Palestine and Jerusalem belong to Muslims

[Phoenall]

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!

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

What a load of crap. A work colleague of mine became a "cleric" at his mosque. He attained this post by buying it from the outgoing "cleric" as he was the highest bidder. He made his money back within 3 months from his cut of the zakat. He appointed juniors from amongst the losing bidders to act as his surrogate when he was unable to attend the mosque due to work commitments. He had no formal religious training just an understanding of the Koran that he had to show the elders of the mosque. His badge of office was a skull cap and subservience from all the other muslims toadying up to him.

 

[Osomir]

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 I work with women empowerment all of the time, from post conflict situations to business development. You're just getting more and more desperate, as I stated before, when you can't support your positions factually you simply result to personal attacks. Pretty typical.

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.

So who is the cause of most of the deaths in Africa then, who caused the genocides on Eritrea, Biafra and Ethiopia for starters

The war in the DR Congo in terms of death tolls alone is greater than all of those three "genocides" put together. If you want to talk about Ethiopia though, the government was a Christian one that persecuted and absorbed Eritrea and then followed by a communist one, same for the internal repression of Ethiopian regions like Wello and Tigray. It was a state based on Solomonic legacy and Ethiopian Orthodoxy / cult of personality prior to the communist coup.

Biafra had more ethnic connotation surrounding the Igbo than it did religious ones and there was no genocide there despite everyone's fears and past pogroms.

 

[Osomir]

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!

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

What a load of crap. A work colleague of mine became a "cleric" at his mosque. He attained this post by buying it from the outgoing "cleric" as he was the highest bidder. He made his money back within 3 months from his cut of the zakat. He appointed juniors from amongst the losing bidders to act as his surrogate when he was unable to attend the mosque due to work commitments. He had no formal religious training just an understanding of the Koran that he had to show the elders of the mosque. His badge of office was a skull cap and subservience from all the other muslims toadying up to him.

The word "cleric" doesn't really have a meaning in formal Islam. It is a western / Christian word that has become commonplace usage and it is the terminology that Roudy has been using which is why I earlier stated specifically 'ulama' and marja which are more specific words. Also worth noting that the same title can have different meanings depending on which branch of Islam, or what physical area you are talking about. for a lot of Sunni regions, all it takes to be a "cleric" or a Shaikh is simple respect / followers; in fact a lot of Shaikhs for example have no formal religious education but are tribal leaders instead. Another example would be the term "imam" which has radically different meanings between shiism and sunni structures in Sunni Islam it is simply the leader of prayer, certainly no one equivalent to the Shia Imams or the Marjas. In Sunni Islam Imams can be a person of knowledge and learning, but does not have to be. It is far different from the status of a marja or ulama.

 

[aris2chat]

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!

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

>>leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque<<

 

[aris2chat]

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!

>>Muslim scholars trained in Islam and Islamic law<<
>>The title, given to some Islamic clergy, is derived from the Arabic word مَوْلَى mawlā, meaning "vicar," "master" and "guardian."<<

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

What a load of crap. A work colleague of mine became a "cleric" at his mosque. He attained this post by buying it from the outgoing "cleric" as he was the highest bidder. He made his money back within 3 months from his cut of the zakat. He appointed juniors from amongst the losing bidders to act as his surrogate when he was unable to attend the mosque due to work commitments. He had no formal religious training just an understanding of the Koran that he had to show the elders of the mosque. His badge of office was a skull cap and subservience from all the other muslims toadying up to him.

The word "cleric" doesn't really have a meaning in formal Islam. It is a western / Christian word that has become commonplace usage and it is the terminology that Roudy has been using which is why I earlier stated specifically 'ulama' and marja which are more specific words. Also worth noting that the same title can have different meanings depending on which branch of Islam, or what physical area you are talking about. for a lot of Sunni regions, all it takes to be a "cleric" or a Shaikh is simple respect / followers; in fact a lot of Shaikhs for example have no formal religious education but are tribal leaders instead. Another example would be the term "imam" which has radically different meanings between shiism and sunni structures in Sunni Islam it is simply the leader of prayer, certainly no one equivalent to the Shia Imams or the Marjas. In Sunni Islam Imams can be a person of knowledge and learning, but does not have to be. It is far different from the status of a marja or ulama.

 

[Osomir]

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!

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

>>leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque<<

That is an imam in Sunni Islam yes, it has nothing to do with Zaidi Islam though in that terminology, an imam has more specific definitions within zaidi jurisprudence and historical context.

 

[aris2chat]

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

>>leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque<<

That is an imam in Sunni Islam yes, it has nothing to do with Zaidi Islam though in that terminology, an imam has more specific definitions within zaidi jurisprudence and historical context.

Imamah pass father to son. Cleric is schooled in the quran and law.

What are you really doing here?

 

[Osomir]

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

>>leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque<<

That is an imam in Sunni Islam yes, it has nothing to do with Zaidi Islam though in that terminology, an imam has more specific definitions within zaidi jurisprudence and historical context.

Imamah pass father to son. Cleric is schooled in the quran and law.

What are you really doing here?

A cleric aka an Imam in Sunni Islam is anyone who is considered respected and has a following regardless of their personal religious knowledge. A cleric in Shiism (generally a reference to the Ulama) is someone who is welled learned in formal training. Cleric in general has a pretty tenuous meaning in Islam since it isn't native to the religion and is a western Christian word.

 

[aris2chat]

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

>>leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque<<

That is an imam in Sunni Islam yes, it has nothing to do with Zaidi Islam though in that terminology, an imam has more specific definitions within zaidi jurisprudence and historical context.

Imamah pass father to son. Cleric is schooled in the quran and law.

What are you really doing here?

A cleric aka an Imam in Sunni Islam is anyone who is considered respected and has a following regardless of their personal religious knowledge. A cleric in Shiism (generally a reference to the Ulama) is someone who is welled learned in formal training. Cleric in general has a pretty tenuous meaning in Islam since it isn't native to the religion and is a western Christian word.

This is an english forum, so most would not use the word mullah, so why don't you? It is the same thing and many that are bilingual use the term cleric when speaking in english. You act like the word is not used, or that no one here has any understanding of the quran and islam.

Again, why are you really here? Masochist that enjoys getting verbally whipped? Vanity, thinking you are better that everyone? You are not even close to being the smartest person here. You are not an expert on arabic or islam, or any religion. This is not a religious forum but a political one. What are you really here for?

 

[Roudy]

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!

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

Yada yada yada. You write and squirm a lot when confronted with the truth. I already provided ample evidence that these guys were religious figures and ruled the country as such, for centuries. Therefore your claim that Shiite religious figures stayed away from politics and positions of power is factually and historically incorrect. Which means Iran's Islamists didn't do what other Shiite sub-sects haven't done in the past.

You lost and ate some shiite, get over it. Case closed.

 

[Roudy]

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

>>leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque<<

That is an imam in Sunni Islam yes, it has nothing to do with Zaidi Islam though in that terminology, an imam has more specific definitions within zaidi jurisprudence and historical context.

Imamah pass father to son. Cleric is schooled in the quran and law.

What are you really doing here?

A cleric aka an Imam in Sunni Islam is anyone who is considered respected and has a following regardless of their personal religious knowledge. A cleric in Shiism (generally a reference to the Ulama) is someone who is welled learned in formal training. Cleric in general has a pretty tenuous meaning in Islam since it isn't native to the religion and is a western Christian word.

This is an english forum, so most would not use the word mullah, so why don't you? It is the same thing and many that are bilingual use the term cleric when speaking in english. You act like the word is not used, or that no one here has any understanding of the quran and islam.

Again, why are you really here? Masochist that enjoys getting verbally whipped? Vanity, thinking you are better that everyone? You are not even close to being the smartest person here. You are not an expert on arabic or islam, or any religion. The is not a religious forum but a political one. What are you really here for?

Well said Aris like I said he tries to compensate his lack of knowledge with these bullshit insignificant factoids that have nothing to do with reality. For example I stated that in Iran Khomeini is considered an Imam, and then the idiot goes off in this tangent that Khomieni cannot be an Imam according to the religion blah blah blah as if I didn't already know it. Then I showed how Khomeini has the official title of Imam in Iran, and he started speaking in tongues again. Then he doubled down with this insane claim that Khomeini was actually a "progressive" ayatollah which made me wonder what planet he actually lives in, as only an mentally insane person would make such a claim.

The guy is just plain ignorant and has no real life experience. It's pretty obvious. This is what Osomir reminds me of:

 

[aris2chat]

>>leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque<<

That is an imam in Sunni Islam yes, it has nothing to do with Zaidi Islam though in that terminology, an imam has more specific definitions within zaidi jurisprudence and historical context.

Imamah pass father to son. Cleric is schooled in the quran and law.

What are you really doing here?

A cleric aka an Imam in Sunni Islam is anyone who is considered respected and has a following regardless of their personal religious knowledge. A cleric in Shiism (generally a reference to the Ulama) is someone who is welled learned in formal training. Cleric in general has a pretty tenuous meaning in Islam since it isn't native to the religion and is a western Christian word.

This is an english forum, so most would not use the word mullah, so why don't you? It is the same thing and many that are bilingual use the term cleric when speaking in english. You act like the word is not used, or that no one here has any understanding of the quran and islam.

Again, why are you really here? Masochist that enjoys getting verbally whipped? Vanity, thinking you are better that everyone? You are not even close to being the smartest person here. You are not an expert on arabic or islam, or any religion. The is not a religious forum but a political one. What are you really here for?

Well said Aris like I said he tries to compensate his lack of knowledge with these bullshit insignificant factoids that have nothing to do with reality. For example I stated that in Iran Khomeini is considered an Imam, and then the idiot goes off in this tangent that Khomieni cannot be an Imam according to the religion blah blah blah as if I didn't already know it. Then I showed how Khomeini has the official title of Imam in Iran, and he started speaking in tongues again. Then he doubled down with this insane claim that Khomeini was actually a "progressive" ayatollah which made me wonder what planet he actually lives in, as only an mentally insane person would make such a claim.

The guy is just plain ignorant and has no real life experience. It's pretty obvious. This is what Osomir reminds me of:

maybe someone will let me know when he is right.......if it ever happens

 

[Roudy]

That is an imam in Sunni Islam yes, it has nothing to do with Zaidi Islam though in that terminology, an imam has more specific definitions within zaidi jurisprudence and historical context.

Imamah pass father to son. Cleric is schooled in the quran and law.

What are you really doing here?

A cleric aka an Imam in Sunni Islam is anyone who is considered respected and has a following regardless of their personal religious knowledge. A cleric in Shiism (generally a reference to the Ulama) is someone who is welled learned in formal training. Cleric in general has a pretty tenuous meaning in Islam since it isn't native to the religion and is a western Christian word.

This is an english forum, so most would not use the word mullah, so why don't you? It is the same thing and many that are bilingual use the term cleric when speaking in english. You act like the word is not used, or that no one here has any understanding of the quran and islam.

Again, why are you really here? Masochist that enjoys getting verbally whipped? Vanity, thinking you are better that everyone? You are not even close to being the smartest person here. You are not an expert on arabic or islam, or any religion. The is not a religious forum but a political one. What are you really here for?

Well said Aris like I said he tries to compensate his lack of knowledge with these bullshit insignificant factoids that have nothing to do with reality. For example I stated that in Iran Khomeini is considered an Imam, and then the idiot goes off in this tangent that Khomieni cannot be an Imam according to the religion blah blah blah as if I didn't already know it. Then I showed how Khomeini has the official title of Imam in Iran, and he started speaking in tongues again. Then he doubled down with this insane claim that Khomeini was actually a "progressive" ayatollah which made me wonder what planet he actually lives in, as only an mentally insane person would make such a claim.

The guy is just plain ignorant and has no real life experience. It's pretty obvious. This is what Osomir reminds me of:

maybe someone will let me know when he is right.......if it ever happens

He does a good job of acting like he knows what he's talking about. Perhaps an acting career in Pakistan's version of Bollywood?

 

[Osomir]

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

>>leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque<<

That is an imam in Sunni Islam yes, it has nothing to do with Zaidi Islam though in that terminology, an imam has more specific definitions within zaidi jurisprudence and historical context.

Imamah pass father to son. Cleric is schooled in the quran and law.

What are you really doing here?

A cleric aka an Imam in Sunni Islam is anyone who is considered respected and has a following regardless of their personal religious knowledge. A cleric in Shiism (generally a reference to the Ulama) is someone who is welled learned in formal training. Cleric in general has a pretty tenuous meaning in Islam since it isn't native to the religion and is a western Christian word.

This is an english forum, so most would not use the word mullah, so why don't you? It is the same thing and many that are bilingual use the term cleric when speaking in english. You act like the word is not used, or that no one here has any understanding of the quran and islam.

Again, why are you really here? Masochist that enjoys getting verbally whipped? Vanity, thinking you are better that everyone? You are not even close to being the smartest person here. You are not an expert on arabic or islam, or any religion. This is not a religious forum but a political one. What are you really here for?

I use the words because that is what they are called and they have different meanings. You demonstrated the pitfalls of not paying attention to the meanings yourself a couple of posts ago when you confused Sunnis with Shias.

 

[Osomir]

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!

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

Yada yada yada. You write and squirm a lot when confronted with the truth. I already provided ample evidence that these guys were religious figures and ruled the country as such, for centuries. Therefore your claim that Shiite religious figures stayed away from politics and positions of power is factually and historically incorrect. Which means Iran's Islamists didn't do what other Shiite sub-sects haven't done in the past.

You lost and ate some shiite, get over it. Case closed.

You were wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Roudy]

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

Yada yada yada. You write and squirm a lot when confronted with the truth. I already provided ample evidence that these guys were religious figures and ruled the country as such, for centuries. Therefore your claim that Shiite religious figures stayed away from politics and positions of power is factually and historically incorrect. Which means Iran's Islamists didn't do what other Shiite sub-sects haven't done in the past.

You lost and ate some shiite, get over it. Case closed.

You were wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Osomir]

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.

The title of Imam within Zaidi Islam doesn't mean that they are a cleric; which implies formal religious education; rather they were Imams based on their blood ties to the bloodline of Muhammad and due to their respective tribal power; you are trying to equate the definition of Imam within Zaidi Islam to the definition of it as you see it within Usuli / Jafari Islam and the two simply aren't the same. It is also worth noting that familial dynasties are the antithesis to the Iranian model of religious rule as well so trying to equate the two as similar is simply dishonest. Imams also didn't rule Yemen from 873 to 1962 Yemen has never had such a contiguous history as a definable polity. To suggest as much is to ignore the entire history of the area.

Yada yada yada. You write and squirm a lot when confronted with the truth. I already provided ample evidence that these guys were religious figures and ruled the country as such, for centuries. Therefore your claim that Shiite religious figures stayed away from politics and positions of power is factually and historically incorrect. Which means Iran's Islamists didn't do what other Shiite sub-sects haven't done in the past.

You lost and ate some shiite, get over it. Case closed.

You were wrong. Deal with it.

You were wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Phoenall]

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 I work with women empowerment all of the time, from post conflict situations to business development. You're just getting more and more desperate, as I stated before, when you can't support your positions factually you simply result to personal attacks. Pretty typical.

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.

So who is the cause of most of the deaths in Africa then, who caused the genocides on Eritrea, Biafra and Ethiopia for starters

The war in the DR Congo in terms of death tolls alone is greater than all of those three "genocides" put together. If you want to talk about Ethiopia though, the government was a Christian one that persecuted and absorbed Eritrea and then followed by a communist one, same for the internal repression of Ethiopian regions like Wello and Tigray. It was a state based on Solomonic legacy and Ethiopian Orthodoxy / cult of personality prior to the communist coup.

Biafra had more ethnic connotation surrounding the Igbo than it did religious ones and there was no genocide there despite everyone's fears and past pogroms.

And they were all invaded by muslims

 

[Osomir]

My thesis was on women's rights within developmental economics I work with women empowerment all of the time, from post conflict situations to business development. You're just getting more and more desperate, as I stated before, when you can't support your positions factually you simply result to personal attacks. Pretty typical.

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.

So who is the cause of most of the deaths in Africa then, who caused the genocides on Eritrea, Biafra and Ethiopia for starters

The war in the DR Congo in terms of death tolls alone is greater than all of those three "genocides" put together. If you want to talk about Ethiopia though, the government was a Christian one that persecuted and absorbed Eritrea and then followed by a communist one, same for the internal repression of Ethiopian regions like Wello and Tigray. It was a state based on Solomonic legacy and Ethiopian Orthodoxy / cult of personality prior to the communist coup.

Biafra had more ethnic connotation surrounding the Igbo than it did religious ones and there was no genocide there despite everyone's fears and past pogroms.

And they were all invaded by muslims

If you're talking about Somalia and the Ogaden, then I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Ethiopia invaded the Ogaden first, that's why it is a part of the country in the first place instead of part of greater Somalia.

 

[aris2chat]

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.

So who is the cause of most of the deaths in Africa then, who caused the genocides on Eritrea, Biafra and Ethiopia for starters

The war in the DR Congo in terms of death tolls alone is greater than all of those three "genocides" put together. If you want to talk about Ethiopia though, the government was a Christian one that persecuted and absorbed Eritrea and then followed by a communist one, same for the internal repression of Ethiopian regions like Wello and Tigray. It was a state based on Solomonic legacy and Ethiopian Orthodoxy / cult of personality prior to the communist coup.

Biafra had more ethnic connotation surrounding the Igbo than it did religious ones and there was no genocide there despite everyone's fears and past pogroms.

And they were all invaded by muslims

If you're talking about Somalia and the Ogaden, then I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Ethiopia invaded the Ogaden first, that's why it is a part of the country in the first place instead of part of greater Somalia.

>>The Somali National Army committed to invade the Ogaden at 03:00 on July 13, 1977<<