freediver,

Quote:


I never made a list anywhere. Perhaps you're confusing my posts with Grendel's?

Quote:


So why not just say leader then?

Quote:


You asked a question about a Shi'a Ayatollah I think. As I've told you enough times, I'm not Shi'a and don't follow their beliefs. If you wanna take it up, take it up with Malik, as I directed you to from the outset in the other thread.

Even if a mainstream theologian (or leader, as you like) had've given the ruling, the question is still pointless, as his position is as a man of knowledge, not a priest or anchorite of the faith, and therefore asking me about his opinion is irrelevant.

This is the whole point. You want a clergy, someone you can pin some bad saying on, and then say "look he's the administrator of your faith, condemn him". Since we don't have any such clergy you failed miserably, and now you're not happy, because you were under the delusion such a post existed that you could use to attack Muslims with.

Your whole intention from the outset is sour and acidic. And really don't expect to just walk in and get the answer from me you want, when you come with such an attitude, because you won't.

Quote:


'leader' is just one word. Why couldn't you have used that? But even then, whose leader? You're going to keep running into the same problem because Islam is not structured like you think it is. There's no clergy, no bishops who come under popes and so forth, no ministers or deacons or any of the other hierarchy that you expect and think you can argue against Muslims on. There are just 'people of (differing degress of) knowledge'.

Quote:


why speak about it in future tense, as if to suggest I can somehow still change that, if only I answer freediver's questions as he'd like me to???

The terminology was already devised, long before you ever popped a neuron thinking about it.

So why not just say leader then?

Because that would include people like Saddam Hussein.

Even if a mainstream theologian (or leader, as you like) had've given the ruling, the question is still pointless, as his position is as a man of knowledge, not a priest or anchorite of the faith, and therefore asking me about his opinion is irrelevant.

Actually the question was about Cat Stevens.

You want a clergy, someone you can pin some bad saying on, and then say "look he's the administrator of your faith, condemn him".

I am just as happy to blame the broader Muslim community for their shortcomings. Where there is no heirachy capable of reigning them in, it becomes more important for individuals to stand up to crackpot leaders. In fact that is what I have been arguing. I have not been looking for a leader to blame it on. Have another look at the 'responsibility for extremists thread if you don't believe me.

And really don't expect to just walk in and get the answer from me you want, when you come with such an attitude, because you won't.

I consider it in my own interest to give a straight answer, even to people who doubt me. Especially to people who doubt me.

'leader' is just one word. Why couldn't you have used that?

See above.

But even then, whose leader? You're going to keep running into the same problem because Islam is not structured like you think it is. There's no clergy, no bishops who come under popes and so forth, no ministers or deacons or any of the other hierarchy that you expect and think you can argue against Muslims on. There are just 'people of (differing degress of) knowledge'.

It seems that almost no religion is structured how I think it is, or rather, how you think I think it is. I prefer to ask people what they think rather than making assumptions about it. but then, I also come from an assumption that I will get a straight answer.

why speak about it in future tense

Because it is a relatively new issue.

as if to suggest I can somehow still change that

Of course you can. You can start right here on this forum. But not by refusing to answer until people figure out what the correct term is. If the correct term is that important to you, tell people what it is, rather than using it as yet another excuse to divert.

if only I answer freediver's questions as he'd like me to?

Any response that actually answers the question would be a great start.

The terminology was already devised, long before you ever popped a neuron thinking about it.

Wrong. The English language constantly changes. There is no-one pulling the strings. It's a bit like Islam really, so I'm sure you'll understand.

Quote:


Saddam Hussein was an Arab-Nationalist/Baathist leader, nothing to do with Muslims at all.

Quote:



Actually your original claim was that he had accepted the opinion of a 'cleric'.

Quote:


We've noticed. Yeh if you're happy doing that, so be it.

Quote:


The Islamic leadership structure was abolished about 80 years ago, you know that already.

The 'extremists' are a result of that lack of leadership, as there's no state in place to resist the occupation of the Muslim lands, and so militia/guerilla groups have been formed to resist it.

That is the link between these two issues.

Quote:


So do I, when it's someone who would actually believe that 'straight' answer. Since you've indicated several times you think all Muslims habitually lie when questioned about Islam, I'm not inclined to answer anything 'straight' for you.

Quote:


Are you just completely ignoring everything said so far??? there is no correct term, because there's no such structure.

Come on I know Grendel just posts the same regurgitated arguments over and over without even reading the opposing posts, but I at least thought you had some semblance of decency in discussion freediver.

Quote:


If there was a correct term, I don't see what you think I'd gain by withholding it, you're just being ridiculous really. I'm withholding terminology from you, to prevent you from attacking Islam?? You do quite fine without and perceived lack of terminology. One last time, there's no term for something that doesn't exist.

Quote:


There is no response, because the question is about a non-existent entity.

Quote:


That's not the point at all. The point is that the leadership structure in Islam is based on political, not religious authority. The Islamic political leadership doesn't exist at present. Those people who've assumed makeshift leadership roles and formed militias to resist foreign occupations have all different kinds of structures, which I'd have no idea about. But you are suggesting there is some kind of standardised Islamic leadership structure in place now, when there clearly isn't. Just admit you made a mistake with the cleric nonsense, and are now trying to just fit your argument onto any kind of leadership  structure you can perceive as existing in the Muslim world.

Quote:


And you, by extension, accept them resisting that 'reining in'.

We can go round and round in circles like that forever freediver but it doesn't solve any of the issues that exist between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Quote:


I haven't lied or deceived you, so honestly I'm getting sick of the slanderous accusations. For that reason I'm disinterested in giving your questions the time of day. When you begin just calling someone (or even an entire religion of people) a liar(s) for no reason other than to try and solidify your arguments, you'll soon find they won't be engaging you in friendly discussions.

Quote:


Ok, let's stop going around in circles, how about you tell me  which person you're referring to and I'll tell you what 'titles' that person has (if I know them) and then you can refer to them by those titles if that helps you in some warped way...

Quote:


Ok, let me put this in another way for you. Can you tell me what the word is for atheist leaders? I'd like to call them atheist clerics, but I feel it's not quite befitting, what would be the correct term for an atheist leader?

But you are suggesting there is some kind of standardised Islamic leadership structure

OK I guess I do need to say it again. No I'm not Abu.

And you, by extension, accept them resisting that 'reining in'.

So basically, Muslims are under no responsibility to reign in nutcase clerics, even if they commit or command terrorist attacks against foreign superpowers, and there is nothing wrong with them preventing that foreign superpower from reigning in the terrorists?

Maybe my logic is a little screwed up here, but doesn't that mean that Muslims do in fact support terrorists? That is, they will say "Oh no that is wrong", but when it comes to their actual actions, they will not stop the terrorists, they will defend them?

I haven't lied or deceived you, so honestly I'm getting sick of the slanderous accusations.

You told me there is no such thing as a Muslim leader.

Ok, let's stop going around in circles, how about you tell me  which person you're referring to and I'll tell you what 'titles' that person has (if I know them) and then you can refer to them by those titles if that helps you in some warped way...

I am talking about Muslim religious leaders. They are called clerics. You are welcome to suggest a more appropriate term, but don't try to give us that BS about them not existing.

Ok, let me put this in another way for you. Can you tell me what the word is for atheist leaders?

No idea. I'm sure that as soon as there is a need to talk about them, a word will appear, almost like magic. Maybe president would be suitable, given that it would most likely be some kind of club.

I'd like to call them atheist clerics, but I feel it's not quite befitting, what would be the correct term for an atheist leader?

Fine by me.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 12:22pm:

What does it mean?

Does he wear a robe and a silly hat?
Does he speak ex-cathedra?
Does he walk in the way of the Lord Dawkins?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 12:58pm:

And ride on a broom or upon the back of a mythical winged beast?