hm... interesting question. Are they also going to cover this in lessons? It is a good question.

I would say both. Part of it is political with different models of deriving religious rulings, different takes on history etc... and then part of it is religious due to the different interpretations from the different models followed.

(unrelated, but sunni/shia is not an equal divide - historically shias have been a minority, sometimes way less than 10% of the total... no idea what precent they are these days.)

From my understanding, the question is "do they hate each other because they always have, or is ti because they differ on issues, have different interpretations?"

to me politics means nonsense/historical facts - things that may be lacking in real substance. That may not be a correct interpretation though.

MakeMeRawr_6TeenF wrote:

"How far is it true that nowadays, the division between sunni and shi'a muslims is more political than religious?" For and against.

I was always very bad at RE...but this is how I would go about it.
-who are sunnis?
- who are the shi'as?
-what was the initial reason for their division?
-how they differ religiously?
-how they differ politically? (maybe look at shi'a governments and sunni government rules..well thats what politics means to me and there may be other political examples)
- and then by looking at the facts, compare how true it is...?

okay, that isn't that helpful, but that gives you lots to write?

As far as I know, the split has always been more political than anything else.

My understanding is that Shi'ism (or whatever the correct term is) grew up as a response to the Ummayyad and Abbasid dynasties which were seen to treat Muslims of one area (Arabia) better than another (central Asia). The hero-worshipping/self-flaggelation came as a response to how oppressed the people felt they were. From here the cult of the Imams etc came, saying "we wouldn't have been in this position if the leadership of the Ummah was in the hands of a direct descendant of the Prophet (saw)."

Of course there is more to it than that, but I have always understood that to be the cause of the major division between Sunni and Shia. I know a split existed before, but I don't think it was as wide; the great Sunni scholars learned from Shia scholars, Abu Hanifa for example.

Please someone correct me for everything that is wrong in this answer.

Salaam

Going back to the early times... some of the people who were more towards a hereditary leadership were also from Egypt and Iran... places of (I think) hereditary empire beforehand. Could that have also played a role?

What's the basic reason why there is a separation between Sunni and Shi'a people?

wednesday wrote:

Religious differences. Differences in historical leadership afetr the death of the Prophet < That's the underlying cause of the segregation and everything now stems from this cell.

That was about who should become the new Caliph?

Why is there a difference in the actions of prayer between Sunni and Shi'as? Does this have a consequence in afterlife?

wednesday wrote:

Yep. Cosequently, like Sunnis have their own 4 scholars, Shi'a have Imam Jaferi school of thought, the fifth imam.

The school of thought? That's another thing, I know very little about.
What are the four schools of thought?
And why do they differ?
Have they always existed from the time of Prophethood?
Does it matter which you follow?
What if you don't know which you follow?

Basic reason... hm... I have read a view that the basic reason is deprivation... when there was massive inequality in the Muslim lands, there were many divisions, but over time when that problem was better controlled, the numbers of shia went down to almost extinction...

The other "real" reason is history. After the Prophet (saw), Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra) was chosen as the first caliph. The Shias say that it should have been Hadhrat Ali and ti bit recognise the first three (with teh zaidis being the most lenient - hanafi like in practice, and not ascribing sin onto the others, just saying the way it was done was a mistake), the majority despising them.

Then with the Murder of the third Caliph, some muslims thought the first task of Hadhrat Ali should have been the bringing the aggressors to justice (well, before then there was also a war over succession too....).

Then there was the caliphate of Imam Hassan (ra) - he managed to unit the muslim factions, but then later with the martyrdom of his brother Imam Hussain (ra), the factions were re opened etc...

Then some of the ummayad caliphs/rules were especially cruel to the ahlul bayt because they were seen as challengers to their power...

There is a lot of history here and it is not something I can easily summarise in a few lines.

You wrote:

Basic reason... hm... I have read a view that the basic reason is deprivation... when there was massive inequality in the Muslim lands, there were many divisions, but over time when that problem was better controlled, the numbers of shia went down to almost extinction...

Problems were better controlled. SO the number of Shia went down? almost to extinction?

Was there a link between the problems and people being a Shia?

no, early shias were seen as a form of extremism - it was before there was a specific identity and the oppressed held onto some ideals...

You have to decide first what each term means.

I would not know how to divide the two since in islam religion is not something that is simply put in a box - it is all encompassing.

but the indecision regarding the calpihate also has a religious aspect to it.

the only political thing is that it is all historic and it is along the lines of "we have always hated each other, and we will continue to do so" ... but even there there is a religious aspect as the hate is not for the sake of it, but due to feelings about the status of early muslims in religious matters.

I got friends from both groups.

I think this shia sunni thing is all about party politics. Nothing more.

One side says Ali was the true successor of Prophet's throne.

The other side says no, Abu Bakr was the true heir to the throne of Islam.

Its about who rules. The man who would be king.

There are hardly any significant religious difference between the two political parties.

Both sides accept one God, His book the Quran, Prophet Mohammmed and they all go to Haj at Mecca.

Their basic beliefs are one and the same.

The problem is politics.

Iran says we should be in charge of Mecca.

And the Saudis say no, you are not to rule this land.

Thats it really.

I hope that helps.

wednesday wrote:

political leaders who also are religious advisor

This was really only true for about 30 years after the Prophet (saw)... I do not think it is good to ignore the rest of history.

While the best thing is to have both, that is not always possible.

It would depend on the competence and the loyalty of the individuals - putting a strong person who does not have complete loyalty to you in a powerful position would be asking for trouble too.

Many of the troubles happened due to rapid expansion - before the martyrdom of the second caliph, outward expansion had been stopped/put on hold with the intention of getting the structures etc sorted out after the rapid expansion.

(and this had been attempted once before but the Persian empire decided to be a thorn and needed to be dealt with.)