The popular explanation of the Sunni-Shii friction is that it is a matter of sectarian religious difference. In reality, there are three fault lines trigger friction between Sunnis and Shiis: the fiqhi line, the mental image of history, and folkways. Gripped by group identity conflict, Sunni and Shii forget the ample common ground between them at the level of values and ultimate socioeconomic aims.

To the average Muslim, fiqh stands for Islam itself as it represents an easy-to-understand template of the good conduct. Most people become troubled by minor fiqhi disagreements because they are not fully aware of the extent to which there are acceptable fiqhi variations within the corpus of ulama’s work. When it comes to the Sunni-Shii divide, the average person would interpret such fiqhi variation as a deviation from Sharia itself. Interestingly, the fiqhi gap among some of the major Sunni schools is larger than the gap between the Jaafari Shii school on one hand and some Sunni schools on the other. Few may know that Jaafar al-Sadiq (the principal figure of the Jaafari school) was the teacher of Abu Hanifa, the famous Sunni scholar. He was also the son of Abu Bakr’s granddaughter.

This aspect of disagreement becomes further problematized when cast as a creedal disagreement, as a matter of aqidah, citing some offshoot ideas that were associated with Shiism. However, this is a gross miscategorization since Sunnis and Shiis mainlines totally agree on the creedal basis of Islam: oneness of Allah, the prophethood of Muhammad, the Quran as the final revealed book, etc. Notably, Imam Ashari, the foremost authoritative source of Sunni creedal issues says clearly that “we do not ascribe ‘kufr’ to any of the people of the qiblah.” It is well-known that one of the unique characteristics of Islam is that it has no institutional basis for validating the faith of people. Common sense says that Shii scholars carry the responsibility of making clear their rejection of the offshoot ideas ascribed to them and that Sunni scholars should not get hooked on historical debates.

The history image fault line

Despite the fact that Sunnis and Shiis share the same Muslim history, they have radically different constructions of such a history. The root of such disagreement does not lie simply in the differing interpretations of historical events but in the focus on different aspects of it. While the Sunni perspective is aware of the deviations that occurred in realm of politics, they focus their attention on the civilizational achievements of Muslims. Shiis, on the other hand, focus on the problem of a “stolen” leadership from those who deserve it. Such position from the Shiis enrages Sunnis as it trumps marvelous Muslim civilizational achievements, acknowledged by Muslim as well as non-Muslim scholars.

Shiis avoid talking about civilizational achievements and insist on focusing on the downside aspects: political domination and repressing Shii radical groups. For Sunnis, the claims of historical repression that are popular in Shii stories resemble urban legends that cannot stand the scrutiny of historical-scientific research. Furthermore, when Shiis gained political control in Muslim history, they were not less royal than the Sunni rulers that Shiis disparage.

In the Savadi era (1501-1722), Shiism constructed many of its customs and popular myths as an ideology to buttress political control. However, in doing so, the Shii Savadis were not very different from the Sunni Ottomans who were mustering their political control through sponsoring Sufism. It is much more defensible to relate the contemporary Shii revival to the Qajari period (1799-1925) rather to the Savadis.

The Qajari period was marked by political instability, which prompted Shii clerics to overcome their dominant norm of quietism and to get engaged in politics. In contrast, the Sunni ulama of this period had a state that spoke on their behalf and did not feel the need to be as politically engaged. Ironically, the contemporary political fragmentation in today’s Muslim countries resemble a Sunni Qajari period where Sunni clerics are showing more interest in, and willingness to engage in, politics.

The customs fault line

Muslims have lived their history in highly pluralistic settings. Therefore, different groupings of people maintained their local cultural practices, which intermixed with Islamic elements. For the average person, the folkways that are imbued with an Islamic spirit replace the root ideas of religion itself. For example, both the Sunni and the Shii go to the mosque and get a spiritual lift through listening to preaching and stories, but such preaching is of different genres and invokes the memories of different personalities. Shiis feel that Sunnis do not give due respect to ahl al-bayt, the progeny of Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis on the other hand are troubled by the thick rituals of Shiism that have the cult of saint’s properties. Sunnis have their myths too, but mainly housed in Sufism which, despite its widespread, does not represent the mainstream.

The above mentioned differences stay mute in peaceful times. However, in times of extreme uncertainty and political agitation, they intensify the conflict. Furthermore, when political violence targets venerated symbols, revenge becomes sadistic, justified on the basis of denigrating the sacred.

The Shiis of Iraq (in addition to Iraqi Kurds) carried the brunt of Saddam’s regime repression. That in turn re-enlivened the Shii identity. With the rise of political sectarianism after the fall of regime, disagreement flared on what to do with the new situation. Identities were further polarized, and each group accuses the other of being a traitor: a traitor at the time of Saddam’s regime or a contemporary traitor.

However, there is no quarrel that the Baathi regime of Saddam was a nationalistic, leftist, secular, areligious, equal-opportunity oppressor. Kurds and Shiis received most of the repression because of the degree of threat each posed to the regime, not because of creed and sect; indeed, the Kurds are overwhelming Sunnis. Yet, afterwards, identities clashed on the Sunni-Shii divide. A political conflict stemming from the disagreement on how to manage the country after the invasion has been turned into a sectarian one. Shiis cries what they label as “the silence of the majority” regarding the recent events in Iraq and the fatal aggression against Shii markets and religious sites. The Sunnis get puzzled as the perpetrators do not represent them nor do they come from its mainstream. And when Shii bandits sought revenge, they were as immoral as Sunni bandits.

The common ground

It does not take a learned person to recognize the both Sunnis and Shiis share an Islamic outlook based on the values of Islam and its social orientation. The very logic of Islam is rooted in the idea of unity of the creator and the centrality of the transcendental guidance in refining human conduct. Sunni as well as Shii lines consider that the righteous deeds of taqwa are the basis of individuals’ worth, upon which they will be responsible at the Day of Judgment. Furthermore, both lines assert collective responsibility in seeking truth at the cultural level and fighting taghoot (oppression) at the sociopolitical level. Sunni and Shii traditions revere personal purity, the family institution, and the role of motherhood. Furthermore, they converge on the centrality of the concepts of justice, mercy, and moderation, considering them as the cornerstone of the moral social order.

The Sunni-Shii historical political disagreement was, at its roots, a disagreement on the political arrangement that would preserve the values of Islam. Muslims today have the option of recognizing the common ground on which their different factions draw or to plunge into sectarian rivalry.

The Sunni-Shia divide is just one of many sub-groupings in Islam. Sunnis themselves are split up into various divides, like wahabis, sufis, tableeghis, ikhwanis, 'self-righteous convertees' and so on on and so forth. Was one to look at these from the outside, one would get the feeling they were all from different religions or something, so little do they appear to have in common.

Its just impossible to have one billion people following the same God, just not going to happen. Unless you are Chinese of course. But religion is not something one can manufacture, so its pretty useless to the Chinese.

I jest of course, because even the Chinese are not uni-directional. If you ve ever been to a Chinatown you'd know the fact that the Chinese have absolutely no polite manners whatsover. 100 chinese in one place and it looks as if mountain goats are being chased by a lion. I always wonder what the hell did Confucius teach them then????

Anyway, the point being, that there is a sort of "critical mass" of humanity that you can align in one religious direction. Once you exceed that, I'd say about 25 million, then groups start to splinter up and worship alternatives, like their cult leaders, even the Prophet (pbuh) himself, and so on and so forth.

>> It does not take a learned person to recognize the both Sunnis and Shiis share an Islamic outlook based on the values of Islam and its social orientation.

Unity is an Islamic responsibility. Coming to common terms with others faiths is our Islamic responsibility. Preaching in the best of ways and being a middle nation amongst humanity is our Islamic responsibility. Thank you for your valuable insights and research. While more knowledge is needed in every field, scientific-historic research regarding our roots is needed to unscramble the politics and restore/reconcile the the spiritual heart of the Ummah. Through knowledge and dialogue, we will find better means for better outcomes.

Hajibaba ... >> Its just impossible to have one billion people following the same God, just not going to happen.

Everyone worships the same God. Their reliance is on their subjective understanding of that God. And to make distinction between the one Allah of Islam (Sunni and Shia) is ... stupidly controversial and nitpicking. You want to feel better than everyone, so you make your own queue and stand upfront. Maybe you're the monster you accuse everyone else of being.

25 million critical mass ... when do you come up with this nonsense?

>> 100 chinese in one place and it looks as if mountain goats are being chased by a lion.

Not very polite speech reserved for you right now. You've got a very big mouth online.

>> to unscramble the politics and restore/reconcile the the spiritual heart of the Ummah. Through knowledge and dialogue, we will find better means for better outcomes. <<

Here he goes again........ Read my Lips.......
Making grandiose but pointless, Bill Clinton-Barak Obama talk.....
Ghulam for President of South Africa.......
puck puck puckakpuckak.........

Knowledge and Dialougue my yonowhat......
Firstly, the Shias are a very deceptive kind of people, they have formalized in their religion the concept of lying and deceiving to hide their true beliefs.........
Secondly, Sunni scholars who have studied shia books report they are rife with abuse and insult of the Khalafa Ar-Rashideeen.

So there is no point of holding dialogue with a people whose books if you were to study, you would find yourself being insulted every third page........

One has dialogue with open-honest-sincere people. not with shifty-secretive-deceptive people. Sunni Islam is open for all to see. We have our books, you can walk into any major city and find all the major books of Classical Islam easily available. There is no mention of or insulting of any Shias, primarily because there was no such thing as Shia until the reign of Muawiya and onwards.

Here we go Ghulam Sahib. Here is what Shia mumbo jumbo made-up religion does. Now, the whole of Islam has been awarded the principle of lying as part of its belief system.

"Aynrandgirl:

Sorry if I misunderstood you. In any case, the principle is that a Muslim should tell the truth to a fellow Muslim, but need not to an unbeliever if he fears the consequences of telling the truth.

Robert Spencer on May 27, 2007 at 6:58 PM"

Here we go, another non-Muslim poster attributing Shia make-believe religion as actual Islamic beliefs.

>> The proof is, in fact, to the otherwise - no special skill is required other than to read Arabic (too bad Allah couldn't have imagined English translations of the internet) or to be able to hear the "clear" recitations. Those are the words of Allah! I fear Abdullah Al-Hasan might fear "the punishment of a mighty day" by his false statements (well, unless he figures his scholarly "allusions" were meant for the infidels and munafiq - then it is a matter of taqiyya, deceit, a manner of propagandist jihad). <<<

AppleOgia, USA; Comment No. 1100081, February 3 14:21
From the Guardian "Blogging Qur'an" newsgroups.

You know even less about Sunni fiqh than you claim to know about everything else. Good for you.. you're truly faithful that way. Its called choosing the lesser of two evils. Like the Muslims of Spain who lied to escape the inquisition, lying is bad, but being tortured and killed is worse.

Now make people believe that you actually have an investment in telling the truth instead of throwing insults around at everyone who thinks reason is important... make believe. Sometimes I think its the fact that its too hard to see the ethics in the message so your sort goes for the readers digest version of everything. I bet you work for non-muslims and it really riles you that things are going there way.

>> There is no mention of or insulting of any Shias, primarily because there was no such thing as Shia until the reign of Muawiya and onwards.

You actually think that Sunni Islam was developed in the time of the righteous caliphs?? Wow.. Your classical Islam is sounding more and more like the mythical tales of yore. You wouldn't know open-honest-sincere if it looked you in the eye and said "I'm the factual evidence you're ignoring". Read the article again and try and understand the factual political timeline here. Confront the factual evidence with something more than denial and random abuse of bandwidth.