Egypt forces storm offices of pro-democracy groups

[Manitou]

Originally Posted by Coyote

What are you talking about?

Well, take this for example. There are many more pros and cons, if you look:

Clergy in Islam

[Coyote]

Originally Posted by Manitou

Well, take this for example. There are many more pros and cons, if you look:

Clergy in Islam

I'm trying to figure out why this is an issue....?

The article defines the role of clergy as: "The role of the clergy, as it is commonly understood, is to intercede between God and the faithful." and goes on to say how in Islam, that intercession does not exist.

The dictionary defines clergy as: the group or body of ordained persons in a religion, as distinguished from the laity. It also defines ordained as: to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon. That certainly describes how clergy are in the Catholic Church and I'm guessing most other Christian denominations. I don't know about Rabbi's and I don't know about Imams but, it's easy to look up.

According to wikipedia Imam's do not seem to function like Christian clerg - they are not "ordained" in any way, and and seem function as recognized religious authorities or scholars of Islam or even simply nothing more than the one who leads the prayers. It would seem to be a title of respect rather than a title of a function or job.

Given that, it seems that it's correct to say they have no clergy, yes?

[Manitou]

Let me just say I'll let it go at that then.

[faithful_servant]

Originally Posted by Coyote

I'm trying to figure out why this is an issue....?

The article defines the role of clergy as: "The role of the clergy, as it is commonly understood, is to intercede between God and the faithful." and goes on to say how in Islam, that intercession does not exist.

The dictionary defines clergy as: the group or body of ordained persons in a religion, as distinguished from the laity. It also defines ordained as: to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon. That certainly describes how clergy are in the Catholic Church and I'm guessing most other Christian denominations. I don't know about Rabbi's and I don't know about Imams but, it's easy to look up.

According to wikipedia Imam's do not seem to function like Christian clerg - they are not "ordained" in any way, and and seem function as recognized religious authorities or scholars of Islam or even simply nothing more than the one who leads the prayers. It would seem to be a title of respect rather than a title of a function or job.

Given that, it seems that it's correct to say they have no clergy, yes?

Semantics...

Does Islam have leaders who position is strictly based on their faith? If so, then Islam has a clergy. Whether it fits your definition is beside the point. They have a defined group of people who lead based on religious authority and nothing else. Whether you want to call them the clergy, clerics, imams or the guys with the REALLY long beards is immaterial. What matters is they lead based on their religious authority.

[Manitou]

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

They have a defined group of people who lead based on religious authority and nothing else. Whether you want to call them the clergy, clerics, imams or the guys with the REALLY long beards is immaterial. What matters is they lead based on their religious authority.

That's like the Protestant church having a defined Pope. There is no clergy in Islam. The interlopers who call themselves imams, mullahs ayatollahs, et cetera have given themselves the authority to lord it over the Muslims.

[cnredd]

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

Whether you want to call them the clergy, clerics, imams or the guys with the REALLY long beards is immaterial. What matters is they lead based on their religious authority.

The real problem is that it's a fractured authority...A command in one mosque is different from a command in the mosque in the town next door...

Whether or not you agree with the Vatican's position, it's STILL the position the priests and clergy have to follow...there's a central institution with top-down decisions...The position in Chicago is the same as the one in New York and Rio de Janeiro and Glasgow and Kyoto and Sydney...because it comes out of Rome...

That's what Islam lacks...Imagine if they had their version of the Vatican...You wouldn't have one imam in Egypt saying it's Ok to beat your wife and another in Malaysia saying it's not....You wouldn't have one imam in Saudi Arabia saying it's Ok to kill if your religion is offended and another in Australia saying it's not...You'd have one central voice...Local fatwas would be null and void instead of taken legitimately...

It would also negate the argument of which imam is correct...Currently, for every good thing spoken by an imam, we can also show a thoroughly disgusting thing said by another...and vice versa...That wouldn't exist if they had a central voice that ALL must follow...Any local imams that would say otherwise would be seen as illegitimate, just as a priest who says something contrary to Catholic doctrine would be seen as illegitimate...

When the pope says something, that's it...end of conversation...The public can argue about what he said until they're blue in the face, but the Cardinals have to follow it, the bishops have to follow it, and the lower-rung clergy has to follow it...End of story...

That doesn't happen in Islam...Everything can be argued ad infinitum because the imam in one location can easily say the imam in another location is full of clap and simply dismisses anything said...

[Coyote]

Originally Posted by cnredd

The real problem is that it's a fractured authority...A command in one mosque is different from a command in the mosque in the town next door...

Whether or not you agree with the Vatican's position, it's STILL the position the priests and clergy have to follow...there's a central institution with top-down decisions...The position in Chicago is the same as the one in New York and Rio de Janeiro and Glasgow and Kyoto and Sydney...because it comes out of Rome...

That's what Islam lacks...Imagine if they had their version of the Vatican...You wouldn't have one imam in Egypt saying it's Ok to beat your wife and another in Malaysia saying it's not....You wouldn't have one imam in Saudi Arabia saying it's Ok to kill if your religion is offended and another in Australia saying it's not...You'd have one central voice...Local fatwas would be null and void instead of taken legitimately...

It would also negate the argument of which imam is correct...Currently, for every good thing spoken by an imam, we can also show a thoroughly disgusting thing said by another...and vice versa...That wouldn't exist if they had a central voice that ALL must follow...Any local imams that would say otherwise would be seen as illegitimate, just as a priest who says something contrary to Catholic doctrine would be seen as illegitimate...

When the pope says something, that's it...end of conversation...The public can argue about what he said until they're blue in the face, but the Cardinals have to follow it, the bishops have to follow it, and the lower-rung clergy has to follow it...End of story...

That doesn't happen in Islam...Everything can be argued ad infinitum because the imam in one location can easily say the imam in another location is full of clap and simply dismisses anything said...

Although, there is a similar arrangement within much of the Protestant Christian denominations where you don't have one voice either, that speaks for all.

I'm not sure if that is a bad thing though, just different because it also means there is the potential for a reformation independent of swaying one intransigent Holy Authhority.

[Coyote]

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

Semantics...

Does Islam have leaders who position is strictly based on their faith? If so, then Islam has a clergy. Whether it fits your definition is beside the point. They have a defined group of people who lead based on religious authority and nothing else. Whether you want to call them the clergy, clerics, imams or the guys with the REALLY long beards is immaterial. What matters is they lead based on their religious authority.

No, it's not really semantics. I think, for a religious person the point being made is important: Clergy act as an intermediary between Man and God. Islam recognizes no such intermediary. That is a pretty important distinction and, it's irrelevant to whether they are religious leaders or not - they are NOT leading because they are the chosen of God or the conduit to God.

In the end, the difference is irrelevant - but they have no clergy and it's no big deal unless you choose to make it an issue right?

[Manitou]

Originally Posted by Coyote

No, it's not really semantics. I think, for a religious person the point being made is important: Clergy act as an intermediary between Man and God. Islam recognizes no such intermediary. That is a pretty important distinction and, it's irrelevant to whether they are religious leaders or not - they are NOT leading because they are the chosen of God or the conduit to God.

In the end, the difference is irrelevant - but they have no clergy and it's no big deal unless you choose to make it an issue right?

Who gave those clowns the authority to mediate?

[Coyote]

Originally Posted by Manitou

Who gave those clowns the authority to mediate?

The people that recognize them.