How does the split between the sunnis and shiites affect mondern society?

Answer 1

Muslim scholars, specifically the ones who have dedicated their lives to the study and memorization of the Koran, the study and memorization of the Hadith, have long sought a reconciliation between the two sides, blaming that major split for overall Muslim disunity. Of course the problem with that view is that there is more to Muslim disunity than just that split; Persians hate Arabs, Arabs hate Persians, poor Arabs hate oil rich Arabs, Arabs of the Arabian peninsula, see Arabs of north Africa as "Haj trash," and, overall, Arabs regard black Muslims as barely better than animals, treating with more respect white Christians or secularists from Europe, than they do black Muslims. I was a Muslim myself, I witnessed that racism first hand. Except for the most devout Muslims, the ones who have large chunks of the Koran memorized, the majority of Arabs are very racist. As a general rule within a Muslim temple, I observed, that the more of the Koran a Muslim had memorized, whatever his background was, the nicer they were.

Imam Ali, the ancestor to the modern day King Abdullah of Jordan, was in fact murdered by Kharijites, he was not murdered by Sunni. The Kharijite sect, believed that the Caliph, or holder of power, should be a man of religious merit, e.g. they had to have the Koran and Hadith memorized, as well as spent a good five years engaged in Jyhad (traditional, not terrorist Jyhad). Additionally, they had to posses natural leadership qualities. What would become the Sunni, wanted to follow Arab tribal conventions, that is, in a pseudo democratic manner, elect the most able leader to be Caliph. What would become the Shia, felt that only descendants of Muhamad should hold power, be Caliphs, the problem the Kharijites had with that, is that, far as I know, although he knew vast chunks of the Koran, actually scratch that if he was an Imam he knew all of it, although he knew the Koran, Imam Ali was not seen as an ideal man to be Caliph, the Kharijites felt he did not posses the moral character for the job, so they killed him. Islam therefore split, more because of politics, than faith. See, the Koran used in Iran, the defacto heartland of Shia Islam, is identical to the Koran used in the Arabian peninsula. What is difference in Shia Islam, are the political views, who should be ruler, and that "who" has to be a descendant of Muhamad. Far as the Hadith, and the Koran itself, those are all identical though, far as I know. Actually, except for the Sufis, Islam is identical all around, in every sect, the thing separating them, is politics.

Muslim scholars and clerics have tried to make the argument, that political squabble keeps everyone in a state of disunity, moreover they attempt to point out the fact, that it is no longer the 9th through 11th centuries, the world is different now. Although democracy was in fact "invented" in the near east, albeit a crude form of it among the Beduin, to use old Beduin conventions to elect a ruler, just isn't practical. Among the Beduin of the deserts of Arabia, a Sheikh was elected in accordance to leadership qualities, and they did not always come from the children of the previous one. In fact most of the time they didn't. Also, votes where never cast; men who had wives and families got together, and by mutual agreement, a sheikh would be elected, that is why I am making an argument here that democracy was in fact "invented" in the Middle East, or, in all reality, it has always existed, because other primitive cultures did the same thing as the ancient Beduin. The way it was done during the early days of Islam, was that powerful men, wealthy men, the heads of large clans, the Sheikhs if you will, would get together and from among themselves, by mutual agreement, a Caliph would be chosen.

In the old Arab power hierarchy within a society, slaves where at the very bottom, during Islamic times, above them, were Jews, and above Jews, were horses, who were considered more valuable, above the horses, were kids born to concubines, above them, were the concubines/slave girls, above them, where any female children born to actual wives, not just concubines, above them were wives, above wives were sons, and of course the head honcho of a household was the father. The father of the family in turn, answered to the Sheikh, and the Sheikh, answered to the Caliph. A man who was the head of a household, no matter how poor he was, if he was taking care of a family, his opinion counted regarding who would be Sheikh. Young men with no wives, were not allowed in such tribal councils, because in Arab society if you are not married, and raising a family, you are not considered a man. Again Arab society is very stratified; also in the same way single young men are below married men, unmarried girls, are similarly below married mothers. Also, yes, its true, in an Arab household, the father's word is law.

The heads of families would get together in a tribal council, to elect a Sheikh, usually, the man considered wisest, most capable and of course strongest among them, the most charismatic one. Once that Sheikh was elected, said Sheikh would be invited to an even more exclusive, Sheikh's only council, were from among that group of Sheikhs, there would be a elected a Caliph, or holder of power. Even higher than that I believe, from among the Caliphs, was elected a Sultan. Although I could have it backwards; I believe Sheikhs may have in fact elected a Sultan, and Sultans in turn, from across the Muslim empire, elected a Caliph. I get confused because, Spain was called a Caliphate, but the Sultan was in Baghdad, so I am thinking the Sultan is the one who is more powerful in this system. Sheikh means exactly that "chief." Strangely enough, even though its an Arab word, it does have some similarity pronunciation wise with the word "chief." The word Caliph means "holder of power" and Sultan I believe means "Supreme Ruler." The daughter, and pre pubescent son, answered to the mother. The mother, in the father's absence, answered to the oldest son. The oldest son, as well as everyone else in the household, answered to the father, the father, to the Sheikh, the Sheikh to the Caliph, and the Caliph to the Sultan, and the Sultan, answered only to God.

Because Arab countries number a total of 300 million, such a method would just not be practical, that is why clerics, scholars, and political analysts urge the larger Muslim world to get over it already; yes, the death of Ali was tragic, it was sad, it was horrible, it was disgusting, it was bloody, but it was also 1,300 years ago. Naturally, many in the world of Islam see the division between Sunni and Shia, to be somewhat ridiculous and why they are crying "enough already!" The effect is has had on modern society, answering the question most directly, has been that the unnecessary conflict between Muslims, has led to corruption and waste. Disunity is what weakened the world of Islam in the first place, and it keeps it weak now. Also, indeed, the Muslim military machine was in fact never truly defeated by the Christian world, it was Muslims who defeated themselves.

67.148.120.72stardingo747