The Sunni Shia split

Friday, July 27 2007

Last weekend my partner and I were reading the papers over breakfast (one of my Saturday activities) when she asked me if I knew the difference between Sunnis and Shi’ites.

I paused. I felt like I’d read about the two major denominations of Islam, but as usual I was unable to recall the information when asked and bumbled some answer about a familial dispute, like some kind of middle eastern episode of Jerry Springer.

Further research on my behalf established that my answer was wrong, but that I was on the right track. And hey, I had something to write about on this blog after two weeks of silence.

I’ll try my best to simplify what I’ve learnt.

It’s important to note from the outset that most Sunnis and Shi’ites regard each other as Muslims and both worship the Prophet Mohammed.

The schism developed following the Prophet’s death in 632. Essentially, those that would become known as Shi’ites believed that the Prophet’s son-in-law and cousin, Ali, had been selected by Mohammed to succeed him as the leader of Muslims (known as the caliph) and that the leadership of Muslims should be passed down the Prophet’s bloodline. Shia is a contraction of the Arabic words ‘Shiat Ali’ which means ‘Partisans of Ali.’ I guess you could liken the Shia to monarchists.

Sunni’s disputed Ali’s right to the caliph and backed Abu Bakr, who they believed was the man most qualified to succeed the last Prophet. It is said that as Mohammed lay on his deathbed he asked Abu Bakr to lead the prayers - a signal to Sunni’s that Bakr was the anointed one. With the weight of numbers in their favour, the Sunni’s had their way and Abu Bakr became the first caliph. The Sunni’s have continued to be the dominant faction of Islam ever since.

It is estimated that 90% of Muslims today are Sunni’s.

The Shi’ites, however, faced centuries of persecution and submission following their initial defeat and, as a result, themes of death and martyrdom have become focal points of their identity as Muslims.


The divide between Shi’ites and Sunnis can be crudely likened to the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Shi’ites, like Catholics, have a more rigid leadership structure and follow a supreme leader who is regarded as divine and a perfect interpreter of the Koran. Sunni’s have a more diverse and ad hoc hierarchy and regard their leaders as human and fallible.

Over the centuries the differences have also become theological in nature, with both camps differing on the interpretation of the Hadith (the Hadith is the words and deeds of the Prophet). Shi’ites give preference to the interpretation of Ali and Fatima (Mohammed’s wife) and now defer to a living scholar for their religious guidance and instruction. The Sunni’s consider the twelve thousand narrations of the Hadith as equal but tend to follow the interpretation of 7th and 8th century scholars.

The divide is most obvious today in Iraq, but the bloodshed seen between Sunni and Shia in Iraq is regarded by many scholars as a distortion of their divergent theologies. In many countries Sunni and Shia live side by side with little problem.

A Good-Win missed?

Originally posted Thursday July 12, 2007

John Howard’s ‘seniors’ moment’ on ABC radio yesterday will no doubt have a number of Liberal backbenchers wondering what might have been. It’s 12 months since Peter Costello came oh-so- close to challenging Howard’s leadership and, with the opinion polls continuing to predict a Labor victory at the coming election, the question has to be asked - did the Libs miss their one chance at installing a leader who could thwart the rise of Kevinism?

For a hint of what could have been, we need only look to Britain and the turnaround the Labour party has enjoyed since Gordon Brown moved into No. 10.

This week, journalist and Pulitzer Prize winning author Anne Applebaum described the post-Blair climate change for Slate.com. Prior to Blair's departure the Labour party was seriously on the nose with voters, but Brown's ascension to PM has demonstrated that much of the animosity towards Labour was aimed squarely at Blair.

As Applebaum says, "Brown isn’t exactly a new face. He had been the second-most-important person in Britain for the past decade and is held responsible for almost all the Labour government’s domestic economic decisions….and although he should rightly be identified with every unpopular decision Blair ever made, Brown is now going out of his way to sound as un-Blair-like as possible"

And it seems to have worked.

Only days after Brown moved into No. 10, a poll conducted for The Guardian showed a stunning seven-point bounce in Labour’s satisfaction rating. And, while it would be easy to discount the result as a honeymoon poll, Brown is working hard to convince the electorate that Labour is different under his stewardship

It’s the same tactic that helped Nicolas Sarkozy succeed the deeply unpopular French President Jacques Chirac. Despite the fact he had been an important part of Chirac’s UMP government, Sarkozy successfully distanced himself from his predecessors more unpopular decisions during the election campaign and managed to convince voters that he was different.

Peter Costello could have presented himself to the electorate in a similar manner. A steady pair of hands with experience in government, but different enough from Howard to make it seem like a change of government had already occurred.

If the opinion polls are right then Peter Costello won't be the only one ruing a missed opportunity come election night.

[17/7/07 - Dennis Shanahan reports in The Australian today that Howard asked the party room if they thought he was the reason for the coalitions poor poll numbers. There is no suggestion that Costello is orchestrating a challenge, but this issue will continue to dog the Libs until election day.]

This item was edited/updated on 17/7/07

[25/7/07 - Paul Kelly, in The Australian, can't see the Liberal leadership changing this close to the election, despite renewed speculation of tension between Howard and Costello.]

[15/8/07 - This issue continues to haunt the coalition with renewed speculation over the Liberal leadership and new claims that in 2005 Costello vowed to challenge Howard. This is an issue that is unlikely to resolve itself before the election, but do voters really care?]

Louise Barry asks the PM about Terrorism

GetUp asks Howard to GetOut

6.7.07. Sydney

This week the political website GetUp.org.au launched an advertising campaign that features an Australian victim of the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London. During the commercial Louise Barry, who was on the Double-Decker bus that was blown up by Hasib Hussain near Tavistock Square, stands in an empty room and asks John Howard to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq.

(I've posted the full spot above)

Barry sustained serious injuries in the London attack, including fractured vertebrae in her neck and serious burns to her legs. Her description of extricating herself from the torn wreckage of the bus is gut wrenching to say the least.

But Louise Barry is wrong to think that by withdrawing our troops from Iraq we will somehow be safer.

The fact is that Australians were targets of Islamic extremists well before Howard committed us to the ‘Coalition of the Willing.’ Sure, the extremists can add our involvement in Iraq to their growing list of grievances, but should we really base our foreign policy decisions on trying to appease extremists? Regardless of whether we withdraw or not, the sad fact remains that we will continue to be a viable target for islamo-fascists.

Nearly six months before Australian soldiers set foot in Iraq, 89* of our compatriots were slaughtered while holidaying in Bali. Most of them were young, enjoying a holiday with friends and family on the idyllic Indonesian island. The spiritual leader of the ‘men’ behind the attack, Abu Bakar Bashir, has said publicly that, "If they [non-Muslim people] want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam." For Bashir and other fanatics of his ilk, it’s all or nothing. There can be no negotiation with the ‘infidels’.

Whatever your views on our involvement in the invasion of Iraq, the threat of terrorism will not be reduced by withdrawing our 1500 troops. To argue for withdrawal on the basis that it will make us safer is both dishonest and misleading.

[Update 19/7/07 - It seems that the US intelligence community doesn't agree with me though. The latest National Intelligence Estimate suggests that the terrorist threat to the US homeland has increased because of Iraq. See slate.com for a summary. ]

24/7/07 - But Middle East expert Martin Indyk told Kerry O'brien earlier this year that the consequences of a withdrawal could have major ramifications for the region.

*13/8/07 - The Australian death toll was incorrectly put at 88 in the original post. Apologies.