Evil Muslim conspiracy...

[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.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

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.

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.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

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. 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.- OniEdited by onifre, : 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?

Wouldn't life be nice if issues were really as simple as saying "it's Islam!"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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.

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. 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. 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.- OniEdited by onifre, : 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.

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.'

---

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

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.

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. 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

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

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"...? 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. 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.)- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.