Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evil Muslim conspiracy...
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 95 of 189 (600314)
01-13-2011 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
01-10-2011 5:53 PM


This is what the followers of a religion of peace would do.
This is what a decent human being would do.
Ooo, have you seen the video of that dude getting his head cut off as he screams and peacefully dies? Guess what religion the people that did it were?
I bet you guessed correct. Now ask yourself why you were able to guess that correctly.
I'm all for equality, but not for the liberal PC bullshit. The middle east is a violent fucking place, and it is full of muslims who are really fucking violent. I mean, who was threatening the Christians to begin with? Other muslims. You call them homicidal maniacs, they call themselves true followers of the faith.
It's a religion that currently promotes violence as a resolution, they themselves say it. On Egyptian television. Live for everyone to see. They recognize their violent ways and are quite proud of it. I don't see why Americans keep trying to sway opinions the other way.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 01-10-2011 5:53 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2011 10:26 PM onifre has replied
 Message 123 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2011 1:33 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 97 of 189 (600318)
01-13-2011 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Coyote
01-13-2011 10:26 PM


It's just the liberals, not all Americans.
I don't know, I've heard plenty on the right call Islam a religion of peace.
Bush on Islam: The face of terror is not the true face of Islam, and he told a Joint Session of Congress: Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.
Ari Fleischer on Islam: This attack had nothing to do with Islam. This attack was a perversion of Islam
Attorney General John Ashcroft on the hijackers: references were a stark reminder of how these hijackers grossly perverted the Islamic faith to justify their terroristic acts
These statements are PC bullshit, although I'm sure politically beneficiary.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2011 10:26 PM Coyote has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 125 of 189 (600460)
01-14-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rahvin
01-14-2011 1:33 PM


...because you purposefully constructed a scenario for your inquiry that matches the specific type of violence typified by stereotypical Muslims.
Wait, YOU said the example you gave was "what the followers of a religion of peace would do." I gave an example of what the followers of a religion of violence would.
They are both examples, my point was to show that neither one can be selected as the right example to define Islam.
What we should focus on are the leaders of the religion, their Imams and those who imposs the Koranic law. These people depict Islam as a religion that promtes violence as a resolution, openly and without reservation. These people are also infallible and their orders are Islamic law.
As I said, on Egyptian TV they call for war against Jews and infidiels. Now sure not everyone agrees, but you know what they don't play on Egyptian TV? Those who disagree. The only ones shown are the one's calling for violence.
Remember, the majority population of Iraq was Muslim, yet they didn't have terrorism problems until we toppled any semblence of order or rule of law there and destroyed the entire security structure.
Have you ever heard of the Kurds? How well do Sunni and Shite get along?
If Islam causes adherents to be violent, why are we still alive?
Did I say it causes them to be violent, or did I say it is a religion that promotes violence as a resolution?
No one has to be violent for the leaders of that religion to still promote violence. The leaders represent the religion the same as the Pope represents Catholicism - he is infallible according to doctrine, as are the Islamic Imams.
Are Jews violent? Is Judaism a violent religion? Certainly nto the Jews I know.
You're missing the point. Was Judaism ever a religion that promoted violence as a resolution? Hell fuck yes. And that goes for Christianity too.
Was Islam a religion that always promoted violence? Well no, but they sure as fuck do now.
I'm going to restate my hypothesis, onifre, and I'd like you to actually read it this time instead of replying with outrage and mockery.
I did read it, and I re-read it, and I still don't agree with it.
I think that, looking particularly at the Milgram Experiment, we can see that authority will very often cause people to follow through with actions they would normally believe to be immoral, right up to murder.
Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things you need religion.
I consider the above to be very strong evidence that sectarian violence is a cultural phenomenon, not merely a religious one.
Violence, period, is a cultural phenomenon. You didn't break new ground with that.
The difference is, sectarian violence can be evaluated and seen as wrong, then corrected and never done again - like say with Nazism or the torturing of slaves.
As a political ideology it can be scrutinized, evaluated and the fundamental priciples can be done away with.
The problem with religious violence is, it can't be questioned when instructed by an Imam. It is dogmatic. It is NOT subject to re-evaluation and/or re-interpretation. And their word is Islamic law.
Some of them say it. Many, many others denounce it.
Like I said, the ones who denounce it don't get equal air time.
To paraphrase Dr. A's excellent point just a few post's ago:
Quite probably there are, somewhere, some Muslims who have an ideology which they could advocate in positive terms; but lately they appear to have been shouted down by the leaders of their faith who think the Jews and the west want to rape their land and turn all their women into Lady Gaga.
The religious leaders of Islam, currently, openly, and without any reservation promote violence as a resolution. Their words are infallible. They cannot be questioned. And thus the current call from Islamic leaders for violence should be considered, by faithful followers, as lslamic law.
Americans need to recognize that.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2011 1:33 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2011 2:55 PM onifre has replied
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2011 3:01 PM onifre has replied
 Message 129 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2011 3:09 PM onifre has replied
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 9:21 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 127 of 189 (600463)
01-14-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by crashfrog
01-14-2011 2:55 PM


Well, but that can hardly be taken as influencing anybody, now can it?! Why, to suggest that is absurd as those who would suggest that South Park or heavy metal music are responsible for Columbine!
I never said anyone was influenced to be violent, you CAN read right? I said that currently Islam is a religion that promotes violence, that is all.
In fact, no one has to be violent for it to promote violence.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2011 2:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 130 of 189 (600467)
01-14-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by New Cat's Eye
01-14-2011 3:01 PM


Not always. Its only when he's in his magic chair...
Is "magic chair" a euphemism for a boy's anus?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2011 3:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 132 of 189 (600491)
01-14-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Rahvin
01-14-2011 3:09 PM


So it seems we agree on this point - the media creates a situation ripe for confirmation bias to lead to incorrect conclusions.
A slight difference to media in the US is that the media in Egypt is controlled by the religious leaders. So I won't say it's a "media created situation," but more so a religious authority created situation.
More on authority bellow.
It seems we agree here, as well: the specific religion is less important than the current leaders and the surrounding culture.
To an extent, yes. But the religion does play a role, for example:
The Pope is infallible, his orders are equal to that of their God. So in the Catholic faith, the leader is of great importance because he can invoke new doctrine. If the Pope were to say, homosexuals are not allowed to be Catholic, it can then be said that the Catholicism is a religion that promotes anti-homosexuality.
However, with a religion like Baptist, where there is no infallible authority figure, if a Baptist minister said homosexuals were not allowed to be Christian, it has no relevance on Christianity itself.
The same goes for every current religion out there, at least the common ones that I'm familiar with. With TWO exceptions: Catholicism and Islam. In both of these religions, the authority figures are infallible and thus do play a very critical role.
So it most certainly has to do with the specific religion/s - those with infallible authority figures, and those without.
Contemporary Christians are largely different from their medieval counterparts, despite the fact that the text didn't change much aside from some translation.
Ah yes, but the authority did change from Roman Catholic (infallible) rule when the church could not be questioned, to what we see today with all the different sects of Christianity without any infallible authority.
The same cannot be said for Islam who still has infallible authority figures, and these authorities dictate Islamic law.
Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things you need authority, and religion tends to create particularly strong authority.
I would add "an infallible authority," one that cannot be questioned. This is ONLY found in religion. And before anyone screams "totalitarianism," I would advise looking at every totalitarian system and see if it doesn't mimic religious authority. As it is said, totalitarianism is nothing more than a theocracy.
My entire point has been that you can't really assign a generalization to an entire religion
But that would be dependant on the specific religion and how they view their authority figures. Or for that matter, any ideology and how they view their authority figures.
In the US we have a democratic society. The president is, for sake of argument, our highest authority figure. But he is not infallible. He does not dictate what American politics will be, at least not alone. He does not define what democracy is. So while he is our highest authority figure, he really has no authority without a proper vote.
Likewise (ignoring Catholicism for this example) Christianity has authority figures. But none of them are infallible. None of them define what Christianity is. So while ministers can be considered authority figures, none of them have actual authority over Christianity.
The ONLY religion where true, infallible authority is found (currently, and ignoring Catholicism for this example) is in the Muslim faith. These infallible men DO define what Islam believes. They CAN make new laws. They DO have actual, unquestionable authority over Islamic doctrine and interpretation.
So...
If Obama comes out and says the US hates Muslims, that cares absolutely no weight. In fact, he would be fired as president. His opinion would have no bearing on US politics.
If a Christian minister came out and said that Christianity does not accept homosexuals, that does NOT mean Christianity as a whole does not accept homosexuals. The minister's opinion would be just that, his opinion, and would have no bearing on Christianity itself.
However... If an Imam says women are not allowed to show their face in public, that DOES mean it is Islamic law that women should not show their faces in public. The Imam's interpretation of scripture would have bearing on the Muslim faith since the Imam is infallible and their word is like that of Allah.
In these three cases, only one has real authority. So it does matter which religion we are discussing. And when those Imam's call for violence as a resolution, it is like the word of Allah, and as such, it can be said that Islam is a religion that currently promotes violence as a resolution.
The reason this is not said for any other religion is because no other religion has infallible, authoritative rule.
I'm not sure you and I disagree so much as it initially appeared.
Seems like it. Do you agree that Islam is a religion that currently promotes violence?
I don't think that is the same as saying Islam is a violent religion. That I don't agree with, it is not a violent religion.
Maybe the future of Islam is like that of Christianity, where different sects break off and eliminate infallible, authoritative rule. If that happened, I think we'd see a reduction of promoting violence as a resolution.
- Oni
[ABE] If it satisfies those reading, replace the word "Imam" with Grand Ayatollah or Allamah, as there seems to be some confusion with my use of the word. However, it is important to note that they remain the highest authority on religious law in Islam, both for Shi'a and Sunni. It is not allowed to question their authority.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2011 3:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 9:07 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 135 of 189 (600518)
01-14-2011 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2011 9:07 PM


There is nothing at all in Islam that identifies any particular person as the One True Leader Of The Faithful*.
Where did I say that? Wtf are you talking about?
I said Imams are considered infallible. That is all.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 9:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2011 10:51 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 136 of 189 (600520)
01-14-2011 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2011 9:21 PM


There are no "religious leaders of Islam".
[ABE] I was confused as to what you were talking about Dr. A. I was sure I was using the term correctly. The confusion stems from my use of the word Imam and yours.
A Grand Ayatollah can also be called an Imam or Allamah.
quote:
Allameh, is an honorary title carried by only the very highest scholars (marjas) of Islamic thought, jurisprudence, and philosophy. It is used as an honorific in Sunni Islam as well as in Twelver Shia Islam.
They are considered above all other clergy. They are a source to imitate and follow. They are the highest authority of Islamic laws and it is not allowed to question their authority.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 9:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2011 11:14 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 139 of 189 (600588)
01-15-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dr Adequate
01-15-2011 10:51 AM


Our use of the word Imam is still being confused.
The twelfth "Imam" has not returned yet for Shi'a, who believe he would be the true Caliph, who they believe Allah is keeping from humanity (for various reasons.) The twelfth Imam since appointed by God is believed to be ismah - (the concept of infallibility or "divinely bestowed freedom from error and sin")
All the 11 other Imams were/are considered infallible.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2011 10:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2011 1:38 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 140 of 189 (600596)
01-15-2011 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
01-15-2011 11:14 AM


But again ayatollahs say different things.
That's fine, but an ayayollah is still held as the highest living authority of Islamic law within whatever community they govern over.
Allah, Muhammad, Imam, and then Grand Ayatollah...in that order.
As far as I'm aware, the Imam were the last considered "infallible" or ismah, but since there only exists, currently, the ayatollahs, and they are the highest authority in Islam, fine, they are not infallible per se, but they are about as close as you can get to it.
So, spot the infallible ayatollah. Is it Ayatollah Khamenei, current Supreme Leader of Iran, or is it Ayatollah Ganjei, who denounces him and his pals as "the worst enemies of Islam"?
I hope I have corrected my use of the word infallible as ONLY regarding the divine Imams (the twelfth still being waited for).
I mixed up both uses because I knew the "Imam" was infallible, but since Ayatollah's are often called Imam Khomeini for example, I thought the "infallibility" title was held by him too. My bad.
However, being the highest living authority, like Khomeini in Iran, gives him all the power. He is their spiritual leader, that is what he is considered.
When he gave the fatwa on Salman Rushdie he didn't say, this is just my opinion but kill him anyway. No, he said:
quote:
Rushdie was an apostate whose killing would be authorised by Islam
The fatwa was issued in 1989 and reaffirmed in 2005. And if it was just the ramblings of someone not considered a high authority, then Rusdie would be in no danger. But he is.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2011 11:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2011 1:48 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 144 of 189 (600608)
01-15-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dr Adequate
01-15-2011 1:48 PM


There's still nothing in Islam that says that the Iranians have to regard him as infallible in the same way that Catholics have to regard the Pope as infallible
I'm not going to assume I know what muslims feel for these men. But, when they are called Imam Khomeini (not just ayatollah) and an Imam is considered to have supernatural knowledge, freedom of sin and error, and infalliblity, what are we to think?
Plus he also gets the title of Supreme Leader over Iran.
If no one is above him, and he is regarded as supreme leader and an Imam, you're really spliting hairs here is you don't regard this person as being infallible. I would say he is as close to it as anyone living can get in the Islamic faith.
Sure, but that isn't any different in principle from Pat Robertson telling you what Jesus is thinking.
You're saying there is no difference between the Supreme Leader of Iran, Imam Khomeini, issuing a fatwa, and Pat Robertson telling you that Jesus don't likie the gheys? C'mon, Dr. A.
There's a difference. So much so, that gays aren't scared of Pat, but Rushdie was scared of the ayatollah's fatwa - especially when they tried to assassinate him.
Well, you're weakening your claim to the point where it becomes trivial. Yes, Muslims have religious leaders, and yes, they sometimes listen to them
But lets put it into perspective.
A religious leader, say a preist at your local church, doesn't really have any power. He can guild you, give you advise, etc. But no big deal. He/she is the leader of nothing except the biulding they stand in.
Kim Jong-il is a supreme leader. Many have compared it to a theocracy because of that. He is the highest authority. There is no one higher than him to appeal to; what he says goes. He represents North Korea and it's ideologies regardless of how the citizens of that country feel.
Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, is the supreme leader of Iran. Since Iran IS a theocracy, he is also the leader of Islam in that country. He is called (and so is the airport) Imam Khomeini, highest spiritual authority on Islamic law. What he says goes. And there isn't a living soul that has a higher title than him, equal, but not hgiher. And NO ONE is equal to him in Iran.
He is not just some nut. He doesn't just hold a title. This is not Pat Robertson or the dude from the Westboro Baptist Church. This is the Grand Ayatollah and Supreme Leader of Iran, Imam Khomenei. He interprets the Koran and tells people how they will behave in Iran. He represents Islam and it's belief in Iran (to the rest of the world) regardless of what the people in Iran feel.
If he promotes violence as a resolution, as an Imam and Supreme leader of a theocracy, then Islam can be considered a religion that promotes violence as a resolution. We're not talking about a church, we're talking about an entire country.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2011 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2011 4:30 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 146 of 189 (600635)
01-15-2011 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dr Adequate
01-15-2011 4:30 PM


Sunni -vs- Shi'a
Well, there's a difference between an imam and an Imam. An imam is just the guy who leads the services in a mosque. They're two a penny. Being an ayatollah is more of a distinction, not less.
Being a grand ayatollah is an even higher position.
But you are talking about "imam" in the Sunni branch, where imams are clergy who lead in worship.
For Shi'a it is different. To them, Imam are divinely chosen by God and as such are infallible. They are currently waiting for the 12th to return (with Jesus).
Shi'a have never refered to any cleric as an "imam," except for one, Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. A title that is only held for the Twelve Imams for Shi'a. The reason they called him that was because it was believed the 11th Imam prophesied about him leading Iran.
source
quote:
From the Hadith:
'A man will come out from Qom and he will summon people to the right path. There will rally to him people resembling pieces of iron, not to be shaken by violent winds, unsparing and relying on God.'
He was also considered deputy of the 12th Imam, and many Iranians thought he was the 12th Imam, since they claimed to have seen his face on the moon, as prophised in the Koran. And when asked if he was the 12th Imam he never denied it.
source
quote:
Tears of joy were shed and huge quantities of sweets and fruits were consumed as millions of people jumped for joy, shouting 'I've seen the Imam in the moon.' The event was celebrated in thousands of mosques with mullahs reminding the faithful that a sure sign of the coming of the Mahdi was that the sun would rise in the West. Khomeini, representing the sun, was now in France and his face was shining in the moon like a sun. People were ready to swear on the Qur'an that they had seen Khomeini's face in the moon. Even the Tudeh Party [the party of "Scientific Socialism"] shared in the [enthusiasm]. Its paper Navid wrote: 'Our toiling masses, fighting against world-devouring imperialism headed by the blood-sucking United States, have seen the face of their beloved Imam and leader, Khomeini the Breaker of Idols, in the moon. A few pipsqueaks cannot deny what a whole nation has seen with its own eyes.'
But from a theological standpoint, he's just another professor of theology.
You are using the Sunni term for imam here, as a clergy who leads in worship.
This is not the same definition for imam in the Shi'a branch. Other than the 12 Imams, only one other cleric has ever been called an Imam and that was Khomeini. He was much more than just a clergy.
For Iranians this man was infallible.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2011 4:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 1:23 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 148 of 189 (600723)
01-16-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2011 1:23 AM


Re: Sunni -vs- Shi'a
So they can call someone an imam without thinking that he's an Imam in the strict sense
I read this to say the complete opposite of what you are suggesting: "Properly and strictly speaking, the term is applicable only to those members of the House of the Prophet."
Only to those members of the House of the Prophet...
But we can easily solve this by showing me a Shi'a cleric with the title Imam equal to that of Khomeini. I have only found one, and according to the link I provided, he was the only cleric ever given that title.
which Khomenei couldn't be, since he isn't Muhammad ibn al-Hassan.
First, that is a different person. Not Kho-(mene)-i, that is the current Supreme Leader. He is not even a grand ayatollah. I'm refering to Kho-(mein)-i. The original Supreme Leader. The one who over thru the old government and set up the Islamic Republic - and set up the current interpretation on the Koran.
He was believed to be from the House of the Prophet. His leading Iran was believed to have been prophesized by the 11th Imam (or 12th, not sure.)
His face was believed to have been seen on the moon as prophesized in the Koran that the 12th Imam would be seen as the sun. Khomeini was in Paris, and it was believed that as the sun he was reflecting off the moon.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 1:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 6:24 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 150 of 189 (600728)
01-16-2011 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2011 6:24 PM


Re: Sunni -vs- Shi'a
Well then, you're reading it wrong.
Oh captain my captain, please explain how "ONLY to those members of the House of the Prophet" means "Anyone regardless of their connection to the House of the Prophet"...?
Google on "Shiite imam" and you'll find lots.
I did, here's the page that comes up: Shi'a imam/Shiite imam. And nothing other that the Twelve Imam's of the House of the Prophet.
The only other one, Imam Khomeini.
No, that would be Khamenei.
Fair enough. But if you're talking about Khomeini, as I have linked, he was the only cleric ever given the title Imam (in the Shi'a branch.)
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 6:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 8:27 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 152 of 189 (600747)
01-16-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2011 8:27 PM


Re: Sunni -vs- Shi'a
It says that in Shi'ism it has a strict usage and a metaphorical usage.
No, it says calling a teacher of theology imam's, as the Sunni's do, is considered metaphorical. The Shi'a do not do this.
Giving someone the title of Imam because they believe he is the 12th Imam is strict usage.
Like this, for example. And this. And this.
Having trouble with opening links on my laptop, can you quote names of a few Shi'a imam clerics (two or three, even just one, since I'm claiming there were no others) and I will google the name myself.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 8:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2011 11:17 AM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024