Umm NO... thats a western misconseption which try and separate them,
they are historicly different Political Parties, the only way they would be different sects is if they had some substantial differences in religion, which they dont. Both believe in the same book both inter-marry.
Shiites believe that the person who took control of the Islamic Kalifate after the passing of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)wasnt rightfully chosen. So they are basicly the opposing party.
With 1.2 Billion muslims in the world theyr bound to have difference of opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by hausmusic Umm NO... thats a western misconseption which try and separate them, they are historicly different Political Parties, the only way they would be different sects is if they had some substantial differences in religion, which they dont. Both believe in the same book both inter-marry. Shiites believe that the person who took control of the Islamic Kalifate after the passing of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)wasnt rightfully chosen. So they are basicly the opposing party. With 1.2 Billion muslims in the world theyr bound to have difference of opinion.

Umm yeah...to delineate the branches of Islam to only represent political parties and not recognize the true religious differences is shortsided on your part.
Is it minor? Yes, but does little to legitimize your point of view.IMO

quote:

Originally posted by hausmusic Umm NO... thats a western misconseption which try and separate them, they are historicly different Political Parties, the only way they would be different sects is if they had some substantial differences in religion, which they dont. Both believe in the same book both inter-marry. Shiites believe that the person who took control of the Islamic Kalifate after the passing of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)wasnt rightfully chosen. So they are basicly the opposing party. With 1.2 Billion muslims in the world theyr bound to have difference of opinion.

Hmm, actually there were 4 kaliphs who inherited Muhammed's rule, but shiites recognized only one, Ali, as a legitimate successor since he was Muhammed's heir. Unlike sunnis, shiites believe in the Imamah system, that is they consider that after Muhammed assigned the first Imam, there can only be one Imam who is a supreme muslim leader as well as being sinless and appointed by god. After the 12th imam disappeared, they didn't have a religious leader until the arrival oh Homeini. Besides, it's paradoxical to have an opposing party in a theocracy. You can only have an opposing sect.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by malek wasn't the islamic-arabic empire the most developped scientifically, culturaly and economically for a long period of time? obviously it can work because it already proved itself.

no, they stole most of their ideas from the Romans

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well actually the US was a supporter of Shah Reza Muhammad Pahlavi. What technology are we talking about? Well that would be a desire of the east, not the west. But you're misinterpreting the point that the author is trying to make. He's not saying that the west does not have ambitions to rule the world, he's saying that the west does rule the world and hence projects a certain sense of arrogance. He's accusing Islam of not ruling the world, and being outraged, or whatever, that it's not. Anyway good post renegade.

The advancement technology, they had all high advancements in military and society.. i can say Iran looked like US. They had a Air Force, Navy base and all those. When the Shah was in control he improved life of the persians and the whole Islam view.

Now i find it stupid again at how he calls Islam ignorant when he claims that the west already rule the world, pffft. West don't rule anything other their own land.

Reverend_Trance : Sure the writer is entitled to his own opinion but you said you ignored post that went against him, how stupid can you get. So your actually following his stupid comments and ruling out everyone elses opinion. We are entitled to our opinion too, so respect it.

Another thing, Islam was the strongest civilisation ever, has people read those history books? All facts say that Persia was the first strong nation ever but it doesn't say why it crumbled. If it was doing so well before, what went wrong. The US interfered, thats what. AND that my fellow TAs is the reason why Islam hates US. This whole terrorism nonsense is stupid and inaccurate. Islam is far from being terrorist.

The very fact Iran lost it's power in this game, US throwing the Shah into exile and bringing in a convicted criminal (Ayotallah) to rule the country, US very well knew that Iran would crumble without a vision in the leaders mind.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf no, they stole most of their ideas from the Romans

pfft who told you that, Persians actually beat the romans back then and remained the strongest civilisation. Alexander the great then beat Persia.. but married a persian himself (couldn't resist the beauty of persians )

___________________

Erm, well, Persia was one of the firs strong nations, however that was about 3000 years before islam. And Alexander came before the Romans started their expansion outside of the apennine peninsula.

___________________
1+1=10

I agree with some point of the original thread

without oil, the middle east is fucked, that is true and some other things about islam.

quote:

Originally posted by Psygnosis The very fact Iran lost it's power in this game, US throwing the Shah into exile and bringing in a convicted criminal (Ayotallah) to rule the country, US very well knew that Iran would crumble without a vision in the leaders mind.

Where are you getting this? The US supported the shah. Are you sayign that the US toppled Mohammed Mossadeq for nothing, brought into power teh ayotollah who subsequentely declared jihad against the United States, And supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war for shits and giggles??? Or is this all an elaborate scheme to conceal the fact that the US wanted to remove a pro-western/pro-US leader from power?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Where are you getting this? The US supported the shah. Are you sayign that the US toppled Mohammed Mossadeq for nothing, brought into power teh ayotollah who subsequentely declared jihad against the United States, And supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war for shits and giggles??? Or is this all an elaborate scheme to conceal the fact that the US wanted to remove a pro-western/pro-US leader from power?

Mossadeq was toppled because he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company. That's why the UK and the US declared sanctions on Iran and installed Pahlavi. When Pahlavi had second thoughts about extending British Petroleum license, the UK stopped buying oil from Iran, although the agreed minimum was 5m barrels/day. Not to mention that the shah was considering buying nuclear technology from France or Germany. Americans agreed with that policy, partly because of the special relations with UK, and partly because there was a probability that creating an islamic fundamentalist state could cause a spread of fundamentalism which would result in soviet muslim rebellion.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Mossadeq was toppled because he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company. That's why the UK and the US declared sanctions on Iran and installed Pahlavi. When Pahlavi had second thoughts about extending British Petroleum license, the UK stopped buying oil from Iran, although the agreed minimum was 5m barrels/day. Not to mention that the shah was considering buying nuclear technology from France or Germany. Americans agreed with that policy, partly because of the special relations with UK, and partly because there was a probability that creating an islamic fundamentalist state could cause a spread of fundamentalism which would result in soviet muslim rebellion.

So the US toppled the Shah, and created a far greater mess of anti-western sentiments, through the UK who simply stopped buying oil from Iran? And how exactly did this increase Khomeini's ability to sieze power? SOurce?

___________________
Retro ...