Shia-Sunni issue and proofs?

[Mystic]

Have you guys heard the proofs on both sides?

Who do you think has the stronger argument and why?

[vorlon13]

I'm hoping for a continued mutual jihad and eventual pyrrhic victories for both.

[Ravenshire]

Have you guys heard the proofs on both sides?

Who do you think has the stronger argument and why?

You're asking us to choose between one batch of bullshit and another?

[Minimalist]

Since it seems highly unlikely that there was any fucking mohammed the issue of who his successor should be seems rather pointless. I'm sure, 1,300 years ago, the issue mattered greatly to the factions which were vying for power but now it just like two bunches of crazy assholes killing themselves for nothing.

Go to it, boys.

[Mystic]

I wanted to see outsiders view of regarding the evidence and where it points to. But it seems people here are not aware of the arguments of either side.

[vorlon13]

Allah doesn't exist. Arguing and killing over the details and minutia is detarded.

[JuliaL]

I wanted to see outsiders view of regarding the evidence and where it points to. But it seems people here are not aware of the arguments of either side.

Arguing the finer points as to which crop of bozos are the most righteous Mahdi-Men doesn't interest. They're both power grabbing delusional believers in magic.
It's all about sects isn't it? Sects and violins.

[WinterHold]

Hi MysticKnight

Sorry for an "inside opinion", but usually I get bombarded by both sunna & shia, so I had to share my opinion.

Personally, from reading the history of that era, I stood against both sides, yet the Shia side -to be totally honest- has my sympathy.
Well, let's be honest. The Umayyads wanted nothing but the overthrowing of Ali to take the throne. Furthermore evidence, is how Mo'aweya showed his true color and changed the system to royalty, presenting the first dictatorship in the Muslim empire. Mo'aweya hated mohammed's guts, along with his family ; no wonder, since the prophet -guided by the Quran- presented multiculturalism to arabia along with breaking the racist barriers of ancient arabs.

The massacres they committed against Ali's family, then cursing him publicly -after his death- on friday prayers is just enough to prove, that the Sunni stand is indeed false when it calls Mo'aweya a "companion of the prophet" ; matter in fact Mo'aweya is just a traitor and a dictator, who changed the Shura and voting system, into royalty.
Though on the Shia side, Ali chose terrible friends -who are later to form the Khawareg movement-, didn't listen to warnings from many others, leading to his death and the destruction of Mohammed's legacy.

During the battle of Gamal, Ali should've went back. Aisha had the correct POV ; the murderers must be punished. She thought right, and her army thought right too. Ali -despite all of that- was yet to take his army of bad company and cause the crack that the Umayyads were waiting for.

I have my sympathy for shia, but they twisted the religion to become centered around ali. I mean above all, Ali is just another man. Both sects are wrong to me.

[Mystic]

Not all Sunnis respect Mauwiya.

[paulpablo]

Have you guys heard the proofs on both sides?

Who do you think has the stronger argument and why?

Sunni and Shia are themselves divided into different branches, overall the stories I've heard about the shia are the most ridiculous. From what I can vaguely gather they're similar to the Christians who believe the pope is divinely chosen because they believe in divinely chosen Imams.

On the other hand the sunni Muslims are basically just as ridiculous some of the time.

The Muslims I can sort of at least see the least amount of insanity and political deviousness in is the quranist Muslims who purely follow what the quran says and no hadiths or divinely appointed imams are involved.