Ulama performing basic judicial duties is a far cry from the Iranian model and has nothing to do with the political shiism that Roudy was talking about. In fact, Bahrain has been pretty heavy handed with its shia population since it isn't a shia run state. Saudi Arabia even sent in troops to prevent any such social or governmental revolution.
sexist?
a she being irrational, air headed, less intelligent? Perhaps on this one you should hold your tongue. It did not sound like you were intending the "she" as a compliment.
Except for foul language or threats, a private room is just hiding from others that might confirm or debunk points being made. Laughter makes the seriousness of the topics more palitable. When the clowns become hostile or wear out their jokes we can ignore or block them for a short time.
Private room might be more appropriate for off topic conversation rather than continuing an ongoing one.
sexist?
a she being irrational, air headed, less intelligent? Perhaps on this one you should hold your tongue. It did not sound like you were intending the "she" as a compliment.
Except for foul language or threats, a private room is just hiding from others that might confirm or debunk points being made. Laughter makes the seriousness of the topics more palitable. When the clowns become hostile or wear out their jokes we can ignore or block them for a short time.
Private room might be more appropriate for off topic conversation rather than continuing an ongoing one.
sexist?
a she being irrational, air headed, less intelligent? Perhaps on this one you should hold your tongue. It did not sound like you were intending the "she" as a compliment.
Except for foul language or threats, a private room is just hiding from others that might confirm or debunk points being made. Laughter makes the seriousness of the topics more palitable. When the clowns become hostile or wear out their jokes we can ignore or block them for a short time.
Private room might be more appropriate for off topic conversation rather than continuing an ongoing one.
No I meant that I just don't envision Osomir as a man, based on the language he or she uses. I've seen men say stupider things.
sexist?
a she being irrational, air headed, less intelligent? Perhaps on this one you should hold your tongue. It did not sound like you were intending the "she" as a compliment.
Except for foul language or threats, a private room is just hiding from others that might confirm or debunk points being made. Laughter makes the seriousness of the topics more palitable. When the clowns become hostile or wear out their jokes we can ignore or block them for a short time.
Private room might be more appropriate for off topic conversation rather than continuing an ongoing one.
No I meant that I just don't envision Osomir as a man, based on the language he or she uses. I've seen men say stupider things.
Ahhhhh
True
sexist?
a she being irrational, air headed, less intelligent? Perhaps on this one you should hold your tongue. It did not sound like you were intending the "she" as a compliment.
Except for foul language or threats, a private room is just hiding from others that might confirm or debunk points being made. Laughter makes the seriousness of the topics more palitable. When the clowns become hostile or wear out their jokes we can ignore or block them for a short time.
Private room might be more appropriate for off topic conversation rather than continuing an ongoing one.
You guys realize that the whole "private room" thing was entirely of your own construction right? I suggested a more formal discussion in the open and public structured discussion sub-forum. Essentially a similar one as we are having now only where name calling isn't allowed and where opinions have to be sourced and points directly responded to.
sexist?
a she being irrational, air headed, less intelligent? Perhaps on this one you should hold your tongue. It did not sound like you were intending the "she" as a compliment.
Except for foul language or threats, a private room is just hiding from others that might confirm or debunk points being made. Laughter makes the seriousness of the topics more palitable. When the clowns become hostile or wear out their jokes we can ignore or block them for a short time.
Private room might be more appropriate for off topic conversation rather than continuing an ongoing one.
No I meant that I just don't envision Osomir as a man, based on the language he or she uses. I've seen men say stupider things.
Ahhhhh
True
What do you think? Man or woman?
Other than that sounds he or she sounds like a genius compared the other resident Islamist nutjobs like Sunniman, Muslim75, or IndoFred.
sexist?
a she being irrational, air headed, less intelligent? Perhaps on this one you should hold your tongue. It did not sound like you were intending the "she" as a compliment.
Except for foul language or threats, a private room is just hiding from others that might confirm or debunk points being made. Laughter makes the seriousness of the topics more palitable. When the clowns become hostile or wear out their jokes we can ignore or block them for a short time.
Private room might be more appropriate for off topic conversation rather than continuing an ongoing one.
No I meant that I just don't envision Osomir as a man, based on the language he or she uses. I've seen men say stupider things, though.
I already told you twice: YEMEN. The clerics there had been ruling for over a thousand years. So your claim that "traditionally Shia religious figures don't get involved in politics" is baloney. I'm not going to recite the entire history of Shiism once more, just because you have no shame and can't own up to the truth.
Now crawl away.
I already told you twice: YEMEN. The clerics there had been ruling for over a thousand years. So your claim that "traditionally Shia religious figures don't get involved in politics" is baloney. I'm not going to recite the entire history of Shiism once more, just because you have no shame and can't own up to the truth.
Now crawl away.
No they haven't. I also already quoted sources confirming as much. Once again I also find it amusing that you have to rely on a single example when your original assertion was that it was a common feature within Shia Islam. It's cute.
I already told you twice: YEMEN. The clerics there had been ruling for over a thousand years. So your claim that "traditionally Shia religious figures don't get involved in politics" is baloney. I'm not going to recite the entire history of Shiism once more, just because you have no shame and can't own up to the truth.
Now crawl away.
No they haven't. I also already quoted sources confirming as much. Once again I also find it amusing that you have to rely on a single example when your original assertion was that it was a common feature within Shia Islam. It's cute.
You haven't quoted or proven jack shit. Everything you've claimed has been proven incorrect. You asked for a "single sample of Shia religious leaders getting involved in politics", and I provided you with one. Like I said I'm not going to sit here and recite the entire history of Shai Islam, nor am I interested in doing as such. Now you're whining about "why I keep referring to it as an example". You are a truly pathetic and intellectually dishonest person.
Bottom line is Islam has always been about being a religious as well as a political Arab imperialistic movement.. Shiite or Sunni, the it's the same shiite. As far as your claim that the clerics in Yemen "didn't rule", here it is again, you have been humiliated for the 12th time in this thread:
The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiously consecrated leaders 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. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious scholarship, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary.
Now run along before I humiliate you again.
I already told you twice: YEMEN. The clerics there had been ruling for over a thousand years. So your claim that "traditionally Shia religious figures don't get involved in politics" is baloney. I'm not going to recite the entire history of Shiism once more, just because you have no shame and can't own up to the truth.
Now crawl away.
No they haven't. I also already quoted sources confirming as much. Once again I also find it amusing that you have to rely on a single example when your original assertion was that it was a common feature within Shia Islam. It's cute.
You haven't quoted or proven jack shit. Everything you've claimed has been proven incorrect. You asked for a "single sample of Shia religious leaders getting involved in politics", and I provided you with one. Like I said I'm not going to sit here and recite the entire history of Shai Islam, nor am I interested in doing as such. Now you're whining about "why I keep referring to it as an example". You are a truly pathetic and intellectually dishonest person.
Bottom line is Islam has always been about being a religious as well as a political Arab imperialistic movement.. Shiite or Sunni, the it's the same shiite. As far as your claim that the clerics in Yemen "didn't rule", here it is again, you have been humiliated for the 12th time in this thread:
The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiously consecrated leaders 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. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious scholarship, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary.
Now run along before I humiliate you again.
A zaidi imamate doesn't look anything like the Iranian state. You would know that of course if you had ever studied Yemeni history and Zaidi precepts. I have, and I already quoted from a direct history of Yemen written through Cambridge that completely contests your claims. I'd also point out that there tended to be several imams at the same time in Yemen, and that a formal state apparatus in and of itself was uncommon let alone one ruled by an assembly of religious clerics, which is simply not how the imamates functioned. The last one was literally ruled by a guy out of a hut in the north. There was no religious council that vetted legislation, nor judicial branch separate of him, he did everything himself as an individual autocratic ruler and without a formal religious education, nor did his son possess such an education when he took over power from his father; instead he was a military leader who was allied to the communists and supported by the Soviet Union and China. In fact even the base Zaidi understanding of what an Imam is is completely different from the Iranian jurisprudential and belief structure.
Your heavy reliance on generalizations gleamed from wikipedia isn't serving you too well.
Let me know when you are able to find a single example of your claim.
I already told you twice: YEMEN. The clerics there had been ruling for over a thousand years. So your claim that "traditionally Shia religious figures don't get involved in politics" is baloney. I'm not going to recite the entire history of Shiism once more, just because you have no shame and can't own up to the truth.
Now crawl away.
No they haven't. I also already quoted sources confirming as much. Once again I also find it amusing that you have to rely on a single example when your original assertion was that it was a common feature within Shia Islam. It's cute.
You haven't quoted or proven jack shit. Everything you've claimed has been proven incorrect. You asked for a "single sample of Shia religious leaders getting involved in politics", and I provided you with one. Like I said I'm not going to sit here and recite the entire history of Shai Islam, nor am I interested in doing as such. Now you're whining about "why I keep referring to it as an example". You are a truly pathetic and intellectually dishonest person.
Bottom line is Islam has always been about being a religious as well as a political Arab imperialistic movement.. Shiite or Sunni, the it's the same shiite. As far as your claim that the clerics in Yemen "didn't rule", here it is again, you have been humiliated for the 12th time in this thread:
The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiously consecrated leaders 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. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious scholarship, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary.
Now run along before I humiliate you again.
A zaidi imamate doesn't look anything like the Iranian state. You would know that of course if you had ever studied Yemeni history and Zaidi precepts. I have, and I already quoted from a direct history of Yemen written through Cambridge that completely contests your claims. I'd also point out that there tended to be several imams at the same time in Yemen, and that a formal state apparatus in and of itself was uncommon let alone one ruled by an assembly of religious clerics, which is simply not how the imamates functioned. The last one was literally ruled by a guy out of a hut in the north. There was no religious council that vetted legislation, nor judicial branch separate of him, he did everything himself as an individual autocratic ruler and without a formal religious education, nor did his son possess such an education when he took over power from his father; instead he was a military leader who was allied to the communists and supported by the Soviet Union and China. In fact even the base Zaidi understanding of what an Imam is is completely different from the Iranian jurisprudential and belief structure.
Your heavy reliance on generalizations gleamed from wikipedia isn't serving you too well.
What are you blabbering now?
You claimed that traditionally, Shiite religious figures did not get involved in politics or ruling a country.
I provided you a clear example where they ruled a country for almost a thousand years.
Instead of owning up to the fact that you were wrong and fulla shiite, you're now doubling down by whining and running around like a chicken with it's cut off., blabbering all kinds of nonsense and irrelevant shiite.
Keep twirling!
What are you blabbering now?
You claimed that traditionally, Shiite religious figures did not get involved in politics or ruling a country.
I provided you a clear example where they ruled a country for almost a thousand years.
Instead of owning up to the fact that you were wrong and fulla shiite, you're now doubling down by whining and running around like a chicken with it's cut off., blabbering all kinds of nonsense and irrelevant shiite.
Keep twirling!
I am not sure where you are getting the thousand years from. Also, they ruled through familial lines; once again that is nothing like the Iranian state model that you claimed was the norm for the Shia world.
You were wrong. Deal with it.
What are you blabbering now?
You claimed that traditionally, Shiite religious figures did not get involved in politics or ruling a country.
I provided you a clear example where they ruled a country for almost a thousand years.
Instead of owning up to the fact that you were wrong and fulla shiite, you're now doubling down by whining and running around like a chicken with it's cut off., blabbering all kinds of nonsense and irrelevant shiite.
Keep twirling!
I am not sure where you are getting the thousand years from. Also, they ruled through familial lines; once again that is nothing like the Iranian state model that you claimed was the norm for the Shia world.
You were wrong. Deal with it.
Hah? "They ruled through familial lines". What did you expect, the first clerics to stay alive for 900 years? Point is nation was ruled by a shiite cleric and religious law and the power was passed down one cleric leader to another.
I showed you a sample of shiite religious figures ruling a nation, from 873 to 1962. You said Shiite religious figures didn't get involved in politics and ruling nations. And that is factually and historically incorrect. Now carefully remove your foot from your mouth.
"Palestine and Jerusalem belong to Muslims"
"If you want it, come and claim it!"
There is nothing sexy or glorious about someone holding a gun, especially a kid like that.
Then you haven't dated Israeli women. They would kick your whiney ass three times over and don't take shit from any man. If you're an insecure man who thinks men have an inherent right to rule over women and abuse them as they do in most of the Muslim world, stay away from Israeli women.
My thesis was on women's rights within developmental economics
Sounds like your thesis was in making diversionary, irrelevant and false comments because nothing you just said negates what I stated about Israeli women. Anybody who knows Israelis and Israeli women will confirm. Again, I speak from real life experience from living in Israel for two years, having visited it at least 9 times, and dated Israeli women both in Israeli and the U.S., and you speak out of Uranus. That woman is not a kid either, she is of military service age, which would be the same as it is in the US.
Nor does your thesis answer why someone like you would bother to learn so many outdated factoids about Islam.
You must be a Turk. Ha ha ha.
She is a child, with a gun. I have seen many like her in Sierra Leone, Liberia, the DRC, Uganda, and the Sudan. There is nothing sexy about conflict.The fact that we glorify it is childish and revolting.
I know about Islam because I specialize in conflict and terrorism, and post conflict development and I specialize in sub-Saharan Africa and have a love of history. I know because I care, because I have witnessed it, and because it allows me to be better at my job.
