What is the difference between the factions of Islam (Sunni, Shia, etc.) that make them want to kill each other?

its an inheritance issue

The split goes back to the question of who was going to be the Top Muslim after Mohammed died. Most Muslims thought it should be a merit decision (which is to say, the people who would do the deciding were themselves in the running) whereas the friends of Mohammed's son-in-law Ali, thought it should stay in the family. The latter became the Shiites (the partisans of Ali), while the former became the Sunni, the traditionalists. Answer 2 Hate is mostly from Wahhabi groups like Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Ansar,... toward shia Muslims. it is not from all sunni Muslims. please refer to question below: Answer 3 It is not true that there is hatred between Sunnis and Shiites. They are both Muslims believing in same God, same holy book Qur'an, same God prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them), praying to same direction, going for pilgrimage (hajj) to same places and doing same rituals, and fasting same month of Ramadan. Accordingly, the relations between Sunnis and Shiites are normal relations with no hatred, conflicts, or clashes. Answer 4 There is no universal conflict between Sunnis and Shiites and the majority of Sunnis bear no ill will towards the Shiites. However, a significant minority do and where it occurs, it occurs for the following reasons: 1) Historical Grievances: Although, Shiites endured more persecution at the hands of Sunnis than the reverse, this is not to say that Sunnis have not endured persecution at Shiite hands. Both groups remain defiant that since they have the moral high-ground as granted from their faith, their actions in repressing the other sect, torturing its adherents, and murdering its leaders was progress towards removing the heresy. 2) Ethnic Identities: In many countries, especially Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, people identify "ethnically" by their sect of religion. Therefore saying somebody is Shiite in Iraq is similar to how people view being Irish-American or Japanese-American in the United States. It marks you socially and it determines who your friends are, who you marry, what jobs you take, who you love, who you despise, etc. As a result, whenever conflict has broken out, each religious group comes together to defend its people's interests. This results in political and social hatred of the other religion in addition to any theological issues. 3) Rumors of the Other's Theology: Some Sunnis think that Shiites are deluded into believing that 'Ali was a second prophet, which would violate Mohammed being the final capstone of the Prophets, a huge theological issue. Some Shiites believe that Sunnis were paid off to accept the three Rightly-Guided Caliphs before 'Ali and that Sunni Islam was therefore corrupt and ineligible to continue the Islamic tradition. Both have alleged the other was deceived by Jews, which says more about how Muslims view Jews than each other. Of course, both of these are mis-characterizations of the actual theologies of these two sects, but the point remains that as long as these problematic rumors exist, the two sides cannot reconcile. 4) Approaches to Government: Ever since the abolition of the Caliphate in 1936, Sunni Islam has been leaderless and there has come to be an understanding that religion does not participate in actual governance. Saudi Arabia is an example of this policy where the Wahhabi Clerics do not have direct power, but maintain a great amount of influence in the decisions. (This is not a separation of church and state since the two can cooperate closely, but this prevents direct theocracy.) Shiites, on the other hand, have religious leaders called Imams (infallibles Imams) and Ayatollahs (at occultaion of current Imam) who do attempt to have terrestrial authority and in Iran have actually achieved it. This has led to animosity over who has the right to govern and how they should do so.

Salam The differences among good Islamic factions (sects) are only minor in applying the Qur'an and hadith in our daily activities But the difference between Sunni ad Shia is very great because Shia is a misled Islamic sect.Shia treats Ali bin Abu Thalib more than other companions of Muhammad pbuh because its followers have the opinion that the Caliph must have blood relationship with prophet Muhammad (ahle bayt) They think that most companions such as Abu Bakar,Umar and Affan before becoming Muslims were kafir people. Shias practice mut'ah marriage for temporary time while in the true Islam this marriage is haram. They kill each other because they are disturbed and tempted by shaytans due to having weak taqwa.

All the Muslims agree that Allah is One, Muhammad (S) is His last Prophet, the Qur’an is His last Book for mankind, and that one day

Allah will resurrect all human beings, and they will be questioned about their beliefs and actions. There are, however, disagreements between the two schools in the following two areas:

1. The Caliphate (successorship/leadership) which the Shi’a believe is the right of the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt.

2. The Islamic rule when there is no clear Qur’anic statement, nor is there a Hadith upon which Muslim schools have agreed.

The second issue has root into the first one. The Shi’a bound themselves to refer to Ahlul-Bayt for deriving the Sunnah of Prophet (S). They do this in conformity with the order of Prophet reported in the authentic Sunni and Shi’i collections of traditions beside what the Qur’an attests to their perfect purity.

The disagreement about the caliphate should not be a source of division between the two schools. Muslims agree that the caliphate of Abu Bakr came through election by a limited number of people and was a surprise for all other companions. By limited number, I mean, the majority of the prominent companions of prophet had no knowledge of this election. ‘Ali, Ibn Abbas,

Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas, Salman al-Farsi, Abu Dharr,

Ammar Ibn Yasir, Miqdad, Abdurrahman Ibn Owf were among those who were not consulted nor even informed of. Even Umar confessed to the fact that the election of Abu Bakr was without consultation of Muslims. (See sahih al-

Bukhari, Arabic-English, Tradition 8.817)

On the other hand, election implies choice and freedom, and that every

Muslim has the right to elect the nominee. Whoever refuses to elect him does not oppose God or His Messenger because neither God nor His Messenger appointed the nominated person by people.

Election, by its nature, does not compel any Muslim to elect a specific nominee. Otherwise, the election would be coercion. This means that the election would lose its own nature and it would be a dictatorial operation.

It is well known that the Prophet said: "There is no validity for any allegiance given by force."

Imam ‘Ali refused to give his allegiance to Abu Bakr for six months. He gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr only after the martyrdom of his wife

Fatimah al-Zahra (sa), Daughter of the Holy Prophet, six month after the departure of Prophet. (see Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Tradition 5.546). If refusal to give allegiance to an elected nominee was prohibited in Islam, Imam ‘Ali would not have allowed himself to delay in giving his allegiance.

In the same tradition in Sahih al-Bukhari, Imam ‘Ali (as) said that he had some rights in Caliphate which was not honored, and he complained why Abu Bakr should have not consulted him in deciding upon the ruler. He later gave his allegiance when he found that the only way to save Islam is to leave the isolation which occured due to his refusal of giving the oath of allegiance.

What’s more? The well known companions, Abdullah Ibn Umar and Sa’d Ibn Abi

Waqqas, refused to give their allegiance to Imam ‘Ali for the entire duration of his caliphate. (Ibn Al-Athir, his history Al-Kamil, v3, p98).

But the Imam did not punish these companions.

If it was permissible for a Muslim, who was a contemporary of the caliph,to refuse to give his allegiance, it would be more permissible for a person who came in a later century to believe or not to believe in the qualifications of that elected caliph. In doing so, he would not be sinning, provided that the Caliph is not assigned by Allah.

The Shi’a say that Imam must be appointed by God; that appointment may be known through the declaration of the Prophet or the preceding Imam. The

Sunni scholars say that Imam (or Caliph, as they prefer to say) can be either elected, or nominated by the preceding Caliph, or selected by a committee, or may attempt to gain the power through a military coup (as was in the case of Muawiyah).

The Shi’a scholars say that a divinely appointed Imam is sinless and

Allah does not grant such position to the sinful. The Sunni scholars (including Mu’tazilites) say that Imam can be sinful as he is appointed by other than Allah. Even if he is tyrant and sunk in sins (like in the case of Muawiyah and Yazid), the majority of the scholars from the schools of Hanbali, Shafi’i, and Maliki discourage people to rise against that Caliph. They think that they should be preserved although they disagree with the evil actions.

The Shi’a say that Imam must possess above all such qualities as knowledge, bravery, justice, wisdom, piety, love of God etc. The Sunni scholars say it is not necessary. A person inferior in these qualities may be elected in preference to a person having all these qualities of superior degree.

The interpretations.

Nothing, Muslims naturally place a low value on human life; even their own lives.

Proof that Allah is getting pissed with them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcr3BLAfPZ8

It's all about who got to be in charge after Mohammed died, and they've been arguing and maiming and killing ever since.

Education time boys and girls.... Time too take your medication..

These might help:

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.h...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_re...