Shia and Sunni, What's the difference?

I am interested in Islam.
Please explain all of the different branches in great detail (including Sufism). I know hardly anything.

sunnis are the good guy OP, thats all you need to know

That's pretty general; you'll have to do a bit of your own studying. I recommend "The Sufis" by Idries Shah as a sort of intro to Sufism, if that's what you're interested in.

With that said, there are 3 'layers' in the Din (religion) of Islam. Islam (the theological, outward practice of Islam, i.e. Shiism, Sunnism, etc), Iman (the metaphysical, i.e. Sufism), and Ihsan (lit. Perfection, behaving as if God Himself is watching you, i.e. The combination of Iman and Islam)

One cannot be simply a Sufi, he adheres to Shi'a or Sunni theology and also has a Mawla (master) that guides him in the 'inner' spiritual side of Islam.

Feel free to ask more questions, I'm here all day.

Sunnis recognize a caliph who killed Mohammed's grandson
Shia don't recognize this caliph.

Shias do not recognize any of the first three caliphs

Though Zayidi Shias seem to be ok with the first three or two.

Sunni: Old school traditionalists
Shia: Edgelordy newfags

What's up with the Ibadis/Ahmadis?

I described the Ibadis in this post: As for the Ahmadiyya, they are followers of an Indian man named Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (Mirza being a title denoting his matrilineal descent from the Prophet Muhammad) who claimed to be the Mahdi, a promised "last caliph," for lack of a better word, who will bring about Judgement Day alongside the Prophet Jesus. They consider themselves to be reformists, saying Ahmad 'renewed' Islam for the modern age.

Shias are okay and relatively normal
Sunnis are crazy fucking nutjobs
Ibadi are well adjusted folks surrounded by crazy fucks

Technically they're both as old as each other, with Shia being around since the election of Abu Bakr, and Sunni naturally forming around the Sunnah of Muhammad as per Abu Bakr.

To insinuate one is a 'newfag' or more traditionalist than the other is rather silly and insulting to the reader.

That said, Shia Islam being the form of Islam most practiced in Persia is a fairly recent thing, only occuring in the 16th century.

That's not true, Isis is Wahhabi Sunni, no?

One user in the thread gave a good basic explanation about Ibadis. Their predecessors are the Khawarij, basically ISIS-tier rebels who rejected the khilafa and the imamah. Ibadis are peaceful though and the majority lives in Oman.

Ahmadis/Qaidanis are a sect from the Indian subcontinent founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qaidan. There are two branches of ahmadis: Ahmadiyya Lahore and Ahmadiyya Qaidan. The main difference between the branches is how they see MGA. Qaidanis see him as the reincarnation of Jesus(a.s) and Muhammad(a.s), the Mahdi, the Messiah, a "subordinate prophet". Lahories see him just as a revivalist. The Ahmadiyya have a special connection with the British government.MGA worked for the British. MGA was a great supporter of the British rule of India and forbade his followers to engage in Jihad against the British Empire. Because of Mirzas blasphemic claims and writings, the wast majority of Muslims consider them non-muslim. Ironically MGA wrote that anyone who did not reconise him is a bastard and kafir(Yet they complain about not being recognized as Muslims). They are basically the Mormons of Islam. A lot of them live in the West:Britain, Germany etc., their Headquaters is in Israel were they also live and in Pakistan and Indonesia. I have some Mirza quotes if someone is interested. Note: I do not support or condone violence and persecution of Ahmadis anywhere.

I've seen a lot of Islamic imams/Scholars etc that condemn ISIS and other Wahabist groups as being Karijites. Is there any accuracy to this?

Persians were always sympathetic and pro-Ali even as Sunnis, so that really doesn't mean anything.

But all anti-Western terrorist organizaiton are Salafists/Sunni/Wahabist groups like ISIS, al Queda, Boko Haram, etc...

Is this man the Martin Luther of Islam?

They seem to fit the bill

>west
>good guys

They were pretty similar in their autism.

The Shia want to Kill the sunnis and the sunnis want to kill the shia, pretty simple really

The Sunnis want to kill everyone.

so do the shia, don't fall for those shitty RT/Presstv memes

Why do people act like this is Al Wahab? He died years before photography was even invented.

In my experience, most Muslims are sympathetic to and pro-Ali. My point is, is that there are a plethora of Persian scholars and contributions in both schools of Islam, and to say one is "Persian Islam" makes no sense considering Shia Islam was whole and functioning prior to Shah Ismail I's conversion of Iran into a Shia state.

Many titans in Iranian history were Sunni: Hafez, Rumi, ibn Sina. And many titans in Sunni Islam were Iranian, a few I named in my previous post.

This is hilarious, I need more

>Rumi
No.
And Sunni Islam was a nominal concept in name only in Iran, even back then they were heavily sympathetic and leaning toward the Shia view, and with the Twelvers.

As you wish

>In my experience, most Muslims are sympathetic to and pro-Ali.
I have yet to meet a single Sunni that gives a shit about Ali or didn't believe the Umayyads did anything wrong with his murder.

Rumi was a Hanafi(Sunni) jurist, what are you on about? Being Sunni and Sufi are not mutually exclusive.

Rumi was a Sunni theologically as well as Sufi. A simple Google search would confirm that. "The Sufi hangs on to Muhammad like Abu Bakr" and all that.

As for your claim that Sunni Islam was purely nominal, I think you'll find most polymaths in Iran during the Islamic Golden Age would be inclined to disagree with you.

The issue is nowadays with the Battle of Jamal and Siffin being sort controversial, the increasingly Salafi sheikhs kind of sweep his story under the rug. But, his feats in battle are (from my understanding) lauded in history lessons--he's merely portrayed as a warrior, not a politician. Basically, he's still sympathized with, but given a backseat position in comparison to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.

Tried to find pictures of ayyab children tv shows. Shit is hilarious, but could not find them

...

Saved.Thanks

FARFOUR
FARFOUR
GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS FARFOUR

>Islam is a religion of peace

>Isreal is a country of peace.

Geniciders A La Genocidoire.

Sunnis are only the good guy when they're a minority in a nonwhite country.

Everywhere else they're the villains.

I never really liked mickey mouse too

I love MEMRI

Shiites are Zoroastrians masquerading as Muslims, right?

Something else seems to have slipped your mind, something important.

Saudi Arabia has a population of around 30 million, around 5 million of whom are Shia.

Many people don't know that Iran was the bastion of Sunni Islam and produced a lot of Sunni Scholars.

Shah Ismail basically massacred-forcefully converted then sunni majority iran in order to create a seperate identity compared to sunni-gunpower empires to his west and east.

If Memri has convinced me of anything, there's nothing wrong with Islam.

Fucking arabs are just insane.

>Ismail basically massacred
Nice meme. Over half the population by the start of the Safavid dynasty's reign was already Shia or non-conformist Sunni at that point. The lack of destruction, any evidence of pogroms, or marshaling of troops has dispelled this claim for decades now.

t. alireza losangeleszade
You are seriously delusional If you think Shah dindunuffin. Do read your history from sources beside of the iranian diaspora. Accept that religious persecution was a regular thing in that era and move on. Ismail was not over cruel nor over angelic compared to others.

>t. alireza losangelzade
No.
>If you think the Shah dindunuffin
I never said that. I contested your claim of the bullshit about massacres, there is zero evidence on the historical record at the start of the Safavid period of mass murder to force the other half of the population, generally speaking, to become Shia. Especially since Sunni Iran was already and always was leaning away from the regular orthodoxy of Sunni Islam in many of its tenants including its entire islamic history of its fascination with Twelver Islam and fixation on Ali.

We Sunnis absolutely do not. We fucking Hate Yazid Judt as much as you. We cry tears and beat our chests on muharam as well. I am Sunni and we're honestly not so bad. Where did you hear shit like that brother.

>Beating your chest
I mean I also mourn Imam Husayn(r.a/a.s), but come on. Would Imam Husayn realy want us to mutilate our selves over him?

I don't mean like cut and bruise, what my family does is we lightly beat our chests as we remember Imam Husayn(pbuh) sacrifices for the the ummah and the pain his famiy suffered and our tears begin to flow and we all weep, just remembering it literally brings a tear to my eye.

Azadari is limited to hitting the chest and other non-painful methods as per the fatwas of many top ulemma in the Shi'a world. Self-mutilation is not permissible. Yes there are people who do it because their sheikhs stay silent on it, but most just beat their chest and say Noha.

As for what Hussein (as) would want, I'm not one to say. In my opinion, azadari serves as a reminder for Muslims not to be excessively cruel--a lesson that is wanting in today's overly violent atmosphere

...

I know Shia ulema oppose/condemn it. It is just a extremist ignorant minority that do it. I have no problem with the average Shia, but i have a problem with Khomeinism. Also nice dubs

youtube.com/watch?v=FHHN_3UYOQk

>Ah-hyuk, aaah-hyuk when will we slaughter the Jews, Mickey, huh?

Tell me about the Sahfi'i. How did they succeed at converting so much through trade?

To be fair, so have I

>How did they succeed at converting so much through trade
One can become a merchant while educated enough to lead the convert.

I bet some of those wali in SEA was a merchant who choose to be remembered in their da'wa effort.

I meant why in particular them? I know Persians had loads of merchants, and other Muslim powers. How was, by the looks of things, a relatively minor sect as them position themselves to convert so many peoples?

Why is the hadith necessary? It seems essentially all the backwards practices come from them while the Quran is actually alright and can be interpreted in any way one wishes (pretty much like the Bible) while the hadith pretty much stifles the faith and becomes downright autistic in some respects regarding how specific it is regardning many aspects of the law. It's not even like all muslims recognize a single set of hadith or rally behind a single authority. Also are there any relevant Quranist factions or sects that can realistically humanize Islam?

Thinking that way it is almost feel correct tho.. Sunni in Indonesia is judgmental af.

There are.. Here in Indonesia there is Liberal Muslim that pretty much do that thing. Instead of literal believe, they try to rationalize every thing in sunnah and Quran also.

The Messenger of Allah said: "It is probable that I be called soon and I will respond. Then, I leave behind me among you two weighty (very worthy and important) things: The Book of Allah (i.e. the Qur'an), which is a stretched string from the heaven to the earth, and my progeny, my Ahlul-Bait; for verily Allah, The Merciful, the Aware, informed me that never, never, will these two get separated from each other until they meet me at the Houd of Kauthar (the Pond of Abundance). Therefore, be careful how you will treat due to those two in my absence." And, in another tradition it is added: "Never, never, shall you get astray if you attach yourselves to these TWO." This tradition is narrated by more than twenty persons from the companions of the Prophet [p.b.u.h.] and it is also narrated by over 185 narrators mentioned in Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, p. 238 & Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol.5, p. 181-182; Sahih-i-Tarmathi, vol.2, p.220, and others from the references of both schools which, if you like to see, are mentioned on pp. 199 to 210, vol. 1, in Nafahat-ul-Azhar fi Khulasat-i-Abaqat-ul-Anwar.

via Hadith Browser App for iOS/Android

Prophet Muhammad PBUH told the Muslim Ummah to follow the ahlul bayt (his household aka the 14 infallibles). This is the rationale for the Ja'afri/Ithna Asheri/Shia sect and is concrete evidence that the Prophet chose a line of succession, meaning that Shia Imams should have been the caliphs. This concept is also known as Imamate. This hadith is famous and is also found in sunni hadith books but is hidden well by them because Sunni Sheikhs don't want their followers to become Shias.

Hadith are necessary because it was transcribed by the same people who transmitted the Quran. I don't mean the isnad (chain), I mean the first sources of sayings of the Prophet. People who only follow the Quran and reject Hadith have a very difficult time understanding it. You can't use modern Arabic lexicons to understand classical Arabic; and all classical Arabic lexicons derive one way or another from hadiths because they were transmitted in the same Arabic spoken during the Prophet's time.

I agree that hadiths are too popularly called upon, and there are many fabricated hadiths that are claimed as authentic. But the science behind hadiths (multiple attestation) is very refined. People who study hadiths are probably the last people who will openly call upon them, because they understand the fidelity behind simply attributing sayings to the Prophet. They certainly were never a primary focus as they are now. It was and always has been the Quran first and Hadith after to understand and explain Quranic context (almost all tafsir [exegesis] use hadith to understand the Quran itself).

Quranists have already tried to "liberalize" Islam but it's very difficult. When called upon questionable aspects of their belief, they cannot refer to the Prophet's life or any Quranic context because they provide no relevant hadiths. They also have an extremely difficult time interpreting law, again because of contextualization. Then again it's very easy to become a Quranist because it requires no effort relegating all your concerns to the supreme authority of the Quran - which all Muslims do anyways, just with added context.

Is not memri but might as well be.

The first hadiths were collected produced and printed 230 odd years after Muhammad's death. They were produced to reinforce the political positions of thise in powers by using faith as the basis to centralize more power.

Can Mirza be a regular name too? Just asking since my great grandfather from Pakistan had that name and I don't really want to be related to a pedo warlord

I don't think so. I think Wahhabism and whatever ISIS practices are Salafists. These are the people who think that the second generation, those who knew Muhammad and the companions were the best practicing Muslims and knew what the "true Islam" was. They are trying to behave like the second generation.

No, but Persian Shia Islam has quite a bit of anti-Arab nationalism tied into it.

Why do all Muslims hate the Jews?

please dont die farfour

The Wahhabis also call themselves Salafi to make it seem like they're not a movement based on one scholar ('Abd al-Wahhab) but based on the first generations of Muslims (as-Salaf). Both are puritanical revivalist factions and there's relatively little functional difference.

Same with how Protestants just call themselves "Christian" to make it seem like they're the only valid denomination.