Which are the larger fundamentalists: Sunni or Shia'

[Playball40]

I thought Saddam Hussein was Sunni (although his party was Bathist) but I heard that under SH, Iraq was much less religiously fundamental. Women were going to college (in fact most degrees were earned by women), no headscarf requirements, no multiple wives (until much later) and none under 18.

But the I read that the Taliban and ISIS are Sunni - and they seem ridiculously fundamental. But then again so do the Saudi's who are not Sunni.

Can someone enlighten me as I am truly confused.

 

[Sarpedon]

You are looking at it the wrong way: every religion has its fundamentalists, and fundamentalists are not necessarily violent.

In the case of islam, fundamentalism maps with separate roles for women, suspicion of the west, and sometimes violence.

It's just a word, don't let it deceive you.

 

[Playball40]

You are looking at it the wrong way: every religion has its fundamentalists, and fundamentalists are not necessarily violent.

In the case of islam, fundamentalism maps with separate roles for women, suspicion of the west, and sometimes violence.

It's just a word, don't let it deceive you.

But I'm not really talking about 'violence' - more oppression against women, patriarchy etc. Why were women under Saddam given more rights and freedoms than say under the Taliban? It seems that society as a whole was BETTER without all the religiosity.

 

[Sarpedon]

I'll agree to that.

What I don't agree with is your assumption that one group is more or less 'fundamentalist.'

If you want to talk about which group is more misogynistic, let's just do that.

 

[funinspace]

I thought Saddam Hussein was Sunni (although his party was Bathist) but I heard that under SH, Iraq was much less religiously fundamental. Women were going to college (in fact most degrees were earned by women), no headscarf requirements, no multiple wives (until much later) and none under 18.

Saddam was Sunni, but I doubt religion meant much of anything to him, ergo a somewhat more secular dictatorship. However, Iraq has a modest Shia majority, with Kurdish and Sunni as minorities. And the Iraq rump state is now run by Shiits. That is sort of like the Syrian dictator, who is a Alawite (another smaller sect) Muslim minority in their own state, and also more secular. And before the US meddling in largely Shia Iran, it was more secular as well.

But the I read that the Taliban and ISIS are Sunni - and they seem ridiculously fundamental. But then again so do the Saudi's who are not Sunni.

The Saudi's are largely Sunni, but have a Shia minority. And SA exports and promotes their very conservative/fundamentalist Wahhabism movement. That is one of the really weird things about the US being in bed with SA. That regime is religiously nuts. Theologically SA and ISIS aren't really that far apart...

Can someone enlighten me as I am truly confused.

Yup...

A very condensed POV: I think part of the rise of fundamentalist style Islamic groups was in reaction to western power plays and supporting of all sorts of nasty dictators across the ME and north Africa over the last century. After WWI, the Ottoman Empire's collapse left quite a power vacuum across much of the area. France and the UK largely tried to divide up and dominate the region, with the US initially as a more minor partner. After WWII, the US emerged as the 800lb gorilla in a cold war dance with the Russian bear. And both sides played the ME hard. These fundamentalist/conservative groups became an outlet against their own dictators, and perceptions of foreign meddling. ISIS is partly a Frankenstein like emergence that had much support from the ME Sunni gulf states as they sought to topple the Syrian Assad government. That was partly a power play against Iran, and a push to get Sunnis in control of Syria as they are the majority there.

 

[J842P]

I thought Saddam Hussein was Sunni (although his party was Bathist) but I heard that under SH, Iraq was much less religiously fundamental. Women were going to college (in fact most degrees were earned by women), no headscarf requirements, no multiple wives (until much later) and none under 18.

But the I read that the Taliban and ISIS are Sunni - and they seem ridiculously fundamental. But then again so do the Saudi's who are not Sunni.

Can someone enlighten me as I am truly confused.

The Saudis are Sunni. They are the *heartland* of Sunni religion. You are probably thinking of the Iranians, who are largely Shia.

Also, you say "I thought Saddam Hussein was Sunni (although his party was Bathist)."

Bathism isn't a religion. It is a political movement which stresses *Arab* nationalism.

The Shia/Sunni divide is comparable to the Catholic/Orthodox divide. There are liberal and fundamentalist wings of both those groups, because they are quite large.

 

[J842P]

You are looking at it the wrong way: every religion has its fundamentalists, and fundamentalists are not necessarily violent.

In the case of islam, fundamentalism maps with separate roles for women, suspicion of the west, and sometimes violence.

It's just a word, don't let it deceive you.

But I'm not really talking about 'violence' - more oppression against women, patriarchy etc. Why were women under Saddam given more rights and freedoms than say under the Taliban? It seems that society as a whole was BETTER without all the religiosity.

Because Abrahamic religions are highly patriarchal. Baathism is a repressive ideology, a secular one, so it is repressive in a different way (mostly political).