I know all forms of religion are subject to violence and extremism, except for perhaps 
.
Although it seems some religions are less extreme than others.
Is Shia Islam, (even in it's worst form) less extreme than Sunni Islam?
There are violent extremists in both sects, but idk the Shia "extremists" seem less brutal and indiscriminate in their violence.
Of all the "lone wolf" "self-radicalized" Islamic extremists in the West, it seems practically none of them are Shiites or were mentored at a Shia mosque.
Iran is a Shia theocracy, but the terrorism it sponsors seems to be more "narrowly tailored" than that of ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Still brutal and awful (particularly against Jesus' home country of Israel) but less wanton and "all over the place." That is not to discount the human rights abuses that go on in that country in the name of Allah.
Just look at Iraq. It is a majority Shia Islam nation, but do we really see a Shia counterpart to ISIS?
The Democratic (largely Shia) government in Baghdad is fairly pluralistic, given the country it is in. There are secular parties as well as Shia Islamic parties. While the human rights situation in government controlled Iraq is not ideal, there seem to be no adulterers stoned or thieves with hands cut off. I don't sense a Shia drive for a theocracy there.
The main Shia terrorist group I know of is Hezbollah. It does bad things, but idk, for some reason it's atrocities seem to pale in comparison to some Sunni extremist groups (Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaeda,Taliban etc.)
What causes this? Is it just because shia are a huge minority compared to Sunni (15% Shia Islam, 85% Sunni), or is Shia Islam fundamentally a slightly less violent intolerant brand of Islam? Slightly?
I just notice a "terrorism discrepancy" between the two at times ( how many Shia suicide bombers again? ) and I wonder. If anyone could shed some light on this that would be great.
.Although it seems some religions are less extreme than others.
Is Shia Islam, (even in it's worst form) less extreme than Sunni Islam?
There are violent extremists in both sects, but idk the Shia "extremists" seem less brutal and indiscriminate in their violence.
Of all the "lone wolf" "self-radicalized" Islamic extremists in the West, it seems practically none of them are Shiites or were mentored at a Shia mosque.
Iran is a Shia theocracy, but the terrorism it sponsors seems to be more "narrowly tailored" than that of ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Still brutal and awful (particularly against Jesus' home country of Israel) but less wanton and "all over the place." That is not to discount the human rights abuses that go on in that country in the name of Allah.
Just look at Iraq. It is a majority Shia Islam nation, but do we really see a Shia counterpart to ISIS?
The Democratic (largely Shia) government in Baghdad is fairly pluralistic, given the country it is in. There are secular parties as well as Shia Islamic parties. While the human rights situation in government controlled Iraq is not ideal, there seem to be no adulterers stoned or thieves with hands cut off. I don't sense a Shia drive for a theocracy there.
The main Shia terrorist group I know of is Hezbollah. It does bad things, but idk, for some reason it's atrocities seem to pale in comparison to some Sunni extremist groups (Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaeda,Taliban etc.)
What causes this? Is it just because shia are a huge minority compared to Sunni (15% Shia Islam, 85% Sunni), or is Shia Islam fundamentally a slightly less violent intolerant brand of Islam? Slightly?
I just notice a "terrorism discrepancy" between the two at times ( how many Shia suicide bombers again?
) and I wonder. If anyone could shed some light on this that would be great.
