Yes, the Shiite and Sunni Koran's are different, which is part of the
reason for growing sectarian warfare.
http://religion-cults.com/Islam/islam5.html
BRANCHES OF ISLAM:
The death of Muhammad in Medina provoked a major crisis among his
followers: The dispute over the leadership resulted in the most
important "schism" in Islam: "Sunnis" and "Shiites:
- The Prophet's preference to follow him was Ali, the husband of
his daughter, the Egyptian Fatima, and the father of his only
surviving grandsons Hasan and Husayn. But, while the family was busy
burying the Prophet, the leaders of Medina elected the aging Abu Bakr,
the father of the Prophet's favorite wife, as the successor
("caliph"), even before the burial of the Prophet. Ali and his family
were dismayed but agreed for the sake of unity, and because Ali was
still young... however, after the murder of the third caliph, Ali was
invited by the Muslims of Medina to accept the caliphate, with the
mayor schism of Islam:
- The "Sunnis", followers of Abu, the majority, with 800 million Muslims.
- The "Shiites", followers of Ali, with 100 million Muslims
(Iran, Iraq, Palestine).
Despite the differences in detail and politics, the various
branches do accept the basic tenets laid down in the Koran.
1- The "Sunni": 800 million:
The followers of Abu, called "Sunni" because they accept the
"sunnas", the oral traditions and interpretations of the Koran after
Muhammad's death, called the "sunnas", and later the "Hadiths".
They are usually more liberal.
They belief the "caliph" ("successor" of Muhammad) should always
be elected, not conferred by heredity. They claim they are the true
followers of the faith, and until 1959 they refuse to recognize the
Shiites as true Muslims. They believe in "predestination".
During the Ottoman Turks, the Caliphs were called "Sultans".
2- The "Shiite": 100 million:
The "Shiite ("partisans"), are the followers of Ali, more orthodox
and militant, mainly in Iran, Iraq, and Palestine. In 656, Ali and
Fatima's son Hussein led a fight against the Sunnis. Hussein was
torture and beheaded, and today the Shiites of Iran honor the memory
of Hussein's death with an annual procession in which marches in a
frenzied demonstration beat and whip themselves with chains and
branches.
The "Iman" and "Mahdi" (Messhiah):
Shiites created the office of the "Imam" ("leader" or "guide"),
who were infallible, one for each generation, the only source of
religious instruction and guidance, and all in direct descendence of
Ali. There were 12 Imams since Ali; the last one, the 12th, went into
hiding in 940, and he will emerge later to rule the world as "Mahdi"
("Messiah"). For this reason they are also called the "Imamites" or
"Twelvers".
- The present "Ayatollahs", ("signs of God") see themselves as
joint caretakers of the office of the Imam, until he returns at the
end of time. The "Ayatollah Khomeini" claimed that he was a descendant
of the 7th Imam, and hence the rightful ruler of the Shiites......"
http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/2005/02/sunni-shiite-iraq.html
Iraq[I had published this essay in three posts on my other blog ?Iraqi
Letter to America? but I feel that it gives a glimpse of an important
aspect of life in Iraq. I am therefore posting it again here]Sunnis
and Shiites in Iraq -
Basics
[There has been a lot of talk lately of potential Shiite-Sunni strife
in Iraq. No doubt there will be more in the coming days. I thought an
outline of the basics would be in order at this stage, to dispel some
of confusion that exists in the minds of many in the West. This post
may not make interesting reading but I feel it may serve as a useful
reference or a simplified guide.]
An Overview of Basics
Sunnah and Shi'a are two sects of Islam, very much like Catholicism
and Protestantism.Sunni ? roughly refers to adherents to the
precedence set by the Prophet Mohammed. They are more or less the
"orthodox" Muslims. There are four major Sunni sub-sects. The
overwhelming majority of Iraqi (and probably world) Sunnis follow the
Hanafi doctrine. This is named after the revered scholar Abu Haneefa
who is buried in the Adhameyyah district of Baghdad - hence the
special significance of the attack by Marines and ING forces on the
mosque where he is buried last Friday.Shiite ? roughly means
"followers" or "cohorts" of Imam Ali, the Prophet's cousin, protégé
and son-in-law. Shiites believe that Imam Ali (and his sons) should
have succeeded the Prophet in running the affairs of the Muslim
nation. Imam Ali, the fourth Caliph (successor) moved the Islamic
capital from Medina near Mecca to Kufa in Iraq. He is buried in Najaf
- hence the religious significance of Najaf. The desert city actually
evolved around his shrine. Najaf has what is probably the largest
cemetery in the world. Most Shiites (religious and not) prefer to be
buried there.
The technicalities of theological differences may not be of much
interest to most of the readers and will therefore not be mentioned ?
only differences relating to the present day topics will be briefly
outlined.
One notable difference worth mentioning is that Shiites believe in the
Resurrection of the "Absent 12th Imam", who disappeared in childhood
and who, on his return, will fill the earth with Peace and Justice. He
is called al Mehdi - hence the name "Mehdi Army" of Moqtada al Sadr.
The site of his disappearance is in Samarra, in the heart of what is
now known as the Sunni triangle!!Sunnis generally go to mosques;
Shiites go to Husseineyyahs. A Husseineyyah is, for all intents and
purposes, a mosque where, in addition to the usual prayers and
services, additional services are performed in mourning of the Imam
Hussein [Imam Ali's son and Profit Muhammad's grandson who is buried
in Kerbala and who is much revered by most Muslims but particularly by
Shiites for his heroic stand for what he believed in, in the face of
certain death. In an uneven battle, he and all 72 of his extended
family were massacred].
Another notable difference is that the Shiites, being generally
outside governance for the past 14 centuries, have developed strict
and independent academic rules for the hierarchy of their clergy, and
consequently hold them in higher reverence. Rise within the hierarchy
is primarily on academic theological merit, determined by peers. The
Sunnis, on the other hand, as a rule, have their clergy appointed by
the powers of the day and are therefore generally, but not always,
regarded as almost "government officials". Consequently, contemporary
clergy are not held with the same regard.
For centuries, the "Hawza" in Najaf has been more or less the Supreme
University for the Shiite clergy world-wide. Senior clergy had much
sway over the religious Shiite population all over the world. During
the past 30 years, two factors led to a significant shift in the role
of the Najaf Hawza: one was the continuous pressure and harassment of
the Saddam regime; the other was Khomeini's revolution in Iran. For
decades, the Hawza in Qum, Iran played a more significant influence
than Najaf, especially in Iran. The once-supreme influence of the
Najaf Hawza on Iran's Shiite population is now much reduced.Devout
Shiites generally willingly pay the equivalent of 20% of their yearly
profits to the clergy of their choosing. Similar donations used to
come from all over the world. This of course means considerable
liquidity at the disposal of senior clergy. There is nothing
equivalent to this in the Sunni doctrine, apart from sporadic
donations by philanthropists.
Sunnis are a majority in the Arab and the Muslim world. In Iraq,
Shiites are a majority. The vast majority of Kurds are Sunnis. Turkmen
are mostly Sunni.Within the Arab population of Iraq, the Sunni and
Shiite doctrines are not related in any way to any ethnic or racial
differences.As with other sects in Islam, there is no question
regarding the ultimate source of all their belief: it's the Koran ?
the word of God. One source, one book, one code ? differences are in
the interpretation of things not specifically mentioned. All sects
also agree on the precedence set by the practices established by the
Prophet Mohammed (the Sunnah) except for some differences regarding
the reliability of different source and references.
Differences stem from questions of details of practice or life,
government, marriage, inheritance, minor differences in prayer time,
determining when the moon is born, etc.Sunni and Shiite Iraq -
InterminglingSect Conversion Changing from sect to sect does not
require anything else besides declaration of intent and following the
practice of the new sect. This conversion takes place all the time. It
has been taking place for 1400 years.
On a large scale, it happened in Iran in the 18th century when their
Shahs converted and it happened in the 19th century in the
south-eastern provinces of Iraq.
On an individual level:
? It is a common practice for people to become Shiite when moving to
live in a predominantly Shiite area or vice versa. It happened
constantly for the past 1400 years. It happens all the time today.
? In the Shiite doctrine, if someone dies leaving only daughters, then
his inheritance goes completely to those daughters. In the Sunni
doctrine, the person's brothers get a share. This has been a frequent
cause for conversion for such people ? mainly in the cities. [One
notable case that comes to my mind is a member of the now-defunct
Governing Council who was generally regarded as "representing" secular
Sunnis. This gentleman has only three daughters and has converted to
Shi-ism.]
? In Islamic marriage, the dowry is in two parts; one part is paid to
the wife in advance. The second part is called the deferred dowry. In
the Sunni doctrine, this is paid in the case of divorce or death,
whichever comes first! In the Shiite practice, this has to be paid on
demand to the wife, at any time of her liking! In practice, this is
hardly an issue as failed marriages are few and far between. In mixed
marriages (which are numerous, especially in "mixed" areas) this
question comes up and has to be agreed upon. In such marriages, there
is no requirement for any of the partners to convert. The difference
in sect between husband and wife is a constant source of family humor.
Divided Loyalties
The allegiances of an Iraqi, like other people in other countries,
cover a wide framework of beliefs and considerations. These include:
Self, family, tribe, religion, race, town, nation, political doctrine
and economic doctrine. Many of these factors are present in the
consciousness, or sub-consciousness, of most of us. We only differ in
the relative importance we give to each. The difference is in the mix!
I cannot even begin to categorize such a complex structure for the
wide spectrum of Iraqi people but will refer to these in the context
of the issue discussed.
Kinship Factors ? The tribal "half" of Iraq.Of the conversion factors
listed above, the most important factor to keep in mind in today's
Iraq is the first. This has to be regarded in the context of the
tribal nature of much of rural Iraq (and many of the smaller
provincial towns? and even parts of the larger towns). Such
conversions, over centuries, have led to a large number of tribes
being of both denominations - some with a Shiite majority, others with
a Sunni majority.
The important point is that the loyalty of many of these people to
their kin is something fundamental in their make-up. They usually
maintain considerable ties and contacts and are frequently brought
together through tribal arbitration councils, paying respect in
deaths, allegiance to respected tribal chiefs (who can be of a
different sect), etc. This very significant factor is almost always
overlooked by many two-color Sunni-Shiite analysts (including some
Iraqis) when discussing the sectarian problem in Iraq.
[In one notable instance, members of a large "conglomerate" of tribes,
the Muntafik in the Nassereyyah and Basrah provinces, are
predominantly Shiite. Their tribal chiefs for the past three
centuries, the Sa'adoun family, are Sunnis. Now that family has headed
those tribes by choice, not by force! Confusing? I'm sure it is!]I
will go as far as to say that for many of these people, fighting their
kin over a sectarian dominance is unlikely? and even if such a thing
is started by some overwhelming factor, there are so many channels
between them that blood ties will ultimately come on top.Confusion
with geographyMany people in Iraq think they can tell a Shiite from a
Sunni from his or her accent or attire. I have heard and seen this so
many times. The differences these people refer to are usually
geographic in nature and have little to do with sect. People from
southern provinces usually use a different style of head-gear (igal ?
smaller and thicker) and have a different accent from people in the
western regions for example (in fact, each province has its own
dialect, much like many other countries).
The "mixed" half of IraqThis can be illustrated by looking at people
who live in "mixed" areas. Time and again I was struck by how
difficult it is to tell people apart. They usually have the same
accent, the same dress, social customs and the same mannerisms.Two
anecdotes as an illustration:I once attended a meeting of people in
such an area in July after the invasion. I knew many of those present
and I started reflecting on this matter? This one's son is a Baathist,
this one's son is with the resistance, this one's brother was executed
by Saddam and so on and so forth. Most people of one sect were related
by marriage to others of the other sect. There was so much in common
between those people that being a Shiite or a Sunni had to take a
lower priority to those common factors!Only last week, and after
Fallujah-II, in an area near Baghdad, some of those Wahabis (? so I'm
told, but I'm not sure exactly who those people were) started stirring
such sectarian unrest in such a mixed area. In chaotic and lawless
Iraq we live in nowadays, they set up a check-point on a side road on
some Shiite pilgrimage day. They took the flags those pilgrims carried
and trampled on them after insulting the pilgrims. Within two days,
the Sunnis in the area found the people giving those rascals sanctuary
and warned them sternly! That put a quick end to it! As simple as
that!I honestly cannot see these people killing each other for
religious sectarian reasons.
"Mixed" Baghdad
This even applies to Baghdad, the melting pot of Iraq. Inner Baghdad
(the old city) has a number of traditionally predominantly Shiite
districts and predominantly Sunni districts. The peripheral districts
(most of them grew within the last 50 years) usually reflect the
nature of the region most people come from.
But generally, most of Baghdad is so thoroughly mixed that it would be
extremely difficult to think of the people there being involved in any
sectarian or civil war with any sound degree of rationality. It is
just not possible. As I write this, I think of my own neighbors ?
Sunnis and Shiites all around! People used to make many jokes about
it? on both sides (but not during the past year! Those jokes simply
disappeared! You may find this odd? but this is more worrying to me
than all the "expert" analyses I read!).
In most of "urbane" Baghdad and other large cities, neighborly and
neighborhood relations dominate over kinship and tribal bonds.I cannot
over-emphasize the importance of Baghdad. It has a quarter of the
whole population of Iraq. Culturally Baghdad sets the pace for the
whole country.In addition to Baghdad, the mixed regions include the
provinces of Diala, Babel and, to a lesser extent, Basra. These
comprise approximately half of the Arab population of Iraq.Cultural
and Political MixI have already referred to the complexity of Iraqi
society. In addition to the "blood" relations that play an important
role in the loyalties of many people, there is a large secular segment
in Iraqi society. Well into the 1980's, this segment was the leading
force that shaped the political climate in Iraq. People who are
pan-Arabists, communist, humanist, simply secular etc. etc. are
generally people for whom the Sunni Shiite question, even if present,
would by necessity take a lower consideration than those doctrines and
their commitment to them.At the other end of the spectrum, a Shiite
country person from Deywaneyyah in the south would find a lot more in
common in terms of values, customs and even costumes with a Sunni
tribesman from Ramadi than with an urbane fellow Shiite from Baghdad.
A Sunni Arab Nationalist would identify more with a Shiite pan-Arabist
from Basrah than a fellow Sunni communist, and so on and so forth. All
these bonds and loyalties extend beyond the two-color façade of the
over-simplistic Sunni Shiite divide.
To add further confusion to this post? it is quite natural to come
across an Iraqi communist (who is a committed atheist) who thinks of
himself as a Sunni or a Shiite. This also widespread among seculars!
They regard Sunni-ism and Shi-ism more as a "culture" than a religious
sect.***I am not saying that differences do not exist; on the
contrary, they do. There are major differences and genuine grievances.
For example, many middle-class Shiites genuinely feel that they have
had less than a fair prospect of important jobs or promotions because
they were Shiite. Many people in Kut, for example, feel that their
town was not developed like other Sunni parts in Iraq because it was a
Shiite area.What I'm saying is that it is difficult for these
differences and grievances to lead to civil war. It is my belief that
even if such a thing is started, the channels and links available
between the various groups will facilitate a relatively fast resort to
reason and reconciliation. It would not lead to a chaos much worse
than the present one! There would not be a blood bath deeper than the
present one!Sunni and Shiite Iraq - Governance[There is considerable
confusion regarding the dominance of modern Iraq by the Sunnis. Media
references to the Sunni-Shiite divide in Iraq are frequently more
perplexing than enlightening! Like almost everything else in old and
complex Iraq, this a long story - 1400 years old. To clarify this
issue in the simplest possible terms, I will only go back a
century.]How did the Sunnis come to govern modern Iraq?
At the turn of the 20th century, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire.
The Turks, who came to Iraq several centuries before as conquers from
central Asia, were Sunnis. They alternated on invading Iraq with the
Shiite Persians. This conflict was a major factor in the modern
Shiite-Sunni polarization!The Ottomans were Sunni and generally
bigotry - they usually referred to Shiites as "The Rejectionists"!
Naturally they relied on Sunnis for government positions and, towards
the end of the 19th century, the military. Young men went to Istanbul
to go into military colleges. Shiites were generally shunned.When the
British wanted the Arabs to help them against the Ottomans during WWI,
they went to the most prominent figure at the time, Hussein, the
Sherif of Mecca. They promised him to free the united Arab world under
his leadership. He revolted against the Turks. His army had a number
of senior Iraqi officers.The British campaign succeeded but they
couldn't honor their promise to the old man? the region was already
divided between France and Britain in the Sykes-Picot Treaty. They put
Iraq under direct rule. The Iraqis (both Sunnis and Shiites) revolted.
The British then decided to install a "democratic" government. There
was a National Congress in 1924 to agree on a Constitution. The
Shiites, on the recommendation of senior clergy, boycotted it. [Now I
hope you can understand Sistani's eagerness not to be bitten again!]To
pay part of their debt to the Sherif of Mecca, the British installed
his son, Faisal I ? a Sunni, on the throne of Iraq. The (mostly Sunni)
Iraqi officers who assisted the British almost monopolized the top
political and military positions for decades. The civil service had to
rely on people willing to work with the British and who had the
ability to get the job done. Again, Sunnis dominated the civil
service.That combination determined the Sunni face of government in
Iraq for the next 80 years.Shiites, from predominantly Shiite areas,
were duly represented in Parliament. They were quite active in the
political life of Iraq; there were quite a number of Shiite ministers
and prime ministers But those other people had entrenched themselves
in senior positions!Given the tribal element in the Iraqi society and
the strong social influence, nepotism and favoritism (and no doubt
some bigotry) played a strong role in admission to senior government
and military posts? and military colleges. The result was that three
decades later, the top brass were mostly Sunnis.
In 1958 there was a military coup. The people involved were mostly
Sunni. The strongman of the junta, Qassim, in fact came from a mixed
area and there was no evidence whatsoever that he practiced any form
of preferential treatment between Shiites and Sunnis. There were two
other military coups that led to the final one in 1968 which
ultimately brought the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein to power. Due to
the reasons outlined above, all those coups were dominated by Sunni
military officers.***The Baath party is secular in origin and basic
doctrine. In the rank and file of the party (that claimed some 3
million members) there were more Shiites than Sunnis ? reflecting the
make-up of the country. There were many senior Shiite figures. There
were also numerous Kurds and Christians! However, for the same reasons
outlined above, the Baath Party's key positions were dominated by
Sunnis. But the "Law Giver" was Saddam and he tightly held the
reigns.Saddam and his inner circle (who were his relatives) were Sunni
in name. The same social forces outlined above were also at play
throughout his reign. Saddam's true religion was "Power"? his sect was
"Brutal Oppression". Most people knew that if you as much as uttered
something against him, you were gone. It didn't matter what your
religion was.***
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/shiites.htm |
