So Khomeiniism immanentizes the eschaton?

David is on the right track with this.

I may take it further. The difference between khomeneism and other strains of Sheaism and between Shiaism and Sunnism is not what we think of as heresy but rather merely schism.

Say to me, please, what are the theological distinctions, not related to or rooted in the Tweedledee/Tweedledum question of who is to be master, separating these factions.

I am quite serious. The sources have not been helpful. We have been calling the mob war going on over there "sectarian violence," but the "sects" are fighting over power and only power.

Oh, you may find differences in emphasis intelligible to divinity school professors and clutched at, straw-like, by drowning Islamophiles. My question remains: what difference is there in religious, as distinct from political, belief, as practiced by ordinary Muslims.

David:

Yes. Like the rationalisms it flows from the heresy of believing we can perfect society ourselves.

Lou:

If, as Judaism, Christianity and Shi'ism believe, government can never be perfected in the absence of the Messiah and it is up to us to be worthy of His coming, then you have the basis for both morality and separation of Church and State, which seem to be about the only two things necessary to a decent society, maximizing both security and freedom.

The precise point is that there oughtn't be any difference in religious practice, only in political and economic and even they need to be a function of the religious.

An Amir Taheri piece on the subject...

The duodecimo Shi'ites believe that Allah created the world for the family of Muhammad and bestowed all power on 12 descendants of his favorite daughter Fatimah.

Is it just me, or does this sound like the precise, irreconcilable opposite of "separation of Church and State"?

Separation is appropriate until the Twelfth returns.

I guess my understanding of Islamic thelogy is a bit shallow, so let me ask a couple of basic questions? Muhammed was a prophet, correct? Would that be a prophet along the lines of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Moses, or Elijah? I do not recall God conferring "quasi-divine" status on any of their descendants, and I'm wondering where God conferred such status on Muhammed's? What in the Quran supports duodecimo theology?

Mohammed isn't divine, which is why Muslims object to the term Mohammedism. He's just the final prophet. The one big difference, as I understand it, is that where other prophets conveyed what God had told them, Muslims believe that the words of the Quran are quite literally God's word, which is why desecrating the book is so much more inflammatory.

My resolve weakens, but I still think it's a schtick.

Separation is appropriate until the Twelfth returns.

So then why is Iran ruled by mullahs? Yes, you can claim Khomeneism is a heresy, but that sounds a lot like the arguments Trotskyites and others make: Marxism is actually wonderful and non-oppressive, don't you know, regardless of the fact that every real-world example of it is fatally flawed. We're supposed to ignore all the failures because the next implementation will work correctly.

Muslims believe that the words of the Quran are quite literally God's word

It's more than that: they believe the Koran, in its current official form, existed in Heaven before Mohammed transcribed it for us. God speaks Arabic at home, you see.

Oddly, though, Muslims seem reluctant to allow reproductions or studies of historic Korans. I suspect they don't want to deal with the theological problems that would arise when some old copies are found to not match the current version.

For the same reason it took Christians a while to get it right once they become dominant. The Shi'ites will learn too.

Everybody: I'm still waiting for some hint of a theological, as opposed to political distinction between the Islamic factions. It looks more and more as though I shall have to keep waiting.

What I seem to be seeing is that there really is no theological distinction, as the rest of us understand it.

It is theological for them, although is would be political for the rest of humanity.

That's what I had suspected all along. No further questions. We are ready for closing

It was a political question--who would succeed Mohammed in running a state that was unitary because of the unfortunate quirk of Islam having succeeded where Judaism and Christianity were slave religions. the Shi'a though, because they lost, did indeed develop a theology that's quite similar to Christianity and Judaism. The spectacular failure of Sunni Islam has given us the opportunity to Reform it too, as has already happened in places like Turkey and Indonesia.

It is, of course, a theological question for us as well, one we answered correctly before we had power,m incorrectly once we attained it, but have reverted back to the correct answer with experience.

Mr. Gots;

There is a big theological difference, which was captured by Mr. Cohen in the first comment. He didn't get it quite right, as Khomeiniism does not immanentize the eschaton. It does, however, provide a means by which it could be done by the actions of men. In standard Shia'ism, it is the Mahdi and/or Allah who decides on the timing of the eschaton, not any living human. It seems to me that whether man or God is in charge of bringing about the End Times is not a small difference in theology.

They basically fell into the rationalist error--as a function of Khomeini's time in France--and came to believe that humans could perfect the regime.

If the aim, theologically speaking, is to hasten the day of the iman's return, then a good place for Islam to begin by re-examining what Allah says jihad is all about! That's a central theological issue IMO.