Forgive my ignorance, and my laziness at not looking it up. But a recent article about the elections in Iraq spoke of how the Shiites, who make up about %60 of Iraqi muslims are being encouraged by their clergy to go out to vote. They didn't say what the Sunni clergy is saying, but noted that the Sunnis fear domination by the Shiites and also feel intimidated by the insurgents and so most likely will not be voting much. Most of the violence opposing the election is happening in the Sunni provinces.
Are the Sunnis shooting themselves in the foot?
For the good of Iraqis, and especially their women and children, who would be better in power?
I would also like to add that this isn't actually an election of leaders who will rule the country term to term, but of the party that will construct their constition. It seems to me that this actually has more lasting implications than one of our regular elections.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The main difference in belief between the two (all politics aside) is that the Shia believe that Ali, son of Mohammed, was his next successor.
Here is a pretty good article on it.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Oh - as a disclaimer: I don't agree with the final premise of that article (which comes from a Christian site), but the introductory information is informative.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Bob's article is better.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
This is a testament to my lack of memory, because I took a comparative religion class in college, and loved it, and remember absolutely nothing about this difference.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: The main difference in belief between the two (all politics aside) is that the Shia believe that Ali, son of Mohammed, was his next successor.
I thought it had something to do (originally) with Ali's decision to write/not write the Qurran.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
No, it's all about who should be Caliph. And since whenever one group gained power they laid smackdown on top of the other group, ancestral vengeance built up quite a lot too.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
What about Druzis? (Misspelt? I know the Hebrew term.) How do they relate? I know they're seperate today; but what happened historically?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I believe the Druze are a Christian sect as old, but separate from the Catholic church. They are very introverted, seeking to grow only through natural reproduction, not through evangelism. They are found mostly in Lebanon. I may be wrong.
You may have been thinking of the Kurds.
The big difference that is coming out in Iraq-- between Shiite and Sunni is more current. When Sadaam Hussein was in power he was a Sunni and did much to suppress the Shiite majority. He was especially tough after the Shiite majority in his neighboring state took over and wanted to spread thier theocracy to the whole of the mid-east. Those who did the beatings and the land thefts and the atrocities, and those who turned the other way when they benefited from them, are now worried that the Shiites will come to power and turn the tables on them--exacting revenge.
The Shiite's most prominent leader has made several statements that may be a good sign. 1) He is not running for office. 2) He asks that all minorities will get a voice in the new government, including the Sunni. 3) He is working well with the secular leaders including the Kurds. He seems to be a voice of sanity in an insane situation.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A synopsis of Druze history.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
The significance in Iraq is that under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni minority controlled the Shia majority. Think of the South under segregation. So to get rid of Saddam Hussein greatly benefited the oppressed majority.
That's probably why it isn't making much sense as reported.
There is also the sizeable Kurd population, which is an ongoing problem. I forget if they are Sunni or Shia, but they are muslim but due to ethnicity looked down on by both. Part of the failure of GHW Bush is that his efforts to topple Saddam resided largely with the Kurds. But as much as the Shia hated Saddam, they would not submit to thanking the Kurds for liberation. Think of the relationships of minorities in this country.
[ January 29, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
We have to look back all the way to understand today's struggle. The current shite/sunni division can only be understood if you take history into account through Khomeni, the World Wars, and down to the 700s. Saddam is just the cherry on top, if that much.
I'm trying to figure out why it's not easier to divvy the country up rather than create Iraqies.
[ January 29, 2005, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Don't forget that BushSr called for the Shiites to rise up against Saddam's government , then allowed Saddam's RepublicanGuard free passage through land controlled by US forces to massacre ~80thousand Shiites.
[ January 29, 2005, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Yeah, that was unfortunate. Bush Sr. underestimated Hussein's ruthlessness.
Besides the recent history of Iraq, there is the war with Iran which is the quintessential Shi'ite state. If I were an Iraqi Sunni I'd be tempted to wonder why they can't just send all their Shias over there.