Wait, WHAT? Some Muslim cleric just called Pope Francis the 2nd Coming of Jesus.
#31
[quote='Parmandur' pid='1167266' dateline='1365720221']

Okay, so here is the thing on Imams: Sunni (which is Arabic for "Tradition," meaning roughly "Orthopractic" or right practicing, literally from a phrase meaning "people of the tradition of Muhammad and the consensus of the Ummah") Muslims just call their local preacher an Imam, which means "leader."  A Sunni Imam is just the man authorized to lead others in prayer in the Mosque, and preach. ((They're the largest part of Islam, right? --CeciliasGirl))

For the Shi'a (which means "Partisan" because they are the party of Ali, Mohamed's nephew and son-in-law), Imam means the infallible successor of Mohamed, similar roughly in some ways to the Pope (one big difference being that the Imam must be patrilineally descended from Ali, for most Shi'a).  Now, this gets complicated,

((Am I right in thinking it's "complicated" because of the Fatimids' "dispersal"? Or were there other claimants before the Fatimids took Egypt? --CeciliasGirl))

because different Shi'a sects have different accounts of how the infallible authority of the Imam was passed down; some still have an Imam.  Karim Aga Khan is the 49th Imam since Ali according to the Ishmali sect.  But the major sect, the one that runs Iran, is the Twelvers: and by their account, the last Imam was Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Mahdī who was borrn in 869, but went into "Occultation" (something like being assumed) when he was about 5 years old.  They believe he is still the Imam, and communicates with the faithful from beyond.  Weirdly, it kinda works out to Muslim sedevacantism: they believe in a visible, infallible authority that is unseen.

Anyways, the whole situation is pretty nutty.
[/quote

They're on #49. Wow. Are the Shi'a the "small" sect of the two (or three) primaries: Sunni, Shi'a, and Wahhabi (which I believe both of the former believes are Western-tainted Illuminati, and that's why the first two hate tend to hate on the West?).

I also take it that, like with Protestantism (as I understand it), it's quite easy to jump from sect to sect in the Sunnis as long as you don't fall into "the Shi'a error" or definitely as log as you're not Wahhabi? Or are the sects within Sunni pretty solid?

(Just read that Al Qaeda is comprised of the normal Sunni Al Qaeda, but also Hezbollah is considered Shi'a Al Qaeda —but they're not as opposed to each other as they once were?)

May I also ask, have these divisions within each sect been around for a long time (decades), or have some sprung up within the last decade? I know there were, as it was "simply" explained to me, something like Orthodox Shi'a and Orthodox Sunni, who are completely at odds with everybody. Do the divisions within Sunni Islam recognize each other, is what I'm asking I think? Or is it like Protestants vs other Protestants and Catholics? That is, we have a Protestant acquaintances that try to get on with everyone (but who appear transfixed by my crucifix, and one didn't recognize what a rosary was), but there's one family that separates itself from us all: Penecostals (they apparently really hate Catholics, but they also really think the regular Protestants can "infest" them.)

It's a little oddball, isn't it, how Christians have divided, and how Muslims have divided, in similar ways. I think I detect a general left vs right distrust of orthodox Catholics and Protestants VERSUS (um...) "New Age" Catholics/Protestants (I guess our version of "Wahhabi"?)

And maybe the Sufis (who DO demonstrate an eerily similar understanding of the Divine; thanks for the poetry and music!!!) might be akin to... I can't say it; it's his birthday! And it might suggest I don't like him, which is simply not true. Akin to a certain retired Pope who is definitely Christian, but whose thoughts are far deeper and maybe poetic/philosophical than some of us are always comfortable with; but boy could he wear a mozetta.  Blush

Stansfield, do you think the Muslims consider Wahhabis (or Wahabbi?) "of Islam" and therefore can't accuse them of not being Muslim? BecauseI get the definite impression that they do NOT. I'm half-tempted now to ask my friends (one of whom I KNOW now is a "Twelver") which sect of Sunni or Shi'a they are! But sounds like that might be like us asking a Baptist if they're Christian? (Ie, they'd be offended LOL ) Don't want to offend these particular friends. One, when the meltdown happened in Tunisia, I was able to help her brother nagivate his family to safety over the phone, and they are still my friends, but they no longer talk to me because, at some point, I directed them to what I'd consider a safe place. Someone PMed me that it was "Wahhabi", and I wouldn't talk to them for a period of time. (I'm on Islam Penance?! EEK! LOL) I just can't figure them out.
Reply
#32
REPOSTED: I missed ONE bracket! — where's the Modify button?!


(04-11-2013, 06:43 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Okay, so here is the thing on Imams: Sunni (which is Arabic for "Tradition," meaning roughly "Orthopractic" or right practicing, literally from a phrase meaning "people of the tradition of Muhammad and the consensus of the Ummah") Muslims just call their local preacher an Imam, which means "leader."  A Sunni Imam is just the man authorized to lead others in prayer in the Mosque, and preach. ((They're the largest part of Islam, right? --CeciliasGirl))

For the Shi'a (which means "Partisan" because they are the party of Ali, Mohamed's nephew and son-in-law), Imam means the infallible successor of Mohamed, similar roughly in some ways to the Pope (one big difference being that the Imam must be patrilineally descended from Ali, for most Shi'a).  Now, this gets complicated,

((Am I right in thinking it's "complicated" because of the Fatimids' "dispersal"? Or were there other claimants before the Fatimids took Egypt? --CeciliasGirl))

because different Shi'a sects have different accounts of how the infallible authority of the Imam was passed down; some still have an Imam.  Karim Aga Khan is the 49th Imam since Ali according to the Ishmali sect.  But the major sect, the one that runs Iran, is the Twelvers: and by their account, the last Imam was Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Mahdī who was borrn in 869, but went into "Occultation" (something like being assumed) when he was about 5 years old.  They believe he is still the Imam, and communicates with the faithful from beyond.  Weirdly, it kinda works out to Muslim sedevacantism: they believe in a visible, infallible authority that is unseen.

Anyways, the whole situation is pretty nutty.

They're on #49. Wow. Are the Shi'a the "small" sect of the two (or three) primaries: Sunni, Shi'a, and Wahhabi (which I believe both of the former believes are Western-tainted Illuminati, and that's why the first two hate tend to hate on the West?).

I also take it that, like with Protestantism (as I understand it), it's quite easy to jump from sect to sect in the Sunnis as long as you don't fall into "the Shi'a error" or definitely as log as you're not Wahhabi? Or are the sects within Sunni pretty solid?

(Just read that Al Qaeda is comprised of the normal Sunni Al Qaeda, but also Hezbollah is considered Shi'a Al Qaeda —but they're not as opposed to each other as they once were?)

May I also ask, have these divisions within each sect been around for a long time (decades), or have some sprung up within the last decade? I know there were, as it was "simply" explained to me, something like Orthodox Shi'a and Orthodox Sunni, who are completely at odds with everybody. Do the divisions within Sunni Islam recognize each other, is what I'm asking I think? Or is it like Protestants vs other Protestants and Catholics? That is, we have a Protestant acquaintances that try to get on with everyone (but who appear transfixed by my crucifix, and one didn't recognize what a rosary was), but there's one family that separates itself from us all: Penecostals (they apparently really hate Catholics, but they also really think the regular Protestants can "infest" them.)

It's a little oddball, isn't it, how Christians have divided, and how Muslims have divided, in similar ways. I think I detect a general left vs right distrust of orthodox Catholics and Protestants VERSUS (um...) "New Age" Catholics/Protestants (I guess our version of "Wahhabi"?)

And maybe the Sufis (who DO demonstrate an eerily similar understanding of the Divine; thanks for the poetry and music!!!) might be akin to... I can't say it; it's his birthday! And it might suggest I don't like him, which is simply not true. Akin to a certain retired Pope who is definitely Christian, but whose thoughts are far deeper and maybe poetic/philosophical than some of us are always comfortable with; but boy could he wear a mozetta.  Blush

Stansfield, do you think the Muslims consider Wahhabis (or Wahabbi?) "of Islam" and therefore can't accuse them of not being Muslim? BecauseI get the definite impression that they do NOT. I'm half-tempted now to ask my friends (one of whom I KNOW now is a "Twelver") which sect of Sunni or Shi'a they are! But sounds like that might be like us asking a Baptist if they're Christian? (Ie, they'd be offended LOL ) Don't want to offend these particular friends. One, when the meltdown happened in Tunisia, I was able to help her brother nagivate his family to safety over the phone, and they are still my friends, but they no longer talk to me because, at some point, I directed them to what I'd consider a safe place. Someone PMed me that it was "Wahhabi", and I wouldn't talk to them for a period of time. (I'm on Islam Penance?! EEK! LOL) I just can't figure them out.

[/quote]
Reply
#33
Wahabbi's are a school of thought within Sunni Islam; but they are nuts, and date back all the way to WW2, so I don't blame your friends for disliking them.  They are the new-fangled "fundamentalists" whose going back to the sources has nothing to do with the sources; kind of like fundamentalist Baptists whose ideaology has little to do with the Apostles.  (not that I think the Muslim sources are much to brag about, but at least they weren't Wahabbi) As I understand it, the roots of Wahhabi have to do with a Sunni Egyptian Imam visiting the United States in the 1940's, and being horrified at the decadence of our culture.

The are tons of these wacky small divisions, but the big one is Sunni/Shi'a (depending on who you ask, it ranges from 75/25 to 90/10 in that split; not helped by the fact that the Shi'a feel they can lie about their loyalties for safety's sake).  Others, like the Sufi, are sub-sects of the Sunni.

Reply
#34
(04-16-2013, 03:05 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Wahabbi's are a school of thought within Sunni Islam; but they are nuts, and date back all the way to WW2, so I don't blame your friends for disliking them.  They are the new-fangled "fundamentalists" whose going back to the sources has nothing to do with the sources; kind of like fundamentalist Baptists whose ideaology has little to do with the Apostles.  (not that I think the Muslim sources are much to brag about, but at least they weren't Wahabbi) As I understand it, the roots of Wahhabi have to do with a Sunni Egyptian Imam visiting the United States in the 1940's, and being horrified at the decadence of our culture.

The are tons of these wacky small divisions, but the big one is Sunni/Shi'a (depending on who you ask, it ranges from 75/25 to 90/10 in that split; not helped by the fact that the Shi'a feel they can lie about their loyalties for safety's sake).  Others, like the Sufi, are sub-sects of the Sunni.

Thanks, and I'll cut to the point (which takes this thread off topic, maybe): does the New Evangelization of V2 (or PJ2) mean we're trying to evangelize to the Muslims? When I heard Pope Francis' [not yet published] address or homily from yesterday, BXVI's birthday, he claimed that the goal of V2 was stuck in the mud. Others apparently read it as trad vs NO Mass, but I thought of how Card. Bergoglio was horrified when BXVI unintentionally offended the Muslims at Regensberg (he mentioned that one statement had set us back years, going from memory, but I recall thinking how much Francis is into dialogue with Muslims). I tend to think Pope Francis couldn't care less about trad vs NO and other laity-level controversies; but rather about New Evangelization towards those of other monotheistic faiths.

I'm looking back over this thread (again, thanks everyone for participating; I've learned so much!), and trying to figure out how Pope Francis might bring about such a thing as Cats and EO (easy), Cats and Anglicans (harder because of St. John FIsher, but not impossible, esp if he allows for women's ordination and cuts the gays, which the latter has already happened in essence via BXVI) —and mostly Muslims. I presume he'd aim for the Sunnis since they're they "big catch", but to do so, I wonder if he wouldn't have to make some concessions that RCCs, by faith, would have to go along with. Maybe canonizing the Prophet. (Geez, hope I don't sound as sacrilegious as it felt typing it!)

I can't imagine how any self-respecting Muslim could be converted; I need to have a better understanding of their concept of Jesus. But I get Pope Francis' thinking: they're freakin holy people, and each generation would need to have an attempt at being "brought in", evangelized, the "New Evangelization". The Bible says Muslims will have an inheritence (I think the Prots think "they can accept Jesus as their Savior", but that's not the kind of evangelizing that needs to be done here). Since V2 diminished the role of Pope to something akin to an imam (one of many hundreds, not the Twelver's Imam), it's plausible that they could name him Francis an Imam one day (in exchange for making Muhammed a Saint). And thoughts on this?
Reply
#35
(04-17-2013, 10:04 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote:
(04-16-2013, 03:05 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Wahabbi's are a school of thought within Sunni Islam; but they are nuts, and date back all the way to WW2, so I don't blame your friends for disliking them.  They are the new-fangled "fundamentalists" whose going back to the sources has nothing to do with the sources; kind of like fundamentalist Baptists whose ideaology has little to do with the Apostles.  (not that I think the Muslim sources are much to brag about, but at least they weren't Wahabbi) As I understand it, the roots of Wahhabi have to do with a Sunni Egyptian Imam visiting the United States in the 1940's, and being horrified at the decadence of our culture.

The are tons of these wacky small divisions, but the big one is Sunni/Shi'a (depending on who you ask, it ranges from 75/25 to 90/10 in that split; not helped by the fact that the Shi'a feel they can lie about their loyalties for safety's sake).  Others, like the Sufi, are sub-sects of the Sunni.

Thanks, and I'll cut to the point (which takes this thread off topic, maybe): does the New Evangelization of V2 (or PJ2) mean we're trying to evangelize to the Muslims? When I heard Pope Francis' [not yet published] address or homily from yesterday, BXVI's birthday, he claimed that the goal of V2 was stuck in the mud. Others apparently read it as trad vs NO Mass, but I thought of how Card. Bergoglio was horrified when BXVI unintentionally offended the Muslims at Regensberg (he mentioned that one statement had set us back years, going from memory, but I recall thinking how much Francis is into dialogue with Muslims). I tend to think Pope Francis couldn't care less about trad vs NO and other laity-level controversies; but rather about New Evangelization towards those of other monotheistic faiths.

I'm looking back over this thread (again, thanks everyone for participating; I've learned so much!), and trying to figure out how Pope Francis might bring about such a thing as Cats and EO (easy), Cats and Anglicans (harder because of St. John FIsher, but not impossible, esp if he allows for women's ordination and cuts the gays, which the latter has already happened in essence via BXVI) —and mostly Muslims. I presume he'd aim for the Sunnis since they're they "big catch", but to do so, I wonder if he wouldn't have to make some concessions that RCCs, by faith, would have to go along with. Maybe canonizing the Prophet. (Geez, hope I don't sound as sacrilegious as it felt typing it!)

I can't imagine how any self-respecting Muslim could be converted; I need to have a better understanding of their concept of Jesus. But I get Pope Francis' thinking: they're freakin holy people, and each generation would need to have an attempt at being "brought in", evangelized, the "New Evangelization". The Bible says Muslims will have an inheritence (I think the Prots think "they can accept Jesus as their Savior", but that's not the kind of evangelizing that needs to be done here). Since V2 diminished the role of Pope to something akin to an imam (one of many hundreds, not the Twelver's Imam), it's plausible that they could name him Francis an Imam one day (in exchange for making Muhammed a Saint). And thoughts on this?

I honestly don't think the Holy Father has anything like that in mind whatsoever.  Even just on the Christian ecumenical level, he's already made it clear that WO is a no-go, just as his predecessors did, so I'm not concerned with that; and ecumenical relationships with Prot's in general at this point are waiting for their institutions to die, and let the survivors climb onboard the barque.  If the Great Schism is healed, it will be by the grace of God, but given Pope Francis' ties with Eastern Christians, he might prove to be a fittign divine instrument on that front.  Pray

As to Muslims: Mohamed will not be canonized, but there is hope that the Muslim world can be evangelized.  If it can, it will be through the work of the Blessed Virgin, whom the Muslims respect deeply.  I don't see the Pope as trying to make a hybrid religion, so much as establish peaceful relations.  Which isn't a change from recent times, either.
Reply
#36
Yes, I think the Muslims are, like us, opposed to a NWO (I hope we're opposed to NWO, anyway).

Finding a common ground is very doable, I think. His Holiness has already (as Cardinal) prayed with other faiths; he mentioned not needing an ordinariate for Anglicans (that bothers me more than beatifying/canonizing Mohammed/Prophet for some reason LOL ); the guy in this video sees something awesome in Pope Francis.

So no "merge", but might he get to a point with Muslims where we could pray together? Then, in the same building. ITA the Muslims adore the Holy Mother (as they should); I wonder if we could word something in such a way that, for the Muslims, Jesus being the Son of God/God (our creeds) wouldn't be offensive if we gave something back (some respect for their Prophet. No way I see them giving up the Prophet, or being near anyone who didn't respect the Prophet. <--- I capitalize his name/title to not offend, not out of fear, but because it doesn't hurt me to respect their faith. I wonder how far we'd have to go to worship with Muslims then? (Ie, would they have to give up Jihad? I think so. But it's so engrained. Two religions so similar in aspects, but so totally different in other ways.)

Just trying to figure out this homily from yesterday. I suppose it could be about getting along with each other. I just read it as "V2 was to get the Muslims." I'm just not sure how one MIGHT do that better than JP2 kissing the Koran. ...then again, if Muslims have a respect for the Holy Mother, and some even for + Jesus, we can get on with them by focusing on our similarities (finding more similarities?) than by conquering (Crusades).

Yeah, others think I'm reading it wrong, huge. LOL I guess this video in the OP had me thinking when I read that article today.  Smile
Reply
#37
Just about nothing could get Muslims to be OK with Jesus as Son of God, in even a metaphorical manner.  It really upsets them in a primal way; which to be fair, if it wasn't true, the doctrine of the Incarnation would be scandalously audacious.

So, try this on for size for a comparison to "get" them a little more: the Muslims think about their Prophet the way we think about the Blessed Virgin Mary; they think about the Hadith (attested statements of Mohamed that were not in the Quran) the same way we think about the Bible, and they think about the Quran the same way we think about Jesus Christ.  Roughly.  For them, it is inconceivable for the perfect, one, true, good God to be born as a man.  There is nothing that can surmount that gap, short of conversion.
Reply
#38
(04-17-2013, 11:08 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Just about nothing could get Muslims to be OK with Jesus as Son of God, in even a metaphorical manner.  It really upsets them in a primal way; which to be fair, if it wasn't true, the doctrine of the Incarnation would be scandalously audacious.

So, try this on for size for a comparison to "get" them a little more: the Muslims think about their Prophet the way we think about the Blessed Virgin Mary; they think about the Hadith (attested statements of Mohamed that were not in the Quran) the same way we think about the Bible, and they think about the Quran the same way we think about Jesus Christ.  Roughly.  For them, it is inconceivable for the perfect, one, true, good God to be born as a man.  There is nothing that can surmount that gap, short of conversion.

I'm so saving this thread; thank you Smile

So when Bl JP2 kissing the Qu'ran, did he know just how important it was to Muslims? (Curious.) My old priest jumped in horror at a Qu'ran. A friend and I had met him in a wonderful local bookstore, and we were chatting when he suddenly jumped away: he'd been leaning on the Qu'ran (quite accidentally), but his reaction was so strong it drew attention. I'd thought there was spider on a book or something, so I picked it up (it was really beautiful, illuminated, but alas the inside proved to be in an Arabic-type language). I said, "Oh, A Qu'ran!". And he escorted us outside and "cleansed" us somehow (my friend and I were quite taken aback, but we don't question our priest). He angrily "instructed" us about not touching a Qu'ran. TOUCHING, much less picking it up.

I never confessed to him that I studied the Koran (literally, a mass market paperback with that spelling) in college. I didn't think other religion's stuff could harm us, but he thought otherwise. (I obey my priest, so I haven't touched one since. But I have looked up online Qu'ran passages — I don't THINK that counts?). It was confusing to (my friend and I) because this was long after Bl JP2 had kissed the Qu'ran. But we don't tend to question our priests once they've flipped out. We obey. And pray God doesn't smite us with lightening. (For real.)

So that explains why my dear (really sweet) Muslim friend flipped when I folded the paperback Koran over (as I do most throwaway paperbacks) to read the next page and get my assignment done. She didn't say anything; I just thought she had suddenly taken ill.  Blush She must think the worst of me! (Sad, because I think the best of her.)
Reply
#39
(04-18-2013, 12:56 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote:
(04-17-2013, 11:08 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Just about nothing could get Muslims to be OK with Jesus as Son of God, in even a metaphorical manner.  It really upsets them in a primal way; which to be fair, if it wasn't true, the doctrine of the Incarnation would be scandalously audacious.

So, try this on for size for a comparison to "get" them a little more: the Muslims think about their Prophet the way we think about the Blessed Virgin Mary; they think about the Hadith (attested statements of Mohamed that were not in the Quran) the same way we think about the Bible, and they think about the Quran the same way we think about Jesus Christ.  Roughly.  For them, it is inconceivable for the perfect, one, true, good God to be born as a man.  There is nothing that can surmount that gap, short of conversion.

I'm so saving this thread; thank you Smile

So when Bl JP2 kissing the Qu'ran, did he know just how important it was to Muslims? (Curious.) My old priest jumped in horror at a Qu'ran. A friend and I had met him in a wonderful local bookstore, and we were chatting when he suddenly jumped away: he'd been leaning on the Qu'ran (quite accidentally), but his reaction was so strong it drew attention. I'd thought there was spider on a book or something, so I picked it up (it was really beautiful, illuminated, but alas the inside proved to be in an Arabic-type language). I said, "Oh, A Qu'ran!". And he escorted us outside and "cleansed" us somehow (my friend and I were quite taken aback, but we don't question our priest). He angrily "instructed" us about not touching a Qu'ran. TOUCHING, much less picking it up.

I never confessed to him that I studied the Koran (literally, a mass market paperback with that spelling) in college. I didn't think other religion's stuff could harm us, but he thought otherwise. (I obey my priest, so I haven't touched one since. But I have looked up online Qu'ran passages — I don't THINK that counts?). It was confusing to (my friend and I) because this was long after Bl JP2 had kissed the Qu'ran. But we don't tend to question our priests once they've flipped out. We obey. And pray God doesn't smite us with lightening. (For real.)

So that explains why my dear (really sweet) Muslim friend flipped when I folded the paperback Koran over (as I do most throwaway paperbacks) to read the next page and get my assignment done. She didn't say anything; I just thought she had suddenly taken ill.  Blush She must think the worst of me! (Sad, because I think the best of her.)

It would be a similar feeling to seeing a well-meaning non-Catholic friend leaning on the altar in the sanctuary (which I have seen, thanks to musical concerts taking place in churches  Doh! ).

Your priest's reaction is not unreasonable, considering that, frankly, the most plausible explanation for Mohamed's life and revelations is demonic communication.
Reply
#40
I just wanted to say that this thread has been incredibly instructive, especially that part about how Muslims think of the Quran the way that we think of Christ, and how they think of Mohammed the way we think of the Blessed Virgin. It's amazing to me, how shocked (for lack of a better word) they are at the idea of the Incarnation. I suppose most of us are just so used to the idea that we've lost some of the awe of it.  Shrug
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)