This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

The 1,300-Year-Old War Between Sunni & Shia Muslims




Introduction: History



You will find that in Shia countries, or in Shia parts of Sunni countries, that Shia Muslims are still utterly fixated on their past. This is not just an example of everyday “historical consciousnesses”; it’s more pathological than that. For example, battles that are as much as 1, 4000 years’ old are re-staged in Shia processions and whatnot. In the perpetual Sunni-Shia war there have been numerous massacres against the Shia and many of them are still cried-over as if they happened only last week.

As I said, this isn’t simply a question of Shia Muslims knowing their own history. For a start, these historical events are mainly passed on verbally; as “epic poems” were in ancient or primitive civilisations. And because of all this, everything thing that happens today to the Shia, even if it’s not directly related to politics or religion, is set or seen within the context of the Shia history (or mythology) of past battles, massacres and misdeeds.

The Sunnis have an historical consciousness too. However, instead of mainly looking back at their “oppression”, as Shia Muslims tend to do; they look back nostalgically at their former power and at periods when they ruled supreme. That’s even the case with recent history. For example, despite all the rhetoric from Islamists (from mainly Western Islamists) about “corrupt Arab dictators” who are “in hoc to the West”, millions of Sunni Muslims, from Iraq to London, have a strong nostalgia for Saddam Hussein. Why is that? The answer is simple. Saddam provided Sunnis with a very strong counterpoise against possible Shia ascendency. And this is far wider that a reference to the 1980-88 war between Sunni Iraq and Shia Iran in which millions died. Factually, when Saddam was hanged millions of Sunni Muslims mourned his death. Because of that death, they feared, amongst other things, that Shia Muslims would get the upper hand against them – and not only in Iraq. For example, it is well known that Yasser Arafat and his PLO/Fatah were strong supporters of Saddam. In addition, when Saddam was hung, President Mubarek, the leader of Egypt at the time, classed him as a “martyr”. And Muammar Qaddaffi (Libya’s leader at the time) demanded that his Baghdad statue be put up again in Libya. There was even, ironically, praise for Saddam from a Kuwaiti sheik – but he too, like Saddam, was a Sunni and that’s often all it takes.

Sunni Muslims have one big reason to be cheerful about their present situation (at least vis-à-vis their Shia rivals): they constitute 85% of all Muslims on the planet.

In terms specifically of the Arab world. There are only 4 Arab states with Shia leaders. The rest are Sunnis. 

The Sunni-Arab hegemony is far deeper than the mere fact that most Arab leaders are Sunni. Despite the Islamic rhetoric about the Prophet Mummed getting rid of the “tribal system” on the Arabian Peninsula and making Islam, rather than tribalism, supreme; all he effectively did was create one of the biggest and most powerful tribes in history: the tribe of Sunni Arab Muslims.  (Indeed Sunni Muslims as a whole, including the non-Arabic ones, can be seen as a single tribe; as, indeed, can all Muslims regardless of being Arabs or Sunni. ) 

Because Arab Islam is utterly tribal in nature, it’s not surprising that Arab tribalism overrides the nation state. That is, it’s not specifically - or only - Islam that overrides the predominance of the national state; it’s also the Arab-Muslim tribal affiliations which criss-cross across many and various Arab states. For example, major Saudi tribal groups or confederations have extremely close historical, communal, religious and ethnic ties with their fellow tribal members in Iraq – despite the problems the two states have had with each other both recently and throughout the 20th century. One way that this tribal pact between Saudi Sunni tribes and Iraqi Sunni tribes manifested itself was during the Iran-Iraq War. The Saudis considered flooding the oil markets of the world and by doing so dramatically decreasing the cost of oil. Why? To cripple the economy of Iran; which couldn’t have competed with either the low prices of Saudi oil or its mass exportation policy. 


The Beginning

 

 
Add caption
What caused the Sunni-Shia schism? What initiated this perpetual Sunni-Shia war? The answer is part political and part theological; as everything is in both Islam and in Islamic history.

The date was 656AD. The place was around Basra (now part of modern Iraq). The main protagonist was none other than the Prophet Muhammad’s wife, Aisha. The former wife of Muhammad led a rebellion against her (step) son-in-law, Ali. He was Muhammad’s nearest surviving male relative and had previously been nominated Caliph of the Muslim community because of his “noble”, as it were, bloodline. That was important to what later were to become Shia Muslims. The Sunnis, on the other hand, believed in election and they had elected someone else. Thus there were clashes. Muhammad’s former wife took the Sunni side in the war. That is, she believed in the election of the Caliph rather than in his bloodline. Or this was the ostensible “theological” rationale; politics and power obviously played a part too.

Ali, in the bloodline of Muhammad, was eventually assassinated in Kufa in 661. His followers and fighters, the Shia Muslims, turned the Euphrates valley (also now in Iraq) into their central point from which they were to bring about Shia, or Ali’s, Islamic hegemony by fighting the Sunni Muslims (although that word, “Sunni”, wasn’t used at this time).

Sunni Muslims, almost from the start, gained the upper hand against their Shia enemies. Ali, Muhammad’s own relative, had 11 successors, or Imams, eight of whom were killed by Sunni Muslims. 

Over a hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death, in 873, Ali’s twelfth heir and descendent, Mohammed the Mahdi, simply - and supposedly literally - “disappeared” from the face of the earth. Thus there was now a problem for Shia Muslims in their war against Sunni Muslims. Who then would lead them? Shia Muslims have been waiting ever since 873 for the Mahdi’s return. Without him, the control of Iraq, as it was then, as well as the control of Islam, could not be guaranteed. 


Theology

 

 

This propagandist and conspiratorial image seems to have ignored 1,300 years of Sunni-Shia history.
The Shia system is rather like kingship/royalty/nobility system in Europe until, well, today (in some parts). Shia Muslims venerate a bloodline which is supposed to go back to Muhammad himself. And again like European kingship, the descendants of Muhammad, or the Imams, were seen as divinely appointed and with the added bonus of having absolute executive, legislative and judicial power and authority (which not even European kings had in their heyday).

On the other hand, Sunnis, at first and still sometimes today, elected their leaders, or Caliphs, through what they call the shura: a consultative council which makes that decision. However, before Westerners jump to any conclusions about Islamic democracy, or even just Islamic proto-democracy, only Islamic clerics were involved in the consultative process; not “the People”.

Thus, since the Imamic successors had all been murdered by their Sunni rivals, and the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, simply disappeared, the Shia were left without any divine leader/s. This would presumably have led them to adopt the Sunni way of doing things – as just explicated. In a sense, they did adopt various consultative or quasi-democratic procedures for electing their leaders after the deaths of all Muhammad’s successors. The problem was, and still is to some extent (depending on which branch of Shia Islam we are talking about), that no leader of Shia Muslims is completely legitimate because no leader is divine – no one is the true successor to Muhammad. However, there has been a certain amount of obfuscation in Shia Islam - right up until the Ayatollah Khomeini - in which various Imams or other Islamic leaders have claimed a bloodline going back to Muhammad; including the Ayatollah Khomeini himself. 

Because of these theological distinctions between Shia Islam and Sunni Islam, there were, and are, also differences in how they view the nature of the state or of government.


Sunni Muslims, generally, see the state as the political embodiment of the Sharia. Or, to put that another way: Sunnis believe that the state should be the earthly manifestation of divine Sharia. It is still divine regardless of the non-divine status of the upholders of state-sharia. It is sharia itself that is divine, or Allah-given, not its upholders or instigators here on earth.
With Shia Muslims, on the other hand, not only is the Sharia divine, but so too should be the leaders who uphold or instigate the Sharia. (Or at least those upholders and instigators at the very top of the Sharia pyramid, so to speak.) That is, to Shia Muslims, Sharia, or Sharia as it is manifested here on earth, is “a prophetic phenomenon”. Or, again, it should be a prophetic phenomenon.


However, as has been said elsewhere, if the divine lineage of Muhammad was cut off care of Sunni murder (except for the Mahdi), then the upholders or instigators of Shia Sharia cannot be divine, strictly speaking. (Though, again as has already been said, Shia Muslims have worked around this and claimed divine status for several of its leaders throughout the ages and up until, and beyond, the Ayatollah Khomeini.) 


The theological distinctions which can be made between Shia and Sunni Islam can be very strong and sometimes very surprising. At its worst, Wahhabi clerics, and many Sunnis generally, have seen Shia Muslims as heretics. Sometimes they are seen as heretics because they are also seen as closet polytheists. For example, take the Saudi embassy in Washington (as of 2008). The US capital is otherwise a place of virulent Interfaith; yet it cannot even secure Interfaith between Muslims and Muslims. The Saudi embassy is completely free of any Shia Muslims – they are all Sunni. And Saudi schools, again in Washington, teach that Shia Islam is, of all incredible things (in the light of the current conflict between Israel and Palestine especially), a Jewish heresy and that Shia Muslims, as a consequence, often work as a fifth column both within and outside Sunni countries. 


The Political Reality Today

 

 

The Muslim Brotherhood: Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan


The Sunni-Shia war can be tied into the current violent situation in Syria. The Syrian state is largely led by Alawite Muslims, who belong to a branch of Shia Islam. No surprise, then, that not only are Syrian Sunni “rebels” or “militants” fighting the regime, but so too are Sunnis from all over the world; including many from the UK.

The Muslim Brotherhood has also been much in the news lately; especially since they took over Egypt and has been slowly advancing Islamist autocracy in that country. So it’s also not a surprise either that the Muslim Brotherhood has it in for Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest Sunni sect in Syria. They will be hoping to take advantage of the conflict and bloodshed in Syria in order to impose their own autocratic regime as a substitute for President Assad’s autocratic regime. (Just as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and many other Muslims, in Egypt weren’t fighting for democracy during the “Spring Revolution”; so too most of the Syrian “rebels”, as well as the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, aren’t fighting for democracy in Syria either.) 

However, well before today’s crisis in Syria, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood was stoking the fires in Syria.
In 1978, Hafez as-Assad ordered the death penalty for all members of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood.  Saddam Hussein after his invasion of Iran in 1980, decided to arm and train that very same Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in order to overthrow the Syrian Baath Party and the Assads. The Assads survived because they utterly destroyed the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood’s stronghold, the city of Hama. This was one of the most violent inter-Muslim conflicts in recent history. Up to 40,000 people died. (Not many people know about this battle because Western Leftists and Left-liberals aren’t much concerned with conflicts between Muslims and Muslims. What they are interested in, instead, is when Western powers or Israelis kill Muslims – and then we never hear the end of it.)


Back home, and around 2006, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has carried on its war with Shia Muslims. For example, fairly recently the Egyptian state, largely under the requests and conspiracy theories of the Muslim Brotherhood (but also to advance its own power and control), carried out an inquisition to find and then expel all Shia Muslims “involved in missionary work”. Even the now-deposed President Mubarak warned, in 2006, that “Shias are mostly always loyal to Iran not to the country where they live”. 

Jordan, another Muslim Brotherhood stronghold, once deported all the Shia Muslims who had just made a pilgrimage to a Shia shrine in that country. Unlike the British Government, the Jordan state refused demands to build Shia mosques on the grounds that such a thing would lead to “revolution” (maybe that’s right!). Indeed Jordan went even further than that. Many Jordanian Sunni Muslims demanded that Shia Muslims should be “quarantined” or that the entire Shia population of Jordan should be expelled. The Jordanian King, in 2006, even got in on all this. He portrayed Shia Muslims as a conquering arc encircling Sunni Muslims.
Other Sunni Arab states have also got on the anti-Shia train. Kuwait, after the 2003 War in Iraq, felt vulnerable to the new Shia hegemony in that country. More specifically, the Kuwaitis felt vulnerable to a Shia push south into Kuwait. They even went so far as to castigate their former Sunni enemy, or at least the country which had previously invaded them, for following “this dangerous and detestable road” of Shia Islam. 


Bahrain


Bahrain (which is in the news today - the “opposition” is opposing the Grand Prix there)has also followed suit. Its national newspapers castigated Iraq’s Shia-led government as “American lackeys” and the Shia leader, Sistani, as “an American general”. The Bahranians even rejoiced in the Sunni suicide bombings in Iraq which they deemed to be “acts of resistance” against Shia forces and their new Shia hegemony. 

And all this despite the fact that Shias make up two-thirds of the Bahrain’s electorate. However, that’s no surprise because Shia Muslims have been treated as second-class citizens, in that area, since the 18th century. That is, since the Arabian Sunni tribe, the al-Khalifa, conquered the island. Since then, most of Bahrain’s Shia Muslims have been the victims of Sunni apartheid; which means that they are forced to live in dilapidated villages far away from their Sunni rulers/superiors. They are also excluded from positions of power; including from the security forces. In addition and historically, many public gatherings of Shia, including Ashoura processions, have been violently crushed (e.g., in 2006/7). Some of the police doing that crushing have come from other Sunni states, such as Jordan as well as from the non-Arabic – but still Sunni! - state of Pakistan. 


 Lebanon


No story of the perpetual Sunni-Shia War would be complete without mentioning Lebanon.

Despite the pan-Islam rhetoric from Islamists, especially from Western Leftists, not many Sunni Arabs have been entirely happy with what’s happening in Lebanon or with the rise to power of Shia Hezbollah.

From Hezbollah’s very beginning, various Arab rulers and Sunni Islamists/militants have been attempting to dethrone this group. This Sunni hatred of Shia Hezbollah even went so far as Sunnis being favourable to the Israeli cross-border defensive raid in Lebanon in July 2006 (to attack the Shia militia who’d been bombing northern Israel). The Saudi press, for example, accused the Shia leader, Nasrallah, of “recklessness and adventurism”. At the same time, native Lebanese Sunnis, as well as Christians, attacked Hezbollah’s war and didn’t like what it had done to Lebanese tourism either. Many Sunni powers also welcomed the deployment of international forces in Lebanon – all the better to control the power and destructive influence of Hezbollah.


But what Lebanese Sunni Muslims really hated about Hezbollah was, of course, its support for Shia (or Alawite) Syria. So much so that many Lebanese Sunni took to the streets, in 2005, to castigate Hezbollah’s support for Syria. They demanded the complete disarmament of Hezbollah as well as the complete withdrawal of its ally, Syria, from Lebanese land. They were successful. Two months after these demonstrations, Syria’s 30,000 troops left Lebanon.

This conflict between Lebanese Sunni and Lebanese Shia even went theological. Various Lebanese Salafi (i.e., Sunni) websites declared fatwas against the Shia and accused them of being “heretics”. But, then again, Sunni Muslims have been claiming this for around 1, 300 years.

29 comments:

  1. dear Paul Austin Murphy,
    Great miss leading Article about Shia/Muslims.I can assure you that the source you used are Wrong.Please bring a Clear argument that Shia is not Muslim.Are you even a muslim yourself?
    www.theawaitedsaviour.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shia worship Ali... they partner with Allah which is not true faith its idol worship. they make up their own hadith and call it islam. they are not with the prophet muhammad because they are a sect. it says in Quran anyone who divides into sects are not with the prophet. so really they are not muslims or at best BAD muslims.

      Delete
    2. you know nothing about Shias, or you just know things your Wahhabi Mullas say!
      we shias do not worship Ali (alaihe salaam) we believe he is the second best human after Mohammad (PBUH)
      we do not partner with Allah. he is one and without his will no one can do anything.
      The hadiths we use to defend shia are of those found in your own books i mean sunnis books.
      we are not dividing sects. we are doing what Allah and his prophet Mohammad have ordered us to do. we follow what Mohammad (PBUH) has said in hadith of the two weighty things. u can find it in your own books.

      if you are seeking the truth. just go and search. do not follow your father's sect. if you really are a person who seeks the truth just go for it.
      but if you know the truth and still make lies about shia. you are going to hell. believe it or not. you are playing with your destiny. you just live once so live it better

      Delete
  2. Dear Max,

    Would you tell me why you think Shia are not Muslims? In fact, I'll post it as part of the blog without alterations. The only thing I'll do is put an introduction as to why I posted it (as a response to this comment you have posted).

    I'm not a Muslim.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shia and sunni are not in a war.People like you are trying to ignite tension.Lets say Shia "is not muslim and does not represent Islam" then who is a TRUE muslim?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't say that Shia 'are not Muslim' - millions of Sunni Muslims do; and certainly not only the Wahhabis.

      As a non-Muslim, I can't say if Shia are 'true Muslims' or not.

      Am I am igniting tension? I suppose that could be partly true. But since the Sunni-Shia was started 1,400 years before this blog and the counter-jihad movement were created, I don't think we can take all the responsibility. And neither can the Wahhabis (established in the 18th century) or 'Zionists' (a movement begun in the late 19th century).

      Why are you Muslims always blaming others for your own problems? That's why you have so many problems in terms of backwardness, violence, conflict, etc - because you always point the finger at others. If you have not an ounce of self-reflection or self-criticism, most of the Muslim world will remain a violent and backward hellhole.

      Delete
    2. go turn on news now. get your head from the sand plz

      Delete
    3. you have already made your judgement! as a non-muslim you should care about your own affairs. what do u know about islam? shia? sunni? wahhabi? isreal? USA?
      NOTHING
      shias and sunnis are brothers excepet for wahhabis who even excommunicate sunnis! they are a branch of Isreal!

      Delete
  4. Why are you Muslims always blaming others for your own problems? That's why you have so many problems in terms of backwardness, violence, conflict?

    The answer is very simple....Who started the first world war ? #Muslims ?? Who started the second world war ? Muslims ? Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in #Australia ? Muslims ?? Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and #Nagasaki ? Muslims ?? Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America ? Muslims ?? Who killed more than 50 millions of Indians in south America ? Muslims ?? Who took about 180 millions of #African people as #slaves and 88% of them died and was thrown in #Atlantic ocean ? Muslims ?? Who is killin more then 20,000 Muslims in #Burma ? Muslims?

    NO , They weren't Muslims !!! First of all, You have to define terrorism properly... If a non-Muslim do something bad..it is crime. But if a Muslim commit same..he is #terrorist !!!!

    Sept 11 attack , A well organized conspiracy against Muslim world.( plz refer youtube " RE-OPENED OF 9 /11}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your reply is not even connected to my statement. I was talking about Muslim ‘backwardness’ and problems and then you cite a long list of things that have happened in the West or because of the West. Apart from the fact that I have seen this/your quote many times before (the list of Western crimes), and Muslims hardly change it, it is not even connected even if I admit all some of those things that have happened (all the figures have just been made-up out of your head).

      The main reason why the Muslim body-count is sometimes smaller than that of the West (if only in the 20th century) is precisely to do with my original point – Islamic/Muslim backwardness.

      I like how you mention Western slavery. Islamic slavery still exists. Britain got rid of slavery in its empire in the early 19th century. America did the same in the mid-19th century. Islamic slavery pre-dates both American and British slavery and still exists. In addition, Islamic slavery was far more expansive in Africa than European slavery. And, again, it still exists.

      What point is your often-quoted list of Western crimes actually making? A point about Christianity or one about the West as a whole? My point is about Islam. Violent jihad is an essential part of Islam and it is extolled over a hundred times in the Koran. There is nothing like that in the New Testament and the Old Testament is not treated as the word of God by most Christians, as every word of the Koran is. Apart from that, some of your figures are very suspect.

      What about this one? Islam in India alone was responsible for the deaths of over 100 million non-Muslims - those who didn’t ‘embrace Islam’. This large number was replicated in every country the Islamic imperialists took over. Hundreds of millions died at the hand of Islam over the centuries.

      Islam was fairly quiet in the 20th century simply due to its backwardness, not its morality. If Muslims had nuclear weapons, or armies as good as the West, then Islam would have probably destroyed the whole world ‘for Allah’.

      Christians can easily argue that violence and conquest is not part of Christianity. It is very difficult for Muslims to do the same when its prophet was a warrior, a slave trader, a keeper of slaves and concubines, a paedophile, a beheader, and a murderer.

      So I could include an equally massive least of Muslim killings since the Prophet. But these would all be IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. Not all the crimes on your well-used list had anything to do with Christianity.

      Again, Islam simply didn’t have the know-how, brains and technology to do what the West did in the 20th century.

      Delete
    2. The other thing I didn't say is that I'm against many of the things on your list of Western crimes. They were wrong. Are you also against the various Islamic empires? Are you against Muhammad's ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Arabian peninsula? Are you against the hundreds of millions killed through Islamic expansion and forced conversion, from Muhammad and continuing until the Ottoman Empire and beyond? Are you against Muhammad having slaves and the continued Islamic slave-trade?

      You see, there is variety in the West and we don't all believe the same things. Thus there is no problem at all if I think that the European slave trade was a bad thing - at least with the benefit of 20th century hindsight? What about you? What aspects of Islamic imperialism, Muhammad's behaviour, etc. are you sorry about? Which parts of the Koran do you disagree with because of their violent and intolerant content?

      In other words, does the average Muslim display the same levels of self-criticism and self-analysis which very many Westerners indulge in? No, judging by Islam's unchanging nature and the never-ending Islamic fundamentalism which plagues virtually every Muslim country.

      Delete
  5. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read it is people like you that give the name of Islam a bad name I am married to a Sunni woman we practice religion of Islam and and we do not teach our kids that there's a difference between Sunni and Shia we're all human beings and we are all Muslims but unfortunately there are people like you that ruining the name of Islam .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Islam gives Islam a bad name, not me.

      I like how you haven't responded to a single point or historical point in the article. That's because you can't. As usual, violence, abuse and censorship is the FIRST option of the vast majority of Muslims.

      If you don't teach the difference between Sunni and Shia, there are literally hundreds of millions of Muslims WHO DO.

      I suspect that your real problem with the article is not me pointing out the historical and theological conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims, but that it's a 'FILTHY KUFFAR' who is doing so.

      Delete
  6. Hold on are you even a Muslim ? If your not do us all a favor and shut the fuck up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Shut the fuck up.' That's a very American phrase! America is the Great Satan?... As usual, abuse, censorship and violence is the FIRST OPTION of most Muslims.

      Why do I need to be a Muslim to write the post? Do I need to be a Frenchman to write on Paris or someone from the 17th century to write on Isaac Newton?

      Why don't you got back to your 13th century ghetto, along with your Western mobile phone and Western Internet, and have carnal relation with either your cousin or a goat?

      Delete
  7. Hey hey hey!!
    u dickHeaD aDmiN
    y da fuck r u spreading such mOthAfuCkin' rumours dat SHIAs arn't Muslims???
    Do u knoW whO is a Muslim??
    huh??
    go n Read dis : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim
    u sOn oF a BiTch!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. n dOnnO y bUt u r alSo a Muslim n (Paul Austin Murphy)is a vIrtUal naMe!!
      hUh??

      Delete
    2. Is those words Arabic? I don't understand that language. It's not English.

      Delete
    3. Izz GOOGLE TRANSLATOR maDe 4 ur dAD??
      huh??

      Delete
  8. Zain Troll Syed - Can YOU read? Paul Austin Murphy, has not -- I repeat, not - has not claimed that Shi'a are not Musims. It is not his claim. He is sharing information that many, many Sunni do claim so. Just because all Sunni don't claim it, does not mean that many don't. Many Sunni (including Wahhabi and Salifi do consider Shi'a to not be real Muslims (and/or heretic).

    Learn some history and current affairs and stop shooting the messenger.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you so much for your valuable blog !!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. You tell jokes on his Web site.
    You know very well, or did I?
    When Shiites and Sunnis were fighting?
    Where in the world between Sunnis and Shiites in the making?
    I am a Shia.
    A growing number of friends I have in ages.
    We read the lesson.
    We live together.
    Sunnis and Shiites are brothers.
    If your group is excommunicating Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
    Yes, they are the enemy of Muslims.
    (ISIL) is the enemy of mankind. (ISIL) is a wild group.
    Brutality (ISIL), only reminds us of the Zionist brutality throws.
    (ISIL.) in Iraq and Syria, both Sunni Shiites killed.
    You know (ISIL), Christians have been killed in Syria and Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wahhabis believe that Shiites kill seven in heaven will enter.
    Do not kill the man in Islam?
    Is Islam a man's life is saved humanity?
    Do Wahhabi Muslims?
    Does a Muslim can be a killer?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are not a good writer at all! writing about things you know nothing of! after all you are not muslim. try to talk about sects in christianity. i bet you can't even write 10 sentences about your own religion but eager to write about the others! hahaha :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. به نام نامی الله
    in the name of God



    EVERYTHING HERE ARE ...
    WORST PLAN TO DESTROY ALL OF MUSLIMS
    why? all of muslims are BROTHERS.
    will brothers fight with them or try to protect them?
    know this, ISRAIL ISNT MUSLIM COUNTRY.
    do our God tell us to FIGHT? why are u saying shias arent muslim?
    why google images show blood and crazy stupid pics for shia?
    GOOGLE,ISRAIL,and USA are Islams ENEMIES
    like this (...) hard to write it (XD) site
    know this...
    if we (all of muslims) unite, we can DESTROY all of our enemies cuz GOD told us:
    all REAL muslims are brothers...
    if we will be like brothers, noone can KILL us...
    and we only will DEFENSE, cuz muhammad prophet saied:we dont start a war, we only defense...
    and god will punish YOU and ALL OF {{{ LIERS }}}
    USA,ENGLAND and ... need the middle east... and muslims are there...
    and some stupid people who are NOT muslims, started this stupid things cuz we know Imam Ali was after our prophet but sunnies dont accept it and it is not WAR

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shia are Muslims!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. u should research more u have nothing about islam dude
    its like talking about highlevel of quantum physic when ur in elementary school
    go search about Edoardo Agnelli and find why zionism killed him when he came to shia islam
    he was in one the richest families in the word
    he came to islam and changed hes name to mahdi
    go search about why zionism that control most of the news and medias trying to show muslims (specially shia muslims) are terrorist
    u know how zionism works?
    i tell u.
    they take a bad copy of u then foster it and then show it to others and tell them that is u

    ReplyDelete
  16. for example the isis that is made by zionism and they call them as muslims

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shia muslim are the real muslim,
    Read the book to know more info about the truth of Islam
    "Then i was guided"

    ReplyDelete