The Shi’a sect of Islam split from the Sunni shortly after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. over the question of who should be the caliph or “successor” to the prophet, the new political/religious leader of the Islamic community – the Shi’a favoring the prophet’s nephew the Sunni [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bekr]Abu Bekr. The later Shi’ites believed as a matter of faith that leadership legitimately belonged to the line of Ali’s descendants. Other differences in doctrine and practice have grown up over the centuries, but that’s where the breach began.
But there is no Caliph of Islam any more. The Ottoman Sultans used to claim the title, but the Turkish Republic abolished it in 1924. Today, no one even claims it. And who can say who the descendants of Ali are nowadays, anyway?
So what are the Shi’ites and Sunnis in Iraq (and elsewhere) still fighting over?
Perhaps this is like the situation of the Catholics and Protestans in Ireland. The conflict isn’t really about doctrine, it exists because the religious differences have persisted in conflict long enough to harden into national/ethnic identities – even though an outsider could discern few differences between the two groups in culture, language, customs, values, or physical appearance.
All the same – has no imam on either side of the divide even suggested, in the years since 1924, that it might be time for the two sects to kiss and make up? Mohammed declared, “Every Muslim is the brother of every other Muslim.”
They can, and do, and did in Iraq for quite some time. It is the chaos that we have imposed that creates the horror we are witnessing.
When order breaks down, people look to affinity groups for protection. A white man sent to prison, who hasn’t a racist bone in his body, will have little choice but to align himself with other white men. As breakdown descends into violence, the affinity groups arm themselves and take righteous vengeance against the aggressor, each against the other, all wholly justifiable. As Amos Oz notes, true tragedy is when both antagonists have righteous grievance.
If New York were sealed off tomorrow and all order dissolved, Harlem would become an enclave, as would the various ethnic neighborhoods, powered by mutual hostility and distrust. Even the most irrelevent and superficial affinities become crucial when order dissolves into chaos. We have Muslims in America, so far as I’ve heard, no such sectarian stife has developed, nor is likely to: we have order.
If the Insect Overlords seized Iraq tomorrow, sectarian strife between Shia and Sunni would vanish entirely, it would only be humans versus arthopods.
Wasn’t that alleged stability from an overarching totalitarian Sunni dictator? Within the Hussein regime, Sunnis were routinely given economic and political advantage over Shi’as. There wasn’t open violence because the government were masters of covert violence.
The bigger problem in trying to understand it is that the concept of “citizen” doesn’t have the same meaning. In a western democracy like, say, Canada, I’m a Canadian because I was born here, with (ideally) no more or fewer rights and obligations than any other Canadian who was either born here or became a citizen. My family history is legally irrelevant. By contrast, in nations where a vestigial feudal system still exists, one’s family (clan, tribe… all the way up to one’s entire religious denomination) and its rivalries with other families, clans, tribes, denominations is more important than any allegiance to the “state” and its institutions. In elections, one votes for the candidate from the family/clan/tribe, regardless of actual political aims. In exchange, one could expect the f/c/t to extend favours in return.
It’s gradually changing toward what we might consider secular government, because that model does have several advantages, but it’ll take time.
I have read, and maybe it’s even true, that Usama bin Laden sees himself as the new caliph. He envisions a big shake-up of all of Islam, with him at the helm. It’s a mighty tall dream, and I don’t think he can pull it off. It helps to have a huge Christian army to do all the heavy lifting, :rolleyes: but I still don’t think it will work.
Admittedly the issue of whether or not Ali should have been named as Caliph is kind of a moot point now. But there are ongoing differences between the two faiths.
Many of them are doctrinal disputes on issues like the nature of Allah, the Mahdi, or sin. But there are also issues like who can be an Imam (spiritual leader); Shi’a believe that Imams are designated by Allah, Sunnis believe that Imams can, in some circumstances, be chosen by secular means - the Shi’a position gives Imams much more authority and prohibits any secular challenge to their decisions.
The problem is that Islam proscribes very harsh penalties for those who turn their back on the faith, even worse than for unbelievers. From memory, true believers are required to either kill them, or crucify them, or chop off one hand and one foot … on opposite sides of the body. Near as I can tell, that’s why they call it the “Religion of Peace™” …
As a result, even minor disputes can turn ugly, and major ones, like the Shiite-Sunni split, are always near violence. Each side looks at the other side as having fallen away from the true religion and turned their backs on Allah, and no fate is too horrible for them.
Aren’t Shia waiting for the Hidden Caliph/Mahdi to show up? I’m sure some people already think he’s around somewhere, like Christians thinking the antichrist or Jesus has arrived, or Jews who believe the Messiah is around and waiting to be identified. I’d think that would be a significant issue.