13 ms·

To give people some context, the difference between the two (Shia vs Sunni Muslims) is that the Shia believe Mohammed's son-in-law should have been his rightful

To give people some context, the difference between the two (Shia vs Sunni Muslims) is that the Shia believe Mohammed's son-in-law should have been his rightful successor (and he eventually did become the leader) while Sunni's believe that Mohammed Father-In-Law was his rightful successor (too bad God couldn't have made that more clear). Also Saudi doesn't just follow plain old Sunni Islam. They practice Wahhabism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism) which has a more literal reading of the Quran (which explains the higher percentage of extremism). The royal family leveraged Wahhabism to gain and keep power of the region. As long as the countries remain governed by religious politics and inflict God's so called will on others, there cannot be an end to the conflict.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fiatmoney 10y ago
The supposed beliefs are not the best way to look at the distinction, especially sociologically - that's like examining Catholic / Protestant split through the lens of their position on transubstantiation. Far more interesting is the way in which they, eg, handle selection of clergy, or marriage patterns. Shia clergy for instance is far more hierarchical than Sunni, which arguably is better for social stability since it avoids as many random yahoos deciding they have a hotline to god, who incidentally wants them to go on jihad.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  > avoids [...] random yahoos Have you seen the video of an Iraqi Shia cleric claiming that eating rabbit meat is forbidden because rabbits are insects? Hierarchy can only take you so far. There will always be uneducated idiots. The best way for quality control is to educate clerics at the national level and allow only those certified to actually preach or lead in prayer.
optforfon 10y ago
Totally wouldn't dispute their support of Wahhabism, but can you elaborate on how Wahhabism helps them retain power? I've never really got that argument b/c it doesn't seem like there are moderate subversive elements. The subversive element seem to be all from the more extreme end.
- FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  The royal family has an alliance with the clergy and basically the clergy helps the royal family maintain the support of the people while the royal family allows the clergy to spread Salafi (the nice way to say someone is a follower of Wahhabism) beliefs without much hinderance.
- alricb 10y ago
  The royal family is really lacking in the pedigree department. They've married into the right families now, but originally the Sauds were a bunch of hicks. They allied themselves with religious outsiders on the understanding that the priests would legitimize the Saudis (vs. the much better pedigreed Hashemites [1] while the Saudis would give the priests preeminence over their rivals. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
To get a Western-style wall between mosque-and-state in historically Muslim societies requires an almost unthinkable rewriting of the social contract. Islam is not just a religion. It is a very deliberately structured guide for the entirety of society. "Full-stack" social control as we on HN might call it. The Quran is a complete manual that details everything expected and required of a good Muslim, from the food that can be eaten to the appearance of your body. Trying to make a wedge between Islam and government in these places simply will not work. Many European historians contend that Western state secularism was a direct result of there being no lasting European empire following Rome to enforce religious doctrines (whereas most of the ME has been in the hands of one empire or another since the founding of Islam), and the Protestant Reformation only cemented the expectation among various nobles that they get to rule the world while the church sticks with ruling the soul. In short, the greater Middle East will always remain governed by religious politics. Something has to fix the mess out there, but excluding religion simply won't work.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Islam is not just a religion. It is a very deliberately structured guide for the entirety of society. "Full-stack" social control as we on HN might call it. The Quran is a complete manual that details everything expected and required of a good Muslim, from the food that can be eaten to the appearance of your body. Christianity is not any different. "You shall not cut your hair round or trim your beard". 3rd book Mose, 19:27 Read the Bible, and you’ll find definitions for when to eat what, how long to preserve what, how to punish crimes, etc.
  - FreedomToCreate 10y ago
    Trying to justify one terribly gone wrong political ideology with another isn't a good way to justify an argument. And in the modern age, many Christian majority nations have successfully created secular states, something Islamic states won't and never will consider unless major reform can occur.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    The difference being the New Testament was written decades after Christ's death by apostles who expected worldly salvation a lot earlier, and so the stories are ripe for exaggeration and misremembered details (and the parts that the Catholic Church destroyed because they were incompatible with their ruling ideology but we'll let that go for now). As for the Old Testament: how many Christians keep kosher? Islam's founding story is much more straightforward: Angel tells Muhammed to transcribe a book that exists word-for-word in heaven. No ambiguity there.
welanes 10y ago
A critical but oft overlooked piece of Saudi history is the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and its consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure#Policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure#Policies The Royal family essentially entered into a Faustian pact with the religious fundamentalists who've held massive sway over the country ever since. (Not unlike The Sparrows in GOT).
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  Of course, religion never exists in a social vacuum. The Sparrows, at least in the books, came to power with support of the common people who were sick of the depredations of turmoil caused by fighting between the noble houses. So what empowers the fundamentalists, beyond moral authority?
tmptmp 10y ago
>>As long as the countries remain governed by religious politics and inflict God's so called will on others, there cannot be an end to the conflict. This is very important. The people from the Islamic countries should rise above their God's so called will in a similar way as how the European Christians rose above their God's so called will. We need a Islamic Arab renaissance and a corresponding Islamic Separation of church (mosque/sharia) and state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
- PopsiclePete 10y ago
  I know this opinion is highly unpopular, but until said "Renaissance" happens, I see mass Muslim immigration to Western countries as a dangerous and very short-sighted policy. Very liberal and accepting countries will start (or, conversely, have already started) feeling the effects of a foreign culture that has vastly different cultural norms and values and refuses to adapt.
  - RGamma 10y ago
    Not highly unpopular everywhere, resistance is brewing and I don't think (or hope) the Merkel type of recent past will prevail. Wonder whether Europe will end up as an extension of the middle east one day (say 50-100 years) or start reverting to the previous status quo...
x5n1 10y ago
Not the real difference. Too bad most Muslims don't know their history well enough to understand how the Shia empire was first established and why.
- FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  Could you explain what the real difference is?
  - x5n1 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran#Safavid_Empire_.281501.E2.80.931736.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran#Safavid_Empire... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safaviyya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safaviyya It was basically just something invented, or adopted, ad-hoc by a Sufi Saint who practiced Sunnism and his followers who did not want to be under the yoke of the Ottomans any more, actually in those days this concept did not even exist and it was the 15th century already, and then the whole Shia Sunni myth was invented after the empire took power in the 15th century, like 700 years after Muhammad died. The Fatimids existed before this in 900, around 200 years after Muhammad's death. But this empire was completely different from the Fatimids, and it came into being hundreds of years after their fall.
riyadparvez 10y ago
> plain old Sunni Islam It depends on your definition of "plain old". If you are referring to that some people choose not to follow the violent part of sunni Islam, then you are correct. However, under the normal definition of "plain old", Wahhabism is the plain old sunni Islam as Islam was 1400 years ago.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

fiatmoney 10y ago

The supposed beliefs are not the best way to look at the distinction, especially sociologically - that's like examining Catholic / Protestant split through the lens of their position on transubstantiation. Far more interesting is the way in which they, eg, handle selection of clergy, or marriage patterns. Shia clergy for instance is far more hierarchical than Sunni, which arguably is better for social stability since it avoids as many random yahoos deciding they have a hotline to god, who incidentally wants them to go on jihad.

Cyph0n 10y ago
> avoids [...] random yahoos Have you seen the video of an Iraqi Shia cleric claiming that eating rabbit meat is forbidden because rabbits are insects? Hierarchy can only take you so far. There will always be uneducated idiots. The best way for quality control is to educate clerics at the national level and allow only those certified to actually preach or lead in prayer.

optforfon 10y ago

Totally wouldn't dispute their support of Wahhabism, but can you elaborate on how Wahhabism helps them retain power? I've never really got that argument b/c it doesn't seem like there are moderate subversive elements. The subversive element seem to be all from the more extreme end.

FreedomToCreate 10y ago
The royal family has an alliance with the clergy and basically the clergy helps the royal family maintain the support of the people while the royal family allows the clergy to spread Salafi (the nice way to say someone is a follower of Wahhabism) beliefs without much hinderance.
alricb 10y ago
The royal family is really lacking in the pedigree department. They've married into the right families now, but originally the Sauds were a bunch of hicks. They allied themselves with religious outsiders on the understanding that the priests would legitimize the Saudis (vs. the much better pedigreed Hashemites [1] while the Saudis would give the priests preeminence over their rivals. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

To get a Western-style wall between mosque-and-state in historically Muslim societies requires an almost unthinkable rewriting of the social contract. Islam is not just a religion. It is a very deliberately structured guide for the entirety of society. "Full-stack" social control as we on HN might call it. The Quran is a complete manual that details everything expected and required of a good Muslim, from the food that can be eaten to the appearance of your body. Trying to make a wedge between Islam and government in these places simply will not work. Many European historians contend that Western state secularism was a direct result of there being no lasting European empire following Rome to enforce religious doctrines (whereas most of the ME has been in the hands of one empire or another since the founding of Islam), and the Protestant Reformation only cemented the expectation among various nobles that they get to rule the world while the church sticks with ruling the soul. In short, the greater Middle East will always remain governed by religious politics. Something has to fix the mess out there, but excluding religion simply won't work.

kuschku 10y ago
> Islam is not just a religion. It is a very deliberately structured guide for the entirety of society. "Full-stack" social control as we on HN might call it. The Quran is a complete manual that details everything expected and required of a good Muslim, from the food that can be eaten to the appearance of your body. Christianity is not any different. "You shall not cut your hair round or trim your beard". 3rd book Mose, 19:27 Read the Bible, and you’ll find definitions for when to eat what, how long to preserve what, how to punish crimes, etc.
- FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  Trying to justify one terribly gone wrong political ideology with another isn't a good way to justify an argument. And in the modern age, many Christian majority nations have successfully created secular states, something Islamic states won't and never will consider unless major reform can occur.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  The difference being the New Testament was written decades after Christ's death by apostles who expected worldly salvation a lot earlier, and so the stories are ripe for exaggeration and misremembered details (and the parts that the Catholic Church destroyed because they were incompatible with their ruling ideology but we'll let that go for now). As for the Old Testament: how many Christians keep kosher? Islam's founding story is much more straightforward: Angel tells Muhammed to transcribe a book that exists word-for-word in heaven. No ambiguity there.

welanes 10y ago

A critical but oft overlooked piece of Saudi history is the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and its consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure#Policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure#Policies The Royal family essentially entered into a Faustian pact with the religious fundamentalists who've held massive sway over the country ever since. (Not unlike The Sparrows in GOT).

Apocryphon 10y ago
Of course, religion never exists in a social vacuum. The Sparrows, at least in the books, came to power with support of the common people who were sick of the depredations of turmoil caused by fighting between the noble houses. So what empowers the fundamentalists, beyond moral authority?

tmptmp 10y ago

>>As long as the countries remain governed by religious politics and inflict God's so called will on others, there cannot be an end to the conflict. This is very important. The people from the Islamic countries should rise above their God's so called will in a similar way as how the European Christians rose above their God's so called will. We need a Islamic Arab renaissance and a corresponding Islamic Separation of church (mosque/sharia) and state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

PopsiclePete 10y ago
I know this opinion is highly unpopular, but until said "Renaissance" happens, I see mass Muslim immigration to Western countries as a dangerous and very short-sighted policy. Very liberal and accepting countries will start (or, conversely, have already started) feeling the effects of a foreign culture that has vastly different cultural norms and values and refuses to adapt.
- RGamma 10y ago
  Not highly unpopular everywhere, resistance is brewing and I don't think (or hope) the Merkel type of recent past will prevail. Wonder whether Europe will end up as an extension of the middle east one day (say 50-100 years) or start reverting to the previous status quo...

x5n1 10y ago

Not the real difference. Too bad most Muslims don't know their history well enough to understand how the Shia empire was first established and why.

FreedomToCreate 10y ago
Could you explain what the real difference is?
- x5n1 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran#Safavid_Empire_.281501.E2.80.931736.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran#Safavid_Empire... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safaviyya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safaviyya It was basically just something invented, or adopted, ad-hoc by a Sufi Saint who practiced Sunnism and his followers who did not want to be under the yoke of the Ottomans any more, actually in those days this concept did not even exist and it was the 15th century already, and then the whole Shia Sunni myth was invented after the empire took power in the 15th century, like 700 years after Muhammad died. The Fatimids existed before this in 900, around 200 years after Muhammad's death. But this empire was completely different from the Fatimids, and it came into being hundreds of years after their fall.

riyadparvez 10y ago

> plain old Sunni Islam It depends on your definition of "plain old". If you are referring to that some people choose not to follow the violent part of sunni Islam, then you are correct. However, under the normal definition of "plain old", Wahhabism is the plain old sunni Islam as Islam was 1400 years ago.