Palestine and Jerusalem belong to Muslims

Kondor3 said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Mohammed turned away from Jerusalem towards Mecca, because the jews would not accept him as their prophet. Mecca was for the arabs and Jerusalem was for the jews and christians.
Omar also built a mosque off to one corner and left the dome and rest of mount for the other pilgrims. Jewish rabbis were consulted on where they could build and what was holy to the jews on the mount.
Click to expand...

Notice the Islamic scholar who makes a living in private rooms has yet be honest about what the Koran actually says about Israel and Jerusalem.

And he wants us to believe that he isn't a Muslim. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

Riiight. Says the Muslim who pretends not to be one, who can't admit that the Koran gives Israel and Jerusalem to the Jews, didn't even know that Khomeini is referred to as Imam, and now the ignoramus falsely claims that Shiism has been non political. Then what are all these Shiite empires, DUFUS? :lmao:


List of Shia Muslim dynasties

The following is a list of Shi'a Muslim dynasties:


Contents

Egypt and North Africa

SicilyEdit

SpainEdit

Arabian Peninsula

Syria and Iraq

Asia Minor (Modern Turkey)

Iran and CaucasusEdit

India

South-East AsiaEdit
  • Daya Pasai (1128–1285 AD).
  • Bandar Kalibah
  • Moira Malaya
  • Kanto Kambar
  • Robaromun

East AfricaEdit

YUP, AS WE CAN SEE SHIISM IS TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...
Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

Shia majority / preferred states does not mean that the ulama ruled or sanctioned the government as legitimate; a very significant difference between historical states with shia majority populations and/or leanings and Iran's Islamic revolution. Completely different ideological structure.

Nasr, Vali 2007. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts in Islam Will Shape the Future.

and

Egger, Vernon 2004 A History of the Muslim World to 1405.
 
Osomir said:
Kondor3 said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
Roudy said:
Notice the Islamic scholar who makes a living in private rooms has yet be honest about what the Koran actually says about Israel and Jerusalem.

And he wants us to believe that he isn't a Muslim. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

Riiight. Says the Muslim who pretends not to be one, who can't admit that the Koran gives Israel and Jerusalem to the Jews, didn't even know that Khomeini is referred to as Imam, and now the ignoramus falsely claims that Shiism has been non political. Then what are all these Shiite empires, DUFUS? :lmao:


List of Shia Muslim dynasties

The following is a list of Shi'a Muslim dynasties:


Contents

Egypt and North Africa

SicilyEdit

SpainEdit

Arabian Peninsula

Syria and Iraq

Asia Minor (Modern Turkey)

Iran and CaucasusEdit

India

South-East AsiaEdit
  • Daya Pasai (1128–1285 AD).
  • Bandar Kalibah
  • Moira Malaya
  • Kanto Kambar
  • Robaromun

East AfricaEdit

YUP, AS WE CAN SEE SHIISM IS TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...
Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

Shia majority / preferred states does not mean that the ulama ruled or sanctioned the government as legitimate; a very significant difference between historical states with shia majority populations and/or leanings and Iran's Islamic revolution. Completely different ideological structure.

Nasr, Vali 2007. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts in Islam Will Shape the Future.

and

Egger, Vernon 2004 A History of the Muslim World to 1405.
Click to expand...

"They never ruled", eh. Take for example the Hamdanid dynasty:

The Hamdanid dynasty (Arabic: حمدانيون‎ Ḥamdānyūn) was a Shi'a[1] MuslimArab dynasty of northern Iraq (Al-Jazirah) and Syria (890-1004). They descended from the ancient Banu Taghlib Christian tribe of Mesopotamia and east Arabia. The Hamdanid dynasty was founded by Hamdan ibn Hamdun (after whom it is named), when he was appointed governor of Mardin in SE Anatolia by the Abbasid Caliphs in 890.

His son Abdallah (904-929) was in turn appointed governor of Mosul in northern Iraq (906) and even governed Baghdad (914). His sons were installed as governors in Mosul and Aleppo.

The rule of Hassan Nasir ad-Daula (929-968), governor of Mosul and Diyarbakır, was sufficiently tyrannical to cause him to be deposed by his own family.

His lineage still ruled in Mossul, a heavy defeat by the Buyids in 979 notwithstanding, until 990. After this, their area of control in northern Iraq was divided between the Uqailids and the Marwanids.

Ali Saif al-Daula 'Sword of the State' ruled (945-967) Northern Syria from Aleppo, and became the most important opponent of the Byzantine Empire's (Christian) expansion. His court was a centre of culture, thanks to its nurturing of Arabic literature, but it lost this status after the Byzantine conquest of Aleppo.

To stop the Byzantine advance, Aleppo was put under the suzerainty of the Fatimids in Egypt, but in 1003 the Fatimids deposed the Hamdanids anyway.

*****RIGHT, TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:

Stop acting like you know what you're talking about, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.
The clerics always wanted power, however they were subdued by the Shah and his father. Islam is a political movement, Shia or Sunni.

Notice Ahmed can't admit he's a Muslim, nor will he admit what the Koran says about Israel. Come on Ahmed, out with it. Ha ha ha.
 
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Kondor3 said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

Riiight. Says the Muslim who pretends not to be one, who can't admit that the Koran gives Israel and Jerusalem to the Jews, didn't even know that Khomeini is referred to as Imam, and now the ignoramus falsely claims that Shiism has been non political. Then what are all these Shiite empires, DUFUS? :lmao:


List of Shia Muslim dynasties

The following is a list of Shi'a Muslim dynasties:


Contents

Egypt and North Africa

SicilyEdit

SpainEdit

Arabian Peninsula

Syria and Iraq

Asia Minor (Modern Turkey)

Iran and CaucasusEdit

India

South-East AsiaEdit
  • Daya Pasai (1128–1285 AD).
  • Bandar Kalibah
  • Moira Malaya
  • Kanto Kambar
  • Robaromun

East AfricaEdit

YUP, AS WE CAN SEE SHIISM IS TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...
Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

Shia majority / preferred states does not mean that the ulama ruled or sanctioned the government as legitimate; a very significant difference between historical states with shia majority populations and/or leanings and Iran's Islamic revolution. Completely different ideological structure.

Nasr, Vali 2007. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts in Islam Will Shape the Future.

and

Egger, Vernon 2004 A History of the Muslim World to 1405.
Click to expand...

"They never ruled", eh. Take for example the Hamdanid dynasty:

The Hamdanid dynasty (Arabic: حمدانيون‎ Ḥamdānyūn) was a Shi'a[1] MuslimArab dynasty of northern Iraq (Al-Jazirah) and Syria (890-1004). They descended from the ancient Banu Taghlib Christian tribe of Mesopotamia and east Arabia. The Hamdanid dynasty was founded by Hamdan ibn Hamdun (after whom it is named), when he was appointed governor of Mardin in SE Anatolia by the Abbasid Caliphs in 890.

His son Abdallah (904-929) was in turn appointed governor of Mosul in northern Iraq (906) and even governed Baghdad (914). His sons were installed as governors in Mosul and Aleppo.

The rule of Hassan Nasir ad-Daula (929-968), governor of Mosul and Diyarbakır, was sufficiently tyrannical to cause him to be deposed by his own family.

His lineage still ruled in Mossul, a heavy defeat by the Buyids in 979 notwithstanding, until 990. After this, their area of control in northern Iraq was divided between the Uqailids and the Marwanids.

Ali Saif al-Daula 'Sword of the State' ruled (945-967) Northern Syria from Aleppo, and became the most important opponent of the Byzantine Empire's (Christian) expansion. His court was a centre of culture, thanks to its nurturing of Arabic literature, but it lost this status after the Byzantine conquest of Aleppo.

To stop the Byzantine advance, Aleppo was put under the suzerainty of the Fatimids in Egypt, but in 1003 the Fatimids deposed the Hamdanids anyway.

*****RIGHT, TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:

Stop acting like you know what you're talking about, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.
The clerics always wanted power, however they were subdued by the Shah and his father. Islam is a political movement, Shia or Sunni.

Notice Ahmed can't admit he's a Muslim, nor will he admit what the Koran says about Israel. Come on Ahmed, out with it. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

Hamdun wasn't a member of the Ulama. Try again. Also worth noting, family dynasties are not Ulama ruled states, they are well, family dynasties. It's kind of right there in the name.
 
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Are you disagreeing that the Koran gives Israel to the Jews?
Click to expand...

There isn't anything in the Quran that states that either Jews or Muslims can't live in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

Mohammed turned away from Jerusalem towards Mecca, because the jews would not accept him as their prophet. Mecca was for the arabs and Jerusalem was for the jews and christians.
Omar also built a mosque off to one corner and left the dome and rest of mount for the other pilgrims. Jewish rabbis were consulted on where they could build and what was holy to the jews on the mount.
Click to expand...

Notice the Islamic scholar who makes a living in private rooms has yet be honest about what the Koran actually says about Israel and Jerusalem.

And he wants us to believe that he isn't a Muslim. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
 
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Kondor3 said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

Riiight. Says the Muslim who pretends not to be one, who can't admit that the Koran gives Israel and Jerusalem to the Jews, didn't even know that Khomeini is referred to as Imam, and now the ignoramus falsely claims that Shiism has been non political. Then what are all these Shiite empires, DUFUS? :lmao:


List of Shia Muslim dynasties

The following is a list of Shi'a Muslim dynasties:


Contents

Egypt and North Africa

SicilyEdit

SpainEdit

Arabian Peninsula

Syria and Iraq

Asia Minor (Modern Turkey)

Iran and CaucasusEdit

India

South-East AsiaEdit
  • Daya Pasai (1128–1285 AD).
  • Bandar Kalibah
  • Moira Malaya
  • Kanto Kambar
  • Robaromun

East AfricaEdit

YUP, AS WE CAN SEE SHIISM IS TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...
Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

Shia majority / preferred states does not mean that the ulama ruled or sanctioned the government as legitimate; a very significant difference between historical states with shia majority populations and/or leanings and Iran's Islamic revolution. Completely different ideological structure.

Nasr, Vali 2007. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts in Islam Will Shape the Future.

and

Egger, Vernon 2004 A History of the Muslim World to 1405.
Click to expand...

"They never ruled", eh. Take for example the Hamdanid dynasty:

The Hamdanid dynasty (Arabic: حمدانيون‎ Ḥamdānyūn) was a Shi'a[1] MuslimArab dynasty of northern Iraq (Al-Jazirah) and Syria (890-1004). They descended from the ancient Banu Taghlib Christian tribe of Mesopotamia and east Arabia. The Hamdanid dynasty was founded by Hamdan ibn Hamdun (after whom it is named), when he was appointed governor of Mardin in SE Anatolia by the Abbasid Caliphs in 890.

His son Abdallah (904-929) was in turn appointed governor of Mosul in northern Iraq (906) and even governed Baghdad (914). His sons were installed as governors in Mosul and Aleppo.

The rule of Hassan Nasir ad-Daula (929-968), governor of Mosul and Diyarbakır, was sufficiently tyrannical to cause him to be deposed by his own family.

His lineage still ruled in Mossul, a heavy defeat by the Buyids in 979 notwithstanding, until 990. After this, their area of control in northern Iraq was divided between the Uqailids and the Marwanids.

Ali Saif al-Daula 'Sword of the State' ruled (945-967) Northern Syria from Aleppo, and became the most important opponent of the Byzantine Empire's (Christian) expansion. His court was a centre of culture, thanks to its nurturing of Arabic literature, but it lost this status after the Byzantine conquest of Aleppo.

To stop the Byzantine advance, Aleppo was put under the suzerainty of the Fatimids in Egypt, but in 1003 the Fatimids deposed the Hamdanids anyway.

*****RIGHT, TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:

Stop acting like you know what you're talking about, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.
The clerics always wanted power, however they were subdued by the Shah and his father. Islam is a political movement, Shia or Sunni.

Notice Ahmed can't admit he's a Muslim, nor will he admit what the Koran says about Israel. Come on Ahmed, out with it. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

Hamdun wasn't a member of the Ulama. Try again. Also worth noting, family dynasties are not Ulama ruled states, they are well, family dynasties. It's kind of right there in the name.
Click to expand...

And like all Muslim propagandists, he never stops, even though he's embarassed and humiliated repeatedly. So Achmed, how about telling us what the Koran says about Jerusalem and Israel.

You are so transparent.
 
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
There isn't anything in the Quran that states that either Jews or Muslims can't live in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

Mohammed turned away from Jerusalem towards Mecca, because the jews would not accept him as their prophet. Mecca was for the arabs and Jerusalem was for the jews and christians.
Omar also built a mosque off to one corner and left the dome and rest of mount for the other pilgrims. Jewish rabbis were consulted on where they could build and what was holy to the jews on the mount.
Click to expand...

Notice the Islamic scholar who makes a living in private rooms has yet be honest about what the Koran actually says about Israel and Jerusalem.

And he wants us to believe that he isn't a Muslim. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history.
Click to expand...

I already have.

In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

I already addressed the Safavid state. In fact, I was the first one to bring it up. But no, the Safavid state was ruled differently theologically speaking than the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Ulama in the Safavid state never declared the government legitimate religiously speaking (something that could only be reserved for the Mahdi) rather they accepted the illegitimate state as the next best thing. As I said, it is the closest you will really come historically to what Iran is currently, but still significantly different.

Again I would invite you to read:

Nasr, Vali 2007. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts in Islam Will Shape the Future.

Also relating to the Safavids:

Gelvin, James 2008 The Modern Middle East: A History.
 
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
There isn't anything in the Quran that states that either Jews or Muslims can't live in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

Mohammed turned away from Jerusalem towards Mecca, because the jews would not accept him as their prophet. Mecca was for the arabs and Jerusalem was for the jews and christians.
Omar also built a mosque off to one corner and left the dome and rest of mount for the other pilgrims. Jewish rabbis were consulted on where they could build and what was holy to the jews on the mount.
Click to expand...

Notice the Islamic scholar who makes a living in private rooms has yet be honest about what the Koran actually says about Israel and Jerusalem.

And he wants us to believe that he isn't a Muslim. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.

If anything, the Shia vs Sunni wars were about the political struggle for the mantle of a islam, and it's still going on. Based on the ridulous claims made here, we might be dealing with a convert here.
 
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Kondor3 said:
Roudy said:
Riiight. Says the Muslim who pretends not to be one, who can't admit that the Koran gives Israel and Jerusalem to the Jews, didn't even know that Khomeini is referred to as Imam, and now the ignoramus falsely claims that Shiism has been non political. Then what are all these Shiite empires, DUFUS? :lmao:


List of Shia Muslim dynasties

The following is a list of Shi'a Muslim dynasties:


Contents

Egypt and North Africa

SicilyEdit

SpainEdit

Arabian Peninsula

Syria and Iraq

Asia Minor (Modern Turkey)

Iran and CaucasusEdit

India

South-East AsiaEdit
  • Daya Pasai (1128–1285 AD).
  • Bandar Kalibah
  • Moira Malaya
  • Kanto Kambar
  • Robaromun

East AfricaEdit

YUP, AS WE CAN SEE SHIISM IS TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...
Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

Shia majority / preferred states does not mean that the ulama ruled or sanctioned the government as legitimate; a very significant difference between historical states with shia majority populations and/or leanings and Iran's Islamic revolution. Completely different ideological structure.

Nasr, Vali 2007. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts in Islam Will Shape the Future.

and

Egger, Vernon 2004 A History of the Muslim World to 1405.
Click to expand...

"They never ruled", eh. Take for example the Hamdanid dynasty:

The Hamdanid dynasty (Arabic: حمدانيون‎ Ḥamdānyūn) was a Shi'a[1] MuslimArab dynasty of northern Iraq (Al-Jazirah) and Syria (890-1004). They descended from the ancient Banu Taghlib Christian tribe of Mesopotamia and east Arabia. The Hamdanid dynasty was founded by Hamdan ibn Hamdun (after whom it is named), when he was appointed governor of Mardin in SE Anatolia by the Abbasid Caliphs in 890.

His son Abdallah (904-929) was in turn appointed governor of Mosul in northern Iraq (906) and even governed Baghdad (914). His sons were installed as governors in Mosul and Aleppo.

The rule of Hassan Nasir ad-Daula (929-968), governor of Mosul and Diyarbakır, was sufficiently tyrannical to cause him to be deposed by his own family.

His lineage still ruled in Mossul, a heavy defeat by the Buyids in 979 notwithstanding, until 990. After this, their area of control in northern Iraq was divided between the Uqailids and the Marwanids.

Ali Saif al-Daula 'Sword of the State' ruled (945-967) Northern Syria from Aleppo, and became the most important opponent of the Byzantine Empire's (Christian) expansion. His court was a centre of culture, thanks to its nurturing of Arabic literature, but it lost this status after the Byzantine conquest of Aleppo.

To stop the Byzantine advance, Aleppo was put under the suzerainty of the Fatimids in Egypt, but in 1003 the Fatimids deposed the Hamdanids anyway.

*****RIGHT, TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:

Stop acting like you know what you're talking about, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.
The clerics always wanted power, however they were subdued by the Shah and his father. Islam is a political movement, Shia or Sunni.

Notice Ahmed can't admit he's a Muslim, nor will he admit what the Koran says about Israel. Come on Ahmed, out with it. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

Hamdun wasn't a member of the Ulama. Try again. Also worth noting, family dynasties are not Ulama ruled states, they are well, family dynasties. It's kind of right there in the name.
Click to expand...

And like all Muslim propagandists, he never stops, even though he's embarassed and humiliated repeatedly. So Achmed, how about telling us what the Koran says about Jerusalem and Israel.

You are so transparent.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what you think the Quran says about Jerusalem. The Quran has no personal bearing in my life and thus plays no part in my opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I would care more about the Ottoman Land Codes. But if you two are attempting to utilize the Quranic declaration of praying towards Mecca to suggest that Muslims shouldn't care bout Jerusalem that is both scripturally inaccurate and historically inaccurate. The Night Journey within Islam took place in Jerusalem (supposedly) which makes it a very important site for Islam, not to mention its deep roots connecting it to Christian and Jewish tradition from which Islam borrows. To suggest that Muslims shouldn't care about it seems pretty odd to me.
 
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Mohammed turned away from Jerusalem towards Mecca, because the jews would not accept him as their prophet. Mecca was for the arabs and Jerusalem was for the jews and christians.
Omar also built a mosque off to one corner and left the dome and rest of mount for the other pilgrims. Jewish rabbis were consulted on where they could build and what was holy to the jews on the mount.
Click to expand...

Notice the Islamic scholar who makes a living in private rooms has yet be honest about what the Koran actually says about Israel and Jerusalem.

And he wants us to believe that he isn't a Muslim. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Princeton. :wink: Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
 
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Kondor3 said:
Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

Shia majority / preferred states does not mean that the ulama ruled or sanctioned the government as legitimate; a very significant difference between historical states with shia majority populations and/or leanings and Iran's Islamic revolution. Completely different ideological structure.

Nasr, Vali 2007. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts in Islam Will Shape the Future.

and

Egger, Vernon 2004 A History of the Muslim World to 1405.
Click to expand...

"They never ruled", eh. Take for example the Hamdanid dynasty:

The Hamdanid dynasty (Arabic: حمدانيون‎ Ḥamdānyūn) was a Shi'a[1] MuslimArab dynasty of northern Iraq (Al-Jazirah) and Syria (890-1004). They descended from the ancient Banu Taghlib Christian tribe of Mesopotamia and east Arabia. The Hamdanid dynasty was founded by Hamdan ibn Hamdun (after whom it is named), when he was appointed governor of Mardin in SE Anatolia by the Abbasid Caliphs in 890.

His son Abdallah (904-929) was in turn appointed governor of Mosul in northern Iraq (906) and even governed Baghdad (914). His sons were installed as governors in Mosul and Aleppo.

The rule of Hassan Nasir ad-Daula (929-968), governor of Mosul and Diyarbakır, was sufficiently tyrannical to cause him to be deposed by his own family.

His lineage still ruled in Mossul, a heavy defeat by the Buyids in 979 notwithstanding, until 990. After this, their area of control in northern Iraq was divided between the Uqailids and the Marwanids.

Ali Saif al-Daula 'Sword of the State' ruled (945-967) Northern Syria from Aleppo, and became the most important opponent of the Byzantine Empire's (Christian) expansion. His court was a centre of culture, thanks to its nurturing of Arabic literature, but it lost this status after the Byzantine conquest of Aleppo.

To stop the Byzantine advance, Aleppo was put under the suzerainty of the Fatimids in Egypt, but in 1003 the Fatimids deposed the Hamdanids anyway.

*****RIGHT, TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:

Stop acting like you know what you're talking about, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.
The clerics always wanted power, however they were subdued by the Shah and his father. Islam is a political movement, Shia or Sunni.

Notice Ahmed can't admit he's a Muslim, nor will he admit what the Koran says about Israel. Come on Ahmed, out with it. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

Hamdun wasn't a member of the Ulama. Try again. Also worth noting, family dynasties are not Ulama ruled states, they are well, family dynasties. It's kind of right there in the name.
Click to expand...

And like all Muslim propagandists, he never stops, even though he's embarassed and humiliated repeatedly. So Achmed, how about telling us what the Koran says about Jerusalem and Israel.

You are so transparent.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what you think the Quran says about Jerusalem. The Quran has no personal bearing in my life and thus plays no part in my opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I would care more about the Ottoman Land Codes. But if you two are attempting to utilize the Quranic declaration of praying towards Mecca to suggest that Muslims shouldn't care bout Jerusalem that is both scripturally inaccurate and historically inaccurate. The Night Journey within Islam took place in Jerusalem (supposedly) which makes it a very important site for Islam, not to mention its deep roots connecting it to Christian and Jewish tradition from which Islam borrows. To suggest that Muslims shouldn't care about it seems pretty odd to me.
Click to expand...

You don't care or you don't know, that the Koran confirms the story of the exodus, Achmed?
 
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Shia majority / preferred states does not mean that the ulama ruled or sanctioned the government as legitimate; a very significant difference between historical states with shia majority populations and/or leanings and Iran's Islamic revolution. Completely different ideological structure.

Nasr, Vali 2007. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts in Islam Will Shape the Future.

and

Egger, Vernon 2004 A History of the Muslim World to 1405.
Click to expand...

"They never ruled", eh. Take for example the Hamdanid dynasty:

The Hamdanid dynasty (Arabic: حمدانيون‎ Ḥamdānyūn) was a Shi'a[1] MuslimArab dynasty of northern Iraq (Al-Jazirah) and Syria (890-1004). They descended from the ancient Banu Taghlib Christian tribe of Mesopotamia and east Arabia. The Hamdanid dynasty was founded by Hamdan ibn Hamdun (after whom it is named), when he was appointed governor of Mardin in SE Anatolia by the Abbasid Caliphs in 890.

His son Abdallah (904-929) was in turn appointed governor of Mosul in northern Iraq (906) and even governed Baghdad (914). His sons were installed as governors in Mosul and Aleppo.

The rule of Hassan Nasir ad-Daula (929-968), governor of Mosul and Diyarbakır, was sufficiently tyrannical to cause him to be deposed by his own family.

His lineage still ruled in Mossul, a heavy defeat by the Buyids in 979 notwithstanding, until 990. After this, their area of control in northern Iraq was divided between the Uqailids and the Marwanids.

Ali Saif al-Daula 'Sword of the State' ruled (945-967) Northern Syria from Aleppo, and became the most important opponent of the Byzantine Empire's (Christian) expansion. His court was a centre of culture, thanks to its nurturing of Arabic literature, but it lost this status after the Byzantine conquest of Aleppo.

To stop the Byzantine advance, Aleppo was put under the suzerainty of the Fatimids in Egypt, but in 1003 the Fatimids deposed the Hamdanids anyway.

*****RIGHT, TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:

Stop acting like you know what you're talking about, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.
The clerics always wanted power, however they were subdued by the Shah and his father. Islam is a political movement, Shia or Sunni.

Notice Ahmed can't admit he's a Muslim, nor will he admit what the Koran says about Israel. Come on Ahmed, out with it. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

Hamdun wasn't a member of the Ulama. Try again. Also worth noting, family dynasties are not Ulama ruled states, they are well, family dynasties. It's kind of right there in the name.
Click to expand...

And like all Muslim propagandists, he never stops, even though he's embarassed and humiliated repeatedly. So Achmed, how about telling us what the Koran says about Jerusalem and Israel.

You are so transparent.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what you think the Quran says about Jerusalem. The Quran has no personal bearing in my life and thus plays no part in my opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I would care more about the Ottoman Land Codes. But if you two are attempting to utilize the Quranic declaration of praying towards Mecca to suggest that Muslims shouldn't care bout Jerusalem that is both scripturally inaccurate and historically inaccurate. The Night Journey within Islam took place in Jerusalem (supposedly) which makes it a very important site for Islam, not to mention its deep roots connecting it to Christian and Jewish tradition from which Islam borrows. To suggest that Muslims shouldn't care about it seems pretty odd to me.
Click to expand...

You don't care or you don't know, that the Koran confirms the story of the exodus, Achmed?
Click to expand...

Your need for me to be a secret Muslim in order for you to feel better about my knowing more about Islam than you is sad. Instead of becoming defensive and reliant upon insults you should simply seek to buttress your own knowledge base.
 
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
Roudy said:
Notice the Islamic scholar who makes a living in private rooms has yet be honest about what the Koran actually says about Israel and Jerusalem.

And he wants us to believe that he isn't a Muslim. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Princeton. :wink: Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
Click to expand...
Sources to provide what? That you've been humiliated several times in this thread? Yeah, Shia ullama never ruled, and Princeton told you that!

You're fulla shiite!

Rassids

The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiouslyconsecratedleaders belonging to the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. They established a blend of religious and secular rule in parts of Yemen from 897. Their imamate endured under varying circumstances until the republican revolution in 1962. Zaidiyyah theology differed from Ismailis or Twelver Shi'ites by stressing the presence of an active and visible imam as leader. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious sciences, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary. A claimant of the imamate would proclaim a "call" (da'wa), and there were not infrequently more than one claimant.[1] The historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) mentions the clan that usually provided the imams as the Banu Rassi or Rassids.[2] In the original Arab sources the term Rassids is otherwise hardly used; in Western literature it usually refers to the Imams of the medieval period, up to the 16th century. The Rassid branch that came to power with imam al-Mansur al-Qasim(r. 1597-1620) is known as Qasimids (Al al-Qasimi).

******Now, go hide in your private room. Ha ha ha
 
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
"They never ruled", eh. Take for example the Hamdanid dynasty:

The Hamdanid dynasty (Arabic: حمدانيون‎ Ḥamdānyūn) was a Shi'a[1] MuslimArab dynasty of northern Iraq (Al-Jazirah) and Syria (890-1004). They descended from the ancient Banu Taghlib Christian tribe of Mesopotamia and east Arabia. The Hamdanid dynasty was founded by Hamdan ibn Hamdun (after whom it is named), when he was appointed governor of Mardin in SE Anatolia by the Abbasid Caliphs in 890.

His son Abdallah (904-929) was in turn appointed governor of Mosul in northern Iraq (906) and even governed Baghdad (914). His sons were installed as governors in Mosul and Aleppo.

The rule of Hassan Nasir ad-Daula (929-968), governor of Mosul and Diyarbakır, was sufficiently tyrannical to cause him to be deposed by his own family.

His lineage still ruled in Mossul, a heavy defeat by the Buyids in 979 notwithstanding, until 990. After this, their area of control in northern Iraq was divided between the Uqailids and the Marwanids.

Ali Saif al-Daula 'Sword of the State' ruled (945-967) Northern Syria from Aleppo, and became the most important opponent of the Byzantine Empire's (Christian) expansion. His court was a centre of culture, thanks to its nurturing of Arabic literature, but it lost this status after the Byzantine conquest of Aleppo.

To stop the Byzantine advance, Aleppo was put under the suzerainty of the Fatimids in Egypt, but in 1003 the Fatimids deposed the Hamdanids anyway.

*****RIGHT, TRADITIONALLY NON POLITICAL. :cuckoo:

Stop acting like you know what you're talking about, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.
The clerics always wanted power, however they were subdued by the Shah and his father. Islam is a political movement, Shia or Sunni.

Notice Ahmed can't admit he's a Muslim, nor will he admit what the Koran says about Israel. Come on Ahmed, out with it. Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

Hamdun wasn't a member of the Ulama. Try again. Also worth noting, family dynasties are not Ulama ruled states, they are well, family dynasties. It's kind of right there in the name.
Click to expand...

And like all Muslim propagandists, he never stops, even though he's embarassed and humiliated repeatedly. So Achmed, how about telling us what the Koran says about Jerusalem and Israel.

You are so transparent.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what you think the Quran says about Jerusalem. The Quran has no personal bearing in my life and thus plays no part in my opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I would care more about the Ottoman Land Codes. But if you two are attempting to utilize the Quranic declaration of praying towards Mecca to suggest that Muslims shouldn't care bout Jerusalem that is both scripturally inaccurate and historically inaccurate. The Night Journey within Islam took place in Jerusalem (supposedly) which makes it a very important site for Islam, not to mention its deep roots connecting it to Christian and Jewish tradition from which Islam borrows. To suggest that Muslims shouldn't care about it seems pretty odd to me.
Click to expand...

You don't care or you don't know, that the Koran confirms the story of the exodus, Achmed?
Click to expand...

Your need for me to be a secret Muslim in order for you to feel better about my knowing more about Islam than you is sad. Instead of becoming defensive and reliant upon insults you should simply seek to buttress your own knowledge base.
Click to expand...

I don't need you to be anything. YOU need to stop embarrassing yourself. I just laugh at your stupidity and ignorance.
 
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Princeton. :wink: Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
Click to expand...
Sources to provide what? That you've been humiliated several times in this thread? Yeah, Shia ullama never ruled, and Princeton told you that!

You're fulla shiite!

Rassids

The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiouslyconsecratedleaders belonging to the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. They established a blend of religious and secular rule in parts of Yemen from 897. Their imamate endured under varying circumstances until the republican revolution in 1962. Zaidiyyah theology differed from Ismailis or Twelver Shi'ites by stressing the presence of an active and visible imam as leader. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious sciences, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary. A claimant of the imamate would proclaim a "call" (da'wa), and there were not infrequently more than one claimant.[1] The historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) mentions the clan that usually provided the imams as the Banu Rassi or Rassids.[2] In the original Arab sources the term Rassids is otherwise hardly used; in Western literature it usually refers to the Imams of the medieval period, up to the 16th century. The Rassid branch that came to power with imam al-Mansur al-Qasim(r. 1597-1620) is known as Qasimids (Al al-Qasimi).

******Now, go hide in your private room. Ha ha ha
Click to expand...

1.) The Zaidis are not part of 12er Shiism, Nor do they follow Jafari or usuli structures. If you need to go to a completely different branch of Islam in order to prove your point then You should probably think about readjusting your initial point.

2.) The Imamate in Yemen was, even in Yemen and among the Zaidis a historical aberration and a break from traditional Zaidi practices. That being said, it wasn't ruled by a council of ulama, it was ruled by a single individual who was an authoritarian leader.

Dresch, Paul 2000 A History of Modern Yemen.
 
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
He is no scholar of Islam. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. He has only a limited view of the facts.
Click to expand...

Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Princeton. :wink: Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
Click to expand...
Sources to provide what? That you've been humiliated several times in this thread? Yeah, Shia ullama never ruled, and Princeton told you that!

You're fulla shiite!

Rassids

The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiouslyconsecratedleaders belonging to the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. They established a blend of religious and secular rule in parts of Yemen from 897. Their imamate endured under varying circumstances until the republican revolution in 1962. Zaidiyyah theology differed from Ismailis or Twelver Shi'ites by stressing the presence of an active and visible imam as leader. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious sciences, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary. A claimant of the imamate would proclaim a "call" (da'wa), and there were not infrequently more than one claimant.[1] The historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) mentions the clan that usually provided the imams as the Banu Rassi or Rassids.[2] In the original Arab sources the term Rassids is otherwise hardly used; in Western literature it usually refers to the Imams of the medieval period, up to the 16th century. The Rassid branch that came to power with imam al-Mansur al-Qasim(r. 1597-1620) is known as Qasimids (Al al-Qasimi).

******Now, go hide in your private room. Ha ha ha
Click to expand...

Wait, he's going to go into a private room and do a few lap dances at Princeton univ and West Point to get info to explain this one!
 
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Princeton. :wink: Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
Click to expand...
Sources to provide what? That you've been humiliated several times in this thread? Yeah, Shia ullama never ruled, and Princeton told you that!

You're fulla shiite!

Rassids

The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiouslyconsecratedleaders belonging to the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. They established a blend of religious and secular rule in parts of Yemen from 897. Their imamate endured under varying circumstances until the republican revolution in 1962. Zaidiyyah theology differed from Ismailis or Twelver Shi'ites by stressing the presence of an active and visible imam as leader. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious sciences, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary. A claimant of the imamate would proclaim a "call" (da'wa), and there were not infrequently more than one claimant.[1] The historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) mentions the clan that usually provided the imams as the Banu Rassi or Rassids.[2] In the original Arab sources the term Rassids is otherwise hardly used; in Western literature it usually refers to the Imams of the medieval period, up to the 16th century. The Rassid branch that came to power with imam al-Mansur al-Qasim(r. 1597-1620) is known as Qasimids (Al al-Qasimi).

******Now, go hide in your private room. Ha ha ha
Click to expand...

1.) The Zaidis are not part of 12er Shiism, Nor do they follow Jafari or usuli structures. If you need to go to a completely different branch of Islam in order to prove your point then You should probably think about readjusting your initial point.

2.) The Imamate in Yemen was, even in Yemen and among the Zaidis a historical aberration and a break from traditional Zaidi practices. That being said, it wasn't ruled by a council of ulama, it was ruled by a single individual who was an authoritarian leader.

Dresch, Paul 2000 A History of Modern Yemen.
Click to expand...

You are repeating what my link says. Duh.

Nation ruled by religious leader for centuries. Ulama shulama. Who gives a shiite! Now get lost.
 
15th post
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
Says the person who didn't think that Shiism was traditionally non-political. :wink:

I understand that you two are nursing bruised egos, but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Princeton. :wink: Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
Click to expand...
Sources to provide what? That you've been humiliated several times in this thread? Yeah, Shia ullama never ruled, and Princeton told you that!

You're fulla shiite!

Rassids

The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiouslyconsecratedleaders belonging to the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. They established a blend of religious and secular rule in parts of Yemen from 897. Their imamate endured under varying circumstances until the republican revolution in 1962. Zaidiyyah theology differed from Ismailis or Twelver Shi'ites by stressing the presence of an active and visible imam as leader. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious sciences, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary. A claimant of the imamate would proclaim a "call" (da'wa), and there were not infrequently more than one claimant.[1] The historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) mentions the clan that usually provided the imams as the Banu Rassi or Rassids.[2] In the original Arab sources the term Rassids is otherwise hardly used; in Western literature it usually refers to the Imams of the medieval period, up to the 16th century. The Rassid branch that came to power with imam al-Mansur al-Qasim(r. 1597-1620) is known as Qasimids (Al al-Qasimi).

******Now, go hide in your private room. Ha ha ha
Click to expand...

1.) The Zaidis are not part of 12er Shiism, Nor do they follow Jafari or usuli structures. If you need to go to a completely different branch of Islam in order to prove your point then You should probably think about readjusting your initial point.

2.) The Imamate in Yemen was, even in Yemen and among the Zaidis a historical aberration and a break from traditional Zaidi practices. That being said, it wasn't ruled by a council of ulama, it was ruled by a single individual who was an authoritarian leader.

Dresch, Paul 2000 A History of Modern Yemen.
Click to expand...


Zaidiyyah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, I'm lazy, still making my coffee
 
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Princeton. :wink: Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
Click to expand...
Sources to provide what? That you've been humiliated several times in this thread? Yeah, Shia ullama never ruled, and Princeton told you that!

You're fulla shiite!

Rassids

The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiouslyconsecratedleaders belonging to the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. They established a blend of religious and secular rule in parts of Yemen from 897. Their imamate endured under varying circumstances until the republican revolution in 1962. Zaidiyyah theology differed from Ismailis or Twelver Shi'ites by stressing the presence of an active and visible imam as leader. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious sciences, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary. A claimant of the imamate would proclaim a "call" (da'wa), and there were not infrequently more than one claimant.[1] The historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) mentions the clan that usually provided the imams as the Banu Rassi or Rassids.[2] In the original Arab sources the term Rassids is otherwise hardly used; in Western literature it usually refers to the Imams of the medieval period, up to the 16th century. The Rassid branch that came to power with imam al-Mansur al-Qasim(r. 1597-1620) is known as Qasimids (Al al-Qasimi).

******Now, go hide in your private room. Ha ha ha
Click to expand...

1.) The Zaidis are not part of 12er Shiism, Nor do they follow Jafari or usuli structures. If you need to go to a completely different branch of Islam in order to prove your point then You should probably think about readjusting your initial point.

2.) The Imamate in Yemen was, even in Yemen and among the Zaidis a historical aberration and a break from traditional Zaidi practices. That being said, it wasn't ruled by a council of ulama, it was ruled by a single individual who was an authoritarian leader.

Dresch, Paul 2000 A History of Modern Yemen.
Click to expand...

You are repeating what my link says. Duh.

Nation ruled by religious leader for centuries. Ulama shulama. Who gives a shiite! Now get lost.
Click to expand...

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that shia literally means "follower of" and that Zaydi Islam is completely different from Usuli and Jafari Islam which is what you were originally arguing about. This is a completely different sub-branch of Islam.
 
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
aris2chat said:
I suggest you go back to 656 AD and read the history. In 1501, you think the safavid was not political? You think the ongoing battle between sunni and shiites is not political? You think the fact that the Baath party being mostly shiite is not political? Hezbullah? Amal? Dawa? Sadrist? ISC?

I grew living through sectarian struggles that eventually escalate in civil war. I've seen the region ripped apart. I am well aware of how political all this is.

...and the bombing of the mosques on friday prayer killing at least 137, that was not political?

None of this should be about egos. It should be about awareness, having the facts and being able to make rational conclusion and decisions based on knowledge and not emotion or lies. The very fact that you would make this about ego shows your weakness. This is about understanding.
Click to expand...

His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Princeton. :wink: Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
Click to expand...
Sources to provide what? That you've been humiliated several times in this thread? Yeah, Shia ullama never ruled, and Princeton told you that!

You're fulla shiite!

Rassids

The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiouslyconsecratedleaders belonging to the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. They established a blend of religious and secular rule in parts of Yemen from 897. Their imamate endured under varying circumstances until the republican revolution in 1962. Zaidiyyah theology differed from Ismailis or Twelver Shi'ites by stressing the presence of an active and visible imam as leader. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious sciences, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary. A claimant of the imamate would proclaim a "call" (da'wa), and there were not infrequently more than one claimant.[1] The historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) mentions the clan that usually provided the imams as the Banu Rassi or Rassids.[2] In the original Arab sources the term Rassids is otherwise hardly used; in Western literature it usually refers to the Imams of the medieval period, up to the 16th century. The Rassid branch that came to power with imam al-Mansur al-Qasim(r. 1597-1620) is known as Qasimids (Al al-Qasimi).

******Now, go hide in your private room. Ha ha ha
Click to expand...

1.) The Zaidis are not part of 12er Shiism, Nor do they follow Jafari or usuli structures. If you need to go to a completely different branch of Islam in order to prove your point then You should probably think about readjusting your initial point.

2.) The Imamate in Yemen was, even in Yemen and among the Zaidis a historical aberration and a break from traditional Zaidi practices. That being said, it wasn't ruled by a council of ulama, it was ruled by a single individual who was an authoritarian leader.

Dresch, Paul 2000 A History of Modern Yemen.
Click to expand...


Zaidiyyah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, I'm lazy, still making my coffee
Click to expand...

From the Modern History of Yemen as referenced above:

"When the Turks again took Sanaa, in 1872, al-Mutawakkil Mushin moved north and sustained his claim as Imam (political leader) in accordance with the Zaydi school of Islamic law. Though it had once, in the seventeenth century, produced the Qasimi dynastic state or dawlah, Zaydism had usually been a tradition of the anti-state... nor did most Zaydi scholars accept dynastic succession."
 
Osomir said:
aris2chat said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
Osomir said:
Roudy said:
His govt. Sources in the private rooms told him that Shia Islam is not political.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Princeton. :wink: Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
Click to expand...
Sources to provide what? That you've been humiliated several times in this thread? Yeah, Shia ullama never ruled, and Princeton told you that!

You're fulla shiite!

Rassids

The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiouslyconsecratedleaders belonging to the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. They established a blend of religious and secular rule in parts of Yemen from 897. Their imamate endured under varying circumstances until the republican revolution in 1962. Zaidiyyah theology differed from Ismailis or Twelver Shi'ites by stressing the presence of an active and visible imam as leader. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious sciences, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary. A claimant of the imamate would proclaim a "call" (da'wa), and there were not infrequently more than one claimant.[1] The historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) mentions the clan that usually provided the imams as the Banu Rassi or Rassids.[2] In the original Arab sources the term Rassids is otherwise hardly used; in Western literature it usually refers to the Imams of the medieval period, up to the 16th century. The Rassid branch that came to power with imam al-Mansur al-Qasim(r. 1597-1620) is known as Qasimids (Al al-Qasimi).

******Now, go hide in your private room. Ha ha ha
Click to expand...

1.) The Zaidis are not part of 12er Shiism, Nor do they follow Jafari or usuli structures. If you need to go to a completely different branch of Islam in order to prove your point then You should probably think about readjusting your initial point.

2.) The Imamate in Yemen was, even in Yemen and among the Zaidis a historical aberration and a break from traditional Zaidi practices. That being said, it wasn't ruled by a council of ulama, it was ruled by a single individual who was an authoritarian leader.

Dresch, Paul 2000 A History of Modern Yemen.
Click to expand...


Zaidiyyah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yes, I'm lazy, still making my coffee
Click to expand...

From the Modern History of Yemen as referenced above:

"When the Turks again took Sanaa, in 1872, al-Mutawakkil Mushin moved north and sustained his claim as Imam (political leader) in accordance with the Zaydi school of Islamic law. Though it had once, in the seventeenth century, produced the Qasimi dynastic state or dawlah, Zaydism had usually been a tradition of the anti-state... nor did most Zaydi scholars accept dynastic succession."
Click to expand...

Named for Zayd b. Ali, grandson of Husayn. They might be among the most moderate but they are shiite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Why Are US Taxpayers Subsidizing Right-Wing Israeli Settlers?

< Previous Thread

Australian MP exposes Israeli poopaganda in Australia over Palestine!

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Ancient lion
Zone1 U.S. war Secretary, a firm believer in Zionist prophecies, insults Muslims
Replies
19
Views
270
DennisPTate
DennisPTate
Roudy
The Koran and Allah are 100% Zionist
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
2K
EMH
EMH
Sayaras
Why a need for a 22-nd independent Arab state called "palestine" (for Arab immigrants) - after rejecting Jewish Returnees because of Arab racism?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
1K
Hafar1014
Hafar1014
DennisPTate
  • Poll Poll
God's Peace Plan for the Holy Land by near death experiencer Robert Mendelson.
2 3
Replies
42
Views
1K
DennisPTate
DennisPTate
Litwin
By the end of the 1960s, the Bolshevik empire was deeply involved in mass terrorism against Jews
Replies
0
Views
118
Litwin
Litwin

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom