Quote from: Elliot Wilen;225545Bill,

It might be helpful to ask some Muslims as you are getting into degrees of subjectivity re: "in" and "out" of the community.

I would love to but currently do not know any. I have in the past but honestly, it did not come up that much. So, I ask here as I thought there either were Muslims here or at the very least, theologians and people who do live in Muslim states.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;225545I would say though that you are exaggerating the difference between Shia and Sunni by comparing it to the difference between, say, Shia and Christian or Sunni and Jew.

This is why I asked about and did not state the difference.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;225545Shiites and Sunnis go on pilgrimmage to Mecca at the same time and engage in common rituals there. While there are also rituals which are not universal across the Muslim world, you will not find any religious rituals that are traditionally interchangeable or held in common between Muslims and either Christians or Jews. I do not know exactly what the status is, in terms of recognizing the validity of sacraments carried out under the traditions of other sects in Islam. However, I would compare Catholic doctrine (as early as the 4th century) on e.g. baptism carried out by priests of non-Catholic Christian sects--it is considered valid. (Admittedly the sect which basically prompted this ruling, the Donatists, didn't see things the same way.)

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;225537My questions are mostly about how Muslims view each other vs how they view other faiths. It would seem from the Wiki I mentioned that there would be little difference between them. A single Muslim sect would seem to view other sects as a omission or corruption as much as Christianity or Judaism.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim sect recently opened North America's largest mosque in Calgary. A member of the Canadian Islamic Congress described the Ahmadiyya's status as Muslims as controversial, in the same way that the status of Mormons as Christians is controversial. Some Christians regard Mormons as fellow Christians. Some do not.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;225546I probably shouldn't speak for Haffrung, but I didn't get the impression that his comments were directed at you as such.  I think his point, and John's following, get to the heart of the matter -- Islamic sectarianism mirrors Christian sectarianism (and, if you want to get all historical about it, Jewish sectarianism and Buddhist sectarianism), where, depending upon the prevailing social and political climate, the sects within a given faith may be more at odds with one another than they are with entirely different faiths.

!i!

Ian,
Which is what I have been after. Like I said, perhaps I misunderstood Haffrung's comments and if so, I apologize. It just struck me as framing the point in the most negative manner.

And certainly, I understand the implementation and manipulation of a sect for political ends. I was more interested in the religious philosophy of viewing a difference in the Faith as acceptable, but incorrect. It would appear that it is a matter of degrees. Sunni and Shia are still Islam, Christianity and Judaism would be farther from the Truth. What about something like Buddhism? Taoism?

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: jhkim;225538An important difference for today is that some key Christian conflicts (mainly Catholic vs. Protestant) mellowed a lot over the late 19th and early 20th century, while the Sunni vs. Shiite clash is still going strong.  Though Christian sectarianism did play a role in the Serb (Orthodox) vs Croatian (Catholic) conflicts, among others.

...and in Northern Ireland's 'troubles'.

While Christian sectarian conflict has moderated very recently, you don't have to go back more than a couple decades to find a strong social opposition to intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics. In Alberta, Catholics still have their own separate school board.

And Christianity is more than 600 years older than Islam.

Quote from: HinterWelt;225556Sunni and Shia are still Islam, Christianity and Judaism would be farther from the Truth. What about something like Buddhism? Taoism?

Ooh, now there I'm totally out of my depth.  As others have mentioned up-thread, Islam recognises both Judaism and Christianity as precedents to the true faith.  They all share the same Word, though Islam purportes to have the complete Word.  I have to wonder what they'd make of other subsequently-derived faiths, like Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Jews for Jesus.

But faiths of entirely different cultural lineage?  You got me there.  Buddhism? Hinduism? Taoism?  Anyone else have a read on these?  Then there's the Sikh faith, which emerged from the intersection of Hinduism and Islam -- what do they make of that?  Islam's influence on Asia is huge, but I have to confess that I really know very little about it.

Where the hell is David R. when we need a man with boots on the ground?

!i!

I can't claim any knowledge of the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect, but I've always held that the Ba'hai faith was something of the Mormons of the Islamic faith...

... and just so you know, Gabe and me talked about it, and the big guy agrees with me.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;225560Buddhism? Hinduism? Taoism?

Idolaters, I'm afraid.

Quote from: Spike;225480Muhammed was familiar with the faiths of the Jews and Christians, and taught that they had recieved the Word of God, just as he had.  I'm trying to remember the exact language of the Koran, but I think the problem was that God only gave them what was relevant to them, then they passed it down. Muhammed was the 'Last Prophet', meaning he recieved the whole of the story, directly from Gabriel, and passed it uncorrupted to his followers (neat trick as it as the... um... fourth Caliph who actually put the Koran together).

The Shites (the Party of Ali, yeah, as in political party...) believed not only should Ali (Muhammed's Son-in-Law) should be the political ruler of the Ummah, but also the spiritual successor to the Prophet. The Sunni believed that the Caliphs should remain purely political rulers.  Note that Ali was the Fifth (and final?) Caliph before his assassination by what we could call 'proto-Wahabists'.  

Now, this is where I get confused.  After Ali died, the Syrians really took control of the faith and there was this OTHER guy named Ali, possibly a decendent of Ali the Caliph, and HE had a son named Ali.   Now, Ali (the second one...) was invited to this town in modern Iraq to support them (they were all Shia) against the Syrians (who would be Sunni), and he sorta didn't want to get involved, but did anyway. THen those fuckers betrayed him when the Syrians came to town and kicked some ass. So, the Syrians trap Ali, with his son, out in the Desert in this little valley and for long time just hold them there.  Its not that the Syrians wanted to seige this dude's camp, but he was such a total bad ass they couldn't take him. Now, with all of his men sick, dead or wounded, his women dying of thirst and disease... and his SON dying, Ali rode out and just whupped all SORTS of ass all by his lonesome until the Syrians finally brought him down. THey took his son capitive (this leads to another story where the third Ali is the Mahdi, the 13th Imam hidden away by God until the chosen time, etc... in reality the poor fucker died right after being chosen by an 'infallible' Imam as a successor. Oops.

Anyway, back to the Shites... so these bastards that had asked for Ali's help, then betrayed him to save their own skins felt pretty guilty, right? So they head out, a few years later, to where he had died and start flogging the ever living shit out of themselves so they could share his pain... and thats why Shites are still flogging themselves today, and why they really hate the Sunni's, and why the Sunni's think they are all crazy fuckers who don't worship Allah properly.

Does that help?

Replying late, but...just to make things more complicated:
The place where this Ali is entombed, which is so important to all these Shia?

Najaf.