If you were absolutely compelled to take sides, would you pick Sunni or Shia?

It ain’t happening. I’m not pushing my beliefs on anyone. You want to go to war over it and I’ll kill your ass, but faith doesn’t come in to it.

Honestly, I don’t think I know the difference. I know it has something to do with who followed whom back in the day; a kind of “My Imam is right, your Imam is CaCa” type of thing.
Not sure what religious differences this made.

Do we have to back one side or the other? And if we do, will it really be based on subtle religious differences and not geopolitical ones?

I would not pick either over trivial doctrinal differences.
It is protestants vs catholics all over again.

Put me in an orange jumpsuit and remove my head with a dull knife before I bow to either.

I’m almost sad to say I don’t know what the material difference is between the belief systems.

I won’t say that it doesn’t matter – there’s always a lesser evil, even though neither is desirable. I could easily choose between Christian sects, but that’s because I devoted a large part of my life to learning the differences and similarities between them.

Anyway, can’t say at the moment.

@Cruiser I was just thinking along those lines. A coward dies a thousand deaths.

I would take arms before I’d take sides there.

What if you had to. What if geopolitical crisis forced you to.

For example, the Assad family are Alawites-which makes them for all intent and purposes Shia. The rest of the country is Sunni.
Iran is Shia (they are not Arabs, but the question is not just about the Arab Middle East)
The Russians back the Assad family.
Saudi Arabia is Sunni.
North of Baghdad, the Arabs and Kurds are Sunni, south of it, they are Shia.
What if you had to pick?

So… what’s the material difference, apart from political differences?

Because choosing based on geography, family ties, etc. isn’t choosing Shia vs. Sunni… it’s choosing geography, family, and politics.

The original dispute between Sunni and Shia Islam was about who would be caliph (which means “successor”) after Muhammad’s death: his father-in-law or his son-in-law. This has some influence on which of the religious texts other than the Quran are taken to be canonical. And, of course, separation over the course of time has led to further differences of orthodoxy. It is also worth noting that there are Muslim denominations other than these two, though none of them are quite as prominent. If none of that matters to you, make your decision on other grounds. And don’t forget that taking sides is not the same thing as endorsing or being obsequious. Some alliances are purely pragmatic (and perhaps we would be in charge of the alliance).

Which ones are more of a threat to my way of life?

If both are equal I’ll pick the Sneetches with Stars on Thars.

And I’ll make a machine that will print and remove them.

@josie I think you and I would be having to make a similar choice…Remington, Colt or Glock.

The question should include Kurds, as the other part of the trilogy.

@filmfann
Kurds aren’t Arabs.
They sort of don’t count in the current conflict.

Like the Iranians, Kazakhs, Afghans, North Africans Indonesians and others, they have an “ethnic identity” that is bigger than their faith. They do not focus on the Shia, Sunni difference of opinion. They are all Kurds. Period.

In the Muslim world, the Arabs are regarded as sort of provincial morons-confused and inept. Totally out of sync with the times. They are given no respect because they have no real ethnic identity. They have only tribal loyalty and the conflict between Shia and Sunni. They have kept themselves in the dark ages in exchange for oil riches. No intellectual progress, no infrastructure. Nothing.

It is sort of the way some US northerners regard people from Alabama, Mississippi and Texas as sort of ignorant cave men-throw backs to another age.

The Arabs are regarded as easily manipulated, and, now that the US has retreated, easily defeated.

Somebody is going to “own” the Arab ME.

At one point, the neo_cons in the Bush administration thought it should be the US. And perhaps it should have been. Nobody wants the conqueror of the Arabs to own the oil and to want to nuke Isreal, and then control all land trade between East and West.

But, the electorate did not agree.

Now, somebody else will try. The Russians will do almost anything to have their very own warm water port that allows them to work the Indian ocean and the Persian Gulf. The Persians want nothing more than to own nearly all the oil in the region and to straddle the ancient land routes between East and West, thus satisfying their notion of destiny. They are certainly working together as we speak as means to each others ends.

It will be somebody. Not the US. Not the Arabs.

Certainly Kurds have an old ethnic grievance. But it has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shia.

But I can’t help but doubt that the Western liberal democracies will be able to walk away and stay away from the Arab Middle East. It has too much strategic importance to just give it to people who want to use it as a challenge to Western civilization.

That’s Israel. Sorry.

Sufism is where it’s at.

It would depend who was asking.

I think I’d kill myself instead.