Evil Muslim conspiracy...

I did not, I believe, say that it was. When you have passages like that, it seems that Muslims are pretty much like anyone else.Really, they can kill those who wage war against them? What a shocking religion. ... Buddhism? You'd get that anywhere people thought they had a right to defend themselves and their homes. The Northern Irish and the Tamils managed something quite similar without the help of the Quran. Which already makes them morally inferior to Muhammad, who did not in the first place seek war against the polytheists; nor enslave all the inhabitants of Mecca when he finally took it. And now read the rest of the passage ...

Well the problem here is that this is complete bollocks.There is nothing at all in Islam that identifies any particular person as the One True Leader Of The Faithful^*.Of course, people can so identify themselves, and people can believe them --- just as Christians can choose to follow Fred Phelps as the One True Christian Minister.Any particular Muslim jurisprudent can claim no more authority than will be ceded to him by the people who choose or are compelled to follow him. * Footnote: in Shi'a Islam there was such a person until 941 AD.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, this is nuts.(See my previous post.)There are no "religious leaders of Islam". Just specific religious leaders of Muslims. Those who advocate terrorism are not regarded as "infallible" by those who repudiate them, but rather as damned to Hell.

Well there would have to be. You can't have two infallible people at once, because they might say different things, as Islamic clerics do. Er, no. 'Cos they say different things.A particular believer has to choose one imam or school to follow as being more learned and correct than the others; and there is nothing in Islam suggesting that any of them will always be correct. If anyone was regarded as infallible, this diagram would be a lot simpler. 'Cos he could infallibly say which of these sects was the correct one, and everyone would follow that.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But again ayatollahs say different things. For example: Now, tell me, which of these two ayatollahs is regarded as infallible? Here's another one: 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"? You pays your money and you takes your choice. There's nothing in Islam to identify some specific person as infallible --- there is no Islamic Pope. It follows that any particular ordinary believer has to choose the one who he thinks is most Islam-y.Consequently, if all the Muslims decided that it was un-Islamic to blow people up, then they would all ignore OBL telling them to do so, even if he is a Sheikh. Indeed, he's only a sheikh because he's regarded as such; if everyone regarded him as a loony, he'd just be a loony.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well if you're talking about Imams in that sense then there haven't been any for the last thousand years, so it's hardly a problem now, is it?

Well, it would be more accurate to say that they govern over whatever community they govern over. Iran is a theocracy, they have an ayatollah as Supreme Leader.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; there's just something in the Iranian constitution saying that he's the Supreme Leader of Iran. Sure, but that isn't any different in principle from Pat Robertson telling you what Jesus is thinking. Another minister can tell you something else. None of them is going to admit that it's just their opinion. And nothing in Christianity tells you that you have to regard one of them as infallibly accurate, though of course you can if you want to. 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 --- which is what makes them religious leaders. And yes, it would be nice if some of the whackier religious leaders would shut up. You could say that about any religion. But, there's nothing in Islam as such that makes it obligatory to agree with some nut just because he holds some particular title or academic qualification.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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. Which is a position defined by the Iranian constitution, not by Islam in general, nor Shi'a Islam, nor Twelver Shi'a Islam, nor even Usuli Twelver Shi'a Islam. In principle, no. Pat Robertson has never actually told anyone to assassinate anyone. Which is probably the nicest thing one can say about him. But in principle it's the same, yes. Unless he became President, in which case the Constitution would give him the power that he lacks qua priest. But from a theological standpoint, he's just another professor of theology. (Which I guess puts him ahead of Fred Phelps.) The fact that the Iranian Constitution gives him secular power has no theological significance --- as you can see from the quote I posted earlier, it doesn't even stop his fellow Usuli Twelver Shi'ite ayatollahs attacking him as among "the worst enemies of Islam". It just means they have to do it from Paris where he can't kill them.By contrast, someone who had rejected the authority of the Imams-with-a-capital-I would by definition not have been a Shi'ite any more; just as someone who rejects the authority of Rome ceases to be a Roman Catholic.

Well, googling on the term "Shiite imam" suggests that you're wrong.Also, according to the WP article on Shi'a doctrine: So they can call someone an imam without thinking that he's an Imam in the strict sense --- which Khomenei couldn't be, since he isn't Muhammad ibn al-Hassan.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well then, you're reading it wrong. Google on "Shiite imam" and you'll find lots. No, that would be Khamenei.

It says that in Shi'ism it has a strict usage and a metaphorical usage. That's odd, when I use google it produces more than one page as a result. Like this, for example. And this. And this.

No, look, it's from an article on Shi'a doctrine, and it says: it is perfectly possible for a shi'ite to call someone an imam without meaning that he's the Mahdi; and there is, of course, no obligation for any shi'ite to believe that any particular person is the Mahdi.Of course, they can if they want to, but then a Christian, if he wanted to, could believe that I was the Second Coming of Jesus. And a number of Jewish leaders have in fact been suspected of being te messiah by their followers, but again, they don't have to.

No, intentionally. Because what I quoted makes it clear that even Shi'ites, even Twelver Shi'ites, even Usuli Twelver Shi'ites can call someone an imam without saying that he is the second coming of the Mahdi. As they have often done, and as they do.---Once more. Islam per se does not require that anyone should require any particular person as being infallible. Twelver Islam leaves it open that if the Mahdi returns, they should follow him, just as Christians should follow the Second Coming of Jesus if he comes back; and Jews should follow the Messiah if he ever turns up. Sure. But there is nothing in Islam per se that requires devotion to any particular person; and you are wrong.

No. The usage. Yeah, look, how much work should I have to do? I did a quick look round for the words "shiite imam" and I found references to people who aren't Khomeini, this proving your current argument wrong, and who is dead and therefore doesn't apply to your original argument.Sheesh. Well, it depends what you mean by Imam. And what they mean by imam.I concede that any Twelver Shi'ite Muslim who thought that you were the Mahdi would therefore have to believe that you were infallible. Just like any Catholic who thought you were the rightful Pope, or any Christian who thought you were the Second Coming, or any Orthodox Jew who thought you were the Messiah.I have never denied this. And it is a long long way from what it was that I did in fact deny, or from what you originally asserted.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I am happy to "admit" the correctness of my own argument.