Sunni vs. Shi'ite

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

civil war? obama's fault

Now this one could work if ya wanna fight on the side that maybe he had relatives from the day who were working the fields. Just an idea, tossed out there on a Fryday.

Jason P wrote:

I will stand by using the term lunitic to describe someone who blows up a place of worship and peace filled with innocent people. Perhaps sociopath works better for you.

One side had their churches bombed a few weeks ago. Now the other side gets theirs bombed. Perhaps I'm a fool, but my critical thinking is not just based on this single article, but from a slew or articles that seem to be coming in almost daily that share a common central theme that isn't defined by borders or regimes.

There should be leaders uniting and shouting to the heavens, "what the hell are we doing?!"

Their leaders ecourage what is going on. You marry into your caste. You hang around with people in your caste. Everything and I mean everything revolves around it. The nice PC term that we have over here is arranged marriage. Ask someone (if you know one in one of those marriages) about caste. Shit, they will marry nieces, cousins, sons, daughters, to each other, to keep money and religion together. No need for anymore conversation.

How did this become about the mainstream media? In their own way they too seem like a convenient boogieman.

EDIT: This is not to say I don't believe they often distort the facts or create their own narrative. I just don't think they are as responsible for Sunni Shi'ite conflict as that article suggests.

Jason P wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Fundamentalists hate other religious groups even, and sometime particularly, other fundamentalists. I sat in on a hard-core "fundy" Baptist service one where the preacher was talking about how Pentecostals are messengers of the devil. All fundamentalists share one basic fundamental flaw: hatred.

that is a much lower level of stupidity. i'm trying to figure out how all muslims get mad if a 500lb bunker buster accidentally lands on a mosque and then they go out and do the same thing to each other. shouldn't one side be doing fist pumps and cheering when that bunker buster goes astray?

it's probably too strange to figure it out. you are probably right that hatred is the root cause, just at a maximum rate.

All due respect, I think you are, if even subconsciously, generalizing tremendously, and it makes you sound extremely orientalist. I mean, seriously, "they go out and do the same thing?!" Again, you might not intend to speak that way, but words matter a great deal, especially on an online forum where it's the only way we can communicate with one another. Speaking with generalizations in this manner is extremely problematic.

And then, at the end of your post, you reach the grand conclusion that "hatred" has everything to do with this? What does that even mean? Not that I'm suggesting you do this, but it's interesting that when Western nations or groups kill, it is extremely complicated what would drive them to do that: perhaps political or economic reasons, or ideological, or even a mixture; perhaps it's mental problems that can be traced back to when a suspect had certain childhood development issues; whatever. But when it happens to be Muslims? Oh, easy: it's just hatred. Granted, this is a topic having to do with something extremely troubling, the bombing of a holy place, but I think we should allow for a bit more nuance than this discussion has enjoyed so far.

Jason, on page three, i will attempt to give you your first real answer, in two alternative explanations:

1. it is a legitimate distinction (surely the distinction itself is legitimate, but the reasons for the propagation of this distinction may be illigitmate, as the second explanation shows) that is somewhat akin to what happens in the Western church when the legitimacy of a Pope is in question, or when there are two camps that support two opposing popes, except in the case of the Muslim world, this division between camps draws its succession back to Mohammed himself, and the camps have been divided since day one over who the rightful successor was. Here is your establishment explanation vis a vis The Economist (an "official" Rothschild publication, ) Economist Explains Sunni vs Shiite

2. explanation two, coming from your most certainly non-western-establishment source, Al Jazeera, is that the entire division is a false one intended to fragment and pit the Arab world against itself. The myth of the 1,400 year Sunni-Shia war

Arab politics is way above my head, so I'll leave that decision to you.
I will say that I wouldn't put it past Anglophile interests to use "false" clasifications of a population in order to subjugate them (or to unite them, or to unite them in order to more singly rule them) ... just look at the "history" of "hinduism" (fairly well summed here) -- it was an utterly "false" classification of an entire peoples as one homogeneous group even if in reality it wasn't. (why? what political motivation? probably to unite the continent under one religious system, make them easier to rule, and to assimilate with eachother, and eventually to assimilate more broadly, ie in to the british community proper, and eventually the global community. can't do that if they have a fragmented country in hundreds of religious "sects").
ahh. i dunno. i got a parking ticket today.

ps - it is kind've silly though.
would be sort of akin to the Western tradition in a situation where one group believed Paul (or James, maybe) was the rightful successor while the majority believed it was Peter, and killing eachother over it. Mean while Jesus is sitting back going, "WTF guys"? (ps. and i'm well aware that the West has plenty of real, and sometimes violent, schisms within it's own church)

fuck wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

There should be... but, there aren't.
That's what religion does to some people... it make them absolutely, positively, 100% sure that they KNOW what God has in store for us. If you get it pounded into you head by your parents who got it pounded into their heads from people who've had it pounded into their heads for hundreds of of years... it becomes truth.
Religion is not truth and never has been. It is all man made, not by God. That is the only truth about religion... made by Man.

What are you talking about? Do you truly follow Islamic scholarship that closely to know that figures aren't speaking out about this? How long have you spent studying and conducting research on the Middle East? Do you know Arabic, and do you read the publications and media outlets from the Arab world that write in Arabic? Let alone the rest of the Muslim world which has dozens of other languages. Where do you get off saying something like "there aren't leaders uniting and asking 'what are we doing?'" Sectarianism is and has been one of the most hotly debated topics in Islamic scholarship and societies FOR CENTURIES. It seems like you just needed a jumping off point to get to an anti-religion rant, no matter how inaccurate it was. Sorry if I'm being condescending or rude, but let's be honest, you were just condescending and rude to billions of people who do happen to believe in religion, and denied a straight fact--that religious figures have been condemning the atrocities committed in their areas. CNN might not cover it, but let's try and use more critical thinking skills, shall we?

...
sorry if you took this personally... which you clearly did... but, i hope you understand that Islam is not the only religion in the world. My point was that religion, by its very nature, is drilled into people telling them their way is the righteous path, therefore nullifying any other path... i.e path being a different belief system.
And I am ready and willing to listen to your proof that religion was not created by Man.
I'm listening.
Also.. if, as you claim, that figures are stopping this violence... why hasn't it stopped?
I'll give you a clue: It starts with an 'R' and ends with 'eligion'.

Here's another example of the so-called Sunni/Shiite religious divide, the way it is playing out today, actually being political:

It is obvious that Saudi Arabia has been supporting the Syrian rebels (many of whom are Sunni, of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and some who are very extremist and supposedly have links to Al-Qaeda type groups) against Bashar al-Assad's regime. Meanwhile, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia is supporting the army's secular authoritarianism against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Why is this? Well, this is all geo-politics: Saudi Arabia wants to see Iran fail, and Syria is obviously a huge ally of Iran (not to mention Hezbollah in Lebanon, where Saudi Arabia also supports Sunni factions against Hezbollah). If someone just sees Saudi Arabia's involvement in Syria, they'd assume it is ideological. But when you look at Egypt, it is the exact opposite: this is because Saudi Arabia does not actually care about seeing "Sunni" "Islamic" groups succeed; if anything, it wants them to fail. The Muslim Brotherhood succeeding in Egypt through democratic methods would present a direct challenge to Saudi Arabia's monopoly on being the "true" representation of political Islam, so they played a very active role in making that project, that is, Islamism and democracy, fail.

Cosmo wrote:

fuck wrote:

And where did I imply that Islam was the only religion in the world?

Here:
Do you truly follow Islamic scholarship that closely to know that figures aren't speaking out about this? How long have you spent studying and conducting research on the Middle East? Do you know Arabic, and do you read the publications and media outlets from the Arab world that write in Arabic? Let alone the rest of the Muslim world which has dozens of other languages.

Just because I mention religion as a general entity, you cover it all as an attack on Islam... as if there are no other religions. You premise your wrath on the position that I know little or nothing about the Middle East, therefore I cannot comment on the socio-political/religious base feud that has been going on for decades. And yes, i understand that there are socio-political factors involved with Middle Eastern affairs, but a lot of the driving force is primarily founded on religion... because religion can have a profound driving affect on Man, in general. Religion is used to justify a means, regardless of how unholy those means are. That is what i'm talking about... deeply seated religious belief that will see another as an adversary that is unfit for life. That is how an otherwise sane man can blow up someone else's church without a second thought. Religion can be a powerful tool of manipulation. History and current events provide proof of its power over common man.
...
And it IS a fact that Religion is made by Man... the same way Man created politics and borderlines. Those are facts that you cannot dispute.

What on earth are you talking about? I asked those questions because you said no Muslim leader has come out and condemned these attacks, so I was asking if you know enough to truly make a statement like that:

Cosmo wrote:

Jason P wrote:

There should be leaders uniting and shouting to the heavens, "what the hell are we doing?!"

...
There should be... but, there aren't.

That was a statement specific to Islam, not all religions. The fact that you made a statement like that indeed shows that you know little about the topic.

fuck wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

fuck wrote:

And where did I imply that Islam was the only religion in the world?

Here:
Do you truly follow Islamic scholarship that closely to know that figures aren't speaking out about this? How long have you spent studying and conducting research on the Middle East? Do you know Arabic, and do you read the publications and media outlets from the Arab world that write in Arabic? Let alone the rest of the Muslim world which has dozens of other languages.

What on earth are you talking about? I asked those questions because you said no Muslim leader has come out and condemned these attacks, so I was asking if you know enough to truly make a statement like that:

That was a statement specific to Islam, not all religions. The fact that you made a statement like that indeed shows that you know little about the topic.

It feels like you guys are having a three way argument between two people. Looking back at the original quote from fuck's earlier response, it seems like he/she is combining Jason P's and Cosmo's opinion into one? e.g., it was Jason that said "what are religious/islamic leaders asking, 'what the fuck is going on with these bombings?' " (horrible paraphrase, but you get the picture)