Modern, and fairly western, framing of the Middle East put an strong focus on the divide between Sunnis and Shiites. I'm curious about the origins of this struggle.
I wonder if this is perhaps due to a western framing influenced by views from the colonization of the middle east. The reason for this is anecdotal evidence suggest that the conflict never was never a religious one but rather a tribal/clan oriented conflict.
Any light shed on the matter is greatly appreciated!
edit: I feel that I should specify that I mean the modern conflict. Not necessarily the Ali vs Abu Bakr issue but rather the modern day struggle that has blossom this last decade. Does it have a historical origin in the Islamic community or is it rather a framing adopted from media?
The modern struggles stem from those ancient ones.
What had been a split between Muslims eventually became a system of dynasties. What had occurred was over time, those factions became threats to each other politically.
So certain interpretations and Hadith that are considered weak or strong varied between the 2 factions. Sunni factions tended to emphasis, and even follow weak Hadith, if the Hadith advocated for trusting Muslim rulers/caliphs/dynasties. These Hadith are rejected by shi'as, which tend to resist the law of these empires.
Islamic law during the height of Islamic empires, tended to be related to libertarian ideals of government. Each king or local imam had more pull over local populations than some distant caliph. So caliphates tended to push the Sunni ideals to consolidate power.
Today is a bit different. There is still a lot of weak Hadith that Sunnis promote to indirectly criticize shi'as. Stuff like calling non Sunni sects deviants or innovators. Shi'as, on the other hand, tend to push Hadith that resist political rulers and centralization around man made governments, which are viewed as flawed due to the imperfect nature of humanity.
This means shi'as threaten imperialist aspirations of states like Saudi Arabia. When a king rests his power in Islam, and that ability to rest power in such a way is disregarded by a large portion of the population, then this is a threat to that kings power. This, contrary to political discussion, is why shi'a communities would be more easily able to establish a democracy, and also why it's harder for shi'as to unify behind a leader.
Note: my family is Muslim shi'as, and I consider myself Sufi sorta. I do have a bias against the Sunni power structures, and there have been Shia dynasties that massacred certain Sunnis, particularly the more literalist schools of Sunni thought and law.
Hopefully someone can elaborate better than I, but the basic conflict comes from disagreement over who should have succeeded Muhammad as the leader of the Muslim community. On one hand, there were those who felt that the power to choose a successor lay in the community, and therefore a vote. Others felt Muhammad had already selected a successor: his close friend and son in law Ali. The former group (the majority) supported the men who became the first, second, and third caliphs (successors to Muhammad) while the latter group maintained that Ali had been the right choice all along.
Over time, these groups began to favor different hadith that supported their respective viewpoints, and as a result developed different practices. The shia invested their leadership in ali's blood line, while the sunni mostly supported the caliphate. This culminated in the murder of husain, the imam of the shia at the time, in karbala Iraq. That event is usually though of as the final break between the already divergent groups.