Who's in the wrong here?

Who's in the wrong here?

Sunni

Both

They both worship Satan.

The Anglo

Both. Islam is cancer.

sunni are terminal cancer, shia are operable.

Ali should've had it over Muawiyah, and geopolitically Iran is far less cancerous than Saudi Arabia. Dunno about their modern theologies.

Either one on either side who thinks that fighting each other is more important than preventing the cancer known as Western or Russian """"Influence"""

Shias, obviously

All of this

>t. jihadi

shites

All the Abrahamic religions are pretty retarded desu. Asian religions like Daoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, and Buddhism are god-tier.

Sikhs

>Daoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, and Buddhism are god-tier.

They are all literally godless.

t. Nietzsche

Considering that, historically, their differences in beliefs, religion, and culture are fueled ultimately by arguments over who should have succeeded Mohammed (and who should succeed as a caliph in general), I'd say they're both pretty wrong. They've divided the strength of Islam over a battle of succession which has lasted WAY too long.

Shiit*s are literally p*rsian larpers in all but name.

sunnis by far

t. white boi

t. "spiritual" generic hippy

both.

>shinto
>godless

The Muhammadan faith is Satanic cancer, but Sunnis are the orthodox Muslims and Shia the heretics.

>le mysterious orient

Wrong

Is it better to be an orthodox heathen or a heretic heathen?

Eh? It's pretty clear even in Sunni writings that Mohammad did plan on having Ali succeed him.

أخرج ابن عساكر عن جابر بن عبد الله قال كنا عند النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فأقبل علي فقال النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم : " والذي نفسي بيده إن هذا وشيعته لهم الفائزون يوم القيامة ونزلت إن الذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات أولئك هم خير البرية " فكان أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم إذا أقبل علي قالوا : جاء خير البرية

"I was with the Prophet, then Ali came, so said the prophet: "And by whom my soul is in his hands, he and his followers they are the winners on the day of judgement." and the verse came down: they who have believed and done righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures (Khair Al-Bariyah). For when the companions of the prophet, when Ali came, they said: "Here is is Khair Al-Bariyah".

That being said, I think the Sunni were the more democratic (in wanting the general community itself to elect a successor) and thus more in the right by my standards, even though these days, I think Shia >>>> Sunni.

Don't forget Uthman probably altered the Quran to justify him bypassing Ali.

> mfw Sunnis accept the hadith of the pond but still don't accept Ali as the rightful caliph

It's funny how all these folks are choosing Shiates as the truer sect simply based on the current Sunni-related terrorism. Little do they know, that Shias were the original extremists whom literally murdered Uthman (3rd Caliph) and FORCED Ali into being a Caliph.

If you're talking Islam, Sunni is the only right sect. Anything else is going to be Sunni + added bull that they made up. Like Shias adding the "infallible Ayatollahs" the "Mehdi waiting to come out after numerous centuries", and other buncha innovations.

Both
Quranist and Sufi are the only true Muslims

The only good muslims are Dervish.

>If you're talking Islam, Sunni is the only right sect.

Quranism > Kharijite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sunni/Shia.

Is this b8? Muslims wouldn't even know how to pray if it wasn't for Hadith. To deny the acts of the Prophet and only believe in the Quran is arguably disbelief in Islam.

>Kharijite
You do realize Kharijite stands for people who leave the fold of Islam? Making them non-believers?

It's really tiring seeing all these posts based on some memes that saw somewhere on the internet.

Both for being heretical followers of a false prophet.

Shia are right, but Sunni are better people and less savage. Neither qualify as civilized, though.

>The Khawarij opposed arbitration as a means to choose a new ruler on the grounds that "judgement belongs to God alone". They considered arbitration a means for people to make decisions[2] while the victor in a battle was determined by God.[2] They believed that any Muslim—even if not Quraysh or even an Arab—could be the Imam, the leader of the community, if he was morally irreproachable. If the leader sinned, it was the duty of Muslims to oppose and depose him.[3][4]

Modern Shia have been proven to amenable to civilized discourse, modern sunni are the equivalent to your average Johnny Reb bible belter; ignorant, poor and fundamentalist.

Trick question - the answer is Wahhabism.
>work with a good collection of Muslims
>they all hate the Saudis
>guy literally named Aladdin thinks the House of Saud is pretty much Satan
>the Bosnian Muslims agree with him, talk about Saudi mosques being built in poor areas to recruit people for their own stupid bullshit jihads

You learn a lot listening.

muh nonbelievers. aren't you late for a suicide bombing?

Wrong, Ibadi is best sect.

Nietzsche was a critic of Buddhism.

Pointlessly feud as a Muslim. Who succeeded the Prophet doesn't affect one's own worldly trials. God isn't going to ask you what side you're on.

That being said, I sympathize with the Shi'i but don't support them simply because they went from disagreeing politically to altering the theology to support this disagreement.