. Sa'ad Ben Abadah, the chief of the Khazrajites was the hopeful one.

The news of the conference reached Abu-Bakr, Omar, and others from the immigrants. They hurriedly went to the conference to prevent the Madinites from implementing their scheme. In debating with the Madinites, they offered the following argument:

The Prophet was a Meccan, and the Meccans are his relatives. Therefore, only a Meccan should succeed him.

By virtue of the mutual jealousy among the Madinites, the Ousites deserted Sa'ad Ben Abadah and leaned towards the Meccans. Abu-Bakr was nominated immediately and the majority of the conferees pledged to him their loyalty. And so did most of the Muslims, immigrants and Madinites. Thus, Abu-Bakr became the first "Khalif" (successor) in the history of Islam.

By this, the issue between the Madinites and the immigrants was settled forever; and since then no one from the Madinites ever contended for the right of succession. But the issue was far from being settled among the Meccans themselves.

Ali, as we advanced, was preoccupied with the funeral of the Prophet. He was not consulted in this important matter. He and many others believed that he was not only the proper one to succeed the Prophet, but also the Prophet's nominee and appointee. He thought that they made a fast deal and manipulated the election. Abu-Bakr and his group had defeated the Madinites by arguing that the Meccans are the relatives of the Prophet. If relationship to the Prophet should entitle any Meccan to succeed him, Ali should be the first one to be offered the job. He is the Prophet's first cousin and son-in-law.

Ali refused to join the supporters of Abu-Bakr and held out for several months. He finally joined the majority and pledged his loyalty to the new government. The situation of the Muslim State was too serious to allow a man, such as Ali, to cause any division in the Muslim community. Most of the Muslims outside Madina and Mecca rose in rebellion against the Madinite government, and a good portion of them disjoined themselves from Islam. The very existence of Islam was in danger. Ali is too pious to take advantage of the difficulty of the Muslim government and too intellectual to worry about some Islamic instructions when the very existence of Islam is at stake. He, therefore, not only joined the supporters of Abu-Bakr but also took an active part in defending the state against the attacks of the rebellious elements.

When Ali gave up his claim and supported the government, the division among the Muslims disappeared. It remained in a dormant state for two decades during which Abu-Bakr, Omar and Uthman consecutively ruled the Muslim state. Ali was elected after the death of Uthman; and by his rise to power the issue of his rightfulness to be the first Khalif of the Prophet was awakened.

Ali was the most controversial personality among the companions of the Prophet. He was so magnanimous in the eyes of many pious Muslims that they believed that the succession to the Prophet was his exclusive right. He, at the same time, was bitterly opposed by many elements, and he had to fight three bloody rebellions during his short reign.

The reign of Ali continued for less than five years, and it ended by his assassination. Subsequently, his most ambitious adversary, Mu'awiyah, rose to power. This man ruled the Muslims in a manner entirely different from that by which the four good Khalifs administered the Muslim State. He continued in power about two decades, ruling the people by sword and bribery, and the followers of Ali were subjected to humiliation and persecution during his reign. He transformed the Muslim government from a republic form to a rule of dynasty. His dynasty, the Umayyads, continued in government for seventy years after his death.

The political sympathizers of Ali during this period acquired the title of Shi'a which means, follower (of Ali).

The Umayyad reign was ended in 750 AD by the rise of the Abbasides (descendants of Abbas, one of the uncles of the Prophet and Ali) to power. The Abbasides became the new dynasty which ruled the Muslim state for several hundred years during which the majority of the Muslims were named Sunni to distinguish them from the Shi'a. Thus, the Muslims were divided into Sunnites and Shi'ites.

The Sunnites maintain that Abu-Bakr was a legal Khalif; that the three good Khalifs who ruled consecutively after him, namely: Omar, Uthman and Ali were also legal Khalifs; that the Prophet never nominated anyone to succeed him; and that he left the matter of succession to his companions to exercise their right in choosing their own ruler.

The four Khalifs, however, were chosen by various methods: Abu-Bakr was elected by the Muslims of Madina. Omar was appointed by Abu-Bakr. Uthman was elected by the majority of only six persons whom Omar, before he died, had chosen as qualified for the high office: Ali, Uthman, Sa'ad, Zubayr, Talhah, and Abdul-Rahman. No one besides them was allowed to elect or to be elected. The majority of these six had the right to choose the Khalif. The hopeful ones among these six were only two: Ali and Uthman. Ali did not have the support of any of the five except Zubayr, and Uthman won the election.

Ali, however, was elected after the death of Uthman by the overwhelming majority of the Muslims.

The Shi'ites maintain that Ali was not only the most proper person to succeed the Prophet, but was also his nominee for the high office. They believe that the Prophet actually appointed Ali as his successor, and that Ali himself had the right to appoint his own successor.

Both views command respect, and both have arguments that command respect.

In addition to this, relationship to the Prophet cannot be a suitable base for the legality of a Muslim government. We know that Islam stands firmly and clearly against aristocracy and all inherited social privileges. The Muslims pride themselves upon the fact that there are no classes in Islam, and that all people from any nation or family are equal in the eyes of God. The Holy Qur'an declares the following:

"O mankind, certainly We created you from a male and a female and made you nations and clans, that you may recognize one another. Surely the Most noble among you in the eyes of God is the most righteous of you." 49:13

The Prophet himself declared:

" . . . Certainly God has done away with the boastfulness of pre-Islamic society and its pride upon the ancestors. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab. (Nor is there any superiority for a non-Arab over an Arab.) Certainly the most noble of you in the eyes of God is the most pious of you. "

The very concept of preference of a "Qurayshite" (Meccan) or a Hashimite over the rest of the people is in contrast with the spirit of equality upon which the Muslims pride themselves. It means that God discriminates and favors certain families or clans above the rest of mankind. We, therefore, have no choice but to disregard any concept of discrimination and favoritism of this sort and consider it entirely alien to Islam. For this, the argument of relationship should be entirely disregarded.

The second argument for the Sunnis can be stated as follows: Islam respects and sanctifies the natural rights of every individual. The political freedom is one of these sacred rights. Every individual has the right to share in administering public affairs of his community, either directly or indirectly by authorizing and electing someone to represent him in such an administration. No one can be legally ruled against his will, and no man's freedom should be curtailed without his own permission. The establishment of any legal government can be achieved through the authorization of the individuals and by their own selection.

Abu-Bakr was elected by the majority of the companions of the Prophet. They elected him by their own choice and through the exercise of their natural right. His government, therefore, was legal and democratic.

The sincerity of many of the companions of the Prophet is beyond any reasonable doubt. It would only be fair to assume that men like Ali, Abu-Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Salman the Persian, Abu-Dharr and so many others from the immigrants and Madinites were genuine supporters of the cause of Islam. They had offered for its promotion many sacrifices for a long period of time. They were also well educated in the Islamic teaching, and they were good students and disciples of the Prophet. The fact remained, the Shi'ites say, that the majority of the companions were not purified completely from their old clannish attachments.

Islam aimed at replacing the narrow bond of blood relation by a general brotherhood and feeling of equality among the Muslims. But the period was too short for these people to forget the past and live up to the ideal teaching of their faith. The influence of tribal ties on their thinking was obvious. The conference which was held by the Madinites has shown a great deal of tribal prejudice. Their aim was to select one of the Madinites as a ruler and to prevent the Meccans from assuming the leadership. The Meccans, on the other hand, were determined to keep the leadership of the state in their hand.

Both sides overlooked the principle of equality and universal brotherhood which the Prophet endeavored to establish. None of them was looking for the fittest person in the Muslim community for the leadership in such a critical period. Had all of them been true adherents to the Islamic teaching, they would have searched their conscience and looked for the best possible leader, disregarding all regional and tribal ties. This important aspect was entirely forgotten or overlooked. Merely being a Meccan companion was good enough for the Meccans, and merely being a Madinite companion was good enough for the Madinites.

Suppose that they all were free of clannish prejudice. This does not mean that those companions were equally knowledgeable in Islam. Nor would it mean that the majority of them were wise enough to select the proper leadership for that critical period. There were many outstanding persons in the community, and probably the majority of the companions considered them all potential leaders. Their knowledge about these persons was limited, and none of them knew enough about them to select their best. Only the Prophet was able to classify them and choose the most fitting for leadership in that period.

The Muslims, however, were fortunate enough to select a man like Abu-Bakr. What would have happened if they had chosen a good companion but unfitting leader such as Uthman? It may have led to the destruction of the Muslim State. Foreseeing the forthcoming crises, the Prophet was expected to avoid the Muslims any such consequences by selecting the best leader to succeed him in the dangerous period.

Answer 2

Most of them dont really hate eachother, they coexisted together quite peacefully for most of history, only recently are there problems.
Mohummad named his successor before he died, but after he died his followers basically decided it should be someone else. The Sunni are the branch of muslims who beleive his followers made the right choice, and they beleive in the divine inspiration of the Caliphate...much like Catholics in christianity and their faith in the spiritual authority of the pope. The Shi'ite on the other hand think otherwise, they are similar to protestants. They think it was wrong to go agaisnt the wishes of Mohummadm and they deny the divine inspiration of human leaders, beleiving they are corruptible. But they werent exactly rebelious agaisnt the caliphate. Its particularly irrelevant now, since the caliphate was destroyed by WWI. And Iran is an ironic thing-a theocracy is the last one would expect from the tenants of Shi'ite theology, unless they really belived they were being ruled by a prophet, which nobody suggests.

Answer 3

First of all, the Prophet (saws) did NOT appoint a successor but it was clear from him that he wanted it to be Abu Bakr, (ra) his closest companion. The difference between sunni and shia started as a political difference, who will be the Caliph after the death of the Prophet (saws). Sunni believe it should be Abu Bakr (ra)and Shia believe it should be Ali(ra). which of course caused major problems and then the split in the 2 groups. The shia hate the companions of the Prophet, (pbuh) and say really bad things against them, even against the wife of the Prophet (saws)who is called The Mother of the Believers (Aisha ra). Shia believe even that the family of the Prophet (pbuh) "Ahl al-Bayt" is divine, although Islam does not support this claim. Shia reject the hadiths and some extreme Shia even claim that Ali, ra, was the one who was supposed to be the Prophet. Over time the Shia have adapted into their lives things that Islam consider 'haram' as well. Sunni muslims follow Islam according to the Prophet's (pbuh) teachings and way of life, and of course the Qur'an. As for sunni and shia hating eachother, Sunni and Shia can live together in peace, but when a country occupies it and commits mass terror in it and accuses one group one time and the other group another time, pitting them against eachother, this will cause hatred, dont you think?

Answer 4

I hope some Muslims provide a better answer that mine.
As I have heard, the main difference is that one group only supports a direct descendant of Muhammad, and the other supports a politically appointed lineage.

I hope I'm close, but would like to learn more.

Answer 5

Suni muslims r the more "laid back" and reseverd version of islam, the Shiate r the muslim extremist, and follow the religion very strictly

Answer 6

Not much difference between the two factions; they attach religious importance to different figures in Islamic history after the death of Mohammad. Moreover their renditions of post-Mohammad Islamic history are different, thus each glorifies their own heroes. Generally, they worship the same God, share the same beliefs completely without any difference. They do not hate each other at all; what you see in Iraq today is a case of a suppressed and torn country, which lacks the military might to defend itself so engages in civil war. There is no major, consequential and dividing difference between the two factions.

Answer 7

They have different interpretation and priority on several issues related to Islam. It become more serious when both of them think they are on the right side.

It is related to the event where Khalifa Ali (the fourth khalifa of islam) was killed. The shiite want his direct decendent to be the next khalifa but they was killed to. The hatred grew until now.

Answer 8

400 years ago a Suni man was respectful to a woman and its been chaos ever since.

Answer 9

They have different religious leaders other then that they are the same.

Answer 10

the size of their guns??