Palestine and Jerusalem belong to Muslims

[Roudy]

in the beginning, Khomieni executed anybody he could get his hands on, that had anything to do with the previous regime or said anything against the regime. His regime has probably killed at least a few hundred thousand Iranians.

Wasn't he also the author of a book on Islamic practises in reagrds to sex with animals and children as young as babies. The islamonazi's tried to discount it as the original was in 4 "books" while the translation was in 5

He's written several books on Islam. Yet Osomir thinks he knows more. Perhaps he can invite an Islamic scholar to a formal suck off.

I think that I am familiar enough with Islam to know that he doesn't represent the majority of Shia religious thought and to know that Shias are not supposed to theologically follow dead Marjas. You on the other hand didn't even know that the main shia theological centers were in Qom and Najaf and tried to instead assert that they rested with Iran's Supreme leader in Tehran. Which is a pretty basic and fundamental error to make.

I think you are a nobody compared to the Grand Ayatollah and founder of the Iranian Islamic Shia revolution. His picture is in every Iranian business and govt. office. Iran is majority Shia nation and stronghold for Shia Islam. So for you to say he means nothing to majority of Shias is just another display of your ignorance. He is also revered by Hezbollah, the Shia terrorist force Iran founded, and has "prophet" status.

Where is your evidence that I didn't know Shia theological centers are in shithole Qom? You're just making up outrageous shit now.

Funny.

You can't seem to distinguish here between political significance and theological significance. Once again, a pretty basic error.

That's right, keep dismissing the most important Shia religious leader in the 20th century as insignifificant.

Shia Revival

The Iranian revolution "awakened" Shia around the world, who outside of Iran were subordinate to Sunnis. Shia "became bolder in their demands of rights and representations", and in some instances Khomeini supported them. In Pakistan, he is reported to have told Pakistan military ruler Zia ul-Haq that he would do to al-Haq "what he had done to the Shah" if al-Haq mistreated Shia. When tens of thousands of Shia protested for exemption from Islamic taxes based on Sunni law, al-Haq conceded to their demands.

Shia Islamist groups that sprang up during the 1980s, often "receiving financial and political support from Tehran" include the Amal Movement of Musa al-Sadr and later the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Islamic Dawa Party in Iraq, Hizb-e Wahdatin Afghanistan, Tahrik-e Jafaria in Pakistan, al-Wifaq in Bahrain, and the Saudi Hezbollah and al-Haraka al-Islahiya al-Islamiya in Saudi Arabia. Shia were involved in the 1979-80 riots and demonstrations in oil-rich eastern Saudi Arabia, the 1981 Bahraini coup d'état attempt and the 1983 Kuwait bombings.

 

[Roudy]

Waaaaa! Not fair, I need a special forum! This forum gives me BUTTHURT!

 

[Osomir]

Wasn't he also the author of a book on Islamic practises in reagrds to sex with animals and children as young as babies. The islamonazi's tried to discount it as the original was in 4 "books" while the translation was in 5

He's written several books on Islam. Yet Osomir thinks he knows more. Perhaps he can invite an Islamic scholar to a formal suck off.

I think that I am familiar enough with Islam to know that he doesn't represent the majority of Shia religious thought and to know that Shias are not supposed to theologically follow dead Marjas. You on the other hand didn't even know that the main shia theological centers were in Qom and Najaf and tried to instead assert that they rested with Iran's Supreme leader in Tehran. Which is a pretty basic and fundamental error to make.

I think you are a nobody compared to the Grand Ayatollah and founder of the Iranian Islamic Shia revolution. His picture is in every Iranian business and govt. office. Iran is majority Shia nation and stronghold for Shia Islam. So for you to say he means nothing to majority of Shias is just another display of your ignorance. He is also revered by Hezbollah, the Shia terrorist force Iran founded, and has "prophet" status.

Where is your evidence that I didn't know Shia theological centers are in shithole Qom? You're just making up outrageous shit now.

Funny.

You can't seem to distinguish here between political significance and theological significance. Once again, a pretty basic error.

That's right, keep dismissing the most important Shia religious leader in the 20th century as insignifificant.

Shia Revival

The Iranian revolution "awakened" Shia around the world, who outside of Iran were subordinate to Sunnis. Shia "became bolder in their demands of rights and representations", and in some instances Khomeini supported them. In Pakistan, he is reported to have told Pakistan military ruler Zia ul-Haq that he would do to al-Haq "what he had done to the Shah" if al-Haq mistreated Shia. When tens of thousands of Shia protested for exemption from Islamic taxes based on Sunni law, al-Haq conceded to their demands.

Shia Islamist groups that sprang up during the 1980s, often "receiving financial and political support from Tehran" include the Amal Movement of Musa al-Sadr and later the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Islamic Dawa Party in Iraq, Hizb-e Wahdatin Afghanistan, Tahrik-e Jafaria in Pakistan, al-Wifaq in Bahrain, and the Saudi Hezbollah and al-Haraka al-Islahiya al-Islamiya in Saudi Arabia. Shia were involved in the 1979-80 riots and demonstrations in oil-rich eastern Saudi Arabia, the 1981 Bahraini coup d'état attempt and the 1983 Kuwait bombings.

He isn't the most popular Shia religious leader of the 20th century. Once again that would be Khoei. Also Khoei's student al Sistani is far more popular theologically speaking that Khamenei is today. Once again, otherwise the theological capitals of Shia Islam would be in Tehran instead of in Qom and Najaf.

Once again you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between political influence and religious influence. Khomeini was pretty disliked by traditionalists within Shia Islam in terms of theology given his break with traditional Shia political quietism and due to his Sufi influences in his personal professions.

 

[Osomir]

Waaaaa! Not fair, I need a special forum! This forum gives me BUTTHURT!

No, this forum simply gives you the ability to make posts like this instead of actually discussing the topic at hand and prevents you from having to support your arguments. Once you feel like you are capable of this I would be more than welcome to have a more detailed discussion with you in any of these topics. If you come out ahead in any of them against me in the structured discussion sub-forum then I would be perfectly willing to admit defeat and to never post about Islam in here again. But even with such a slanted reward system I know you won't take me up on the offer.

 

[Roudy]

He's written several books on Islam. Yet Osomir thinks he knows more. Perhaps he can invite an Islamic scholar to a formal suck off.

I think that I am familiar enough with Islam to know that he doesn't represent the majority of Shia religious thought and to know that Shias are not supposed to theologically follow dead Marjas. You on the other hand didn't even know that the main shia theological centers were in Qom and Najaf and tried to instead assert that they rested with Iran's Supreme leader in Tehran. Which is a pretty basic and fundamental error to make.

I think you are a nobody compared to the Grand Ayatollah and founder of the Iranian Islamic Shia revolution. His picture is in every Iranian business and govt. office. Iran is majority Shia nation and stronghold for Shia Islam. So for you to say he means nothing to majority of Shias is just another display of your ignorance. He is also revered by Hezbollah, the Shia terrorist force Iran founded, and has "prophet" status.

Where is your evidence that I didn't know Shia theological centers are in shithole Qom? You're just making up outrageous shit now.

Funny.

You can't seem to distinguish here between political significance and theological significance. Once again, a pretty basic error.

That's right, keep dismissing the most important Shia religious leader in the 20th century as insignifificant.

Shia Revival

The Iranian revolution "awakened" Shia around the world, who outside of Iran were subordinate to Sunnis. Shia "became bolder in their demands of rights and representations", and in some instances Khomeini supported them. In Pakistan, he is reported to have told Pakistan military ruler Zia ul-Haq that he would do to al-Haq "what he had done to the Shah" if al-Haq mistreated Shia. When tens of thousands of Shia protested for exemption from Islamic taxes based on Sunni law, al-Haq conceded to their demands.

Shia Islamist groups that sprang up during the 1980s, often "receiving financial and political support from Tehran" include the Amal Movement of Musa al-Sadr and later the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Islamic Dawa Party in Iraq, Hizb-e Wahdatin Afghanistan, Tahrik-e Jafaria in Pakistan, al-Wifaq in Bahrain, and the Saudi Hezbollah and al-Haraka al-Islahiya al-Islamiya in Saudi Arabia. Shia were involved in the 1979-80 riots and demonstrations in oil-rich eastern Saudi Arabia, the 1981 Bahraini coup d'état attempt and the 1983 Kuwait bombings.

He isn't the most popular Shia religious leader of the 20th century. Once again that would be Khoei. Also Khoei's student al Sistani is far more popular theologically speaking that Khamenei is today. Once again, otherwise the theological capitals of Shia Islam would be in Tehran instead of in Qom and Najaf.

Once again you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between political influence and religious influence. Khomeini was pretty disliked by traditionalists within Shia Islam in terms of theology given his break with traditional Shia political quietism and due to his Sufi influences in his personal professions.

Who cares! Sistani is irrelevant. Khomeini brought about the Shia revival. He was very popular when he arrived in Iran, after a decade of killing and torturing fellow Shias, he became just another Islamic madman. These scholars make up their own dogma and exceptions just like Mohammad did when he had 12 (or was it 8) wives when he told others not to have more than 4. The hypocrisy and betrayal starts with the prophets.

 

[Osomir]

I think that I am familiar enough with Islam to know that he doesn't represent the majority of Shia religious thought and to know that Shias are not supposed to theologically follow dead Marjas. You on the other hand didn't even know that the main shia theological centers were in Qom and Najaf and tried to instead assert that they rested with Iran's Supreme leader in Tehran. Which is a pretty basic and fundamental error to make.

I think you are a nobody compared to the Grand Ayatollah and founder of the Iranian Islamic Shia revolution. His picture is in every Iranian business and govt. office. Iran is majority Shia nation and stronghold for Shia Islam. So for you to say he means nothing to majority of Shias is just another display of your ignorance. He is also revered by Hezbollah, the Shia terrorist force Iran founded, and has "prophet" status.

Where is your evidence that I didn't know Shia theological centers are in shithole Qom? You're just making up outrageous shit now.

Funny.

You can't seem to distinguish here between political significance and theological significance. Once again, a pretty basic error.

That's right, keep dismissing the most important Shia religious leader in the 20th century as insignifificant.

Shia Revival

The Iranian revolution "awakened" Shia around the world, who outside of Iran were subordinate to Sunnis. Shia "became bolder in their demands of rights and representations", and in some instances Khomeini supported them. In Pakistan, he is reported to have told Pakistan military ruler Zia ul-Haq that he would do to al-Haq "what he had done to the Shah" if al-Haq mistreated Shia. When tens of thousands of Shia protested for exemption from Islamic taxes based on Sunni law, al-Haq conceded to their demands.

Shia Islamist groups that sprang up during the 1980s, often "receiving financial and political support from Tehran" include the Amal Movement of Musa al-Sadr and later the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Islamic Dawa Party in Iraq, Hizb-e Wahdatin Afghanistan, Tahrik-e Jafaria in Pakistan, al-Wifaq in Bahrain, and the Saudi Hezbollah and al-Haraka al-Islahiya al-Islamiya in Saudi Arabia. Shia were involved in the 1979-80 riots and demonstrations in oil-rich eastern Saudi Arabia, the 1981 Bahraini coup d'état attempt and the 1983 Kuwait bombings.

He isn't the most popular Shia religious leader of the 20th century. Once again that would be Khoei. Also Khoei's student al Sistani is far more popular theologically speaking that Khamenei is today. Once again, otherwise the theological capitals of Shia Islam would be in Tehran instead of in Qom and Najaf.

Once again you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between political influence and religious influence. Khomeini was pretty disliked by traditionalists within Shia Islam in terms of theology given his break with traditional Shia political quietism and due to his Sufi influences in his personal professions.

Who cares! Sistani is irrelevant. Khomeini brought about the Shia revival. He was very popular when he arrived in Iran, after a decade of killing and torturing fellow Shias, he became just another Islamic madman. These scholars make up their own dogma and exceptions just like Mohammad did when he had 12 (or was it 8) wives when he told others not to have more than 4. The hypocrisy and betrayal starts with the prophets.

Who cares? You make the statement that Khomeini was the Shia pope when Khoei was far more popular religiously speaking than he was and then try to assert that Tehran and Khamenei are the center of current Shiism when in reality that center is divided up among over 60 Marjas and centered more closely in Qom and Najaf and then claim victory even though you clearly got both facts wrong. And when it is pointed out to you your only response is "who cares?" It completely destroys your entire argument, so you should care.

Also stating that Al-Sistani is irrelevant is to completely be oblivious to how strong of an impact he has had in Iraq ideologically on Shias and to ignore the real centers of Shia theological discourse. Khomeini didn't bring about Shia revival, he brought about Shia politicalism and political revival. Shiism was theologically healthy long before Shia politicalism existed.

Once again, you should spend more time on the basics before you attempt to characterize millions of people under a single general label.

 

[aris2chat]

you

I've heard you say this many times, and yet you can't 1.) name the country and 2.) you continuously get very basic things incorrect, such as in the thread where we discussed Yemen and you thought that the Sahih Bukhari was part of the Quran. No one with even a passing knowledge of the basics of Islam would make that mistake. No one. So even if you did spend some time in a Muslim country you obviously never studied the religion at all.

That's interesting since they consider each other rather heretical. It doesn't make sense to say that they are BOTH practicing true Sunni Islam when the way that they practice it is so different from each other and indeed opposed to each other.

Iran's council is by far one of the weakest Shia theological institutions in the world. Shia centers of theology tend to surround Qom and Najaf. Historically speaking and theologically speaking, Iran's political shia model goes against classical Shia Islam and is a relatively new expression on the faith.

And Joseph Kony insists that he is establishing a Christian state based on the ten commandments as he has his children soldiers rape their families. These people saying such things doesn't mean that they are legit. You seem to rather be succumbing to the propaganda of these radical groups.

Have no right to personal information. You should not be asking and it is not permitted to discuss such things beyond what a poster chooses to reveal. You are not permitted to use any person information to attack, defame or harm the poster in any way.

It is none of your d$%* business!

Ha ha ha thanks Aris. You're a sweetheart and one of the fairest people I have known.

Would make a very good mod if she wanted to wear that mantle again. But after dealing with immature scots and self centred Greeks I very much doubt she would.

Thanks but that was a headache and a half. What was it for almost two years? I prefer my freedom and use my time for other things. The archiving alone took so much of the time.....and the people were just blind and mean just "because".

They are still the same and crazy has closed her board to them because of their looney left wing attitudes. Even pathwalker has thrown the towel in and given the ark to the chuckleheads.

After a time of being the target of attacks instead of dealing with the topics, one will think they were responsible. It wasn't just me. It is sad dealing with people consumed with such hate (like I have not been doing that most of my life). It wears on the nerves, the body and the mind. I appreciate the quotes and moral wisdoms I get and even the off colored humor. It helps to find balance.

 

[Phoenall]

you
Have no right to personal information. You should not be asking and it is not permitted to discuss such things beyond what a poster chooses to reveal. You are not permitted to use any person information to attack, defame or harm the poster in any way.

It is none of your d$%* business!

Ha ha ha thanks Aris. You're a sweetheart and one of the fairest people I have known.

Would make a very good mod if she wanted to wear that mantle again. But after dealing with immature scots and self centred Greeks I very much doubt she would.

Thanks but that was a headache and a half. What was it for almost two years? I prefer my freedom and use my time for other things. The archiving alone took so much of the time.....and the people were just blind and mean just "because".

They are still the same and crazy has closed her board to them because of their looney left wing attitudes. Even pathwalker has thrown the towel in and given the ark to the chuckleheads.

After a time of being the target of attacks instead of dealing with the topics, one will think they were responsible. It wasn't just me. It is sad dealing with people consumed with such hate (like I have not been doing that most of my life). It wears on the nerves, the body and the mind. I appreciate the quotes and moral wisdoms I get and even the off colored humor. It helps to find balance.

It helps to have an unbiased ear to talk too and get an unbiased reply, I never did say thank you for that in those very long years. So THANK YOU for your help and understanding my friend

 

[Roudy]

I think you are a nobody compared to the Grand Ayatollah and founder of the Iranian Islamic Shia revolution. His picture is in every Iranian business and govt. office. Iran is majority Shia nation and stronghold for Shia Islam. So for you to say he means nothing to majority of Shias is just another display of your ignorance. He is also revered by Hezbollah, the Shia terrorist force Iran founded, and has "prophet" status.

Where is your evidence that I didn't know Shia theological centers are in shithole Qom? You're just making up outrageous shit now.

Funny.

You can't seem to distinguish here between political significance and theological significance. Once again, a pretty basic error.

That's right, keep dismissing the most important Shia religious leader in the 20th century as insignifificant.

Shia Revival

The Iranian revolution "awakened" Shia around the world, who outside of Iran were subordinate to Sunnis. Shia "became bolder in their demands of rights and representations", and in some instances Khomeini supported them. In Pakistan, he is reported to have told Pakistan military ruler Zia ul-Haq that he would do to al-Haq "what he had done to the Shah" if al-Haq mistreated Shia. When tens of thousands of Shia protested for exemption from Islamic taxes based on Sunni law, al-Haq conceded to their demands.

Shia Islamist groups that sprang up during the 1980s, often "receiving financial and political support from Tehran" include the Amal Movement of Musa al-Sadr and later the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Islamic Dawa Party in Iraq, Hizb-e Wahdatin Afghanistan, Tahrik-e Jafaria in Pakistan, al-Wifaq in Bahrain, and the Saudi Hezbollah and al-Haraka al-Islahiya al-Islamiya in Saudi Arabia. Shia were involved in the 1979-80 riots and demonstrations in oil-rich eastern Saudi Arabia, the 1981 Bahraini coup d'état attempt and the 1983 Kuwait bombings.

He isn't the most popular Shia religious leader of the 20th century. Once again that would be Khoei. Also Khoei's student al Sistani is far more popular theologically speaking that Khamenei is today. Once again, otherwise the theological capitals of Shia Islam would be in Tehran instead of in Qom and Najaf.

Once again you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between political influence and religious influence. Khomeini was pretty disliked by traditionalists within Shia Islam in terms of theology given his break with traditional Shia political quietism and due to his Sufi influences in his personal professions.

Who cares! Sistani is irrelevant. Khomeini brought about the Shia revival. He was very popular when he arrived in Iran, after a decade of killing and torturing fellow Shias, he became just another Islamic madman. These scholars make up their own dogma and exceptions just like Mohammad did when he had 12 (or was it 8) wives when he told others not to have more than 4. The hypocrisy and betrayal starts with the prophets.

Who cares? You make the statement that Khomeini was the Shia pope when Khoei was far more popular religiously speaking than he was and then try to assert that Tehran and Khamenei are the center of current Shiism when in reality that center is divided up among over 60 Marjas and centered more closely in Qom and Najaf and then claim victory even though you clearly got both facts wrong. And when it is pointed out to you your only response is "who cares?" It completely destroys your entire argument, so you should care.

Also stating that Al-Sistani is irrelevant is to completely be oblivious to how strong of an impact he has had in Iraq ideologically on Shias and to ignore the real centers of Shia theological discourse. Khomeini didn't bring about Shia revival, he brought about Shia politicalism and political revival. Shiism was theologically healthy long before Shia politicalism existed.

Once again, you should spend more time on the basics before you attempt to characterize millions of people under a single general label.

Again who cares. You are obviously a Muslim trying to show off your knowledge of Islam, which has absolutely nothing to do with reality or history, or facts on the ground. Until the arrival of KHOMEINI guys like Sistani were just respected scholars and basically nobodies. Khomeini (may he burn in hell for enternity) made Islamic Shiism into a powerful expansionist terrorist ideology. Which brought about the rise of radical Sunni groups like Al Queda and others as a counter balance. He is revered and emulated by many hardliners and you will see picture like a mythical figure all over Shia based organizations, including terrorist ones like Hezbollah. So for you to dismiss who he was and his knowledge of Islam is ludicrous at best.

As long as these scholars and clerics are practicing true Islam, they are practicing true barbarism. Just like their prophet Muhammad who raided and looted caravans even during Ramdan, they make up contrary shit and justify it by "revelations". That's what Khoeni did, an many radical clerics are doing now. Muslims that are peaceful are so in spite of Islam, not because of. It goes back to their cultural and national heritage and history of tolerance and coexistence.

Lebanese Hezbollah shiite flag with picture of Khomieni and current Iranian supreme leader Khamenei on it. Who do Ya think they get their thological Islamic scholarly inspiration from? ha ha ha.

 

[Osomir]

You can't seem to distinguish here between political significance and theological significance. Once again, a pretty basic error.

That's right, keep dismissing the most important Shia religious leader in the 20th century as insignifificant.

Shia Revival

The Iranian revolution "awakened" Shia around the world, who outside of Iran were subordinate to Sunnis. Shia "became bolder in their demands of rights and representations", and in some instances Khomeini supported them. In Pakistan, he is reported to have told Pakistan military ruler Zia ul-Haq that he would do to al-Haq "what he had done to the Shah" if al-Haq mistreated Shia. When tens of thousands of Shia protested for exemption from Islamic taxes based on Sunni law, al-Haq conceded to their demands.

Shia Islamist groups that sprang up during the 1980s, often "receiving financial and political support from Tehran" include the Amal Movement of Musa al-Sadr and later the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Islamic Dawa Party in Iraq, Hizb-e Wahdatin Afghanistan, Tahrik-e Jafaria in Pakistan, al-Wifaq in Bahrain, and the Saudi Hezbollah and al-Haraka al-Islahiya al-Islamiya in Saudi Arabia. Shia were involved in the 1979-80 riots and demonstrations in oil-rich eastern Saudi Arabia, the 1981 Bahraini coup d'état attempt and the 1983 Kuwait bombings.

He isn't the most popular Shia religious leader of the 20th century. Once again that would be Khoei. Also Khoei's student al Sistani is far more popular theologically speaking that Khamenei is today. Once again, otherwise the theological capitals of Shia Islam would be in Tehran instead of in Qom and Najaf.

Once again you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between political influence and religious influence. Khomeini was pretty disliked by traditionalists within Shia Islam in terms of theology given his break with traditional Shia political quietism and due to his Sufi influences in his personal professions.

Who cares! Sistani is irrelevant. Khomeini brought about the Shia revival. He was very popular when he arrived in Iran, after a decade of killing and torturing fellow Shias, he became just another Islamic madman. These scholars make up their own dogma and exceptions just like Mohammad did when he had 12 (or was it 8) wives when he told others not to have more than 4. The hypocrisy and betrayal starts with the prophets.

Who cares? You make the statement that Khomeini was the Shia pope when Khoei was far more popular religiously speaking than he was and then try to assert that Tehran and Khamenei are the center of current Shiism when in reality that center is divided up among over 60 Marjas and centered more closely in Qom and Najaf and then claim victory even though you clearly got both facts wrong. And when it is pointed out to you your only response is "who cares?" It completely destroys your entire argument, so you should care.

Also stating that Al-Sistani is irrelevant is to completely be oblivious to how strong of an impact he has had in Iraq ideologically on Shias and to ignore the real centers of Shia theological discourse. Khomeini didn't bring about Shia revival, he brought about Shia politicalism and political revival. Shiism was theologically healthy long before Shia politicalism existed.

Once again, you should spend more time on the basics before you attempt to characterize millions of people under a single general label.

Again who cares. You are obviously a Muslim

lol I was wondering when you were going to try to claim that I am a secret Muslim again. You literally JUST said that since I was not a Muslim then my opinion didn't matter a page or two back, but since you think I am a Muslim now then you must think that my opinion not only matters, but is more applicable than yours (being a non-Muslim yourself).

You don't seem very consistent. For the record, I'm not a Muslim, nor have I ever been, nor has anyone in my family. The fact that you need to justify your lack of knowledge of Islamic fundamentals by attempting to characterize me as some sort of subversive figure is pretty telling and makes you look insecure.

which has absolutely nothing to do with reality or history, or facts on the ground.

I can source, through the use of western scholarly and military intelligence works everything related to Islam that I have stated in this thread, which is why I am more than happy to have a formal sourced discussion with you on any of these issues at your leisure. I'd also be happy to provide specific sources here upon request for specific statements as well.

Until the arrival of KHOMEINI guys like Sistani were just respected scholars and basically nobodies. Khomeini (may he burn in hell for enternity) made Islamic Shiism into a powerful expansionist terrorist ideology. Which brought about the rise of radical Sunni groups like Al Queda and others as a counter balance. He is revered and emulated by many hardliners and you will see picture like a mythical figure all over Shia based organizations, including terrorist ones like Hezbollah. So for you to dismiss who he was and his knowledge of Islam is ludicrous at best.

I haven't dismissed him as an important modern Islamist figure at all, I have merely disagreed with your specific characterization of him and your overemphasis of his theological reach and purity in the light of traditional Shia belief structures.

I'm not sure how you can be so sure of yourself when it must be obvious to you how little you know in the grand scheme of things. You've already admitted that you are no expert and less than a year ago you couldn't even tell the difference between a Quranic sura and a hadith.

 

[Roudy]

Waaaaa! Not fair, I need a special forum! This forum gives me BUTTHURT!

No, this forum simply gives you the ability to make posts like this instead of actually discussing the topic at hand and prevents you from having to support your arguments. Once you feel like you are capable of this I would be more than welcome to have a more detailed discussion with you in any of these topics. If you come out ahead in any of them against me in the structured discussion sub-forum then I would be perfectly willing to admit defeat and to never post about Islam in here again. But even with such a slanted reward system I know you won't take me up on the offer.

Why would I need to get into a detailed discussion with a complete moron who can't handle being proven wrong on a regular forum? What would a private area do, do you perform BJ's and lap dances there? Ha ha ha.

 

[Osomir]

Waaaaa! Not fair, I need a special forum! This forum gives me BUTTHURT!

No, this forum simply gives you the ability to make posts like this instead of actually discussing the topic at hand and prevents you from having to support your arguments. Once you feel like you are capable of this I would be more than welcome to have a more detailed discussion with you in any of these topics. If you come out ahead in any of them against me in the structured discussion sub-forum then I would be perfectly willing to admit defeat and to never post about Islam in here again. But even with such a slanted reward system I know you won't take me up on the offer.

Why would I need to get into a detailed discussion with a complete moron who can't handle being proven wrong on a regular forum? What would a private area do, do you perform BJ's and lap dances there? Ha ha ha.

It isn't private. It is structured, aka we would both have to respond to each others points directly and would have to cite sources for the things we said. Instead of engaging in deflection by, you know, engaging in juvenile sexual humor, simply insisting that I am dumb, or declaring that I must be a secret Muslim. but as I said I would be more than happy to provide sources for anything Islam related that I have stated in this thread upon request.

 

[Roudy]

That's right, keep dismissing the most important Shia religious leader in the 20th century as insignifificant.

Shia Revival

The Iranian revolution "awakened" Shia around the world, who outside of Iran were subordinate to Sunnis. Shia "became bolder in their demands of rights and representations", and in some instances Khomeini supported them. In Pakistan, he is reported to have told Pakistan military ruler Zia ul-Haq that he would do to al-Haq "what he had done to the Shah" if al-Haq mistreated Shia. When tens of thousands of Shia protested for exemption from Islamic taxes based on Sunni law, al-Haq conceded to their demands.

Shia Islamist groups that sprang up during the 1980s, often "receiving financial and political support from Tehran" include the Amal Movement of Musa al-Sadr and later the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Islamic Dawa Party in Iraq, Hizb-e Wahdatin Afghanistan, Tahrik-e Jafaria in Pakistan, al-Wifaq in Bahrain, and the Saudi Hezbollah and al-Haraka al-Islahiya al-Islamiya in Saudi Arabia. Shia were involved in the 1979-80 riots and demonstrations in oil-rich eastern Saudi Arabia, the 1981 Bahraini coup d'état attempt and the 1983 Kuwait bombings.

He isn't the most popular Shia religious leader of the 20th century. Once again that would be Khoei. Also Khoei's student al Sistani is far more popular theologically speaking that Khamenei is today. Once again, otherwise the theological capitals of Shia Islam would be in Tehran instead of in Qom and Najaf.

Once again you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between political influence and religious influence. Khomeini was pretty disliked by traditionalists within Shia Islam in terms of theology given his break with traditional Shia political quietism and due to his Sufi influences in his personal professions.

Who cares! Sistani is irrelevant. Khomeini brought about the Shia revival. He was very popular when he arrived in Iran, after a decade of killing and torturing fellow Shias, he became just another Islamic madman. These scholars make up their own dogma and exceptions just like Mohammad did when he had 12 (or was it 8) wives when he told others not to have more than 4. The hypocrisy and betrayal starts with the prophets.

Who cares? You make the statement that Khomeini was the Shia pope when Khoei was far more popular religiously speaking than he was and then try to assert that Tehran and Khamenei are the center of current Shiism when in reality that center is divided up among over 60 Marjas and centered more closely in Qom and Najaf and then claim victory even though you clearly got both facts wrong. And when it is pointed out to you your only response is "who cares?" It completely destroys your entire argument, so you should care.

Also stating that Al-Sistani is irrelevant is to completely be oblivious to how strong of an impact he has had in Iraq ideologically on Shias and to ignore the real centers of Shia theological discourse. Khomeini didn't bring about Shia revival, he brought about Shia politicalism and political revival. Shiism was theologically healthy long before Shia politicalism existed.

Once again, you should spend more time on the basics before you attempt to characterize millions of people under a single general label.

Again who cares. You are obviously a Muslim

lol I was wondering when you were going to try to claim that I am a secret Muslim again. You literally JUST said that since I was not a Muslim then my opinion didn't matter a page or two back, but since you think I am a Muslim now then you must think that my opinion not only matters, but is more applicable than yours (being a non-Muslim yourself).

You don't seem very consistent. For the record, I'm not a Muslim, nor have I ever been, nor has anyone in my family. The fact that you need to justify your lack of knowledge of Islamic fundamentals by attempting to characterize me as some sort of subversive figure is pretty telling and makes you look insecure.

which has absolutely nothing to do with reality or history, or facts on the ground.

I can source, through the use of western scholarly and military intelligence works everything related to Islam that I have stated in this thread, which is why I am more than happy to have a formal sourced discussion with you on any of these issues at your leisure. I'd also be happy to provide specific sources here upon request for specific statements as well.

Until the arrival of KHOMEINI guys like Sistani were just respected scholars and basically nobodies. Khomeini (may he burn in hell for enternity) made Islamic Shiism into a powerful expansionist terrorist ideology. Which brought about the rise of radical Sunni groups like Al Queda and others as a counter balance. He is revered and emulated by many hardliners and you will see picture like a mythical figure all over Shia based organizations, including terrorist ones like Hezbollah. So for you to dismiss who he was and his knowledge of Islam is ludicrous at best.

I haven't dismissed him as an important modern Islamist figure at all, I have merely disagreed with your specific characterization of him and your overemphasis of his theological reach and purity in the light of traditional Shia belief structures.

I'm not sure how you can be so sure of yourself when it must be obvious to you how little you know in the grand scheme of things. You've already admitted that you are no expert.

Yes I am sure that nobody is as important as Khomeni, his legacy, and his ideology in shiite Islam today. The current supreme leader in Iran is just maintaning Khomeinis ideology and interpretation of Islam, and continuing the imperialistic terroristic ambitions that Khomeini had. You don't dismiss him as a important figure but you dismiss him as a religious figure and his theological reach. However, all the important Shia Islamist movements today are headquartered out of Iran and based on Khomeinis ideology and game plan of world conquest. Yet Osomir says no go. Ha ha ha you are hilarious.

 

[Osomir]

He isn't the most popular Shia religious leader of the 20th century. Once again that would be Khoei. Also Khoei's student al Sistani is far more popular theologically speaking that Khamenei is today. Once again, otherwise the theological capitals of Shia Islam would be in Tehran instead of in Qom and Najaf.

Once again you seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between political influence and religious influence. Khomeini was pretty disliked by traditionalists within Shia Islam in terms of theology given his break with traditional Shia political quietism and due to his Sufi influences in his personal professions.

Who cares! Sistani is irrelevant. Khomeini brought about the Shia revival. He was very popular when he arrived in Iran, after a decade of killing and torturing fellow Shias, he became just another Islamic madman. These scholars make up their own dogma and exceptions just like Mohammad did when he had 12 (or was it 8) wives when he told others not to have more than 4. The hypocrisy and betrayal starts with the prophets.

Who cares? You make the statement that Khomeini was the Shia pope when Khoei was far more popular religiously speaking than he was and then try to assert that Tehran and Khamenei are the center of current Shiism when in reality that center is divided up among over 60 Marjas and centered more closely in Qom and Najaf and then claim victory even though you clearly got both facts wrong. And when it is pointed out to you your only response is "who cares?" It completely destroys your entire argument, so you should care.

Also stating that Al-Sistani is irrelevant is to completely be oblivious to how strong of an impact he has had in Iraq ideologically on Shias and to ignore the real centers of Shia theological discourse. Khomeini didn't bring about Shia revival, he brought about Shia politicalism and political revival. Shiism was theologically healthy long before Shia politicalism existed.

Once again, you should spend more time on the basics before you attempt to characterize millions of people under a single general label.

Again who cares. You are obviously a Muslim

lol I was wondering when you were going to try to claim that I am a secret Muslim again. You literally JUST said that since I was not a Muslim then my opinion didn't matter a page or two back, but since you think I am a Muslim now then you must think that my opinion not only matters, but is more applicable than yours (being a non-Muslim yourself).

You don't seem very consistent. For the record, I'm not a Muslim, nor have I ever been, nor has anyone in my family. The fact that you need to justify your lack of knowledge of Islamic fundamentals by attempting to characterize me as some sort of subversive figure is pretty telling and makes you look insecure.

which has absolutely nothing to do with reality or history, or facts on the ground.

I can source, through the use of western scholarly and military intelligence works everything related to Islam that I have stated in this thread, which is why I am more than happy to have a formal sourced discussion with you on any of these issues at your leisure. I'd also be happy to provide specific sources here upon request for specific statements as well.

Until the arrival of KHOMEINI guys like Sistani were just respected scholars and basically nobodies. Khomeini (may he burn in hell for enternity) made Islamic Shiism into a powerful expansionist terrorist ideology. Which brought about the rise of radical Sunni groups like Al Queda and others as a counter balance. He is revered and emulated by many hardliners and you will see picture like a mythical figure all over Shia based organizations, including terrorist ones like Hezbollah. So for you to dismiss who he was and his knowledge of Islam is ludicrous at best.

I haven't dismissed him as an important modern Islamist figure at all, I have merely disagreed with your specific characterization of him and your overemphasis of his theological reach and purity in the light of traditional Shia belief structures.

I'm not sure how you can be so sure of yourself when it must be obvious to you how little you know in the grand scheme of things. You've already admitted that you are no expert.

Yes I am sure that nobody is as important as Khomeni, his legacy, and his ideology in shiite Islam today. The current supreme leader in Iran is just maintaning Khomeinis ideology and interpretation of Islam, and continuing the imperialistic terroristic ambitions that Khomeini had. You don't dismiss him as a important figure but you dismiss him as a religious figure and his theological reach. However, all the important Shia Islamist movements today are headquartered out of Iran and based on Khomeinis ideology and game plan of world conquest. Yet Osomir says no go. Ha ha ha you are hilarious.

You also don't seem to be aware of the fact here that most Shias are not Islamists. Once again: basics.

 

[Roudy]

Waaaaa! Not fair, I need a special forum! This forum gives me BUTTHURT!

No, this forum simply gives you the ability to make posts like this instead of actually discussing the topic at hand and prevents you from having to support your arguments. Once you feel like you are capable of this I would be more than welcome to have a more detailed discussion with you in any of these topics. If you come out ahead in any of them against me in the structured discussion sub-forum then I would be perfectly willing to admit defeat and to never post about Islam in here again. But even with such a slanted reward system I know you won't take me up on the offer.

Why would I need to get into a detailed discussion with a complete moron who can't handle being proven wrong on a regular forum? What would a private area do, do you perform BJ's and lap dances there? Ha ha ha.

It isn't private. It is structured, aka we would both have to respond to each others points directly and would have to cite sources for the things we said. Instead of engaging in deflection by, you know, engaging in juvenile sexual humor, simply insisting that I am dumb, or declaring that I must be a secret Muslim. but as I said I would be more than happy to provide sources for anything Islam related that I have stated in this thread upon request.

Provide what? You said things like "Khomeni can't be an Imam because shiite Islam forbids it." And I showed you that you were wrong, that he is revered and considered an Imam, in fact that is his official label, by an entire nation of 70 million Iranians and their terrorist subsidiaries across the region. Then you questioned Khomeni as a theologian and why he blended Islam with politics. Again, so? That doesn't make him less of a scholar or theologian or revered any less. Just like most religions and religious leaders ITS UP FOR INTERPRETATION. And just like their prophet Mohammad kept getting these "revelations" to justify his perversions and savagery.

Let us also not forget that the topic of this thread is that one ignorant Muslim75 claimed that "I speak as a Muslim! (Ha ha) Jerusalem belongs to Islam and Musłims! " to which I responded that he's a typical Muslim and the product of what Islam does to a human brain. For some reason that offended you.

Now you're discussing in depth Islamic theology. Who the **** cares?!

We are seeing the fruits of Islamic theology and the influence of its scholars in full swing. All death, oppression, chavanism, mayhem, terrorism, intolerance, and JIHAD JIHAD JIHAD.

Did you see what happened in Tunisia today?

Oh but what am I saying...it had nothing with Islam. Let's go to our resident USMB bullshit Islamic scholar and theologian Osomir, who is by no way a Muslim, <ha ha> and he will tell you.

 

[Roudy]

Who cares! Sistani is irrelevant. Khomeini brought about the Shia revival. He was very popular when he arrived in Iran, after a decade of killing and torturing fellow Shias, he became just another Islamic madman. These scholars make up their own dogma and exceptions just like Mohammad did when he had 12 (or was it 8) wives when he told others not to have more than 4. The hypocrisy and betrayal starts with the prophets.

Who cares? You make the statement that Khomeini was the Shia pope when Khoei was far more popular religiously speaking than he was and then try to assert that Tehran and Khamenei are the center of current Shiism when in reality that center is divided up among over 60 Marjas and centered more closely in Qom and Najaf and then claim victory even though you clearly got both facts wrong. And when it is pointed out to you your only response is "who cares?" It completely destroys your entire argument, so you should care.

Also stating that Al-Sistani is irrelevant is to completely be oblivious to how strong of an impact he has had in Iraq ideologically on Shias and to ignore the real centers of Shia theological discourse. Khomeini didn't bring about Shia revival, he brought about Shia politicalism and political revival. Shiism was theologically healthy long before Shia politicalism existed.

Once again, you should spend more time on the basics before you attempt to characterize millions of people under a single general label.

Again who cares. You are obviously a Muslim

lol I was wondering when you were going to try to claim that I am a secret Muslim again. You literally JUST said that since I was not a Muslim then my opinion didn't matter a page or two back, but since you think I am a Muslim now then you must think that my opinion not only matters, but is more applicable than yours (being a non-Muslim yourself).

You don't seem very consistent. For the record, I'm not a Muslim, nor have I ever been, nor has anyone in my family. The fact that you need to justify your lack of knowledge of Islamic fundamentals by attempting to characterize me as some sort of subversive figure is pretty telling and makes you look insecure.

which has absolutely nothing to do with reality or history, or facts on the ground.

I can source, through the use of western scholarly and military intelligence works everything related to Islam that I have stated in this thread, which is why I am more than happy to have a formal sourced discussion with you on any of these issues at your leisure. I'd also be happy to provide specific sources here upon request for specific statements as well.

Until the arrival of KHOMEINI guys like Sistani were just respected scholars and basically nobodies. Khomeini (may he burn in hell for enternity) made Islamic Shiism into a powerful expansionist terrorist ideology. Which brought about the rise of radical Sunni groups like Al Queda and others as a counter balance. He is revered and emulated by many hardliners and you will see picture like a mythical figure all over Shia based organizations, including terrorist ones like Hezbollah. So for you to dismiss who he was and his knowledge of Islam is ludicrous at best.

I haven't dismissed him as an important modern Islamist figure at all, I have merely disagreed with your specific characterization of him and your overemphasis of his theological reach and purity in the light of traditional Shia belief structures.

I'm not sure how you can be so sure of yourself when it must be obvious to you how little you know in the grand scheme of things. You've already admitted that you are no expert.

Yes I am sure that nobody is as important as Khomeni, his legacy, and his ideology in shiite Islam today. The current supreme leader in Iran is just maintaning Khomeinis ideology and interpretation of Islam, and continuing the imperialistic terroristic ambitions that Khomeini had. You don't dismiss him as a important figure but you dismiss him as a religious figure and his theological reach. However, all the important Shia Islamist movements today are headquartered out of Iran and based on Khomeinis ideology and game plan of world conquest. Yet Osomir says no go. Ha ha ha you are hilarious.

You also don't seem to be aware of the fact here that most Shias are not Islamists. Once again: basics.

Ya don't say! I bet you're about to say that some Shias are in fact SECULAR non practicing Muslims. Wow, you're just full of factoids today!

 

[Osomir]

Who cares? You make the statement that Khomeini was the Shia pope when Khoei was far more popular religiously speaking than he was and then try to assert that Tehran and Khamenei are the center of current Shiism when in reality that center is divided up among over 60 Marjas and centered more closely in Qom and Najaf and then claim victory even though you clearly got both facts wrong. And when it is pointed out to you your only response is "who cares?" It completely destroys your entire argument, so you should care.

Also stating that Al-Sistani is irrelevant is to completely be oblivious to how strong of an impact he has had in Iraq ideologically on Shias and to ignore the real centers of Shia theological discourse. Khomeini didn't bring about Shia revival, he brought about Shia politicalism and political revival. Shiism was theologically healthy long before Shia politicalism existed.

Once again, you should spend more time on the basics before you attempt to characterize millions of people under a single general label.

Again who cares. You are obviously a Muslim

lol I was wondering when you were going to try to claim that I am a secret Muslim again. You literally JUST said that since I was not a Muslim then my opinion didn't matter a page or two back, but since you think I am a Muslim now then you must think that my opinion not only matters, but is more applicable than yours (being a non-Muslim yourself).

You don't seem very consistent. For the record, I'm not a Muslim, nor have I ever been, nor has anyone in my family. The fact that you need to justify your lack of knowledge of Islamic fundamentals by attempting to characterize me as some sort of subversive figure is pretty telling and makes you look insecure.

which has absolutely nothing to do with reality or history, or facts on the ground.

I can source, through the use of western scholarly and military intelligence works everything related to Islam that I have stated in this thread, which is why I am more than happy to have a formal sourced discussion with you on any of these issues at your leisure. I'd also be happy to provide specific sources here upon request for specific statements as well.

Until the arrival of KHOMEINI guys like Sistani were just respected scholars and basically nobodies. Khomeini (may he burn in hell for enternity) made Islamic Shiism into a powerful expansionist terrorist ideology. Which brought about the rise of radical Sunni groups like Al Queda and others as a counter balance. He is revered and emulated by many hardliners and you will see picture like a mythical figure all over Shia based organizations, including terrorist ones like Hezbollah. So for you to dismiss who he was and his knowledge of Islam is ludicrous at best.

I haven't dismissed him as an important modern Islamist figure at all, I have merely disagreed with your specific characterization of him and your overemphasis of his theological reach and purity in the light of traditional Shia belief structures.

I'm not sure how you can be so sure of yourself when it must be obvious to you how little you know in the grand scheme of things. You've already admitted that you are no expert.

Yes I am sure that nobody is as important as Khomeni, his legacy, and his ideology in shiite Islam today. The current supreme leader in Iran is just maintaning Khomeinis ideology and interpretation of Islam, and continuing the imperialistic terroristic ambitions that Khomeini had. You don't dismiss him as a important figure but you dismiss him as a religious figure and his theological reach. However, all the important Shia Islamist movements today are headquartered out of Iran and based on Khomeinis ideology and game plan of world conquest. Yet Osomir says no go. Ha ha ha you are hilarious.

You also don't seem to be aware of the fact here that most Shias are not Islamists. Once again: basics.

Ya don't say! I bet you're about to say that some Shias are in fact SECULAR non practicing Muslims. Wow, you're just full of factoids today!

No, the reality of Shiism is that it has traditionally be a politically quietest movement; which made Khomeini's brand of political Shiism a relatively new theological concept and practice and limited his theological appeal outside of Iran and among traditionalists (That and his Spanish Sufi leanings). Once again: basics.

 

[aris2chat]

Ha ha ha thanks Aris. You're a sweetheart and one of the fairest people I have known.

Would make a very good mod if she wanted to wear that mantle again. But after dealing with immature scots and self centred Greeks I very much doubt she would.

Thanks but that was a headache and a half. What was it for almost two years? I prefer my freedom and use my time for other things. The archiving alone took so much of the time.....and the people were just blind and mean just "because".

They are still the same and crazy has closed her board to them because of their looney left wing attitudes. Even pathwalker has thrown the towel in and given the ark to the chuckleheads.

After a time of being the target of attacks instead of dealing with the topics, one will think they were responsible. It wasn't just me. It is sad dealing with people consumed with such hate (like I have not been doing that most of my life). It wears on the nerves, the body and the mind. I appreciate the quotes and moral wisdoms I get and even the off colored humor. It helps to find balance.

It helps to have an unbiased ear to talk too and get an unbiased reply, I never did say thank you for that in those very long years. So THANK YOU for your help and understanding my friend

I was doing it for everyone, for clarity and balance.

...but your welcome

 

[Roudy]

Again who cares. You are obviously a Muslim

lol I was wondering when you were going to try to claim that I am a secret Muslim again. You literally JUST said that since I was not a Muslim then my opinion didn't matter a page or two back, but since you think I am a Muslim now then you must think that my opinion not only matters, but is more applicable than yours (being a non-Muslim yourself).

You don't seem very consistent. For the record, I'm not a Muslim, nor have I ever been, nor has anyone in my family. The fact that you need to justify your lack of knowledge of Islamic fundamentals by attempting to characterize me as some sort of subversive figure is pretty telling and makes you look insecure.

which has absolutely nothing to do with reality or history, or facts on the ground.

I can source, through the use of western scholarly and military intelligence works everything related to Islam that I have stated in this thread, which is why I am more than happy to have a formal sourced discussion with you on any of these issues at your leisure. I'd also be happy to provide specific sources here upon request for specific statements as well.

Until the arrival of KHOMEINI guys like Sistani were just respected scholars and basically nobodies. Khomeini (may he burn in hell for enternity) made Islamic Shiism into a powerful expansionist terrorist ideology. Which brought about the rise of radical Sunni groups like Al Queda and others as a counter balance. He is revered and emulated by many hardliners and you will see picture like a mythical figure all over Shia based organizations, including terrorist ones like Hezbollah. So for you to dismiss who he was and his knowledge of Islam is ludicrous at best.

I haven't dismissed him as an important modern Islamist figure at all, I have merely disagreed with your specific characterization of him and your overemphasis of his theological reach and purity in the light of traditional Shia belief structures.

I'm not sure how you can be so sure of yourself when it must be obvious to you how little you know in the grand scheme of things. You've already admitted that you are no expert.

Yes I am sure that nobody is as important as Khomeni, his legacy, and his ideology in shiite Islam today. The current supreme leader in Iran is just maintaning Khomeinis ideology and interpretation of Islam, and continuing the imperialistic terroristic ambitions that Khomeini had. You don't dismiss him as a important figure but you dismiss him as a religious figure and his theological reach. However, all the important Shia Islamist movements today are headquartered out of Iran and based on Khomeinis ideology and game plan of world conquest. Yet Osomir says no go. Ha ha ha you are hilarious.

You also don't seem to be aware of the fact here that most Shias are not Islamists. Once again: basics.

Ya don't say! I bet you're about to say that some Shias are in fact SECULAR non practicing Muslims. Wow, you're just full of factoids today!

No, the reality of Shiism is that it has traditionally be a politically quietest movement; which made Khomeini's brand of political Shiism a relatively new theological concept and practice and limited his theological appeal outside of Iran and among traditionalists (That and his Spanish Sufi leanings). Once again: basics.

Again, yeah so? It doesn't make him any less of a scholar or theologian as you keep insisting. In fact he is more revered and respected because Shias have been oppressed by majority Sunnis. He gave them a voice, albeit a violent one, and based it on faith.

And the entire Shia movement and uprisings are orchestrated and directed by Iran, which are the fruits of Khomenis ideology. There aren't that many shiite communities, Iran has penetrated if not colonized and conquered all of them. The biggest shiite populations are Iran and Iraq, which are all under the control and ideology of Khomeinism.

You seem lonely. Isn't there a Private room where you could snuggle up with an Islamic scholar and charge him like $40 by the dance?

 

[Osomir]

lol I was wondering when you were going to try to claim that I am a secret Muslim again. You literally JUST said that since I was not a Muslim then my opinion didn't matter a page or two back, but since you think I am a Muslim now then you must think that my opinion not only matters, but is more applicable than yours (being a non-Muslim yourself).

You don't seem very consistent. For the record, I'm not a Muslim, nor have I ever been, nor has anyone in my family. The fact that you need to justify your lack of knowledge of Islamic fundamentals by attempting to characterize me as some sort of subversive figure is pretty telling and makes you look insecure.

I can source, through the use of western scholarly and military intelligence works everything related to Islam that I have stated in this thread, which is why I am more than happy to have a formal sourced discussion with you on any of these issues at your leisure. I'd also be happy to provide specific sources here upon request for specific statements as well.

I haven't dismissed him as an important modern Islamist figure at all, I have merely disagreed with your specific characterization of him and your overemphasis of his theological reach and purity in the light of traditional Shia belief structures.

I'm not sure how you can be so sure of yourself when it must be obvious to you how little you know in the grand scheme of things. You've already admitted that you are no expert.

Yes I am sure that nobody is as important as Khomeni, his legacy, and his ideology in shiite Islam today. The current supreme leader in Iran is just maintaning Khomeinis ideology and interpretation of Islam, and continuing the imperialistic terroristic ambitions that Khomeini had. You don't dismiss him as a important figure but you dismiss him as a religious figure and his theological reach. However, all the important Shia Islamist movements today are headquartered out of Iran and based on Khomeinis ideology and game plan of world conquest. Yet Osomir says no go. Ha ha ha you are hilarious.

You also don't seem to be aware of the fact here that most Shias are not Islamists. Once again: basics.

Ya don't say! I bet you're about to say that some Shias are in fact SECULAR non practicing Muslims. Wow, you're just full of factoids today!

No, the reality of Shiism is that it has traditionally be a politically quietest movement; which made Khomeini's brand of political Shiism a relatively new theological concept and practice and limited his theological appeal outside of Iran and among traditionalists (That and his Spanish Sufi leanings). Once again: basics.

Again, yeah so? It doesn't make him any less of a scholar or theologian as you keep insisting. In fact he is more revered and respected because Shias have been oppressed by majority Sunnis. He gave them a voice, albeit a violent one, and based it on faith.

And the entire Shia movement and uprisings are orchestrated and directed by Iran, which are the fruits of Khomenis ideology. There aren't that many shiite communities, Iran has penetrated if not colonized and conquered all of them. The biggest shiite populations are Iran and Iraq, which are all under the control and ideology of Khomeinism.

You seem lonely. Isn't there a Private room where you could snuggle up with an Islamic scholar and charge him like $40 by the dance?

You say that they are under the control of "Khomeinism" but don't seem to be aware of the fact that usuli forbids Shias from emulating dead Marjas, and you continue to be unable to distinguish between the political and the theological, the Imam title is a political one, it is not a theological one akin to the 12 Imams of Jafari jurisprudence. Those who actually worship him, not only do so in violation of the basic beliefs of 12er Shiism, but are a small minority of Shias globally. You also keep ignoring that the center for Shia religious ideology is currently not Tehran, but Qom and Najaf. Once again: basics.