Please Explain

[CLynn]

Can somebody please explain to me the difference between the sunni's and the shia's?   Because as far as I can see the division comes from an ages old dispute over who should have been the next leader after Muhammad, and wrongs committed in the long ago past.  Do sunni's and shia's differ so much in the actual teachings, that such divisions, and hostilities, should persist to this day?

 

Salaam.
 

[Ethics]

Al-Islam.org use it.

[Praetorius]

Can somebody please explain to me the difference between the sunni's and the shia's?   Because as far as I can see the division comes from an ages old dispute over who should have been the next leader after Muhammad, and wrongs committed in the long ago past.  Do sunni's and shia's differ so much in the actual teachings, that such divisions, and hostilities, should persist to this day?

 

Salaam.

 

(wasalam)

This "ages old dispute" makes Shias lose their lives everyday. That's how bad the divide is.

 

Consider the following scenario:-

The Last of Allah's Prophets (pbuh) has just returned to Him. Do you follow what advice he (pbuh) left you with regarding successor-ship and duly attend his burial, or do you go into a secluded area for a meeting with fellow conspirators to decide who gets the power to rule the newly established and fragile Muslim community, and completely ignore the Prophet's (pbuh) VERY SPECIFIC instructions as well as his burial? I don't think you need to think twice on this one.

Edited August 11, 2013 by HellHound

[Repentant]

Al-Islam.org use it.

 

seriously lol? 

[Ethics]

seriously lol?

Yea brother. It is a very fair site. No bias at all. It even contains historic books from Sunni/western sources only. It doesn't try and attack any Sunni personality or spread lies about them.

[baqar]

Can somebody please explain to me the difference between the sunni's and the shia's?   Because as far as I can see the division comes from an ages old dispute over who should have been the next leader after Muhammad, and wrongs committed in the long ago past.  Do sunni's and shia's differ so much in the actual teachings, that such divisions, and hostilities, should persist to this day?

 

Salaam.

 

 

You are right.

 

The major difference between the Shias and the Sunnis lies in the matter of succession to the Prophet.

 

The major reason for the bitterness between the two, however, is quite different. 

 

It is the fact that Shias have a very low opinion of some companions (disciples) of the Prophet who are held highly by the Sunnis.

 

That is the big problem between the two.

[dfdfRandolphdfdf]

Sunnis believe Abu Bakr was rightful Caliph whilst saying they support and respect Imam Ali his political opponent, quite a oxi-moron. Shias believe Imam Ali was the rightful Caliph, their beliefs are consistent, but many Sunnis are put of by the actions of blood-letting during Muharram.

All I see on YouTube is comments like "Shia kafir" "Stupid shia", how on Earth can shias not be Muslims? Anyone who knows about history, the political science behind the Caliphate and the way most states run during this time will know the Shias view on succession was correct.

Although this opinino may be unpopular among most users of the forum: Shias and Sunnis have being at each others throats for centuries, the chance of them uniting now after so long is unlikely, the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, it's never happened, it's still not happening, and it's never going to happen. Don't waste your time.

Edited August 11, 2013 by dfdfRandolphdfdf

[IbnSohan]

Can somebody please explain to me the difference between the sunni's and the shia's?   Because as far as I can see the division comes from an ages old dispute over who should have been the next leader after Muhammad, and wrongs committed in the long ago past.  Do sunni's and shia's differ so much in the actual teachings, that such divisions, and hostilities, should persist to this day?

 

Salaam.

 

the split is about the source of commentaries on Quran and religion after the death of our prophet, sunnis accepted any pious man who happen to live before the prophet, and they considered any successful person (in terms of politics or gaining high social status) as pious.

Shia on the other hand said that prophet had specifically pointed towards those who we should seek explanation and commentary on Quran from, and those are his own household (his daughter, her husband and his 2 grandsons).

 

To make it simpler, let's say there were 2 Christian parties in earlier days of Christianity right after prophet Jesus departure: one group said that Jesus had assigned Peter as the one who can give commentary on the bibles, the other group said that we will accept any pious looking man who is successful with calling Romans to our religion.

Those who followed Peter are Shia and those who followed Paul are Sunnis.

[CLynn]

the split is about the source of commentaries on Quran and religion after the death of our prophet, sunnis accepted any pious man who happen to live before the prophet, and they considered any successful person (in terms of politics or gaining high social status) as pious.

Shia on the other hand said that prophet had specifically pointed towards those who we should seek explanation and commentary on Quran from, and those are his own household (his daughter, her husband and his 2 grandsons).

 

To make it simpler, let's say there were 2 Christian parties in earlier days of Christianity right after prophet Jesus departure: one group said that Jesus had assigned Peter as the one who can give commentary on the bibles, the other group said that we will accept any pious looking man who is successful with calling Romans to our religion.

Those who followed Peter are Shia and those who followed Paul are Sunnis.

 

Greetings Ibn Sohan,

It is interesting that you bring up Peter and Paul, because the reason the question came to my mind was

 I had been reading about the early split of the Lutherans from the Catholic church, and where the Catholic church got it wrong, but also how the protestant split also brought the Catholic church back into line.  In other words it had a beneficial effect on the Catholic church, and the Catholic church is still the original church as the Apostle's practiced the faith.

 

In the case of Peter and Paul, as you bring up, they always consulted with one another and all the Apostle's gathered to discuss and to reach consensus agreement.  This is how the early church was formed.  There was no killing for power.  The only concern was to spread the life giving message of Yahshua to the people... no seeking of power, glory, or dominion.

 

The sunni/shia split seems to have come because of the need for power, for rulership, rather than the focus being on sharing the message of God.

If sunni's and shia's share the same message they ought to finally, once and for all, be able to put aside their other disputes.  It just makes me ask, why can they not do this?  Why have they not been able to do this?

 

Salaam,

CLynn

Edited August 11, 2013 by CLynn

[aliasghark]

Why aren't Catholics and Protestants able to put aside their disputes? Do they just want to cling on to their positions of power and rulership? Why don't they become one? 

 

How about Christians and Jews. Why not keep their differences away and just accept either one - either Jesus or Moses? Why do they have to keep fighting? 

[CLynn]

Why aren't Catholics and Protestants able to put aside their disputes? Do they just want to cling on to their positions of power and rulership? Why don't they become one? 

 

How about Christians and Jews. Why not keep their differences away and just accept either one - either Jesus or Moses? Why do they have to keep fighting? 

 

Greetings aliasghark,

 

They have.  Do you see protestants and Catholics killing one another?  They accept one another, as is.  They do not agree on theology but they do not hold hostilities towards one another either.  Not that I am aware of anyway.  Just as the Mormons exist, and the Jehovah's witnesses, etc. etc.  These people do not feel the need to war with one another.

 

On the other hand, sunni's and shia's that, as far as no one has disputed it, must have the same theology, so why do they feud with one another?  The sunni/shia split would seem even easier to overcome... but that it is so tied in with political leadership.

 

I was not aware that Christians and Jews are killing one another either.

 

Salaam,

CLynn

Edited August 11, 2013 by CLynn

[aliasghark]

They have.  Do you see protestants and Catholics killing one another?  They accept one another, as is. 

 

Wow, are you claiming to not know of any Catholics killing Protestants and vice versa?

 

Or Jews and Christians killing each other, and other innocent people? 

 

I can remind you of a few examples if you like. 

Sunnis and Shias disagree but don't kill each other (except for some fringe extremists like Wahabis who are created, sponsored and paid by American and British interests to stir up the trouble for political gain, for example Saddam and Osama, both were on CIA payroll). 

[CLynn]

Here we go seeking to place blame on others again... it really is so old.

 

All one has to do is to go on different forums to experience the animosity that exists between sunni's and shia's.

It is blatantly apparent in Syria, Iran, etc., etc....

Edited August 12, 2013 by CLynn

[aliasghark]

Ok so:

 

American regime pays to create terrorists among Muslims, and orders them to kill other Muslims. 

 

American regime's puppet on ShiaChat asks why Muslims kill other Muslims. Someone points out where the creation and funding of terrorists is coming from. 

 

American regime's puppet on ShiaChat says Muslims should stop blaming American regime. 

[CLynn]

 

 

Greetings aliahghark,

 

I am addressing the question of theology.  Is there a reason sunni's and shia's fight with one another, that should exist today?

The animosity that exists between shia's and sunni's has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

The animosity is there of its own accord.

 

I am agreeing with you...

is it about theology, or something else?

Prejudice maybe?  the need to feel superior maybe?  For one to dominate over the other maybe?

[Ethics]

Greetings aliahghark,

 

I am addressing the question of theology.  Is there a reason sunni's and shia's fight with one another, that should exist today?

The animosity that exists between shia's and sunni's has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

The animosity is there of its own accord.

 

I am agreeing with you...

is it about theology, or something else?

Prejudice maybe?  the need to feel superior maybe?  For one to dominate over the other maybe?

 

Sunnis and Shias Fight? When? Where? How?

Edited August 12, 2013 by PureEthics

[aliasghark]

I am addressing the question of theology.  Is there a reason Catholics and Protestants fight with one another, that should exist today?

The animosity that exists between Catholics and Protestants has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

The animosity is there of its own accord.

 

I am agreeing with you...

is it about theology, or something else?

Prejudice maybe?  the need to feel superior maybe?  For one to dominate over the other maybe?

 

 

I am addressing the question of theology.  Is there a reason Christians and Jews fight with one another, that should exist today?

The animosity that exists between Christians and Jews has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

The animosity is there of its own accord.

 

I am agreeing with you...

is it about theology, or something else?

Prejudice maybe?  the need to feel superior maybe?  For one to dominate over the other maybe?

 

 

Fixed that for you. 

[CLynn]

Sunnis and Shias Fight? When? Where? How?

 

Greetings PureEthics,

 

It is on this very forum that I am always hearing about the sunni persecution of the shia's.

 

Salaam.

Fixed that for you. 

 

Greetings aliasghark,

 

Don't know what you are talking about.  Christians and Jews are not fighting one another today.

 

You totally miss the point.  These groups have moved beyond their conflicts, much as it is overdue for the 'sunni's' and 'shia's' to do.  The question is, what makes this so impossible?  What is it that keeps 'sunni's' and 'shia's' so against one another?  That is the question... the question that no one seems to have an answer to.

 

Salaam.

Edited August 12, 2013 by CLynn

[Ethics]

Greetings PureEthics,

It is on this very forum that I am always hearing about the sunni persecution of the shia's.

Salaam.

It's interesting you know all about Shia and Sunnis yet you can't even tell the difference between the two... Looks like your just here to create Fitna and spew anti-Islamic rhetoric

[aliasghark]

Don't know what you are talking about. Christians and Jews are not fighting one another today.

You totally miss the point. These groups have moved beyond their conflicts, much as it is overdue for the 'sunni's' and 'shia's' to do. The question is, what makes this so impossible? What is it that keeps 'sunni's' and 'shia's' so against one another

I think you're deliberately trying to escape from reality. Shias are Sunnis are about as against each other as Catholics and Protestants are. None of these groups physically kills each other.

The manufactured groups (extremist Wahabis etc) that kill others, are doing it because they're being paid to do it. As you know, the money and arms for these terrorists comes from American and related governments.

[race]

Greetings aliahghark,

 

I am addressing the question of theology.  Is there a reason sunni's and shia's fight with one another, that should exist today?

The animosity that exists between shia's and sunni's has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

The animosity is there of its own accord.

 

I am agreeing with you...

is it about theology, or something else?

Prejudice maybe?  the need to feel superior maybe?  For one to dominate over the other maybe?

 

Hi Clynn. I can see many are not answering the question you are asking. It is true that sunnis and shias fight each other but  apart from minor differences we have, there are many other factors which increase animosity between these 2 sects. Although we would not like to put the blame on others if its false, but if its true, why should we not expose the real enemies. Ofcourse we have difference in matters of some laws, practices, tauheed and because of our beliefs and practises, some don't like us. Other reasons killing take place is that they don't want us on the side of Ali and are against unity. Many muslims have hatred towards the prophets family. Most scholars like to misguide people and hide the truth from the people and excite anger and hatred. Which is why there are so many debates arguments and fighting but one major factor in the increase of disunity comes from external factors. I myself had many arguments with my sunni friends and depending on the type of people you are arguing with, it can lead from a simple debate to fighting.

 

Agents get paid to kill and then blame it on sunnis killing shias or shias killing sunnis.

Edited August 12, 2013 by race

[CLynn]

Hi Clynn. I can see many are not answering the question you are asking. It is true that sunnis and shias fight each other but  apart from minor differences we have, there are many other factors which increase animosity between these 2 sects. Although we would not like to put the blame on others if its false, but if its true, why should we not expose the real enemies. Ofcourse we have difference in matters of some laws, practices, tauheed and because of our beliefs and practises, some don't like us. Other reasons killing take place is that they don't want us on the side of Ali and are against unity. Many muslims have hatred towards the prophets family. Most scholars like to misguide people and hide the truth from the people and excite anger and hatred. Which is why there are so many debates arguments and fighting but one major factor in the increase of disunity comes from external factors. I myself had many arguments with my sunni friends and depending on the type of people you are arguing with, it can lead from a simple debate to fighting.

 

Agents get paid to kill and then blame it on sunnis killing shias or shias killing sunnis.

 

Greetings race,

 

Thank you for trying to answer the question that I am asking.

So are you attempting to say that, remove all other factors, and sunni's and shia's would not oppose one another, and would get along just fine??

I do not believe this is so.

 

Salaam,

CLynn

[Jahangiram]

You are right.

 

The major difference between the Shias and the Sunnis lies in the matter of succession to the Prophet.

 

The major reason for the bitterness between the two, however, is quite different. 

 

It is the fact that Shias have a very low opinion of some companions (disciples) of the Prophet who are held highly by the Sunnis.

 

That is the big problem between the two.

This is really all it boils down to. Succession after the Prophet is one of the key differences but it's never been a cause of judging people's belief. Shias get called deviants and people of innovation for rejecting the first three caliphs but are still counted as muslim, whilst those going a step further in cursing a companion inevitably get into dangerous territory.

[CLynn]

Sunnis and Shias Fight? When? Where? How?

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016251-malaysia-goes-all-out-against-shias/page-2

[Ethics]

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016251-malaysia-goes-all-out-against-shias/page-2

 

That is inequality/discrimination and it is by a stupid and ignorant government.

[IbnSohan]

Greetings Ibn Sohan,

It is interesting that you bring up Peter and Paul, because the reason the question came to my mind was

 I had been reading about the early split of the Lutherans from the Catholic church, and where the Catholic church got it wrong, but also how the protestant split also brought the Catholic church back into line.  In other words it had a beneficial effect on the Catholic church, and the Catholic church is still the original church as the Apostle's practiced the faith.

 

In the case of Peter and Paul, as you bring up, they always consulted with one another and all the Apostle's gathered to discuss and to reach consensus agreement.  This is how the early church was formed.  There was no killing for power.  The only concern was to spread the life giving message of Yahshua to the people... no seeking of power, glory, or dominion.

 

The sunni/shia split seems to have come because of the need for power, for rulership, rather than the focus being on sharing the message of God.

If sunni's and shia's share the same message they ought to finally, once and for all, be able to put aside their other disputes.  It just makes me ask, why can they not do this?  Why have they not been able to do this?

 

Salaam,

CLynn

Since we are comparing 2 histories, let's stick to history and avoid current middle east politics because that is very advance for you right now.

I have no idea about Paul, but in our religion, those who seek to be religious leaders and missionaries, calling for the love of God, with motivation coming from within rather than coming from an order from God, are misguided and misguiding. Religion is God's , He who choose who represent His religion. Anyone who claim love and submission to God should not bring forward his opinion and understanding, should not attempt to make any move without permission from God, it is very clear concept that we practice during the Congregational prayer. In Congregational prayer, we have Imam (leader) infront, the rest should make parallel raw behind him and follow him. Non of these followers should attempt to say a word before the Imam, nor perform a move before the Imam. He is our ambassador to God and God like to see us in such a state.

 

I'll skip the Paul and Peter, maybe other brothers who know better about it can comment. I'll comment on the history of Shia and Sunni split. Again, it is about following a clear command from God no matter how the reality showed us rosy painted picture of the leadership of those who had poised in a position of leadership without a permission from God (in his book or by his prophet).

 

Imam Ali did not fight for power, our  prophet told him not to fight for power unless 40 men stood with you and supported you. Imam Ali also did not give the government his trust, nor did his wife (our prophet's daughter). She died un-approving the government, she did not even allowed them to attend her funeral. Imam Ali instead retreated back to his house, avoided the political life and acted in subtle way to save the Muslims from the corruption. The first Leader banned the Quran writing, the second banned the hadith narration, the third just blatantly went against the laws. They were busy with occupying new lands, Imam Ali was busy in teaching those new Muslims from these new lands what Islam truly is. He worked to send some of his best men as governors over those new lands. The leaders in the Islamic capital (Madinah) were happy with this, for them this means that the opposition will be weaker  since Ali is loosing more men around him, for them it was political gain, for Imam Ali, it was a duty to keep this Ummah united, avoid unnecessary split and most importantly educate the masses about the laws and the Islamic doctrine so they cannot be fooled by corrupted government and know when and how they should demand their rights. This process took 25 years until the masses got mature, they overthrew the corrupted leader and elected Imam Ali . Imam Ali did not force people to elect him, he did not sought the power by sword. There are 2 possible meanings to this : 1- Imam Ali saw the leadership as part of religion and religion should not be forced 2- Imam Ali saw that unity is part of religion ad should be supported.

 

But I think we should ask a question: Do you think that theocracy is bad? as a man of God, do you believe that the laws of God are bad and should not be materialized?

[CLynn]

Since we are comparing 2 histories, let's stick to history and avoid current middle east politics because that is very advance for you right now.

I have no idea about Paul, but in our religion, those who seek to be religious leaders and missionaries, calling for the love of God, with motivation coming from within rather than coming from an order from God, are misguided and misguiding. Religion is God's , He who choose who represent His religion. Anyone who claim love and submission to God should not bring forward his opinion and understanding, should not attempt to make any move without permission from God, it is very clear concept that we practice during the Congregational prayer. In Congregational prayer, we have Imam (leader) infront, the rest should make parallel raw behind him and follow him. Non of these followers should attempt to say a word before the Imam, nor perform a move before the Imam. He is our ambassador to God and God like to see us in such a state.

 

I'll skip the Paul and Peter, maybe other brothers who know better about it can comment. I'll comment on the history of Shia and Sunni split. Again, it is about following a clear command from God no matter how the reality showed us rosy painted picture of the leadership of those who had poised in a position of leadership without a permission from God (in his book or by his prophet).

 

Imam Ali did not fight for power, our  prophet told him not to fight for power unless 40 men stood with you and supported you. Imam Ali also did not give the government his trust, nor did his wife (our prophet's daughter). She died un-approving the government, she did not even allowed them to attend her funeral. Imam Ali instead retreated back to his house, avoided the political life and acted in subtle way to save the Muslims from the corruption. The first Leader banned the Quran writing, the second banned the hadith narration, the third just blatantly went against the laws. They were busy with occupying new lands, Imam Ali was busy in teaching those new Muslims from these new lands what Islam truly is. He worked to send some of his best men as governors over those new lands. The leaders in the Islamic capital (Madinah) were happy with this, for them this means that the opposition will be weaker  since Ali is loosing more men around him, for them it was political gain, for Imam Ali, it was a duty to keep this Ummah united, avoid unnecessary split and most importantly educate the masses about the laws and the Islamic doctrine so they cannot be fooled by corrupted government and know when and how they should demand their rights. This process took 25 years until the masses got mature, they overthrew the corrupted leader and elected Imam Ali . Imam Ali did not force people to elect him, he did not sought the power by sword. There are 2 possible meanings to this : 1- Imam Ali saw the leadership as part of religion and religion should not be forced 2- Imam Ali saw that unity is part of religion ad should be supported.

 

But I think we should ask a question: Do you think that theocracy is bad? as a man of God, do you believe that the laws of God are bad and should not be materialized?

 

Greetings IbnSohan,

 

Thank you.  I appreciate your reply.  If what you relate is accurate about Imam Ali he sounds like a man, a leader, very much like Martin Luther King Jr., whom I admire very much.

Regarding your questions, I am a very honest person, and will answer honestly.  Honestly, I'm not even sure I always understand theocracy.  I always have to look up its definition.  What I do believe to be bad for society is totalitarianism.  I believe that what has been given to us is for our guidance and is good for us, and only as a protection for us (as a parent seeks to protect a child through guidance), but I do not think it can be forced on anyone.  Leading by example is always best, as Martin Luther King, Jr. did.  Leading by love and example, as Yahshua did.  We must be careful to discern that it is truly God's law that we follow.  And I don't think God's law can rule all people as a society, because not all people accept God.  Different people are all at different places in their journeys towards him.  Some will never accept Him.  In the meantime we need a rule of law that all people can accept, and that is fair to each according to his own choices, and his own place on his own journey.  I believe in separation of church and state.  The church will lead those with wisdom to God, that is the job of the church...  and the state will keep order among all people in the meantime.  Each one must be free to make their own choices.  God gave free will and man will always fight for the right to exercise this free will.

 

So going back to topic.  Imam Ali is long gone, and what happened to him and his leadership is long over.  There is new leadership in place. 

It would help if I could understand the current objections of sunni and shia to one another.  What is it in current day and leadership that keeps them so divided and against one another, and against all other peoples?  What is it that keeps them fighting rather than seeking peace?

 

Salaam,

CLynn

Edited August 12, 2013 by CLynn

[aliasghark]

 

 

Read post number 20. 

[CLynn]

Read post number 20. 

 

Greetings aliasghark,

 

You say, this too?

 

http://www.shiachat....st-shias/page-2

 

 

Also, the animosity between sunni and shia is apparent in just talking to muslims.  Why?

Edited August 12, 2013 by CLynn

[aliasghark]

You say, this too?

What does 'you say, this too' mean? 

 

And why are you pasting the same link PureEthics has already addressed? 

[CLynn]

What does 'you say, this too' mean? 

 

And why are you pasting the same link PureEthics has already addressed? 

 

Greetings aliasghark,

 

I posted the link because I don't know if you have seen it.

You say in post 20 that all these conflicts between sunni and shia are due to others.

Do you say that about Malaysia too?

 

I say the animosity between sunni and shia is apparent wherever you look.

 

Salaam,

CLynn

Edited August 12, 2013 by CLynn

[aliasghark]

You say in post 20 that all these conflicts between sunni and shia are due to others.

 

Here's what I said in post 20: 

 

I think you're deliberately trying to escape from reality. Shias are Sunnis are about as against each other as Catholics and Protestants are. None of these groups physically kills each other. 

 

The manufactured groups (extremist Wahabis etc) that kill others, are doing it because they're being paid to do it. As you know, the money and arms for these terrorists comes from American and related governments. 

[CLynn]

 

Here's what I said in post 20: 

 

I think you're deliberately trying to escape from reality. Shias are Sunnis are about as against each other as Catholics and Protestants are. None of these groups physically kills each other. 

 

The manufactured groups (extremist Wahabis etc) that kill others, are doing it because they're being paid to do it. As you know, the money and arms for these terrorists comes from American and related governments. 

 

 

You say this is true in Malaysia too?

Edited August 12, 2013 by CLynn

[aliasghark]

I say the animosity between sunni and shia is apparent wherever you look.

 

That could be your confirmation bias. You're seeing whatever you want to see, whether it exists or not. 

[Romano]

Peace be upon you:

 

Clynn, the differences between the sects of Islam are very similar to the differences between the sects of Christianity.  In Islam, there are 3 main sects: Shi'i, Sunni, & Quranist.  In Christianity there are also 3 main sects: Catholic, Orthodox, & Protestant.  God willing, I will show you how the schism between Islamic sects and Christian sects are strikingly similar.

 

The first part of a schism usually occurs over a leadership dispute.

1. In Christianity, it is evident that Saint Peter (peace be upon him) was meant to be the leader of the Christian community.  "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)  However, as various Christian communities spring up around the world, they all decided to follow different people.  For example, the Cops of Egypt feel that Saint Mark the Evangelist (peace be upon him) was their sole leader (not that this sort of schismatic thinking occurred long after his death and he had nothing to do with it at all).  This happened in a lot of Christian communities throughout the Christian world and eventually in 1054 CE there was a schism between the Holy Roman Catholic (Universal) Church and he Eastern Orthodox Churches who believed that their "founders" were more worthy leaders.

 

2. In Islam, it is evident that Imam Ali (peace be upon him) was meant to be the leader of the Islamic community and the successor to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).  "Of whomsoever I had been Master, Ali here is to be his Master. O God, be a supporter of whoever supports him and an enemy of whoever opposes him and divert the truth to Ali." (Prophet Muhammad in the Hadith of the pond of Khumm).  However, various companions of Muhammad (peace be upon him) were greedy and wanted the leadership position.  After he died, only Ali (peace be upon him) and some others remained to bury him.  The rest of the people locked themselves in a room to vote on who should usurp the leadership role of Ali (peace be upon him).  Eventually Abu Bakr won.  Abu Bakr was succeeded by Umar who was succeeded by Uthman.  This is where the Shi'i and Sunni split comes from.  The Shi'i follow Imam Ali (peace be upon him) while the Sunni follow Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.

 

3. Both of these splits can be seen as somewhat reasonable.  In Christianity, after centuries of being in a community where you viewed one particular saint as the founder of the community, you would eventually grow to view that saint as the true leader.  Likewise, in Islam, a lot of the less educated people probably did not realize that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had designated a successor and so it was very easy for the Shaikhain (as they're known) to usurp the power and the masses would easily follow.  Both sides of the conflict (Catholic/Shi'i vs Orthodox/Sunni) have respectable beliefs, communities, traditions, etc.

 

Sola Scriptura splits

1. In the 16th century, a Catholic priest by the name of Martin Luther became frustrated with the corruption in the membership and the leadership of the Church.  He left his thoughts at the door (literally) and proceeded to eliminate all Christian traditions, history, and 6 books of the Bible (although he actually wanted to eliminate a lot more such as the books of Daniel, James, Revelation, etc.)  This movement became known as Protestantism and is continued to today.  Protestants only accept the 66 books of the Bible that Martin Luther was unable to get rid of as their sole canon of faith.

 

2. In modern times (I am not sure when exactly) a group of ultra-liberal Muslims got together and decided that the rules of Islam sucked and that they didn't want to obey them.  They came to the brilliant conclusion that if they got rid of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), all of the Imams (peace be upon them), as well as all of the Sunni scholars, traditions, and rules, then they could do literally whatever they wanted but still call themselves Muslims.  They are known as Quranists because they only accept the very ambiguous Quran as their sole canon of faith.

 

Conclusion

The founders of the two religions (Jesus and Muhammad) had both been very clear about what their religion was and what it wasn't.  They both designated leaders of the community.  After their respective deaths, there was an initial split based on leadership.  A long time later, there was another split where people wanted to rebel against the religion as a whole and decided only to accept (sometimes a convoluted and edited version) of their holy scriptures.  All in all, if you haven't guessed it yet, I believe that the Holy Roman Catholic Church represents true Christianity and that Shi'i Islam represents true Islam.  If you disagree, please make a response to my post and we can discuss this if you would like.  I am very interested in hearing others' opinions.