Shias. >fatimids. >safavids. Sunnis:. >Rashidun Caliphate. >Umayyad Caliphate. >Abbasid Caliphate

Shias
>fatimids
>safavids

Sunnis:
>Rashidun Caliphate
>Umayyad Caliphate
>Abbasid Caliphate
>seljuk empire
>ayyubid empiee
>mamluk empire
>sultanate of rum
>khwarezmians
>golden horde, chagatai, and ilkhanate
>timurid empire
>ottoman empire
>mughal empire

Why do shias suck at statecraft?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They lost the Fitna and were on the back foot for the rest of history
    Those shia states even cropping up as they did was suprising

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Which fitna? You mean when Aisha rebelled against Ali?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do shias suck at statecraft?
    It's not so much shi'ites suck at statecraft it's more so that Sunnis were really good at suppressing them. And those are by no means not the only Shi'ite states but they are the most significant.

    To avoid going in a long tangent about how the two groups came into existence, I'm just going to quickly lay out why Sunni Islam was always going to win out in terms of numbers and Shia Islam would always be a fringe.

    Shi'a islam from the beginning was always fringe, the name Shi'a is literally in reference to this fact, they were partisans for Ali and his descendants. This affiliation however would cause a huge issue for the Shi'ites after Ali and his two sons died, because they didn't have a clear line of succession (ironic huh).

    The give a general overview, essentially whenever a leader/imam from the lineage of Ali would die, a group would immediately split off and declare that he in fact had not died and instead was the mahdi who had gone into occultation. Seriously check out how many historical sects of Shi'a Islam there are/were it's insane.

    Sunnis on the other hand were basically everyone who wasn't a Shi'a or Kharijite and weren't even theologically very well defined till roughly the Mu'tazilite controversy which was the impetus for Sunnis to become a more defined group.

    The full term for Sunni is Ahl as-Sunnah wa-l Jama'a which means the people of the tradition and the congregation sort of analogous to the Christian terms 'Apostolic and Catholic'. So while the Shi'ites splintered into ever more esoteric factions, the Sunnis consolidated themselves as the main body of Islamic practise.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Seriously check out how many historical sects of Shi'a Islam there are/were it's insane.
      Number of sects dont matter. What matters is the population of each sect. For example Al Mamun made Ali al Rida the 8th shia imam his heir in an attempt to unify islam. It didn't work but this indicates most shia followed Ali al Rida

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Well it kind of does matter, if the Sunnis are able to establish themselves as a sort of big tent while Shi'ites continually split off and remain disunited, it's clear which group will come out on top.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Actually the shia were doing pretty well until the turkic invasions/migrations. It was under the Seljuks that the shia were driven underground and lost a massive chubk of their influence amd territory

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Number of sects dont matter
        It does because all of their sects claim that their line of Imams are the infallible ones, when their real difference was just a dispute between an uncle and his nephew.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >It does because all of their sects claim that their line of Imams are the infallible ones
          They dont though. Infallibility was developed by the sixth imam. After his death there was a schism but eventually most would follow his son musa. The followers of his other son ismail scattered and wouldn't emerge until a future descendant started the fatimid caliphate. The two other groups were short lived one followed another brother and the other claimed jafar was the mahdi but these new sects were short lived and were reabsorbed back in. Its one of the reasons why there are.so many sects but in reality the majority were ephemeral

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Surpsiringly good post for the standards of Oyish

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        As a Muslim, it's an incredibly shallow overview. Funny how depth of knowledge can change how we look at things.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    shia is a cult

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The first fitna should be dated back to Uthman being a subhuman and pissing people off enough that they would march from egypt to medina to kill him

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Shias are the donkeys of the israelites. Every scholar affirmed this.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Uthman didn't do anything

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Then why was he besieged and killed?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Misunderstanding, his relative wrote a letter ordering proteseters to be killed/crucified/imprisoned and used uthman's stamp
          The letter got in their hands they went and besieged uthman

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why can't b*kris into disco music?

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >lists just two shia states for some reason

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      they were the only ones of any note.. other than maybe the idrisids of morocco and even that isnt clear cut.

      >Why do shias suck at statecraft?
      It's not so much shi'ites suck at statecraft it's more so that Sunnis were really good at suppressing them. And those are by no means not the only Shi'ite states but they are the most significant.

      To avoid going in a long tangent about how the two groups came into existence, I'm just going to quickly lay out why Sunni Islam was always going to win out in terms of numbers and Shia Islam would always be a fringe.

      Shi'a islam from the beginning was always fringe, the name Shi'a is literally in reference to this fact, they were partisans for Ali and his descendants. This affiliation however would cause a huge issue for the Shi'ites after Ali and his two sons died, because they didn't have a clear line of succession (ironic huh).

      The give a general overview, essentially whenever a leader/imam from the lineage of Ali would die, a group would immediately split off and declare that he in fact had not died and instead was the mahdi who had gone into occultation. Seriously check out how many historical sects of Shi'a Islam there are/were it's insane.

      Sunnis on the other hand were basically everyone who wasn't a Shi'a or Kharijite and weren't even theologically very well defined till roughly the Mu'tazilite controversy which was the impetus for Sunnis to become a more defined group.

      The full term for Sunni is Ahl as-Sunnah wa-l Jama'a which means the people of the tradition and the congregation sort of analogous to the Christian terms 'Apostolic and Catholic'. So while the Shi'ites splintered into ever more esoteric factions, the Sunnis consolidated themselves as the main body of Islamic practise.

      As a Muslim, it's an incredibly shallow overview. Funny how depth of knowledge can change how we look at things.

      its a good point though. Shias have a tendency to splinter off into more and more sects. hell all the meme non islam meme religions that came from islam were from shias as well (Druze, Bahai, arguably Yazidi and probably more)

      So it begs the question, why are shias so prone to factionalism? is it possible that autistic obsession over a single "legitimate" successor, just isnt a good play ?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >they were the only ones of any note
        according to who exactly?

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    shiaism contra the /misc/tards is a highly supserstitious, emotional, non-rational, mystical sect of islam that stifles the intellectual and societal development of the iranian and levantine arab races, it is no coincidence that it is when these races are all SUNNI, that there was a GOLDEN AGE of islam

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The most evil figures in islamic history have generally been shia

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Timur falls under no denomination
      He acted as a sunni or shia when he pleased

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        He was a cruel motherfricker who toyed with the Syrians by playing mind games forcing them to acknowledge Ali as the true caliph. He constantly cited Ali and Husayn and claimed he was out for revenge. Him taking a detour to stomp out the ismailis doesn't really mean anything since there were tons of shia sects out there. He claims Alid lineage on his tomb which is shocking since he larped as a mongol in life. One of future rulers of the Timurids attempted to make Twelver Shi'ism the state religion but was dissuaded by his court who were afraid of sectarian tensions.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Timur falls under no denomination
          He acted as a sunni or shia when he pleased

          The most evil figures in islamic history have generally been shia

          Probably a crypto pagan given that even some the ottomans had some crypto pagan practises in the 16th century

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We keep kicking the shit out of you s*nni dogs every time you Black folk ape out. Want a repeat?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *