Sunni-Shia strife

The sword and the word


See article

Readers' comments



I couldn't agree with The Illuminator more. Economist has really disappointed me as a reader and Muslime with this one.

The Illuminator

The table on sect divisions is misleading with respect to Shia Islam. Shia's are repressed, do believe that the family of the Prophet (pbuh) should have inherited his leadership, and do await the reappearance of the last Imam. However, they, like the Sunni's, follow the Quran and the example of the Holy Prophet(pbuh). Following the Word Of Allah, the Quran, and his Prophet, is the hallmark of Islam and is practiced by Shia, Sunni, and the other Islamic groups mentioned.

It is my opinion that the Western world fears a united Islamic world and does its best to foster differences between the sects. It is sad that the Economist has followed the path of fear rather than reporting on the real issue that causes unrest in the entire Third World.


whats this got to do with the ECONOMIST?

The Illuminator in reply to abigail22

Anything which disrupts the stability of the world impacts the economies of the world. The Shia-Sunni
conflict is disrupting much of the Middle East including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia etc.
Follow the markets. Problems within the economy of Greece caused a downturn in the markets last week. Yesterday, May 21, the markets closed up on the news that China is working to grow their economy.


Defeat of the super-power of our times in Afganistan has million messages for the ones who can see beyond near future.

Down fall of the west has already started and Islamic civilization is
waking up.

Gone are the days of colonisation and every thing dark associated with them for the muslims. I guess within this century we would be discussing what trivial contributions West made to our world and how much destruction and death they've brought upon non-western nations!!!

Look at the world powers begging to open their delivery routes to a "failed state" as they call it.

Economically bankrupt west is heading down the drain where it belongs thanks once again to JEWS!!!

alibengolly in reply to ForceIsNotAnswer

But tell us FINA, how do you really feel about the Jews. Holy war, anyone?

In the west you are entitled to say this about Jews or anyone else, that is, until the OIC has its way; however, if you said something like this about Muslims in any one of several Islamic states, you would be subject to capital punishment. Does that make you think about the differences in the general structure of society and the quality of life imposed upon Islam's followers?

As an expat US citizen I dont really care too much what happens to its superpower status, but I suspect it will be a while before the
big Satan is surpassed by the Arab states in any meaningful way. Whatever momentum the gulf states are enjoying now eminates from a geologic fortuity compounded by the absurd foreign policy policy instituted by VP Cheney thru his puppet, GW Bush. The momentum will will dissipate in direct proportion to the dissipation of their oil reserves.

Further serious response to your rant isn't warranted except to point out that it evidences the new trend in anti-semitism. Unlike its European antecedent, the new anti-semitism is cloaked with liberal respectability based upon Israel's alleged one-sided intransigence and mistreatment of the Palestinians. Why its more inhumane than the holocaust. I have to shake my head in utter disbelief when I read (as I often do) that analogy. I do not think Israel is blameless, but people are losing all sense of proportionality about the Palestinian plight. It would serve no purpose to go into my opinions on the blame that can be attached to the various powers other than to prop up my bona fides with those reading this that imagine me an unrelenting Zionist bigot. Suffice it to say I would have demanded that Israel be more proactive in making peace proposals and for the USA and others to have been more proactive in seeing that it did. My perception of Islam as misogynistic, homophobic, supremacist and repressive belief system may influence my position on the Israel Arab conflict, but it doesn't necessarily define it. I don't think the same could be said for you or for those who share your deranged mindset.


Very good article and its table of sect divisions.
I searched for something similar in 2001, to no avail.
Why can't a similar level of detail for religious affiliations
be part of the country information in your annual "The World in ..." series?


Alibengolli, Tzatz and others

No one is denying there are intolerant views expressed in some Quranic verses and Hadiths. But there are also many more who advocate kindness, forgiveness and respect for all mankind.

It is human beings who choose which to follow. Any serious reading of Islamic history demonstrates that most Muslims followed the former most of their history.

It is equally true that some Muslims, perhaps worryingly substantial numbers of them are going down the hate route in this particular time in history perhaps due to the reasons I speculated in my earlier post.

It doesn't help if non-Muslims like yourselves become their fellow travellers down that alley by affirming and highlighting the nagative aspects of a complex faith system.

alibengolly in reply to Reigal

Yes there are conflicting, i.e. tolerant vs intolerant, directives
concerning religion and nonbelievers contained within the Quran, but the conflicts are easily resolved. All scholars, including Islamic scholars, employ the principle of abrogation to resolve the conflicts. Verses that were written subsequent to and that contradict earlier ones take precedence over the earlier ones. The earlier ones are deemed to be abrogated (superceded and overruled) by the latter ones. US law is similarly interpreted.

So, for example, the oft-quoted Sura 2;256 which provides there is no compulsion in religion is abrogated by the following verses which were written subsequent to it.
Sura 9.5 "When the sacred months have passed, kill the idolaters whereever you find them."
Sura 47.4 "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads. Untill you have made a wide slaughter among them tie up the remaining captives."

There is a simple explanation for why the Quran gets progressively more intolerant and violent over time and why, therefore, the later suras like 9:5 and 9:29 (the sura of dhimmitude) supercede 2:256. It's because Muhammad had few followers and was militarily weak when he started receiving the Quran, the word of god, so the tone of its/his utterances were less confrontational.

Muhammad originated from and began to preach in Mecca. He is first alleged to have received the Quran beginning around 610 while in Mecca. He was persecuted and eventually run out of town by the Meccans in 622. He and his band of highaywmen followers traveled to Medina, holding up caravans along the way and ultimately becoming greater in number and more powerful. Muhammad allegedly kept receiving god's messages via the angel, Gabriel, until shortly before his death in 632 by which time he had become very powerful and had conquered the Arabian peninsula. He had no further need for tolerance.

There is no unresolved ambiguity in the Quran. After all, the Quran is the word of god and is deemed infallible and immutable, just as Muhammad is deemed the perfect example of a human being notwithstanding his highwayman tactics and bloodthirsty participation in several rather nasty battles. The infallibility of the Quran is a stumbling block to the much needed reformation of the Islamic belief system.

Contrary to your assertion that many Muslims advocate "respect for all mankind", there is no school of Islam which places non-believers on equal footing with Muslims. All non-believers are to converted to Islam or subjugated per sura 9:29. There is no moderate or soft islam, no orthodox, conservative or reformed trichotomy each with significantly varying interpretations of the fundamental religious authorities.

But not every Muslim is a terrorist and some, if not many, if not most, are kind and charitable. Like the population of any other belief system there are some practioners who are more devout than others. They practice all of a belief system's mandates even if they are unethical according to any reasonable concept of ethics (not one preached by a 7th century barbarian). Yes, many Muslims don't actively practice jihad or advocate the killing of non-Muslims for the sake of propagatng their faith (or enforcing political positions that should be subject to negotiation). Nevertheless, even these individuals are subject to sharia law principles which prescribe death for blasphemy, apostasy, homosexual and premarital sex and impose a theocratic form of government. Islam in any of its forms is a supremacist and hateful ideology. This is not Islamophobia. These are simple facts. Are my facts wrong?

The admonition in your final paragraph above not to "affirm and highlight" the negative aspects of Islam is absurd. This admonition to shut up about the tenets of the Islamic belief systems is contrary to some very fundamental priciples upon which our society is based. It is offensive to any person who believes in the freedom to express one's ideas in a public forum. Like CAIR, the OIC, and various other Islamic orgs you don't really want the truth to be discussed. It might be offensive to you. Of course, that 's entirely consistent with the sharia definition of defamation. Truth is a complete defense to defamation in western law, but under sharia law defamation can be a truthful statement that the offended party does want to have uttered.

Lastly, I find the the reasons you give for Muslims going down the hate route to be extremely revealing. You cite as causes for this build up of hate several 20th century events principly the creation of the state of Israel and defeats in war. See my earlier p.s on this remarkable admission of hate because of the ellusiveness of a god given right of supremacy.

Bashar Sukkar

Good article however it ends with a positive note based on anecdotal events that does not represent the main stream movement.


the basic rift between shia and sunnis lies in the issue of succession after the prophet and the circumstances which arose due to this issue.
The sunnis say that the prophet died without declaring a successor or a vicegreant over the rapidly increasing realm of islam,whereas the shias oppose this saying that the prophet knew well the dangers of leaving the people without a successor so he choose his cousin and son in law, Ali, as the vicegreant after him.

things got ugly when some extremists killed Ali in present day Iraq and further complicated by the poisoning of his elder son Hasan after which the Hussein became the 3rd Imam of shias.
He was brutally killed in karbala (also in Iraq) along with his whole family at the hands of a General of Caliph Yazid who perceived him as a threat to his power.similarly every shiite imam apparently died quite young and shias claim they were poisoned and killed by ummayad and abbasid caliphs of their time.

however the incident at kerbala became a matter of epitome injustice in the eyes of shias the prophets family suffered at the hands of sunni kings,
and for the sunnis there were mixed interpretations where some declared it an unfortunate incident but not that important..whereas some agreed with the shiite view, and some viewed Hussein as the main culprit for not accepting the caliphate and rebelling against the caliph and spreading disunity.

the perceived indifference on part of the sunnis and glorification of some of the persons who maltreated the prophets family is the main grudge of shias against the sunnis,

the sunnis blame the shias for highly exaggerating the status of the prophets family and their children and giving them divine status and visiting their graves and building huge tombs for them.they also dont like the huge mourning processions and poetry recitations of shias in the month of muharram in which they mourn the killing of the prophets grandson hussein at the hands of islamic caliph yazid.


The rivalry between Shiites and Sunnis run that deap, that it is not only the bombing each other's mosques. The global Shiite - Sunni armed conflict had started in Syria.

It is the Shiite Iranians, Shiite Hezbollah, and the Shia allies the Alawites vs. the Sunni Saudis, Suni Turks, Suni Syrians, Suni Qataris.

God save us all if Iran gets the nuke. Immediately the Saudis, Turks, Egypt will all want one as well.


You have omitted the Druze, another offshoot of Islam. Named after Anushtakīn ad-Darazī, the Druze are an offshoot of the Ismaili school of Shiite Islam.

Like the Alawis, they too synthesized Islam with aspects of early Christian thought (primarily Gnosticism), and also incorporated Hellenistic Philosophy. Unlike other Shiite offshoots, the Druze are regarded as heretics by Shiites as well as Sunnis.

They live in Israel, Lebanon and Syria, mostly in mountainous areas which they preferred as they were easy to defend, important for an ethnic group always in danger of being attacked as heretics. They number around 2 million.


This has some use but it misses a major point. In Iraq the killings weren't simply Shia versus Sunni versus Kurd* but also familial and geographic. Additionally in Iraq the killings weren't caused by the presence of American soldiers. It's true that the presence of foreign soldiers was probably a contributing factor but looking at a map of Iraq and the strong focus on ethnic cleansing (which ironically made it easier to ultimately diminish the violence) and it's clear that once the Baathist government was gone it would have happened anyway.

*Though religion and ethnicity did play a large role.

tzatz in reply to Gigle

So … what you're saying really is … Iraq was a jungle … the groups don't get along with each other … and unless there's a homogenous country with ONLY ONE RACIAL/FAMILIAL GROUP … then there’ll be trouble in the lands of Islam?

Is that it?

Because … there is NO SUCH COUNTRY! Therefore … unless the Muslims can get their act together … there’ll be plenty of trouble going forward … as if we didn’t know that already!

Let me know.

Gigle in reply to tzatz

The fighting in Iraq occurred because large portions of the population had been politically disenfranchised for most of Iraq's existence and the people who had formerly dominated Iraqi politics feared (with good reason) that the newly empowered Shia and Kurdish groups would use the same tactics on them.

Besides that there are plenty of nations where people from different ethnic/racial groups coexist on relatively good terms. Things aren't the best between Caucasian Americans and African Americans or Hispanic Americans but there isn't ethnic cleansing in the U.S. It depends on the nature of the state (democracies tend to do better than dictatorships) and the willingness of the people in power to share power with people who are outside their communal group.

The reason that the Muslim world is having those communal troubles is the past century or so of violence between different communities within many North African/Middle Eastern/South Asian nations as well as the repressive states that make up much of the Muslim world. Currently I hope that Turkey, which might be the most stable Muslim democracy in the world, will be able to prove itself able to heal its communal scars.

tzatz in reply to Gigle

Turkey? Aren't they oppressing the Kurds … who are resisting? Did Turkey 'Ethnically Cleanse' the Othrodox Christians … with and without a POPULATION EXCHANGE IN 1922?

Turkey as a model? A model Islamist State? The jury is still out on Turkey … their economic 'bubble' can burst at any moment …

Gigle in reply to tzatz

They did.
I base my hopes on the fact that Armenia isn't going anywhere, the Kurds aren't going anywhere, military Kemalism which has dominated Turkish politics is diminishing and democracies tend to be more open and apologetic about ethnic cleansing and genocide than authoritarian states. I didn't it was going to happen soon, probably not for decades at the least, but I have more hope that Turkey will eventually face its past than I do for most of the Muslim world.


First, on what basis do you write that Shia muslims are 20% of all the Muslims? They are no more than 10%. I have noticed that in the Western press - including The Ecomist - over the past few years there is a gradual inflation in this reported figure.

Second, Iran has been playing a game of duplicity and deceit (remember Iran contra scandal?). They badmouth the US but fully supported them in Irag and Afghanistan. They have military pacts with India while chanting about solidarity with Pakistan. While most of the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis did not have any religion-based animosity (remember Saddam who was a Baathist came hard on his opponents - whether Shias or Sunni Kurds - it was not religion-based). The bloodbath in Iraq after his fall was mostly the work of Iranis who had infiltrated the Iraqi Police. The same Iranis are involved in the killings in Syria.


These divisions in Islam are the things of the past. We are living in the 21 st century and more than half the world is atheist.We are all human beings under one God if you like, and would like to progress and emancipate. This should be our religion and look liberally at other beliefs.Use common sense OH Man if we have any?


I never really followed why tensions prevailed and continues to prevail between Sunni and Shia Muslims. That said, there should never be tensions over religion, be it between Islamic factions or between two other religions. It is high time people became more mature to understand that God is One for all and religion only paves the way to pray to him.

Blue Whale

dear Economist - your list of different Islamic sects could also have included the Bahai Faith. Wouldn't dear trying to explain Bahai's origins and relation to Islam, but Wikipedia gives an excellent overview.

Then again I do not wish to endanger Economist's faithful reporter, as members of the Bahai religion typically get hanged in Iran (including women) or prosecuted in other Islam minded countries as heretics or apostats - or both.

Interesting statement from Reigal "But as a Muslim I know better. I know Islam was and still can be one of the most peaceful, tolerant and progressive of all the world's great faith systems."

It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

MurkyMar in reply to Blue Whale

Although Bahai are heavily influenced by Persian Islam, the followers themselves consider their relation with Islam as to be either that as a sect of Shia Islam, or as a faith that is a unification of Islam with other religions. As such, the exclusion from this list of Islamic sects make sense from either perspective.

However, the inclusion of Ismaili on this list makes little sense from the same perspective as most Ismailis consider themselves to be a sub-sect of the Shia branch.

_theOne in reply to Blue Whale



Non-Muslims who think Islam is inherently violent faith and sunnis and shias are each other's throats all the time are basing their view on recent, mostly 21st century events. I can understand them. I would've probably thought the same if iwas in their position.
But as a Muslim I know better. I know Islam was and still can be one of the most peaceful, tolerant and progressive of all the world's great faith systems. Shias and Sunnis used to live side by side together with christians and others peacefully for centuries in some of today's most violent places like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and others.
Sunni Islam in particular has other qualities that make it progressive by any standards: There is no established 'church'; no priestly class, no hierarchy; no middlemen between God and his creatures. The idea that Egyptian windbags like Mr Qaradawi somehow speaks for anyone but himself was seen by ordinary Muslims as almost heresy. No one is supposed to speak for all Muslims. You won 'respect' for being pious, generous of soul and spirit but it did not give you any status or rank over others and it certainly did not give you authority to speak on behalf of others.
So what has changed? Depends on how far you go back. I think the fisrty major change was the humiliation of Arab Muslims through colonisation by Europeans. The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 further shook Arab and later Muslim self-confidence.
Further defeats by Jews, Hindus and Balkan Slavs - races all once ruled with some tolerance and grace by Muslims - heaped more humiliation on collective Islamic pysche.
And then Saudi Arabia, with its newly minted Wahabbist ideaology made billions from petrodolars and decided to spread its intolerant version of Sunni Islam. This was followed by Shia theologians takingf over Iran.
Its these incidents that have changed Islam for the worse. One can only hope they are temporary and transient. If they are permanent I fear for Isalm, muslims and the rest of humanity.

tzatz in reply to Reigal

You said: "I think the first major change was the humiliation of Arab Muslims through colonization by Europeans …"
When the Ottoman Empire dissolved … the Arab/Muslim World was exposed to the purview of the rest of humanity … that is, the Ottomans kept the eyes of the world off of the Arab/Muslims … yes there were times when we became aware of them … as in the Barbary Wars … but the ‘veil’ came off once the Ottomans were gone!
This exposed the Arab/Muslims and the West to each other. We in the West … are now being exposed to these people and their culture … through immigration and through TV News … the fact that the Arab/Muslims are ‘backward’ … in culture … in education … in technology … in governance … in MOST METHODS OF MEASURING HUMANITY …
The shock of this realization to the Arab/Muslims … has made them profoundly CONFUSED … the Koran and their cultural ‘baggage’ makes Arab/Muslims believe they are the flower of the world … they should be leading Mankind … NOT WIPING IT’S REAR! Instead the truth has made the Arab/Muslims angry at their lot in life … they believed their leaders … and blamed the Arab/Israeli Conflict for their ‘troubles’ … an IGNORANT POPULATION CAN BE MADE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING … WITH 50% OF THE POPULATION ILLITERATE … IT’S NOT SO HARD TO DO!
You said: “… these incidents that have changed Islam for the worse. … If they are permanent I fear for Islam, Muslims and the rest of humanity.”
I fear for Muslims … their continued dysfunction … their inability to adapt to the 21st C … will make the job of creating prosperity IN the Middle East difficult/impossible. Death and starvation will be the prediction I make for these people. There will not be a flowering of Islam … IT NEVER EXISTED … unlike your ‘belief’ in a ‘Golden Age’ of Islamic rule … the truth is far simpler … there were leaders who were better than others but NOTHING CAME FROM WITHIN ISLAM … only from individual caliphs … Islam is INTOLERANT and was always intolerant … Dhimmnitude was always a part of Islam … it’s usefulness has passed … it must be removed from the stage of history … it will remain as an artifact … like other religions … giving solace to the simple/ignorant … but remaining a mere cultural artifact …

alibengolly in reply to Reigal


Nonsense. The truth is that Islam is an inherently violent, intolerant and nonprogressive belief system. It does not separate church and state, rather separates the world into believers (Dar al-Islam) and non-believers (Dar al-Harb). The obligation to make jihad against Dar al-Harb is mandatory. Quoran 9:29. And don't try selling me on the red herring that it just means an inner struggle, a "lesser" jihad aka soul searching. The religious texts unequivocally call for actual war against the non-believers. There are too many reiterations of this for a credible contrary interpretation. And, of course. most imams don't even try to deny the obligation to wage war, some quite vehemently urging the mujaheen to die for Allah to gain an assured paradise and their fair share of virgins Quran 9:111. People who doubt me can try reading for themselves about the fundamentals of the Islamic belief system:

Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic and I think many, if not most, religions have done more harm than good, but Islam is uniquely permicious. For example, are any of my characterizations of Sharia law in Islam society incorrect and, if so, which? Do you deny that apostasy, blasphemy and premarital sex may all be punished by death? That non-Muslims and women have unequal rights in an Islamic court of law (e.g. a woman's testimony counts for 1/2 that of a man, a woman requires 4 witnesses to prove rape)?

The 20th century humilation of Arabs and Muslims of which you speak was directly related to Islam's inherent desire to subjugate non-believers thereby naturally allying the Arab entites with the Nazi racists during WWII beacuse they, too, sought elimination of the Jews. In any case, the 20th century humiliations of Arabs and Moslems has absolutely zero to do with the ideological foundations of Islam which comes from the immutable 7th century Quoran and hadith. Immutable because according to the overwhelming majority of contemporary Islamic scholars the "gates of ijtihad" (Quoranic interpretation) were closed in the Middle Ages. This meant that the authority for making original interpretations of the Quoran or the hadith had been withdrawn because the sharia had, by that time, covered every possible situation in human life with a specific ruling.

Islam has not changed one little bit since the Middle Ages notwithstanding the trauma inflicted upon on its poor, little, holier than thou practioners who, like you, try to play the victim in order to win sympathy and support from ignorant sleep walkers who swallow the religion of peace crap with absolutely no idea what a supremacist, misogynistic, homophobic, totalitarian form of theocracy you and your co-religionists seek to impose on the rest of the world.
Hey, as Par Condell says, the truth can sound like an insult when you're not used to hearing it. (Pat is great entertainment).

alibengolly in reply to Reigal

You say that "The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 further shook Arab and later Muslim self-confidence. Further defeats by Jews, Hindus and Balkan Slavs - races all once ruled with some tolerance and grace by Muslims - heaped more humiliation on collective Islamic pysche....
I can understand why Islam and Muslims might continue to suffer and you would fear for them if they continue to sustain humiliations in war, but why do you fear for all of humanity if Islam's 20th century humiliations starting with the creation of Israel in 1948 are not reversed? Are you implying that the world should prepare for war if Dar al-Islam does not prevail in destroying the state of Israel? That is a fair interpretation of your words. Perhaps you can clarify? It would be elucidating to hear from a Muslim who believes that Islam can be a peaceful tolerant progressive belief system, a Muslim who apparently yearns for the good old days when Muslims ruled other races with tolerance (isn't that oxymoronic?).

MurkyMar in reply to tzatz

As a non-Arab Mislim living in the West, I can agree with the independent assessments that the Arab world is backward when compared through a Western lens, but please recognize a few things:
1) From roughly 900 AD to 1800 AD, Islamic civilizations were exposed to the world (in fact they formed a nexus for the world) and were thus the most advanced documented civilization (out of the basket of Chinese, Mayan, Aztec, Inca, Indo-Gangetic, Irish, Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire). Throughout that time, Muslims could not have been assessed as "backwards."
2) From roughly 1950's through to today, change in social mores in the North America and Western Europe region has accelerated towards the acceptance of individuality as a view of how life should be lived. Ask your grandparents, they didn't care about buying fancy new toys to satisfy their need for individuality like you probably do. From a perspective of prizing individuality, cultures that prize collectivism are viewed negatively and construed as "backwards." Are they really just backwards, or is this a judgement from a closed-minded individual?
3) Sunni Muslims are afflicted with a particular kind of pain. In the past, this branch of theology has often coalesced around mujadids when they felt threatened or when faced with a crucial opportunity. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a Sunni consensus around mujadids as yet and so the pace of Islamic reform (which has been ongoing throughout its existence) has stagnated. The paucity of mujadids can be attributed in part to the general decline in quality leadership that humanity has been suffering. A mujadid can cause the flowering of Islam, by reinterpreting Quranic texts to support a response to Islamic crises, while staying within the limits of Shariah. There have been many mujadids in the past, who have done so, so flowerings of Islam periods have existed throughout history.

Artevelde in reply to MurkyMar

muslim societies have been marked as backwards since at least the time of Voltaire (18th century) and with reason.

The idea that islamic societies were the most advanced is largely a myth though. Just as it is largely a myth that Europa during that time was a dark and dim hellhole.

tzatz in reply to MurkyMar

You said: "From roughly 900 AD to 1800 AD, Islamic civilizations … were thus the most advanced documented civilization …"

I'll grant you … the Islamic Civilization had many good attributes … they were accepting of new ideas and influences …

BUT … they have 'poached' methods and ideas from the West since before the 1800's … certainly you must acknowledge that the Arab/Muslim Middle East is a STAGNANT CESSPOOL OF DECAY … where are the leaders in technology? … where are the leaders of science? …


This is the source:

Read the Economist:


50% of the Population is ILLITERATE

50% of the Population is DISCRIMINATED including women and minorities

This state of affairs is 'on' … Islam

The culture of Islamic countries is 'backwards' … sure they're not Western but surely you can recognize they are stultified … unchanging … inflexible … the 21st Century beckons but the Muslims are unprepared for it.

A nuclear bomb will not make them apart of the 21st Century …

JR73 in reply to alibengolly

I am not going to address all that you wrote, but I will say that yes, a number of your "characterizations of Sharia law" are incorrect. For one, a woman doesn't require 4 witnesses to prove rape. That is nonsense. In fact, it's the man (or any other accusing party) that requires 4 witnesses to prove that a woman was indeed having extra-marital sex.

A word to the wise, when you are reading the comments here or on any other site, please ensure you take them with a grain of salt. It's easy for any random person to write half-truths and blatant lies -- yet, it's up to the discerning reader to do his or her own thorough research and come up with an educated conclusion. If, however, you prefer to maintain an outwardly well-read but effectively ignorant and polarized worldview by seeking only that information which is tailored to your biased convictions, then society will never progress.

alibengolly in reply to JR73

Duh...if, as you say, any accusing party needs 4 witnesses then doesn't a female victim accusing a man of rape need 4? That isnt altered by a man needing 4 witnesses to prove someone guilty of extramarital sex.
Other than that you don't challenge anything I have written or anything I wrote that was removed despite it receiving more than twice as many "likes" than the next most liked comment on this article (also mine).
Incidentally, see the recent report on Morocco law "article 475 of the penal code, which allows rapists to get off scotfree if they agree to marry their victims; as well as articles 20 and 21 of the family code, which allows the marriage of minor girls."
Your failure to challenge my other assertions, e.g., that according to Sharia in all schools of Islam apostasy, blasphemy, premarital and homosexual sex are punishable by death, is a tacit agreement that my assertions are correct. What are my half truths and blatant lies? Please help us out here to learn what you know about Islam. I beg of you to reply.

ForceIsNotAnswer in reply to tzatz

What is really interesting to read islam-bashing comments from Zionist trolls and Mr. Tzatz is one of the most hard cores ones.
Interesting is to observe that how quickly fact of Jews founding refuge from savage Europe for hundred of years in the Muslim lands is forgotten.
This fact alone leads one to conclude - what a sick nation of Israel is.
With Zionist/Jews as friends - US doesn't needs enemies. History can't be wrong - really!!!

alibengolly in reply to ForceIsNotAnswer

Jews found refuge as long as they acknowledged their dhimmi status and all the subservient crap that goes along with it. No more, shit for brains. Islam's days are numbered thankfully. And bigots with your inability to reason can go pound sand.

The Palestinian people and their cause are a bad joke. Their oppression is self imposed. Arab and Muslim neighbors don't want them and don't give them much aid because they need them to stay in depressed conditions to gain polical leverage vis a vis Israel, the only real democratic republic in the mideast. Only Israel gives Arabs equal rights under the law. Lets face it - they, along with most other Mooselums, are prisoners of a belief system that boggles the modern mind with just how repressive and unethical it is.
Go make a holy war against one of your own sects with whom you disagree. Get out of Eretz Israel. Go back to Medina and Mecca where you came from.

p.s. try using a condom when you mate so the gene pool doesn't get polluted with your genetic material.


I'm sorry to say but this one looks like another Propaganda campaign against Shiite Islam due to its RISING popularity and by the fact that recently Tony blair's cousin "Lauren booth" as well as "Sean Stone" conversion to Shia islam has shaken up many. There is no in depth difference between either of sects and both are extremely peaceful adherents of Islam. Both share more than 90% of ideologies and are living peacefully in MOST parts of world. Salafists are the only trouble makers and are supported by one of the most corrupt and despotic dictatorship i.e Saudi Arabia.

shariahaisha in reply to Meesam_ali

I agree that Muslims both shia and sunni have the capabilities to live peacefully. I would l like to distinguish between Wahabis and Salafis. Wahabis are the Saudi and originally British founded 'sect' of Islam that of course initiates many so called conflicts between shias and sunnis. I am at a loss as to why this article has insinuated Salafis and Wahabis are the same. Salafis are not even a real sect, they are what every Muslim tries to be. Salaf is defined as following the Prophet. Only God know who that really is. Peace :)


The underlying cause of the strife is simply the fact that people who lack internal stability grab onto religion (of whatever kind - it's just a matter of where you happen to be in the world) as a kind of psychological stabilizer-bar, akin to a tightrope walker seeking balance on the high wire. So of course the more psychologically unstable you are, the bigger the bar you need to cling on to - e.g., the more extremist you will be. At root, what is comes down to is that extremism arises out of mental instability and religious doctrine merely provides window-dressing and a convenient set of "beliefs" by means of which to demonize one's supposed enemies. And again, this is just basic psychology - we all know that the worse we feel about ourselves, the more we strive to project these bad feelings onto others so as to disown our "inner badness." The notion that a bunch of academics can in any way alter the situation on the ground by means of doctrinal compromises is as realistic as thinking that an aged literary critic could defuse an IED. Fact is, it's always the psychologically weak and thwarted who become the most unpleasant of the species and the garb in which they clothe themselves is utterly irrelevant.


From the table in the article, it sounds, to the uninformed like me, that an approximate analogy is:

Sunnis ~ Protestants
Shias ~ Catholics
Sufis ~ Amish
Salafists ~ Jews
Ismailis ~ Reformed
Alevis ~ Methodists
Ahmadiyyas ~ Seventh Day Adventists
Alawites ~ Jehovah's Witness

And we've all seen what the Protestants and Catholics did in N. Ireland, etc.

Nothing new under the sun.

Valli2 in reply to edwardong

Yours is a good try in analogies. I´d add, that Jehovas Vitnesses are stationed somewhere between muslims and christians, since they like muslims believe that Jesus was a man, not a God. It could even be argued, that islam was the first major reformation of christianity and a more radical one than for instance Lutherans, since the latter believe in the holy trinity, which can be interpreted as three Gods, while denouncing the catholics´ believe in saints as blasphemic, since saints have the status of Gods and there should not be more than one God. Since muslims believe in Jesus as a great prophet with powers to heal and make various miracles, they are closer to christians than jews, who don´t believe in Jesus at all.

Arbuthnot-Lane in reply to edwardong

I disagree somewhat, and offer up my own analogies, which are not necessarily more correct, but I'll try to argue for them. Trying to take both size of the sect and theology into the evaluation.

Sunni - Catholic (the largest strain, doctrinal, claims purity of faith and an unbroken line to the religious founder and his companions. Many differences though, not the least the Catholic concept of sainthood)
Shia - East Orthodox (Early off-shoot of the main line church. Separated for mainly hierarchical and political reasons, and only later experienced doctrinal changes. Differs markedly from nation to nation, focus on saints, icons and influenced by earlier "pagan" rituals)
Sufis- Gnostics, Kabbalism, Pentecostalism (Places focus on mystical experiences and achieving a personal relationship with god through ritualistic behaviour/acts)
Salafists - Amish, Mennonites (Focus on the "original" religion. Emulation of religious founders. Critical to modern inventions, values and lifestyle. Strict code of morality and gender roles)
Ismailis - Greek Orthodx (if only because they are an off-shoot of mainline Shi'ism, but more esoteric than the analogy should indicate)
Alevis - Deism (Syncretic religion. Less focus on ritual, more on "moral" behaviour. Far less doctrinal than most strains)
Ahmadiyyas - Mormons (Supplements orthodox scripture and doctrine with their own prophet and doctrines. Tenuous relationship with mainline strains)
Alawites - African initiated church (Ethnological basis. Syncretic and semi-mystical. Idiosyncratic rituals and doctrines)



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

