A (16:01)
So this feud wasn't just an ordinary disagreement. This is a fight that would basically split the world, you know, and the fastest growing religion forever. So let's look at the moment. All right, June 8, 632 AD the Prophet has just died unexpectedly in Medina, which is in modern day Saudi Arabia. No one has ever really confirmed how he passed, just that it followed a brief illness and some suspect, perhaps it was fever. There's even some tradition that he was poisoned by a woman, but even that is disputed as to whether or not that was symbolic or literal. Regardless, the Prophet has passed on and the Islamic community is in shock. This guy had literally united tons of warring tribes across Arabia, created a new civilization and built a movement that was spreading faster than wildfire. And now he's gone and suddenly no one knows what happens next. And things as you can imagine, get messy pretty fast. Muhammad didn't have a son who survived to adulthood like we said, so he didn't have this direct heir. He also didn't name a different non familial successor to his line either. So you know, he never wrote down like hey, here's who should lead after Me or anything like that. And, you know, didn't have a will or any type of clear instruction after his passing. So the community leaders are basically looking at each other like, all right, now what? So within hours and literally hours, two camps start to form. And this is where you can see how human this whole thing really is. Camp one is rallying around Ali. Now, Ali wasn't just a random dude. He and the Prophet were very close. I mean, extremely close. He was Muhammad's first cousin who he raised in his household like a son. He had also married Muhammad's daughter Fatima, making him both Muhammad's cousin and son in law. See, like that is about as close as you can get. The guy had been one of the first people to revert to Islam when he was just a kid. He had also fought alongside Muhammad in every major battle and by all accounts proved himself to be a warrior and a leader. So to all these supporters, the choice is pretty obvious, right? Keep it in the family. Muhammad had clearly loved and trusted this guy. Plus there's something that just kind of feels right to people about bloodline secession. It's just kind of intuitive. It's straightforward and it's how most societies worked for, you know, thousands of years, specifically back then. And it's honestly how a lot of them still work today. But here's the thing. While all these people were making their case, another group is moving fast. And Camp 2 is meeting in something called the Sakifa. And this is basically a covered area where the local Medina tribes used to kind of discuss and hash out their business. And they're not talking about Ali at all. They're talking about Abu Bakr. Now Abu Bakr was completely different in terms of candidacy. He was Muhammad's closest friend, his father in law, and one of his most trusted advisors. This was the guy Muhammad had chosen to lead prayers when he was too sick to do it himself. I mean, Abu Bakr was a bit older, he was experienced. He'd also been there from day one of this Islamic movement. And here's where it gets interesting from a political perspective. Both sides had really good points in favor of their camp candidates, the Ali supporters. You know, Camp one would say, look, trusted family gave Ali special responsibilities. There's wisdom in keeping leadership in the bloodline and it provides continuity, legitimacy, bang. Camp 2 just had a different view for what the qualifications should be. The Abubakar supporters would say, look, this isn't a kingdom. We don't do hereditary rule here. We choose our leaders based on who's most qualified, who the community trusts who can actually do the job the best. And we choose leaders. Not on birth or, you know, who their dad was. We choose them based on merit and how good they are at leading our caliphate. So neither side was wrong. Exactly. They just had different ideas about how leadership should work. And, you know, it's a reasonable thing. You could imagine like a, you know, a kingdom in England, right, and being like, all right, the king is dead. You know, do we bring in, you know, his son? Or do we elect, like, a really competent general that understands how to do politics? It's like, look, both of them could work, but as with everything in life, timing is what matters. And Abubakar, that is Camp 2, they moved faster. While some of Ali's supporters were still dealing with Muhammad's funeral arrangements, the Saqifa happened quickly, and Abu Bakr got chosen as the first caliph, literally meaning the successor. Ali's people felt blindsided. They thought this was supposed to be a community decision, but it felt more like a sneaky political maneuver. I mean, imagine showing up to a family meeting about your grandfather's will only to find out that your cousins already had a meeting yesterday and divided up everything without you. And you would probably feel a little bit annoyed. Now, here's what's crucial to understand. While his supporters were furious for sure, Ali himself didn't start a war over this. He was upset, sure, But Ali eventually, after about six months, publicly accepted Abubakar's leadership for the sake of unity. Which is, I mean, in all fairness, a pretty humble move, to be honest. And this is a good time to remember that these weren't just political factions. They were sincere people. They were united by a faith, by a belief in Allah, trying to figure out what was best for their communities. And Ali could have split the Islamic world right there, 632 Bang, and just created a whole new faction that went to war. Instead, he chose unity over what he could have insisted was a personal claim to leadership. But the people who had supported him, they didn't move on as easily. They became known as Shiat Ali, the party of Ali, or just Shia for short. The people who had supported the community's choice of Abu Bakr became Sunni because they followed the Sunnah or the traditional way. And right there in those first few months after the Prophet's death, you have the great divide. The Sunni precedent was the community chooses its leaders based on qualifications and consensus. And the Shia precedent was leadership should stay within the Prophet's family line. And Ali was robbed of this rightful position. Some in The Shia camp have even suggested that there is some hadith that actually corroborate with the idea that Ali should actually be the successor. So there it is said in the event of Ghadir Kum, where he reportedly said, whoever's mullah, which is the leader, the protector, I am, Ali is his mullah. Now that basically means, you know, whoever I am protecting or leading, Ali is also leading. Now some people argue that this is more spiritual guidance and not necessarily a political appointment, but still this just contributes to the rift. Now as we can imagine, it doesn't end there and things just only continue to get more political. Remember how Ali eventually accepted Abu Bakr's leadership for the sake of unity? Well, that unity didn't last long. After Abu Bakr died, the leadership passed to Umar and then to Uthman. And Ali's supporters kept on waiting for their guy to get his turn. And then finally, in 656 AD, 24 years after the Prophet's death, Ali was effectively appointed to become the fourth caliph. But by then the damage was done. Those two decades of waiting had created a lot of resentment between these two factions. So when Ali eventually did become the leader, he faced immediate challenges to his authority. There were civil wars and political assassinations and eventually Ali himself was murdered in 661 AD. And here's where the story takes a dark turn that would kind of change everything that followed. After Ali's death, his son Hussein, Muhammad's grandson, tried to claim leadership once again. You have the secession problem. You have Ali side saying it should stay in the family and you have Abubakar's side saying it should be the most competent person. But the political winds had shifted. The Sunni establishment was firmly in control and they weren't about to hand power back to Ali's family because again, this would just create precedent to keep it in the family forever. So in 680 A.D. hussein and a small group of followers. Followers were surrounded by a much larger Sunni army at a place called Karbala in what is now modern day Iraq. Hussein was killed along with most of his companions. For Shia Muslims, this wasn't just a political defeat. It was martyrdom that would come to define their entire identity. Think about how Christians remember the crucifixion or how Americans remember September 11th. For Shia's, Karbala became that kind of defining moment. It proved in their minds that the rightful leaders of Islam, the Prophet's own family, had been persecuted and murdered by people that they saw as illegitimate. You could say so when you believe your leaders were Divinely chosen. That kind of changes how you think about leadership and how strongly you feel about the person in charge. And then when they're, you know, murdered by their enemies, it changes how severely you might respond. So she has believed that the idea that only certain people, descendants of Muhammad's daughter Fatima, could be the true leaders of the religion. They were the ones who were chosen. They were divinely guided. They had been inspired by God. They were these leaders, the imams, that is who God has called. Now, the Sunni looked at this and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not how this works. From their perspective, religious authority comes from scholarship and community consensus and following the traditions that Muhammad had established. You don't need to be a part of a special bloodline for access to God. That's not how Allah works. You need to study the Quran. You need to understand Islamic law. You need to have the community trust. That being said, the Sunnis didn't believe in the same kind of divine ordination of the, you know, caliph as the Shias. So it just again, comes down to this fundamental disagreement. And in my opinion, you know, both sides could work. It's just a matter of which. One did not to mention these Sunnis are saying, well, you know, we already established that Abubakar is the, the person that's going to take over, so it's going to be the, you know, person that the community chooses next. Shia believed in this unbroken chain of divinely guided leaders, starting with the Prophet. So Sunnis believe in this collective scholarship and community decision making, starting with the Prophet, but not necessarily biologically linked. Now, this single difference in religious authority would lead to all the other differences too. So if you walk into a Shia mosque during prayer time, you might notice something different. For many Shia Muslims, they place their foreheads on small clay tablets when they prostrate during prayer. These tablets, called turba, are often made from clay from holy sites like Karbala, where Hussein was killed. Sunnis usually use prayer rugs or pray directly on clean ground. To them, the clay tablets are maybe unnecessary. God doesn't care what your forehead touches as long as your heart is pure. It's not a huge difference, but it's visible. It's like how some Christian denominations use different types of communion bread or what communion means to them, or how some Jewish communities will wear different styles of head covering. Some, you know, they have the same core faith, but it manifests into slightly different practices that means different things to the descendants of that specific, you know, subset. So the calendar differences are, are even more directly linked to the conflict that started. So for example, Shias have holidays that Sunnis don't really observe and vice versa. The biggest one for Shias is Ashra. This is the day of mourning that commemorates Hussein's death at Karbala. You'll see processions and ritual reenactments of the battle and sometimes even self flagellation as people express their grief over this 1300 year old tragedy. Sunnis acknowledge Asherah too, but for them it's more about fasting and remembering Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt. Same day, just completely different focus. Or take Ghadir Kum. This is when Shias celebrates the day that Muhammad supposedly designated Ali as his successor. This is the, the quote that I had read earlier. This is obviously a big deal for Shias as it validates their entire historical narrative. It's, you know, their whole thing in a way. Sunnis, however, either interpret Muhammad's words from this day differently or they just don't see it as a clear succession as Shias do. They see it again as this sort of spiritual guidance, not literally the political appointment as the Caliph. These holidays aren't just different events on the calendar. They're different ways of people remembering history and different stories about what actually happened in that history and different interpretations of what it all means in the first place. And the thing is, these differences didn't happen overnight. We're talking about centuries of development where each community refined their beliefs and their practices in response to their experiences. So Shias obviously leaned into their theology of divine leadership partially because their leaders were getting killed or marginalized. And Sunnis developed their emphasis on community consensus partially because, you know, that's just how they had been making decisions since Abu Bakr. Each side I think you could say, was doing their best based off what they thought was right. Responding authentically to their own history, their own challenges and their own understanding of what the Prophet really intended. And over time those responses became traditions, then doctrines, then distinct religious identities. But even with all these theological developments, the split was still manageable, right? Sunnis and Shias to live together and they traded together and, and sometimes even ruled over each other without major conflicts because they both just accepted, you know, that Allah, you know, we have to honor the one singular monotheistic God and that is Allah. And we all have great respect and reverence for the Prophet and we all read the Quran and that's all that matters. But the growing conflict was never just about theology. There's an element that would really change this entire game, which in my opinion Is the the biggest X factor that kind of dictates all of geopolitics, and that is geography. Here's something that might shock you. About 85 to 90% of Muslims worldwide are Sunni, while only 10 to 15% are Shia. So if you're doing the Math, that's roughly 1.5 billion Sunnis and maybe 200 million Shias on the entire planet. And these numbers explain why certain countries dominate the headlines more than others. Now, if you only knew these numbers with no other context, you would expect that Sunni Muslims are going to dominate the news, right? After all, they are the overwhelming majority. But that's not what happens. Turn on any news channel and you hear about, you know, Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah, countries and organizations connected to Shia Islam way more than you would expect for a group that's only 10% of the entire religion. So what is that about? And like most things, it is about location. Now here's the thing about those 200 million Shia Muslims. They didn't spread out across the globe. Instead, they stuck together and ended up concentrating in some of the most strategically important real estate state on earth. Let's start with the big one, Iran. Today, Iran is about 90% Shia, making it the undisputed center of Shia Islam in the world. But here's what's wild. Iran wasn't always Shia. For the first 900 years of Islamic history, Iran was mostly Sunni. This change happened in 1501 when a dynasty called the Safavids came to power in Iran. These guys made a calculated political decision and they declared Shia Islam the official state religion. Why? Because it gave them a way to distinguish themselves from their enemies, the Ottoman Empire to the west, and the various Sunni kingdoms that live around them. And it's brilliant, actually. Instead of just being another Muslim empire, Iran chose to become the defenders of Shia Islam. Despite the majority in their country at the time. It gave them a unique identity and a way to influence Shia communities in other countries. Think of it like how the Soviet Union kind of used communism and the communist ideology to build alliances in the Cold War. But the Safavids didn't just declare Iran as Shia and call it a day, they forced the conversion. Sunni scholars were exiled or executed. Shia clerics were brought in from other regions. And I mean, it took a couple centuries, but Iran eventually transformed from a Sunni majority country to a Shia heartland that we know today. Then you've got Iraq. Iraq is basically ground zero for the entire split, right? Like remember Karbala, where Hussein was killed? That's in Iraq. And all the other most holy sites in Shia Islam, like Najaf, Karbala, Kadimiya, they're all in Iraq too. So Iraq is like this hotbed for holy sites and just sort of piety in Shia tradition. But here's where it gets complicated. Iraq's population is roughly 60% Shia and 35% Sunni. And yet for most of modern Iraqi history, Sunnis were in charge. Even though they were the minority under the Ottoman Empire, the Sunni elites ran the show under British rule. They kept the same power structure. And then a man named Saddam Hussein came along. You might have heard of him, he was Sunni and he ruled over the the Shia majority country for decades. So when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and removed Saddam, they didn't just change one dictator for another, they flipped the entire power structure of the country. Suddenly the Shia majority could actually rule. And that sent shockwaves throughout the entire Middle East. Saudi Arabia, the Sunni powerhouse, suddenly had a Shia dominated government right next door. Iran, the Shia powerhouse, suddenly had much more influence over Iraqi politics since they were now Shia as well. It's as like if, if Mexico suddenly became like a Chinese ally, it would change North American politics completely because now America has to be concerned about Mexico for, you know, spycraft and invasion and war, whereas right now we don't have to be. So speaking of Saudi Arabia, here's another number that matters. Saudi Arabia is about 85% Sunni. Now here's the kicker. Most of their oil happens to be located in the Eastern Province. And guess who lives there? That's right, the Shia minority. Just like 10 to 15% of the Saudi Arabian population. So you can see how this is just causing all sorts of political turmoil. You've got the situation where Saudi Arabia and their economy in many ways depends on oil that's extracted from areas where their religious minorities live. And those minorities look across the Persian Gulf at Iran and see a country where their like minded Shia buddies are in charge. And then you have smaller players that punch above their weight. So for example, Bahrain, majority Shia, about 60%, but ruled by a Sunni royal family. It's also home to the US Fifth Fleet, which is, you know, strategically crucial to the United States and our geopolitical interests. Azerbaijan, 85% Shia, and it sits right between Iran and Russia with significant oil and gas reserves. You start to see the pattern here. Right? It's not just that Shias are concentrated geographically. It said they're concentrated in places that matter enormously for global energy, trade routes, regional power, all that. I mean, imagine this like imagine if 90% of Christians were Catholic, but all the Protestants happen to live in Texas and Alaska and North Sea oil fields. And even though they'd be a small minority globally, they'd have outsized influence because of where they are and the fact that they live on the most valuable land in the world. That's basically the situation with the Sunni Shia. Demographics numbers don't tell the whole story. And geography actually gives the minority super strategic advantages. And you didn't think this was possible, but this is where it gets even more interesting and even more complicated. These geographical concentrations aren't just about modern geopolitics. They create natural alliance systems that cross national borders. Like Iran doesn't just care about the Shias in their own country. They see themselves as protectors of Shias everywhere, like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. Like wherever you have Shias, Iran is the protector. It's kind of like how Israel sees itself connected to Jewish communities worldwide. Their ethnicity is stronger. It's like a stronger bond to them than their actual nationality, necessarily. Like being Shia is more important to them in some ways than being, you know, Iranian, for example. Saudi Arabia plays the same game from the Sunni side. They fund mosques and religious schools around the Sunni world. They position themselves as the guardians of Islam's holiest site, obviously in Mecca and Medina. Like, you know how when Muslims pray around the globe, they always try to pray facing the direction of Mecca. Right. In case you didn't know, that is in Saudi Arabia. So what you end up with here in this situation where, you know, local conflicts become proxy wars between regional powers when there's fighting in Syria, it's not just about Syria. You have Iran backing Shia allied governments while Saudi Arabia and other Sunni powers back the opposition. And when there's conflict in Yemen, there's the same dynamic. So what's so crazy about this is a lot of these conflicts aren't actually centered around religious differences at all. They're usually more about the bigger guys. Iran and Saudi Arabia competing for regional influence, using their religious identity as a way to sort of build coalitions and, you know, kind of justify their involvement with the region. I'm trying to think, I think literally Saddam as a Sunni leader over a Shia country was extremely concerned with Iran because they are a Shia nationalist country. And he thought, oh, wow, the, you know, ayatollah that now is in Iran is able to control my people more than me, even though I am the sovereign leader over all these people. I'm Sunni. They might listen to him before they listen to me. You have a Massive power of struggle on your hands. So it's actually beyond religion. It's just power. It's like the Cold War in a way, except instead of capitalism versus communism, it's kind of Sunni versus Shia. And just like the Cold War, the ideological labels often kind of mask what's really going on. Right? Like, was is Cuba necessarily like, oh, we're the most communist ever, or were they just trying to get protection from this massive Cold War entity? And Fidel was able to strike up a deal. But what makes things even more complex than the Cold War? Unlike, you know, Americans and Soviets, Iranians and Saudis actually do share a religion and a prophet and a God and a holy book, which means this competition is happening within this family of believers, not. Not between enemies or even strangers. These are people that both study the Quran and the Hadiths at length, their entire lives. And that creates all kinds of complications for how the rest of the world, outside looking in, tries to understand what's actually going on. So here's a question that might blow your mind. If this Sunni, Shia divide is such a big deal, why did nobody in the United States really talk about it before, like the 1980s? I mean, like, go back and read newspapers from like 60s and 70s about the Middle East. You'll see stuff about like, Arab nationalism and socialism, oil politics, like Cold War, proxy stuff. Israel, of course. But sectarian violence barely got talked about. I mean, the Iran Iraq war in the 1980s was like the first time that Western media really started to even examine this Sunni versus Shia disparity. And now those words are thrown around all the time as if that's like an explanation for all the problems. Here's what the media won't necessarily explain. Most Sunni and Shia Muslims get along fine in their daily lives. No one in the media was really emphasizing the divide because there really didn't seem to be a massive one. Take Lebanon, for example. You know how the news is always talking about Lebanese sectarian tensions? Here's what they don't say. Sunni and Shia families live in the same street and kids go to the same schools and people work in the same offices. And the Muslim community in Lebanon had to share space with Lebanese Christians and Druze and Maronites. And for a long time, they all largely coexisted successfully. And it wasn't until the civil war started in Lebanon in the late 1970s that the factions started to matter. And of course, everything changed. Or I mean, pre 2003, Iraq, right? This is Saddam Hussein territory, and he was a brutal dictator. But Iraqi society wasn't walking around in constant religious warfare. Sunni and Shias intermarried. Some of the most famous Iraqi families had both Sunni and Shia branches. Neighborhoods were mixed. I mean, a country that is, you know, predominantly Shia had a Sunni guy leading the show. You know, the guy fixing your car might be Sunni, the woman running the grocery store might be Shia. No one really cared on a day to day basis. In fact, here's something that might surprise you. The rest of extreme sectarian identity as we know it in Iraq actually happened after the US invasion, not before. When the old government collapsed and the civil war broke out, people started identifying more strongly along these religious lines because it became like a way to find protection and organize politically in a moment of extreme national chaos. Now, to be clear, it's not that Sunni or Shia identities were not important to the people before. It's just that they weren't as big of a deal and they weren't as divisive as they had become after. The conflicts in their country. Kind of made them feel like they needed to band together and obviously for the protection of their communities and their faith. It's like how America didn't really think of themselves as Northern or southern until the civil war broke out and then people had to pick sides. And even to this day, people identify as, oh, I'm a Southerner or I'm a Northerner. And that conflict obviously reinforces the identity of how the identity contributed to the conflict and it creates kind of a flywheel. And this pattern seems to repeat everywhere. In Syria before the civil war, you had Sunni majority cities within Shia neighborhoods. Mixed marriages, shared business partnerships, and the sectarian violence you see there now, that is largely a product of war. But here's the thing about media coverage. Conflict sells and coexistence doesn't. Sunni and Shia neighbors share tea and complain about traffic. That's not going to make anyone click on your website or sell a newspaper, right? But you say like, oh, Sunni versus Shia beef gang war, like that is gonna sell tickets, right? It's like assuming that all Protestants and Catholics hate each other because of what happened in Northern Ireland. Yeah, of course there are serious religious conflicts there, but that doesn't mean that Protestant and Catholic Americans aren't friends or that German Protestants and Italian Catholics are automatically enemies. And also it fails to remind us of how much Protestants and Catholics actually share, similar to how, you know, Sunnis and Shias share so much in their tradition and in their faith. Faith. The Northern Ireland comparison I think is kind of perfect in a way. Because it shows how religious labels can mask political conflicts. Right? Like the troubles weren't really about transubstantiation or papal authority or the divinity of, you know, the, the Virgin Mary or like any of the things that would sort of, that Luther would talk about in the Reformation, right? It's about political representation, economic opportunity, national identity, you know, alliances with Britain. Like religion was the team jersey, but the game was actually about power. So the same thing happens in the Middle East. Many of these sectarian wars are really about countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia competing for regional influence. And they in certain ways utilize the religious identity to build coalitions and justify that involvement. But the underlying competition is just classic geopolitics. I mean, look at Yemen, right? The media often frames it as Iranian backed Shia rebels versus Saudi backed Sunni government. But the Houthis and the so called Shia rebels that we're talking about are actually from a Shia sect that's pretty different from Iranian Shias. Their grievances are mostly about political representation and economic marginalization, not theological differences with Sunnis. So Iran started supporting them not because of this deep religious solidarity, but because backing the Houthis gave Iran a way to pressure Saudi Arabia and tie down Saudi military resources. This is a strategic move, not a spiritual move that people, you know, imams are going through the Quran and saying like, we need to, you know, teach the, you know, Islamic interpretation of the Quran or Hadiths in this way. It's like, hey, we're going to put pressure on this government. Syria, same exact thing. Bashar Al Assad isn't even technically Shia. He's Alawite, which is a whole different branch of Islam that some Muslims don't even consider Islamic. That's a whole other thing. We'll get into a different day. But Iran supports him not because of religious kinship, but because Syria is their pathway to influence Lebanon and their main ally in the region. So let's just take a break for a sec, right? I know that was a lot of political and religious context that we just kind of dove into to. I kind of feel like I need to get like a corkboard with like pins or something just to make this make sense. But it's not a conspiracy, but it is complicated. What's sad about all of this though is that the average Muslim family that lives in, you know, your neighborhood is way more worried about their kids, grades and paying bills than they are theological differences from, you know, 1400 years ago. Just like the average American Christian family cares more about their mortgage than they care about like the 30 Years War or whatever, whatever. So here's a reality check from personal experience. I've been to a few Muslim countries in my time and you know what people actually argue about? Soccer, politics, shawarma, hummus, like whether their kids should be a doctor, go to, you know, be a lawyer, things like that. Human stuff. Yes, religious identity obviously matters. I'm not downplaying that at all. It influences how people vote, how they, you know, form their culture and you know, who they might want to marry, which holidays. But the separation between the Sunni and the Shia is not this all encompassing, all consuming tribal warfare that the news often tries to make it seem like. The thing is, when conflicts do break out, whether it's Iraq, Syria, Yemen, religious differences become a convenient way to organize sides and motivate fighters and apply pressure on different governments. And different governments will use these things as ways to push other governments. But suddenly these century old theological disputes become rallying cries and scapegoats for modern political battles. And the media loves the ancient religious hatred because it's simple and it kind of explains everything in a very clean way. Sunni, Shia, it sounds like this exotic fundamental rift rather than regional powers competing for influence, using religious identity as a mobilization tool, that's much more boring. But the simple story isn't the true story. The true story is a bit messier and more human and honestly, in some ways more optimistic. Because if these conflicts were really about irreconcilable religious differences going back 1400 years, then there would be no hope for establishing peace. But if they're mostly about politics and power and resources and governments at the very top that are mostly concerned with power, well then those are human problems that human beings have figured out how to solve before. The tragedy is that when political conflicts get wrapped up in religious identity, they become way harder to parse. Because now you're not just arguing politics, you're arguing about who represents the true faith, who is truly betraying their ancestors, and who does Allah really support. It's kind of like how, you know, family business, you get into it with like a colleague, you're not just disagreeing, having like this professional disagreement. It's like you are arguing with your sister and your sister that you grew up with, and this is your sister that you've known and she always would do that thing that you knew that she. It's like way more personal. And that's definitely part of what makes the 7th century secession dispute into a 21st century geopolitical mess. So understanding the root of this split and why it happened is definitely key to understanding why the Middle east looks the way it does, at least insofar as its, you know, Muslim population. We're not even getting into other faiths in the region or Wahhabism or anything like that. But the initial split in Islam does help us better understand modern day issues and also how they're intertwined with the religion. And it kind of contextualizes the geopolitics of today. So let's just take a look at how some of these geopolitical games are playing out today. Take Syria. Civil war starts in 2011. It wasn't initially this sectarian conflict. People were protesting against Bashar Al Assad and his dictatorial regiment demanding political reforms and economic opportunities for the people. The protesters included Sunnis, Christians, Alawites, Kurds, basically everyone who was fed up with the government. But then the regional powers got involved. Iran looked at Syria and thought, Assad is our ally. This is our pathway to influence Lebanon, our connection to Hezbollah, we can't let them fall. So Iran started to pour money and weapons and eventually military advisors into Syria, Syria, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states looked at this and they thought, this is our chance to weaken Iran's influence and maybe get Sunni friendly government in Damascus. So they start to fund rebel groups. Suddenly a protest movement about jobs and political freedom becomes this proxy war between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. The religious labels become ways to organize internal and international support, even though that's not necessarily the cause of the conflict. We see this pattern also appear in Yemen. The Houthis, who are from a Shia minority in Yemen, started the rebellion because they felt marginalized by the Sunni majority. They had legitimate grievances about political representation, economic development, things that you see from minority groups in any nation. But when Iran saw the opportunity to pressure Saudi Arabia by supporting the Houthis, and Saudi Arabia saw an Iranian backed group taking over their neighbor as this existential threat. Now you have what looks like, like sectarian warfare. But again, it's really more about these two superpowers in the region using Yemen as a battlefield. Iraq is probably the clearest example, right? The US removed Saddam in 2003. Iraq's new Shia majority government develops closer ties with Iran. They share a border, they share a religion and a history of oppression under Sunni rule. Saudi Arabia and other Sunni powers looked at this and they obviously get a little freaked out. Now we can't have Iranian influence directly next door sharing this massive border. So they started to support Sunni groups in Iraq, including some that became pretty extremist. And then There's Turkey. Turkey is overwhelmingly Sunni, so you'd expect them to automatically side with Saudi Arabia, right? Two Sunni countries, bang. Nope. In Syria, Turkey has often been at odds with Saudi policy because Turkey has its own interests. Controlling Kurdish groups on its border, maintaining influence in former Ottoman territories, and, you know, managing refugees. Or look at Pakistan. Pakistan is mostly Sunni, but they maintain decent relations with Iran because they share a border and they need to manage their own Shia minority. Geography and economics almost always matter more than theology in these cases. And the result of all this is, you know, it makes the Middle east appear like this picture of ancient sectarian hatred, and no one can agree about, you know, the very secession of the Prophet. But on the other hand, it's actually this messy tapestry of modern power and competition playing out through local proxies. So when you read, you know, you have Sunni versus Shia violence, just ask yourself, what are the strategic interests at play and who benefits from framing this as a religious conflict? And this framework explains why the 2003 Iraq invasion was such a game changer. It didn't just remove one dictator, it flipped the regional balance of power. Suddenly, Iran had more influence over Iraq, which changed everything about how the regional powers calculated their interests. It also explains why the Arab Spring was so destabilizing when governments started falling in 2011. Iran and Saudi Arabia both saw opportunities to expand their influence and, you know, threats to their existing allies. So what started as these, you know, democratic movements got sucked into these larger regional competitions. It even explains some of the weird dynamics in places like Lebanon, where Hezbollah, a Shia militia backed by ir, provides social services and fights Israeli forces, but also acts as Iran's proxy and regional conflicts. Now, I know that all of this is a lot, and we'll do a deep dive on, you know, the different independent religious militia groups throughout the Middle east sometime. But here's the thing that is both kind of depressing but sort of optimistic about the entire thing. It's depressing because it means that a lot of people are dying in conflicts that really aren't about, you know, their local grievances, right? Syrians, Lebanese, Yemenis, Iraqis, they're paying the price for these regional power struggles and proxy wars. But it's also hopeful because it means that these conflicts aren't fundamental. They're not necessarily only about irreconcilable religious differences, which means that hopefully one day they could be resolved through political solutions or governance or inclusive institutions, negotiating, power sharing, things like that. But that is more or less the real story, as I understand it. So the next time you see these headlines, you'll look for the strategic interest behind all of these religious labels and you'll understand why this 1400 year old family feud still shapes the world today. So there you have it. The Sunni Shia split explained without hopefully too much academic jargon. I tried my best. What started as a family argument about leadership became different religious traditions and now is used as political tools by competing powers in proxy wars. And the religious differences are real. Sure, Shias do have different beliefs about leadership and authority than Sunnis, but notice how these differences develop in response to these political events. And this is why context matters, right? The next time you see these headlines, just again know that there's probably more going on, but no below the surface. And remember, at the end of the day they're both Muslim and they mostly get along in real life. And the conflicts you hear about are usually more about politics than they are are about prayer. Some of the most effective peacemakers in the Middle east have actually been people who understand both sides of this divide and they can speak to religious concerns while addressing these underlying political issues. They know that you can't solve these problems by ignoring the religious dimensions, but you also can't solve them by treating religion as the only dimension. So now you're officially smarter than your uncle who tries to explain Middle Eastern politics at, you know, Thanksgiving. And hopefully you can kind of help change how people see these things in your circle. Specifically people that maybe are not Muslim or don't understand the differences of how these two groups actually interact. At the end of the day, both these groups both read the same Quran. They both believe in the Prophet Muhammad and they believe that that is God's final prophet. Both follow the five pillars of Islam. Faith, prayer, charity, fasting, pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj. And this 1400 year old feud doesn't necessarily have to define the next 1400 years. And understanding it hopefully is a step towards moving beyond. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is basically, as I understand it, the divide between the Sunni and the Shia. Thank you guys so much for joining us for another episode of Religion Camp. I appreciate you guys so much. Like I said, I did not grow up Muslim. I did not grow up with this faith tradition. This is just a compiled research from myself and a few friends to try to understand really what this is for the average person. So if there's anything I missed, please drop a comment. If there's anything that was oversimplified or that I got wrong, please let me know. I read all the comments on YouTube and Spotify and I look forward to seeing what you guys say. And if you didn't grow up Muslim or didn't know much about, you know, this religious divide and how it sort of developed into proxy conflicts, I'd love to know what you think. Like, is this new to you? Does this make a lot of sense? Does the, you know, Irish troubles and the religious warfare that existed in that region, does that map for you? Drop a comment. I read all of them and just please be nice. This is Religion Camp, all right? After all, I mean, I mean, religion is the nicest thing ever, right? No one's ever fought of a religion, right? Anyway, thank you guys so much. I appreciate you guys joining us for another episode of Religion Camp. We drop these episodes every Sunday and we will see you you next week. So long and peace be with you if you've made it to the end of this episode. You are clearly someone who understands that beneath every historical event lies a deeper truth waiting to be uncovered. You're the type of person who knows that real history is more fascinating than any fiction, and we deeply appreciate that about you. I'll be honest, that's exactly why I personally invite you to sign up for Today in History, our free newsletter that goes beyond the surface of historical events. We dive into the stories that textbooks never told you, the secrets that challenge the course of nations, and the forgotten tales that deserve to be remembered. Let's continue this journey of discovery together. Take the conversation from your headphones into your inbox. Sign up now through the QR code or link in the description Today in History. Because every day holds a secret waiting to be revealed. Thank you for being part of our historical journey. We'll see you next time.
