Islam - Interesting opinion

[NousDefionsDoc]

The inherent problem involves the absence of a hierarchy of Muslim religious leadership. The ummah believes all muslims are on the same level.

For example, there is no king warlock for Muslims like there is for pagans. There is no condemnation by an official voice for the atrocities created by muslims who say they are fighting for Islam. This allows for ambiguity and ultimately a lost message across the board.

Pagan warlocks may have been wrong in their history of the woodland nymph wars, but at least there was the official voice of the caldron, the leader of the caldron, proclaiming that the history and actions of the gaggle was wrong. This is the difference between paganism and Islam. There is never, or rarely ever any condemnation for atrocities, murders, and terrorism on behalf of the entire ummah because there is no voice.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Aren't you focused on Catholicism? I thought there are many Christians who reject hierarchy . . .

Interesting theory, though.

[lrd]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The inherent problem involves the absence of a hierarchy of Muslim religious leadership. The ummah believes all muslims are on the same level.

For example, there is no vatican popery for Muslims like there is for Catholics. There is no condemnation by an official voice for the atrocities created by muslims who say they are fighting for Islam. This allows for ambiguity and ultimately a lost message across the board.

Catholics may have been wrong in their history of the crusades, but at least there was the official voice of the church, the leader of the church, proclaiming that the history and actions of the church was wrong. This is the difference between christianity and Islam. There is never, or rarely ever any condemnation for atrocities, murders, and terrorism on behalf of the entire ummah because there is no voice.
Do you mean Catholic, as in the Catholic Church, or do you mean catholic, as defined in the Athanasian Creed?

On heirarchy in the Southern Baptist church:
So what distinguishes a Southern Baptist church from other denominations?

It is not simply a matter of belonging to the organization or being under its authority. In Baptist life each and every church is autonomous. No bishop nor hierarchical body can tell any local church how to conduct its business. There is no manual of discipline. Local churches themselves select their pastors and staff. They own their own building; the denomination cannot take it away - and should a Baptist church close its doors, they dispose of their property as they see fit. Nor can the denomination set an amount to collect from local churches. Southern Baptists give and work together in "voluntary cooperation."

[NousDefionsDoc]

What difference does it make. I didn't make the comment, I rboguth it over here because I thought the concept about Islam was interesting. And you guys focus on Catholics.

The point isn't Catholics, the point is Muslims.

The question is "Is the Muslim rejection of hierarchy one of the root causes of the current situation with terrorism and the lack of Muslim denouncing of same,"

[NousDefionsDoc]

There, I fixed it. DAMN!

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The inherent problem involves the absence of a hierarchy of Muslim religious leadership. The ummah believes all muslims are on the same level.
There is no condemnation by an official voice for the atrocities created by muslims who say they are fighting for Islam.

There is never, or rarely ever any condemnation for atrocities, murders, and terrorism on behalf of the entire ummah because there is no voice.

Jesus, you guys were up at three this morning still going. WEll, I say that gives me advantage today because I put out a perimeter and got some sleep. :p

It doesn't sound like a quote you would make NDD. I assumed it was copied for a little stick stirring. I don’t believe the referenced cause translates into the effect in the last sentence.

There is a strict obedience and hierarchy enforced, otherwise, why is the US government having to perform negotiations with the "under-whatever they are called" of Al Sistani(sp?). That guy won't even negotiate himself with our leaders. It is an excellent tactic during negotiation to use a third party. Does everyone think there is no hierarchy in Islam? IF you agree with me, what do you think IS the reason for no voice against the strocities committed by Muslims in the name of religion?

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
There, I fixed it. DAMN!
lol
damn lawyers

[NousDefionsDoc]

"Al-taqiyya and dissimulation are words used for a practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims. All but some of the most fundamental Muslims consider the act of Al-taqiyya or lying to non-Muslims to be a good work. This is very important when one remembers that, in Islam, salvation is determined by good works. This means that a Muslim lying to a non-Muslim is that Muslim doing a good work to earn salvation. It is almost equivalent to a Christian accepting Jesus as his savior. One of the big differences is that a Christian only needs to accept Jesus as his savior once to become saved forever but a Muslim must do his good works consistently and repeatedly to earn his salvation with the except of the greatest work of dying while fighting non-Muslims.

This is particularly important when one realizes that the only work which can guarantee salvation for a Muslim is to wage war against and kill non-Muslims or at least support those who do wage war against and kill non-Muslims. It is only logical that to lie in support of a war against non-Muslims could guarantee salvation for a Muslim because it would be considered supporting the war. This is a very powerful motivation for any Muslim to lie to any non-Muslim for any reason but especially when concerning any war or military effort against non-Muslims.

For this reason, it is very common practice for Muslims, especially leaders, to lie about the war against non-Muslims. These lies come in many forms such as denying that Islam is a war against non-Muslims, that the Koran teaches salvation through fighting and killing non-Muslims, feigning sympathy for the US concerning 9/11, or Muslim countries denying that they have military intentions against Israel, the US, or other non-Muslim countries. "

[lrd]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
What difference does it make. I didn't make the comment, I rboguth it over here because I thought the concept about Islam was interesting. And you guys focus on Catholics.

The point isn't Catholics, the point is Muslims.

The question is "Is the Muslim rejection of hierarchy one of the root causes of the current situation with terrorism and the lack of Muslim denouncing of same," Just wanted to point out that not all Christian denominations share the same opinion towards hierarchy. If rejection of hierarchy is one of the root causes of the current situation with terrorism, then we better watch out for those So. Bpts. in rural MS that lost their jobs. ;)

Off the top of my head, I'd say one difference between the two is respect for civil authority.

I like your new version, BTW. Did the pagans recognize any authority outside of their community?

[lrd]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Jesus, you guys were up at three this morning still going. WEll, I say that gives me advantage today because I put out a perimeter and got some sleep. uh oh. :D

I'm on my second pot of coffee. Does that count?

[Valhal]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
[B For this reason, it is very common practice for Muslims, especially leaders, to lie about the war against non-Muslims. These lies come in many forms such as denying that Islam is a war against non-Muslims, that the Koran teaches salvation through fighting and killing non-Muslims, feigning sympathy for the US concerning 9/11, or Muslim countries denying that they have military intentions against Israel, the US, or other non-Muslim countries. " [/B]

I was in Egypt this last summer studying Arabic at a Muslim school. I would talk to them about politics and Islam etc. The director would tell me that his school does not teach violence, and that he didn't agree with 9-11. But one day I was in the sitting room, no one else was around and I pulled some literature off one of their bookcases, a couple of books in particular were earmarked in places that were actually quite specific in rhetoric condoning violent action against the non believers and the west.
So I have seen your above quote in action.

[Airbornelawyer]

This thread seems to be discussing two separate topics:

First, is the fact that there is no central authority in Islam the explanation for why extremist interpretations can be fomented as easily as mainstream ones?

Second, if there were such an authority, would the "mainstream" be one of these extremes?

There is no firm answer, but I would note that the lack of a Roman Catholic Church-like hierarchy has not prevented Islam from developing codes of laws and theological principles any more than it has prevented the SBC from doing so. I would also note that Shi'ism is far more hierarchical than Sunni Islam. Still, even in Shi'ism, the authoirty of a grand ayatollah or ayatollah is a function of his scholarship, not his office, and an ayatollah's opinion on a matter of faith carries greater weight than a layperson only because of his learnedness, and only to the extent that other Muslims agree with him.

In what may point to an answer to the second question, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini specifically argued against this tradition and claimed that Islam needed a single central authority to interpret Islam for the masses he considered little better than sheep. The system created in post-revolutionary Iran was an attempt to institute this, but the vast majority of Iranians - from sheep to ayatollah - reject this. Even where they defer to the political authority of the Supreme Council of Guardians, most Iranians do not grant them exclusive spiritual authority. And most non-Iranian Shi'ites reject them out of hand (probably why certain Iraqi grand ayatullahs and ayatullahs were assassinated in the past year).

It doesn't really answer the second question, though, because the very rejection of Khomeini's objective by most Shi'a, even those who respected Khomeini himself, seems to indicate that if a single authority - a Shi'ite Pope - came to be, it would likely be less extreme than what Khomeini wanted.

In Sunni Islam, the picture is far more complicated. Sunni Islam has even more divergence of opinion and of practice, and nothing analogous to ayatollahs in stature. The authority of Sunni imams is limited to their individual ability to persuade (although some have official state positions which give them greater prestige). The senior scholars at Cairo's Al-Azhar University have a great deal of influence, however. Probably the leading authority on Islamic law today, though, is a Qatari, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. I would recommend reading his essays and fatwas to get an idea of what approaches the "mainstream", at least in most of the Arab World.

[Jimbo]

Dang it. Here I was, scrolling, scrolling, formulating comments and then I hit Airbornelawyer's post, which covers my comments much more eruditely than I could.

While I think that some Muslims would welcome the establishment of a central authority within Islam, I think there would be significant pushback by many of those in already-influential positions, in part because despite whatever name was given to the office, many would view it as a new incarnation of the caliph.

While admittedly a newbie at this stuff, I find some similarities between Shias and their experience with the Iranian revolution and Central and South American Catholics and their experience with liberation theology.

Airbornelawyer,

In your experience, who wields more influence: scholars or judges?