For those who are not well-versed in Izzlam, the whole Sunni vs Shi’a divide does not really make a whole lot of sense. It is like listening to two particularly stubborn – and, frankly, not very intelligent – siblings arguing over N’Sync or the Backstreet Boys, except with beheadings and bombs. Or, for my Gen-X readers, uh… I dunno, Metallica vs MEGADETH, I suppose.

(I realise that I might have more than a few Gen-Z readers who do not understand these references, and I am not nearly sufficiently clued in to YOOT culture these days to figure out what the “hip” bands are at the moment, so you will have to forgive a somewhat geriatric reference.)

The divide is, however, very real, and very deep. It is so deep, in fact, that when you get a Sunni and a Shi’a together in the same room – or the same livestream – they might just end up killing each other. That is not a joke or an exaggeration, as Avery from GodLogic Apologetics found out recently:

It really is ridiculous – like watching two really angry chimpanzees flinging faeces at each other. Yet, behind the tragicomic theatrics – and blatant racism – there is a very severe divide that makes the two groups truly hate each other.

This cleaving goes back to a longstanding argument over Izzlamick philosophy, scripture, and theology. It runs EXTREMELY deep, to the point where Sunni Moose Limbs will literally say openly that Shi’a Moose Limbs are heretics and will burn in hellfire.

There is a level of animosity and hatred between the two groups that, in Christian history, perhaps only has an equivalent somewhere in the first century or so of the post-Reformation era, when Catholics and Protestants literally went to war against each other to the point where the entire continent was absolutely devastated. The Hundred Thirty Years’ War, which resulted in the Treaty of Westphalia, that formed the modern world order, was savage beyond belief – yet, when you compare it to the wars between the Sunni and the Shi’a, it almost seems quaint in terms of the level of barbarism and horror involved in the various internecine conflicts between the two.

This is where quite a few people get things badly wrong with respect to their calls for a “reformation” of Izzlam. The reality is, the Muslims ALREADY had their own “reformation moment” – and they had it a full 700 years before the Reformation happened to Christendom.

Even the Great Schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, was not this bad and this violent. Despite the various bans and anathemas that have been in place since 1054 AD, today, the two main branches of Christianity recognise each other’s rites and sacraments, and do not have anything like the degree of hatred of each other, relative to what Sunnis and Shi’ites have.

Which begs the question:

WHY all the hate???

Fundamentally, it appears to come down to an irreconcilable historical difference.

Sunni Moose Limbs follow the Sunnah – the words and life of Mo’Lester the Paedophile Profit (Police Be Upon Him). Shi’ite Moose Limbs follow their imams – they believe their imams have divine revelation, that goes beyond what Mo’Lester revealed, and they believe the line of succession to Mo’Lester goes through the fourth Rashidun (“Rightly Guided”) caliph, Ali.

There is rather a lot more to it than this massive oversimplification, but that is kind of the gist of it. This is highly inexact, there are plenty of subtleties involved. But that gives you a very general idea of where the split comes from.

To give you an idea of those subtleties, the Sunni follow both the Koran and the hadith – the vast, ridiculously messy, highly self-contradictory, and incredibly embarrassing set of thousands of sayings and stories supposedly attributed to Mo’Lester. Those hadiths come hundreds of years after the Koran – a fact that Sunnis don’t like to admit – and flatly contradict the Koran. This is why, in Sunni theology, the idea of nikah, or “temporary marriage”, does not exist, because there is a hadith that contradicts the Koran, which explicitly endorses the idea of temporary wives.

This is also why Sunnis pray 5 times a day – when the Koran only dictates three prayers – because their traditions say Mo’Lester went up to the Seventh Heaven, got a command from his fake moon-god to tell his followers to pray 50 times a day, and then went down to a lower heaven to meet Moses, who told him that was too many. So Mo’Lester bounced back up top, got it down to forty, and bounced back down to Moses, and went back and forth like a ping-pong ball, until he finally got it down to 5 prayers a day.

(That, on its own, destroys the idea of Izzlamick theology by itself – because it shows a mere man, Moses, is greater than their god. But that’s another story.)

Shi’ites, by contrast, DO accept temporary marriage, and while they do pray 5 times a day, they fold their two morning and two evening prayers into one, thereby making it seem like 3 prayers a day.

They also have their own hadith collections, which are even later than the Sunni ones, and which are even more ridiculous in some ways. And it is because of these differences, which are irreducible, that there is so much hatred between the two groups.

There is also a deep-rooted divide with respect to philosophy.

If you take Sam Shamoun seriously on the subject – and I do – then you will know that the Shi’a are, essentially, the modern-day heirs of the Mutazzilites, who tried to fuse Aristotelian logic with Izzlamick theology. Now, if you understand the first thing about the Koran and the Sunnah, you will immediately understand what an impossible task that is. One CANNOT use “logic” and “the Koran” in the same sentence without creating a massive contradiction. So much about the Koran simply does not make any kind of logical sense.

The reason for this, has to do with the reality that the Koran, in its original form, was almost certainly a set of Christian lectionaries, written in Syro-Aramaic by Nabatean Christians, who used a similar script to the skeletal northern Arabic one. When the Persian Abbasids came to power in the early 8th Century, they took over an Arabia steeped in a popular form of monophysite, Unitarian Christian heresy, and co-opted and bastardised it into the modern Izzlamick theology we see today.

As far as I can tell – based on a layman’s understanding of the history – the result is a Koran that makes absolutely no sense, because the Abbasids transliterated it into Arabic, using the same skeletal script.

But, because the Abbasids were Persian, and therefore heirs to over three millennia (at that time) of Persian learning, culture, science, knowledge, mathematics, and poetry, they tried to take what was in the Koran, after its bastardisation, and make it compatible with what they understood of the world.

The result was, effectively, early Shi’a Izzlam.

That is why Shi’ites do not consider the Koran to be the eternal, uncreated Word of God. They do not think the Koran of today, is what Mo’Lester revealed to his followers – which, to a Sunni, is heresy of the absolute worst kind. They DO believe there are variant readings of the Koran – which is very different to what the Sunnis believe.

There is simply no reconciliation between these two groups, which is why the Sunni and Shi’a hate each other so much.

Complicating all of this is the fact that the Shi’ites are heirs to a very ancient set of traditions and cultural norms. Persia, as a civilisation, has existed for some 4,000 years, and it is the heart of the Shi’ite religion. As such, because the Persian Shi’ites know how far back their history goes, they regard their Sunni Arab neighbours as, basically, unwashed monkeys. (That is the POLITE version.)

What the Shi’ites and Sunnis both think of the Kurds, or the Sufis, is not fit to print.

This brings us to the question of what Christian nations are supposed to do about the split.

The simple answer is: nothing whatsoever – as long as they fight over their silly death-cult in their own countries. But they have no business at all being in Christian lands, violently arguing over these schismatic differences.

Many Christians think Izzlam is highly dangerous to Christian nations. They are right. But, in terms of the actual death tolls inflicted, the greatest atrocities inflicted by Izzlamists, are on Muslims themselves. This is the dirty and terrible reality that Moose Limbs never want to admit – they are so divided, so split, and so much at each other’s throats, that they cannot get their act together long enough to figure out arse from elbow.

That is not merely my opinion, by the way – you can find a hadith that says Muslims are the most divided of all peoples, and only one of their sects will go to Paradise.

The right answer for Christian nations, is simply to bar and ban all immigration from Muslim lands – and then start deporting Muslims en masse from Europe.

Sadly, it will never happen – there is a REASON why I have started referring to France as “the future Caliphate”. But one can dream.