# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Shia vs Sunni is a lot like Catholic vs Protestant

## presence

This is kind of a fundamental that you need to grasp to understand "what the issue is" between the two Islamic groups:
(I'll use some loose copy paste from wikipedia)


*Shias and Catholics are "Apostolic" / "Divine Lineage" / "What was said":* 

Shia believe their leaders are "*Family* of the Prophet"

Catholics believe their leaders are "Direct and continuous organizational *descent* from the original church founded by Jesus" 


*Sunnis and Protestants are "Traditionalists" / "Interpreters" / "What was meant":*

Sunni believe their leaders are "people of the *tradition* of Muhammad and the *consensus* of the Ummah" 

Protestant believe their leaders "exalt the *doctrines and religious, political, and theological study* of the Reformation."




That's it.  If you can grasp that difference you can grasp what all the tension is between parties.

----------


## acptulsa

Now how do I grasp the reason that the Irish and the Iraqis (among others) consider this hair-splitting worth committing egregious violations of the clear and unambiguous Sixth Commandment over?  Does it take a $#@!-stirrer like England or the U.S. to escalate it to that point?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Catholics believe their leaders are "Direct and continuous organizational *descent* from the original church founded by Jesus"


False.  Roman Catholics trace their lineage to the Roman Patriarchate-"First Among Equals"-not "The Original Church".  Its apostolic tradition is as valid as the Eastern Orthodox.  The Catholic tradition in the West began quite a bit later than in the East.  IDR the dates right off though.

----------


## acptulsa

In any case it's a weird rationale for the inventors of purgatory and indulgences to use.  'We've been wrong longer than anyone else.'  Oh, really?  Now isn't that special...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In any case it's a weird rationale for the inventors of purgatory and indulgences to use.  'We've been wrong longer than anyone else.'  Oh, really?  Now isn't that special...


Yeah, those are things I consider problems with the RCC as well.  Hopefully they resolve that someday.

----------


## Miss Annie

Well I don't think that Protestants are killing Catholics or vice versa.  LOL

----------


## presence

> Well I don't think that Protestants are killing Catholics or vice versa.  LOL


Check your history Miss Annie... in the scheme of things they've only recently come to peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#Christianity

----------


## presence

> False.  Roman Catholics trace their lineage to the Roman Patriarchate-"First Among Equals"-not "The Original Church".  Its apostolic tradition is as valid as the Eastern Orthodox.  The Catholic tradition in the West began quite a bit later than in the East.  IDR the dates right off though.


You're really splitting hairs here




> The Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches consider the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ, successor of Saint Peter, and leader of the bishops, successors of the Apostles.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_...atholic_Church




> *Saint Peter* (Latin: _Petrus_, Greek: Πέτρος _Petros_; died AD 64 or 67),[3] also known as *Simon Peter*, according to the New Testament, was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, leaders of the early Christian Church. The Roman Catholic Church considers him to be the first pope and bishop, ordained by Jesus in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter




The point of the thread was to show that (in general) Catholics and Shias are LINEAGE based faiths, while Protestants and Sunnis trace their routes to later INTERPRETION. 

Shia = Muhammad, before his death, designated Ali as his successor, the Succession of Ali continues to this day
Catholic = Jesus ordained St. Peter, and the modern Pope can trace his lineage back to that event from Pope to Pope.


Sunni = Abu Bakr was designated by the "community" to lead Islam when Muhammad died.
Protestant = Follower of Martin Luther who believe (in a nut shell) that faith in Christ was superior to piety to the Pope.


*of course all of this is quite generalized

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're really splitting hairs here
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_...atholic_Church
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
> 
> 
> ...


Gotcha.  I agree.

----------


## otherone

> This is kind of a fundamental that you need to grasp to understand "what the issue is" between the two Islamic groups:

----------


## presence

lol... that has a lot to do with it too

----------


## Miss Annie

> Check your history Miss Annie... in the scheme of things they've only recently come to peace.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#Christianity


I am not denying that history has not been pretty, but I was more speaking of the present.  
I am familiar with the Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Alawite, Druze, Wahhabi, etc... differences.   
The ISIS has been made of mostly Sunni and Wahhabis.  
Alqaida is mostly Sunnis and Wahhabis.  
Muslim Brotherhood is mostly Sunnis and Wahhabis.  
Saudi is mostly Sunni and Wahhabi.  
African Islamists mostly Sunni and Wahhabi.
Turkey is mostly Sunni and Sufi.
Syria mostly Shia, Alawite, Druze.
Iran is mostly Shia, Alawite, Druze

----------


## eduardo89

> Yeah, those are things I consider problems with the RCC as well.  Hopefully they resolve that someday.


There is nothing about the dogma of purgatory that Orthodox would object to...

This is all that the Church states as dogma in regards to purgatory:
1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 
2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. 

What would Orthodox disagree with there?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There is nothing about the dogma of purgatory that Orthodox would object to...
> 
> This is all that the Church states as dogma in regards to purgatory:
> 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 
> 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. 
> 
> What would Orthodox disagree with there?


Not sure about 1, but they would agree with 2, AFAIK.  I'm still learning, so beg your pardon if I err.  I welcome corrections.  ~hugs~

----------


## jmdrake

> Now how do I grasp the reason that the Irish and the Iraqis (among others) consider this hair-splitting worth committing egregious violations of the clear and unambiguous Sixth Commandment over?  Does it take a $#@!-stirrer like England or the U.S. to escalate it to that point?




And the takeaway from this is we shouldn't be so naive to believe we can fix religious wars with a little democracy snake oil.

----------


## Muwahid

That's right regarding the political structure of a caliphate. The Shia believe in infallibility of their 12 imams, and believe they are the right heirs to the caliphate. These doctrines were expounded on greatly in the centuries to follow the death of the prophet, and the differences today are more stark than they used to be. There are a lot more theological differences today which make the governing of both sunnis and shia, very difficult. 

For example, the Shia allow Mut'ah, which is temporary marriage. This was a way for early arabs to bypass fornification, it was allowed for Muslims until it was made forbidden (according to Sunnis) like many things because Islam came in steps. So if there was a Sunni caliph reigning over Shia, they would have to disallow something permissible in the Shia faith. But there are larger issues... like some of the more "extreme" shia, will go as far to curse some of the companions of the prophet which causes a lot of violence between the two groups. That essentially makes the two faiths, different faiths. Not merely sects.

As for Sunnis, we believe in a council of representatives to elect a caliph.

----------


## Miss Annie

> That's right regarding the political structure of a caliphate. The Shia believe in infallibility of their 12 imams, and believe they are the right heirs to the caliphate. These doctrines were expounded on greatly in the centuries to follow the death of the prophet, and the differences today are more stark than they used to be. There are a lot more theological differences today which make the governing of both sunnis and shia, very difficult. 
> 
> For example, the Shia allow Mut'ah, which is temporary marriage. This was a way for early arabs to bypass fornification, it was allowed for Muslims until it was made forbidden (according to Sunnis) like many things because Islam came in steps. So if there was a Sunni caliph reigning over Shia, they would have to disallow something permissible in the Shia faith. But there are larger issues... like some of the more "extreme" shia, will go as far to curse some of the companions of the prophet which causes a lot of violence between the two groups. That essentially makes the two faiths, different faiths. Not merely sects.
> 
> As for Sunnis, we believe in a council of representatives to elect a caliph.


That makes sense how it would be difficult to govern both simultaneously.  
How do you feel about the new Caliph?  Are you accepting or opposing?  Have you given bayah?  
Isn't Al-Baghdadi Sunni?

----------


## Muwahid

> That makes sense how it would be difficult to govern both simultaneously.  
> How do you feel about the new Caliph?  Are you accepting or opposing?  Have you given bayah?  
> Isn't Al-Baghdadi Sunni?


There's no consensus among the Sunnis regarding Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. 

I can briefly explain why... essentially, there are many Sunni "Jam'aats" which are the various sunnis rebel factions in Syria and Iraq. They were started by different people, some local, some foreign, but they're all sunni, so they try to co-exist. Some are Al Qaa'idah linked, some are not, but they are allies, or there is some kind of mutual respect. 

The Al Qaa'idah Jam'aats are all under Bay'ah of Ayman al Zawahiri. So al-Wuhayshi is the Emir of AQAP (Al Qaeda in Yemen) and Abdel Wadud is the Emir of AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Meghrib), and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was the Emir of ad-Dawlat al-iraq al-islamiyyah (The Islamic State of Iraq)*. 

What al-Baghdadi did, was merge with Syrian forces to become ISIS, this was against Zawahiri's wishes. But what he did on top of that, really caused a schism between the Sunnis.. in declaring an Islamic state (a real one, not a 'jam'aat') or a khilaafa, he rejected his Bay'ah to Zawahiri, and also, he invalidated ALL OTHER sunni jam'aats, because if there is a khilaafa, they MUST assimilate otherwise they're fighting an Islamic state.

So they are saying this guy had a responsibility not only to HIS bay'ah towards Zawahiri, but also, if he HAD to establish this khilaafa, he must have at least got all the other sunni jam'aats to agree, or at least most of them, so it wouldn't cause such a schism, because rightly so, they're concerned about being ruled over by someone they might have little information over.

As for me personally, I don't know about who this Baghdadi, especially through fog of war. Many of us are displeased with some of their actions, even though I think they're greatly exagerated by media, still, they shouldn't be executing people as they do, or making people repeat the islamic state is "baaqian" right before they slaughter them, or mass executions to people who dropped their weapons, or making people dig their own graves. Islam especially taught to treat POWs, even the ones who tortured you, with respect... the reason isn't just out of being the better person, but also in knowing your side might lose one day and your families might be POWs, and they might be treated the same way you treated your enemies. So mutual respect is key. 

We'll see with Iraq. Time will tell. 

* as a side note, it's not called Al Qaeda in Iraq because under Abu Musab they needed to merge with dozens of small sunni groups in iraq to survive, so they became an umbrella group, this is why they are a bit more autonomous than the other al qaeda jam'aats

----------


## Miss Annie

> There's no consensus among the Sunnis regarding Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. 
> 
> I can briefly explain why... essentially, there are many Sunni "Jam'aats" which are the various sunnis rebel factions in Syria and Iraq. They were started by different people, some local, some foreign, but they're all sunni, so they try to co-exist. Some are Al Qaa'idah linked, some are not, but they are allies, or there is some kind of mutual respect. 
> 
> The Al Qaa'idah Jam'aats are all under Bay'ah of Ayman al Zawahiri. So al-Wuhayshi is the Emir of AQAP (Al Qaeda in Yemen) and Abdel Wadud is the Emir of AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Meghrib), and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was the Emir of ad-Dawlat al-iraq al-islamiyyah (The Islamic State of Iraq)*. 
> 
> What al-Baghdadi did, was merge with Syrian forces to become ISIS, this was against Zawahiri's wishes. But what he did on top of that, really caused a schism between the Sunnis.. in declaring an Islamic state (a real one, not a 'jam'aat') or a khilaafa, he rejected his Bay'ah to Zawahiri, and also, he invalidated ALL OTHER sunni jam'aats, because if there is a khilaafa, they MUST assimilate otherwise they're fighting an Islamic state.
> 
> So they are saying this guy had a responsibility not only to HIS bay'ah towards Zawahiri, but also, if he HAD to establish this khilaafa, he must have at least got all the other sunni jam'aats to agree, or at least most of them, so it wouldn't cause such a schism, because rightly so, they're concerned about being ruled over by someone they might have little information over.
> ...


Thank you for such a detailed and educational post!  
From what I understand, "the world" is on the edge of its seat to see if Zawahiri is going to change his bayah from Mullah Omar to Al-Baghdadi.  And then of course if Mullah Omar is going to give bayah as well.  

Please accept my apologies for the rude post ^^^ above by NorthCarolinaLiberty.  Whether we agree or not, we should treat each other with love and respect.

----------


## William Tell

> Now how do I grasp the reason that the Irish and the Iraqis (among others) consider this hair-splitting worth committing egregious violations of the clear and unambiguous Sixth Commandment over?  Does it take a $#@!-stirrer like England or the U.S. to escalate it to that point?


The fight between the English and the Irish go back far before the Reformation. King Henry II of England invaded Ireland in the 1100's, ever since then, my kinsmen have been fighting for their independence on and off. The English starved millions of Irish in the great hunger. I am not Catholic, but I would have fought for Ireland's independence, it's a shame their government is so socialist now

----------

