Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Terrorists would never attack subways or trains. Who ever heard of such a thing? [View all]FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)24. The problem is not 11 years old. It is 1382 years old.
The Origins Of The Shiite-Sunni Split
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2007/02/12/7332087/the-origins-of-the-shiite-sunni-split
~ snip ~
The original split between Sunnis and Shiites occurred soon after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in the year 632.
"There was a dispute in the community of Muslims in present-day Saudi Arabia over the question of succession," says Augustus Norton, author of Hezbollah: A Short History. "That is to say, who is the rightful successor to the prophet?"
Most of the Prophet Muhammad's followers wanted the community of Muslims to determine who would succeed him. A smaller group thought that someone from his family should take up his mantle. They favored Ali, who was married to Muhammad's daughter, Fatimah.
"Shia believed that leadership should stay within the family of the prophet," notes Gregory Gause, professor of Middle East politics at the University of Vermont. "And thus they were the partisans of Ali, his cousin and son-in-law. Sunnis believed that leadership should fall to the person who was deemed by the elite of the community to be best able to lead the community. And it was fundamentally that political division that began the Sunni-Shia split."
~ snip ~
The original split between Sunnis and Shiites occurred soon after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in the year 632.
"There was a dispute in the community of Muslims in present-day Saudi Arabia over the question of succession," says Augustus Norton, author of Hezbollah: A Short History. "That is to say, who is the rightful successor to the prophet?"
Most of the Prophet Muhammad's followers wanted the community of Muslims to determine who would succeed him. A smaller group thought that someone from his family should take up his mantle. They favored Ali, who was married to Muhammad's daughter, Fatimah.
"Shia believed that leadership should stay within the family of the prophet," notes Gregory Gause, professor of Middle East politics at the University of Vermont. "And thus they were the partisans of Ali, his cousin and son-in-law. Sunnis believed that leadership should fall to the person who was deemed by the elite of the community to be best able to lead the community. And it was fundamentally that political division that began the Sunni-Shia split."
~ snip ~
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Terrorists would never attack subways or trains. Who ever heard of such a thing? [View all]
FrodosPet
Sep 2014
OP
I'm afraid I can't. Ineligible (unless you can cover my back surgery and have some connections)
FrodosPet
Sep 2014
#2
I plan on taking an Amtrak to Chicago, maybe in early December, maybe next year
FrodosPet
Sep 2014
#12
You're still more likely to have a car accident on the way to or from the station.
Electric Monk
Sep 2014
#5
You are absolutely right! The chances of ME personally dying from terrorism are pretty small
FrodosPet
Sep 2014
#13
I've seen posts ridiculing the notion that subways would be terrorist targets
pinboy3niner
Sep 2014
#16
Anywhere people congregate, or any bottleneck is a potential target. This isn't BreakingNews™. nt
Electric Monk
Sep 2014
#19
Republicans have done more damage to train travel and public transportation than terrorists could...
tenderfoot
Sep 2014
#11
The fact that it's not that far fetched is why it's being used to scare you..
SomethingFishy
Sep 2014
#14
You want to stop them? We have been killing terrorists for 11 years now.
SomethingFishy
Sep 2014
#20
If it's so damned easy, why have we spent a fucking trillion on homeland security?
cali
Sep 2014
#26
No, you're wrong, because every proposed mitigation measure has a cost.
Donald Ian Rankin
Sep 2014
#40
Attacking, even threatening to attack, electric powered public transit will get more people to burn
KurtNYC
Sep 2014
#35
35 times more likely to be killed by the police than in a terror incident-especially if you're black
hobbit709
Sep 2014
#36
The police and security presence in Chicago based public transport has been stepped up.
MohRokTah
Sep 2014
#42