[G8 Diplomat]

in the battles between Sunni vs. Shiite, a battle originating in a squabble between closely related kin groups over the leadership of the Islamic empire following Muhammad's death.

It's really quite amazing (in a bad sense) just how these two groups can fight and hate each other so much over the one basic difference of opinion; who can be a caliph. As the article says, the Sunnis believe anyone can be one, whereas Shiites believe only descendents of the first caliph can be one. My Islamic history is a little rusty, but if I remember right Imam Hussein (the third one; grandson of Imam Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed, I think), a member of the Umayyad dynasty was assassinated by a member of the the Abbasid family, and Hussein is revered by Shiites; Ashura is their day of mourning for him (which is coming up on the 18th--the tenth day of the Islamic calendar--Ashura means 'tenth day'). Shiites believe only his descendents are fit to be a caliph; and Sunnis think anyone can, which is why a member of the Abbasid family assassinated Hussein. It went something like that...I learned this stuff awhile ago, so some of it could be off.

But remember folks, Arabs are not the problem; Islam is. If it were not for Islam, the Arabs could be Christian for all we know. Christian missionaries could've eventually made it over to the Middle East and civilized the Arabs and converted them. Who knows? Don't think that violence and savagry are inherent to the Arab people, it's not. It's inherent to Islam, which the Arabs embrace, and thus become violent and savage.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Very true. Present-day Arab Christians (e.g. Maronites, Melkites, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Copts) had nothing to do with all those wars of Islamic-Arab conquest -— except as dhimmis and “collateral damage.”

[Madame Dufarge]

Don't think that violence and savagry are inherent to the Arab people, it's not. It's inherent to Islam, which the Arabs embrace, and thus become violent and savage.

Thank you for pointing out that important distinction.

A dear friend of mine (born in Lebanon) is a Maronite Christian, and an exemplar of all that is good.

She just happens to be an Arab.

I suppose if Christianity had murder, robbery and enslavement as its founding principles, it would have turned out differently though.

[G8 Diplomat]

Imam Hussein (the third one; grandson of Imam Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed, I think)

Actually I just looked it up and Abu Bakr, Mohammed's father-in-law, was the first caliph, and Ali, Mohammed's son-in-law, is actually the fourth (but to Shiites he is regarded as the rightful first caliph). Hussein is Ali's son, which would make him the fifth imam, but I could've sworn I read on some article here that he was the third....oh well.

Sheesh!

[flaglady47]

“But remember folks, Arabs are not the problem; Islam is. If it were not for Islam, the Arabs could be Christian for all we know. Christian missionaries could’ve eventually made it over to the Middle East and civilized the Arabs and converted them. Who knows?”

Actually, we tried taking back the lands conquered by the Muslims, remember the Crusades? Those “evil” Crusades where the Christians were the bad guys for having tried to get the holy lands back that had been taken from them by Muslim Jihad. Those Crusades that the Christian haters now portray as an invasion without merit, totally disregarding the invasion that took place initially wherein the whole Middle East was conquered by the scimitar. The Crusades which some Christians still to this day feel they have to apologize for. But the initial takeover of the holy lands by force by the Muzzies is just peachy keen, don’t ya know. Geez....