My friend Anwar Khan has recently written an interesting column in which he expressed his disagreement with what he perceived as my pro-Shia bias and in which he set the record straight on some of the atrocities committed by Shias. It is not my intention to write a full rebuttal today, nor do I think that it is appropriate for me, as an Orthodox Christian, to take sides in a dispute between Muslims. However, I do feel that I can offer a few basic considerations to explain my own perspective on this issue as an outsider. So, here we go.
My pro-Shia bias: guilty as charged! However, let me immediately say that my admiration for the Shia does not imply any form of hostility towards the Sunni. I am on record as praising such well known Sunni figures as Ramzan Kadyrov or Sheikh Imran Hosein both of which are Sunni. So praising one sides does in no way imply that I don’t admire that which is admirable in the other side (or that I endorse everything Shia, for that matter!). And yet, there is no doubt that the Shia elicit a strong sense of admiration in me. Why? Here are a few reasons:
- Though my friend Anwar is critical of my reference to the words “Every day is Ashura and every land is Karbala” I still believe that they powerfully express a core element of the Shia ethos. When I see the absolutely extraordinary courage that this ethos elicits in Hezbollah fighters or Iranian Pasdaran I can only express a sense of awe and admiration.
- I also cannot fail to notice that while the Takfiri ideology does have, at least potentially, an undeniable attraction amongst maybe not all, but still a seizable percentage of Sunni, this ideology has no traction at all with the Shia. There are no Shia joining Daesh. And there is no Shia equivalent of Daesh either.
- I am also sympathetic to the socially progressive nature of Shia Islam, especially when compared to the outright reactionary nature of the, shall we say, “para-Wahabi” social practices of not all, but still many Sunni societies.
- Finally, I have the utmost admiration for Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who himself a spiritual follower of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei whom I also consider as an very wise ruler.
None of the above, however, makes me blind to the atrocities committed by, for example, the Badr Brigade in Iraq. And I will readily admit that the Iranian society is imperfect and also has some very ugly aspects. But I also sense a logical fallacy at work here. Anwar Khan asks:
One cannot simply deny that this is happening. You can rationalize it one way or another, like, what I often hear, “yes, this is horrible but they are mainly reacting to what was done to them by ISIS and co”, or “Sunnis brought it upon themselves for siding with ISIS”, etc etc. Other than the inaccuracy of such statements, and the obvious lack of humanity in them, even if this was true, is this the best we have to say? Would Imam Hussein ever consent to such horrors perpetrated on his name, when he gave away his very life for raising the human condition from this depravity? Has the meaning of Imam Hussein’s sacrifice in Karbala parturitate barbarity as a response to barbarity? Is this Everyday is Ashura and every land is Karbala? This is assuming that the victims have any connection with ISIS. Most are simply innocent victims of sectarian hatred.
My reply is simple: no, of course these atrocities are not “everyday is Ashura and every land is Karbala“. But neither are these atrocities caused by “everyday is Ashura and every land is Karbala“! In fact, I don’t believe that any of the bad actions we could blame the Shia in Iraq, Syria or Lebanon are in any way traceable back to the Shia theology or ethos. And that is crucial. Unlike the Takfiris who justify their horrors in the name of their interpretation of Islam, those Shia who commit atrocities do not, as far as I know and as a rule, publicly justify them by reference to any aspect of Shia spirituality.
[Sidebar: there is an obvious parallel in the Christian world: Orthodox Christians have also committed atrocities in the 2000 years of the existence of the Orthodox Church, they have even committed some in the name of Orthodoxy, but their actions were always in direct contradiction with teachings of Orthodoxy and they could not be justified by references to the Church Fathers. In contrast, all the worst atrocities committed by the Papacy were always justified by various Papal rulings, Thomist scholastic logic and Jesuit casuistry. When the Orthodox commits an atrocity they betrays everything they are supposed to uphold; then the Papist commits an atrocity it is always justified and presented as ad majorem Dei gloriam. That is a huge difference: in one case the evil is done in direct disregard of, while in the other case the evil is done explicitly in the name of.]
Anwar Khan then addresses the issue of Iranian foreign policy. He writes:
If this is not enough to dispel the “the willingness to die for the truth at any time and in any place” myth, think of other betrayals of those raising the banner of Imam Hussein’s martyrdom, for example the Iranian cooperation with the Americans in overthrowing the Taliban, based on a totally fabricated pretext—which Iranian intelligence was fully aware of. I will shed no tears for the Taliban, an entity I detest intensely. But a war on a lie can never be justified, even if it is against the Taliban. There is a BBC interview of the then Iranian President Khatami boasting about this cooperation with the Americans, and how useful the toppling of Taliban was for Iran.Yes, Iranian cooperation—such as allowing the American’s to use their airspace— was a brilliant politically expedient act, but please let us not call it Everyday is Ashura and every land is Karbala. It was hardly standing tall to the wrongdoers. It was Machiavillian machination of highest order. How about the Iranian performance in Iraq with the 2003 American invasion? Do we need to be reminded of the complete submission and then cooperation of Shia institutions with the occupiers? Iran instructed all Shia religious leaders, the most influential among them Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, to give fatwas or verdicts that resistance to the American invasion was prohibited. This was a calculated political move ensuring that the Baath party and Sunni institutions are given a resounding boot by the Americans, creating the space for the Shia outfits to grab power. Again, a brilliant political move, but hardly a Everyday is Ashura and every land is Karbala.
I think that my friend Anwar Khan is confusing tactics with strategy. Let’s remember here that the Neocons always had Iran in their sights as the supreme target to be defeated. For example, Bush administration officials openly declared “Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran”. The Iranians perfectly understood that and what they did next is nothing short of pure genius: they used their secret agents from Iraq (such as Ahmed Chalabi) to feed the Americans false information about the Iraqi WMD program and get the Neocons all worked up about the possible threat to Israel. So instead of attacking Iran, the Neocons turned their sights in Iraq. The Iranians succeeded in a brilliant “political Aikido” move to turn their #1 enemy (the “Great Satan”) against their #2 enemy (Saddam and the Baathist Pary) against each other. The AngloZionists overthrew Saddan (good-bye enemy #1) and then got hopelessly bogged down thereby tremendously weakening the “Great Satan”. Let me repeat here: by re-directing the USA towards an attack on Iraq the Iranians tremendously weakened the USA. So is that a form of collaboration with the USA or is that a form of resistance? By ordering the Shia in Iraq not to resist the US invasion, did the Iranians betray what they stood for or did they make it far easier for the Americans to get bogged down in Iraq? Is handing over a rope to an idiot to hang himself a form of collaboration or a form of resistance? I think that the answer is obvious.
Do I feel sorry for the Iraqis? Yes, definitely. And I don’t believe in collective guilt or guilt by association. And yet, the fact remains that the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein did attack Iran at the moment of a deep crisis inside the Iranian society and at the moment when Iran was at the weakest. It is a fact that the Iraqis had the full support of the USA, the Soviet Union and France and that they unleashed a vicious campaign against Iranian soldiers (with poison gas) and cities. In this context, I sure cannot blame the Iranians for choosing to stay out of a fight between Americans and Iraqis as much as possible (because, of course, the Iraqi Shia led by did end up fighting the Americans as did a number of covertly deployed Pasdaran units sent by Iran to support the Sadr forces). Frankly, both the Americans and the Baahists had it coming and there is a karmic justice to see them at each other’s throats.
As for the Taliban, they had viciously persecuted the Shia in Afghanistan and they even murdered Iranian diplomats. Again, I cannot fault the Iranians for letting the Taliban and the American engage in a mutually detrimental struggle against each other.
However, it is one thing to let your two main enemies fight each other to death and quite another to engage in a campaign of atrocities against innocent civilians. I have seen enough evidence of widespread horrors committed by Shia militias in Iraq not to say a word in defense of these actions. However, I have seen no evidence of any Hezbollah atrocities in Syria, though I am sure that, as in any civil war, some might have occurred. But “some” is not the same as a systematic policy of terror and atrocities which, to my knowledge, all the anti-government forces in Syria did commit and which the Syrian forces themselves did also commit, especially in the early phases of the war. What I do know for a fact is that Hezbollah showed an absolutely unique and amazing restraint when they liberated southern Lebanon from the pro-Israeli militias of Saad Haddad’s SLA even though these were clearly traitors to the Lebanese nations who had committed an untold amount of atrocities against the Lebanese Resistance (especially in the notorious Khiam Detention Center).
But, of course, like all of us, including non-Muslims and agnostics, the Shia are human and they sin. I will never pretend that they are saints. But I do find the claim that the Shia are hypocrites because they proclaim “Everyday is Ashura and every land is Karbala” and then engage in atrocities baseless and illogical. Unless, course, you make the same accusations against all of mankind, including the putatively peaceful Buddhists and Hindus (though I would claim that neither Buddhism nor Hindusim contains the seeds of the violence perpetrated by some Buddhists or Hindus).
Finally, Sheikh Subhi Tufayli is welcome to say anything he wants about Hezbollah and what Hezbollah is doing in Syria, but I find the notion that Hezbollah is acting in Israel’s interest (“their actions, at the end of the day, only benefits the Zionist Entity“) beyond preposterous. Is Tufayli a Saudi agent? I don’t know, but he sure sounds like one to me.
My conclusion from the above is simple: unless I can trace the cause of any evil deeds committed by the Shia to the Shia spirituality itself, I see no reasons to reconsider my pro-Shia bias on the grounds that the Shia, like all humans, are known to commit atrocities. It is that simple, really. Blaming Shia Islam for the misdeeds of Iraqi Shia would be as illogical as saying that Iraqis commit atrocities because they are Iraqis or because they are Arabs. Evidence of a correlation/coincidence is not an evidence of causality.
In contrast, Takfirism, like Talmudic Judaism and Latin Christianity, has its roots in the teachings of its spiritual founders. You can read the teachings Ibn Taymiyyah or Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and clearly see the roots of modern Takfirism. Here we are dealing with a real causality.
I want to repeat what I said at the beginning. None of the above is in any way a criticism of any other form of Islam. The only form of Islam which I am vehemently opposed to are 1) Takfirism/Wahabism 2) the kind of Islam embodied in the long and bloody history of the Ottoman Empire (another complex topic I don’t want to develop here). But do I have a special “soft spot” for the Shia. Yes I do. And I see no reason to change that.
The Saker
An excellent and measured response, IMHO.
Thanks, Saker. My thoughts exactly. Iran and Russia are in the same boat: they don’t start wars but they do finish them. Shia Islam doesn’t have the lethal intolerance of the Takfiris, who make it abundantly clear that they can’t live with anybody different. Khan undercut his whole case when he stated that Hez’s actions only benefitted Isntreal. Hez’s success against the Zionist entity is a major driver for the onslaught against Syria. Isntreal can’t commence the “final solution” against the Palestinians or steal Lebanon’s Litani River resource if Hez has 150,000 rockets aimed at it. Nasrallah and his homies are master strategists.
Saker, I have a question,
I like your writing quite a lot and have been following your blog for two years or so but in this age of deception where 99,99% of the media is owned by one group (Western Zionist), and the same can be said for the so called ‘alternative media’, my question is:
1) What do you have to say to those who think you may be a shill or a double-agent (esp. given your job in the past)?
2) Why do you use that yellow ribbon which is a western false flag sign?
I don’t mean no offense, just asking what some are saying!
1) judge me by what I do, what I say, what the blog stands for and come to your own conclusions :-)
2) what yellow ribbon?!
maybe the Donbass flag ?
The St. George ribbon. That person doesn’t know what she (?) is talking about.
I will again invoke the Chomsky-Harris exchange as a fundamental demonstration on not allowing the discussion to be framed so that only certain lines of thought are acceptable.
By engaging within the frame of religious (and perhaps ethnic?) factors, both Anwar Khan and Saker fall victim to the framing intended to limit any potential discussion. Whether it is Shia v. Sunni, Christian v. Muslim, Catholic v. Protestant, Roman v. Orthodox, etc., there is no possibility of real peaceful progress or solution in the larger geopolitical field via such limited expositions.
For example, that the Rothchilds and Soros of the world happen to claim to be Jewish (or even Zionist) is to give them religious/historical/moral cover with the masses for the psychopathic evil they propagate. Ditto for “capitalists”, “communists” or any flavour of religious/nationalist/ethnicity/political-group/militarist label used to enforce illegitimate authority over others. Such labels deliberately hide more than they reveal.
Aside from the tribal squabbling unfortunately prevalent to humans and inherent to limited resources being stressed by increasing population and environmental degradation, the Shia and Sunni populations (populations is a key term) coexisted fairly well with the rest of the Abrahamic persuasions in the former Fertile Crescent. But as Goering said, the leaders (regardless of the label they hide behind) can always bring the people to war.
The question then becomes, where are the ultimate leadership roots of the current Shia/Sunni discord (and all the radical sub-groups driving the violence under discussion here) ? Tehran? Riyadh? Tel Aviv? Or more likely a longer chain beginning in places like the Rothchild manses, Washington/MIC boardrooms or ??.
Bottom line: As long as the discourse can be limited as this Kahn/Saker one has been, the uber-perps like the Rothchilds are free to continue making the world a hell for far too many innocent people.
Only by specifically tracking back how the individuals within the Rothchilds/WashingtonMIC et. al. chain exert illegitimate control in the Shia/Sunni confrontations described in both articles (and comments) will the world be freed from their parasitic, psychopathic ambitions.
Not easy I know, but there are over 6 billion of us and perhaps a few thousand key 0.01% individuals.
So instead of bickering over which brand of Islam (or Christianity, etc.) and the history attached most justifies the never-ending violence, creating a truthful accounting of where the real impetus lies would be more productive.
Gor example, Ovo gives a good overview (literally) showing how intertwined the Rothchilds are with so many key world domination organizations. Srcoll down on this thread:
/moveable-feast-cafe-2017-02-26/
This is a very honest comment, pregnant with possibilities of freeing us of the esoteric labels. The real culprits are laughing their way to the bank, while we deliberately locked up in this thought maze–perhaps with the intention of doing just that.
No one will push a false narrative on you, unless they pepper it with enough dressing to make it appetizing. This is not really about Shia or Sunni: it is about crimes of the West, with full collaboration of their bought supporters, like Iran and Saudi. Perhaps even Russian and Turkey as well.
Anyway, great catch!
Jenn
Hi Jenn,
I need to contact you directly
Could you please send me your email?
Cheers and thanks,
The Saker
Good comments – any attempt to discuss what goes on behind the masks is demeaned as whacko “conspiracy theory”, but it is the most needed and noble kind of thought in these times. What is hidden is PRECISELY what we need to try to see.
Hummm. The 911 links speak volumes.
One of the very few valid links would be to the work of Dr Judy Wood and her masterpiece ‘Where Did The Towers Go?’.
And then there is the lynchpin contextual lie which is re-enforced throughout so many of the essays on this blog and the censoring of comments on the matter. Unless …. https://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_3/the_great_holocaust_mystery.php
Of course, we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater – there is a great deal of interesting opinion expressed on the site. These are the no-brainer omissions, which I wish most sincerely the site would address. The lies cannot be sustained indefinitely; better the blog be a party to the larger truth.
Thank you.
I am a very regular reader of this blog.
In a frank exchange between President Putin and the ‘Western press’ I recall VVP saying “I can keep quiet about a lot of things”.
The evidence of directed free energy in the disintegration of the WTC buildings is there for all to see. Trump has expressed doubt about the mainstream narrative. Human beings are trusting; the great mass of humanity needs help from its ‘servants’ on the global stage to realise the depth to which their trust has been betrayed.
The Russians over-ran Auschwitz on 27th January 1945 and released 7,200 emaciated beings from a hell hole in a ‘bombed back to the stone age’ Germany (seven of whom, only, have gone on to promote the ‘gas chamber’ lie and associated atrocity propaganda, with which we are all so familiar). One wonders about the stories of the other 7,193. I don’t understand why the Russians do not release evidence of what they found to a truth starved world. This would be a game changer.
The fact that Lavrov did not attend the annual Auschwitz memorial service was a promising sign of change in this regard. A diplomatic threat to the West. Was that last year or the year before? I have no idea who might have attended the memorial this year. Why no follow through from the Russians? A few picture from their archives let loose into the ‘alternative’ media.
Instead of the old joke about the newly elected US President being shown a film of the JFK assassination from an angle no one has ever seen before, I prefer to think that VVP will take Trump to one side and bring him up to speed on a few basics. Some hope!
Thanks again, moderator (and The Saker).
” I don’t understand why the Russians do not release evidence of what they found to a truth starved world.”
Because the Soviet Union was the prime creator of the Holohoax. Did you ever wonder why only the Eastern camps (“liberated” by the USSR) are accused of having gas chambers, and not the Western camps (liberated by the US/UK)? At first the Western camps were also said to have been used for mass murder, but the evidence just didn’t support it and the charges had to be dropped. But the USSR never allowed the defendants in the Nuremberg Trials to visit the Eastern camps to collect or disprove evidence; and this was a conscious ploy of Stalin, who, in part, was angry that the Nazis had repudiated his lie about the Katrin Forest Massacre and stuck the blame where it belonged, on the Red Army.
Now Gorbachev did do something quite major to disprove the Holohoax: he released in the Auschwitz death books, which were said to have documented the Holohoax. They showed a number of deaths from disease and the like but no deaths from gassing and few cases of murder.
It has also been admitted that the so-called “gas chambers” at Auschwitz were constructed after the war was over (i.e., by Stalin).
So really Russia has admitted there is no evidence of a Holohoax. They just haven’t gone so far as to say it didn’t happen – in large part because Russian identity is so caught up in having defeated the evil Nazis through the strength of the Great Stalin! lol
@CalDre
I assume the silence – official – also is practical.
The entire raison d’être of ‘Israel’ ( politically, not religiously speaking) rests on the official holocaust narrative.
What would happen internally to ‘Israel’ if the post/war generation discovered they had been deceived on an epic scale?
What would be the consequences?
Possibly a major exodus of Jews / back to the very lands they originally came from.
Clearly Stalin thought the Jews were better ‘settled’ well away from Russian borders – or at least the Talmudist variant.
Certainly their sectarian fascism – noted long ago with alarm by Einstein and Hannah Arendt – has reaped bitter fruit in the Middle East.
Meanwhile in Putin’s Russia, the Orthodox Jews appear to be well-assimilated, identifying as Russian while still maintaining their own religious/cultural distinction – like the Chechens.
I can’t see the breakup of Isrsel being in the interests of Russia.
The best scenario seems to be a slow attrition, as Jews – particularly younger ones – eschew Zionist fascism, and Jews disenchanted with Israel leave for new shores.
There is definitely a significant increase in emigration from Israel, with the numbers only being balanced by the criminal opportunists of the Occupied Territories.
I can’t see who would settle in them, if they didn’t have extremist tendencies or criminal pasts.
That bodes ill for internal peace, as they grow in numbers and come into conflict with the established population.
The Russians I have met appear not to be steeped in the holocaust narrative. This came as a pleasant surprise to me (and my sample of Russian friends may not be representative). The holocaust is a ‘gospel truth’ in Europe, Australia and North America.
Everyone in ‘the West’ is deeply affected by the narrative; gentile and Jew it matters not – there is a ‘Pavlovian response’ – a physical and psychological reaction of revulsion at any expression of doubt about its veracity. This is the lynchpin lie in an anti-human agenda where turkeys vote for Christmas and Thanksgiving.
The existence of the state of Israel is less dependent on the holocaust narrative than is the Western ‘anglozionist’ hegemony. The holocaust is not a Russian lie, it is ‘our’ lie, the lynchpin lie in a sea of lies, and the great mass of the population clings to it as a drowning man clings to a life-belt. It behooves any site purporting to be about truth in the affairs of the world to recognise the lie for the lie that it is and publicise the fact rather than allowing its repetition in myriad forms. Truth is unifying!
Similarly, the 911 links on this site do nothing for its credibility. Why are they there? No military analyst would countenance such claptrap.
@Dhunidas
“The Russians I have met appear not to be steeped in the holocaust narrative.” Agreed, they are not as conditioned on the topic as people in the West. No, the Holocaust is not central to the Russian WW II narrative – but what is central is the narrative of The Man of Steel defeating the most horrific human in history. If Russians were to admit that the worst that Hitler was to do to his greatest enemies, ones that (in Hitler’s mind) had brought such utter depravation and destruction to Germany, was to expel them (even when killing them would have been child’s play, the millions of survivors notwithstanding)- well, all of a sudden the paranoid narrative that Hitler desired to exterminate all Slavs also falls apart. As does the narrative that Hitler was in any way worse than Stalin. And both of these narratives are quite central in the Russian psyche.
“Pavlovian response“. Aye, lad, I’ve use the exact same description!
“ The holocaust is not a Russian lie“. Well it was from the outset. Without the cooperation and the deception of Stalin and the Reds, the Holohoax myth would never have been cemented into dogma. If Stalin simply had let the Eastern camps be subject to scientific examination, the entire myth would never have survived the Nuremburg Trials. On the other hand, if the “West” (particularly Germany and Poland) allowed scientific examination of the Eastern camps now, the myth would also come to a forceful end – and that is why the Germans led by Communist Merkel condemn scientists who dare conduct Holohoax research to decades in prison (longer prison sentences than for murder in Germany).
Let me say it us a Russian (not representing all of us, of course).
Holocaust… It was said that 6 million Jews perished. Awful. No doubt, that is awful.
Then USSR losses are estimated 10-15 and even 20 or sometimes 25 millions.
I am not here to challenge or approve those figures, i just take the mainstream ones. This challenging would easily turn into a “race for being most victimized”.
BTW, there also are Gypsies who were targeted, the third group – but they are overlooked and forgot too.
However we may notice, that the mainstream, officially blessed narrative is that there were more USSR citizens perished, than European Jews.
However there is an obvious Russophobia (despite bigger losses) and reverence towards Jews (despite less losses). To the point that i think it is part of biological instinct of species competing for the same niche. The mere admission of USSR losses would dim the glory of Holocaust. It would no more be something exceptional. Hence Jews would cease being exceptional. Many Jews are contempt with it. But there are other Jews too.
I guess everyone heard that Russian barbarians raped… what, millions of Berlin women? I wonder if there were so many in 1945 Berlin, probably Russian barbarians moved all German fraus to Berlin for the forced orgy.
Now try to say that Jews raped not millions but hundreds or even dozens of Berlin fraus?
Anyone heard such a story?
So it comes down to a simple idea: the person only is civilized, when he considers USSR casualties ans “animals (subhumans is no more trendy term) clawed other animals)” and considers Holocaust as “unprecedented and enraging case of animals mass-killing humans”. So the larger USSR causalities are just written off, struck out – to leave the room for reigning of the said 6 millions.
Well, now how should i see the Holocaust victims ( real victims and no matter what numbers should be – very many of those )? As an instrument to write off my pain and my loss. And then why should i adore and worship that instrument?
All in all i see the memory of Nazi victims as a continuous funeral.
There are people, all around the world, who came together in that sad night of 8/9 May 1945, they set their joint campfire, and started the joint mourning of their joint losses.
Then the political Jews stood up and said like “You do not mourn our relatives, our losses the proper way. You can not mourn enough. We are taking our perished ones’ remains to a separate campfire where we would do the proper mourning!”.
Were those Jews in their right to do it? Absolutely so! Those were their losses and their dear ones and i am in no position to tell them how to cry for them.
…Just they willfully and intentionally left our joint all-the-Earth campfire to pursue their individual activity of mourning. They willfully and intentionally left our mourning. That was their willful and intentional choice, to separate their deads from our deads. They did this separation and they absolutely had all the rights to do so.
Just now they drop in to demand that i mourn over their losses before my losses and that is an absurd demand. I do mourn every Jew targeted by Nazi and hurt by them. Absolutely every one of them. But that goes after i cry and weep for all OUR JOINT lost dear ones.
I do not expect political Jews to cry for my losses more than they cry for theirs or even to cry equal. I perfectly understand they see their pain as more important for them than our joint pain. And i absolutely and totally agree with their intentional and willful take on that.
However for me, who chose different, who chose to sit with all the nations of the Earth at our joint campfire and cry over our joint losses – the Jews-built “queue” of victims start from another end. I go down the same Jews-built queue from the other end of it, and first i cry for our joint losses then for Jewish ones, just like Jews did with their end of their queue.
PS. Establishment of Israel was in part USSR and USA combined blow at British Empire. Both USSR and USA were cutting their place as new superpowers by crashing obsoleted colonial empires one after another.
@why the Russians do not release evidence of what they found
Because they did not find anything. It was not Soviet Union which was the ‘prime inventor’ of the Holohoax.
It was “The Prisoner of War Interrogation Section (PWIS)”, of the Directorate of Military Intelligence of Great Britain (Of 3,573 prisoners who passed through Kensington Palace Gardens, more than 1,000 were persuaded to sign a confession or give a witness statement for use in war crimes prosecutions).
It was also the “Ritchie Boys”, the US special military intelligence officers and enlisted men of World War II who were trained at Camp Ritchie, Maryland in methods of intelligence, counterintelligence, interrogation, investigation and psychological warfare. Many of them were German-speaking immigrants to the United States, often Jews who fled Nazi persecution. They were primarily utilized for interrogation of prisoners on the front lines and counter-intelligence in Europe because of their knowledge of the German language and culture.
I dunno, the footage in “Darkness Will Fall” looks pretty convincing to me. The survivors and ex-military speaking certainly look like those individuals seen in the original death-camp footage. Bales of human hair, skids of cans of lethal chemicals, clothes to be recycled/reissued, the jaws/teeth containing gold fillings (this is how Soros got his original fortune) and the endless piles of emaciated dead.
This is why a modern-day nazi-mole like Chrystia Freeland hides her ancestry…
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/27/chrystia-freeland-family-record-nazi-war-murder-cracow-jews.html
Like the German locals shown in “Darkness Will Fall” who denied knowing (or smelling) the death camps beside their towns where many were employed, Freeland’s ancestors lived within 70km of Auschwitz-Birkenau where she visited along with Selfie-Prince Trudeau. Oddly, she was not shown in any of the media spin, despite the heroic story (lies) that her family escaped Nazi brutality and her mother was born in a Nazi camp… if by death camp, you mean spa…
@One wonders about the stories of the other 7,193
One wonders of the stories of the 60,000 other prisoners who chose to be evacuated from Auschwitz to Germany, including the famous ‘witness’ of the Auschwitz pyres, the impostor Elie Wiesel (who started to peddle his ‘testimony’ ten years after the event – and that only at the insistence of the ‘Catholic’ Francois Mauriac – in actual fact his ‘ghost writer’, if not the inventor of the whole story).
When it comes to Dr. Judy Wood, see Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.no/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html
Yes, this… the widespread residues of highly specialized, weaponized thermite, plus molten pools of steel being found in the rubble many days later speak to a conventional, if hi-tech controlled demolition.
Thanks again for publishing my earlier comment.
Dr Judy Wood’s book ‘Where Did The Towers Go?’ is a master-work. It’s a forensic examination of the facts surrounding the disintegration of the WTC complex. Every home should have a copy of Dr Wood’s book in it.
The links on this site to ‘911 Truth’ are time-wasting claptrap. They demean the site. They demean ‘The Saker’. The ‘rebuttal’ to which you link proves the point. It is tawdry, and irrelevant to Dr Wood’s exhaustive analysis of all aspects of this bold and brilliant psychological operation.
I am aware that there are many ‘pundits’ who debunk and dismiss Dr Wood’s work. If memory serves me, on September 11th last year The Saker wrote an essay on ‘The 911 Truth Movement 15 Years On’, which provoked great interest if the many comments are any indication.
Above, in reply to Nedjma’s comment The Saker invites judgment. I am judging this blog: I am disbelieving that an ex-military analyst favours these links. They are radically at odds with honest journalism. This disappoints and concerns me and I take this disparity into consideration when I read this blog.
Something doesn’t add up. Either some object it the towers, and failed to hit tower 7, causing the whole charade to be exposed, or nothing hit the towers, and the whole narrative about 7 being pulled, is false.
If you knew in advance it couldn’t be hidden 100%, then you would plant countervailing theories all over the internet to prevent a logical theory to develope. Therefore, the best option is to just stick to the obvious incongruent explanation of events, not get caught in a specific method, and push for re investigation.
If I was planning it I’d use everything conventional and atomic just to make sure it got done. I don’t see why the various ideas are mutually exclusive.
At the end of the day I’m in the Robert Bowman camp. We can speculate all day about how they did it but once you get to the point where you understand that they are lying just stop. The very next 2 questions you have will be “Why are they lying?” and “What else are they lying about?”.
Never trust them again on anything is the takeaway.
Allow me pls to add.
This kind of questions reveal unsafe people who rely on authority to believe in the said. Remember Galilei was against the Pope, 5 Bishops and 3 Kings who said the earth was flat.
An advise could be, only trust information yourself understand which present itself as logic and include facts.
Never believe in believe statements: “billions of computer calcs show manmade clima change, its dangerous believe us”, ……maybe but I need logic facts before I trust it and pull my wallet up.
Then it doesnt matter whether it is Santa Claus, your 8 year old son or a professor from Harvard who says it.
The Saker´s article here makes logic sense and presents facts.
@Remember Galilei was against the Pope….
Yours is a case of false memory. Galileo was not condemned because of the ‘flat earth’ but because he said that the Earth is moving around the Sun. Nobody believed then (if ever) that the earth was flat. You are the one relying of false authorities. In that case of no one else that the Father of American Independence Thomas Jefferson:
“Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the Earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error” (Notes on the State of Virginia). Jefferson was clearly the kind of semi-erudite know-it-all who ‘trust only information he can understand’ but can’t refrain lecturing people.
Technically, the Inquisition’s ruling against Galileo still stands, and Galileo himself changed his mind.
Science today actually still cannot prove the Church and the Inquisition wrong.
So called evidence of the movements of planets and stars worked the same way in both Kepler’ heliocentric as well as Tycho’s geocentric models. The era had far moved beyond Ptolemy. Tycho had a stationary Earth, and had everything else go around the sun which went around the Earth.
Technically, even today, wheter you used Galilean Relativity or Einstenian Relativity, both models are acceptable. One could construct a universe using anything as the center and the observations would still hold. They’re dynamically equivalent.
What is therefore needed is not observationak, but experimental evidence. And every experiment to detect the Earth’s motion through space has failed. The enlightenment drunken scientists who opposed the Church, either had to admit the Popes were right, or construct some ad hoc explanation to save heliocentrism. Thus entered Einstein eho declared that the reason the Michselson Morley experiments failef was first that the aether they tried to detect against yhe Earth’s presumed motion didn’t exist (proven wrong by Sagnac that it did exist, alongside Michelson/Gale), until he had to rethink the excuse to claim the intereferometer apparatus was shrinking in the direction of motion, for no reason (and that as a consequence mass had to go up, time had to dilate etc) merely as a principle of nature and thus presume detecting the Earth’s velocity through space was impossible. Which meant nobody could say whether the Earth was moving or not.
So the consensus was that Earth had to be moving by appeal to philosophical grounds where by presuming Earth was a product of random chance, the likelihood of it not behaving like the other planets was simply unlikely. But the fact remains that there is no evidence for the Earth going round the sun, and recent observations that defy the Copernican Principle are accumulating. One should seek out a documentary called ‘The Principle’ by Stellar Motion Pictures to learn more. Many in the global warming/dark matter seeking scientific establishment tried to bury the film, even by the old canard of accusing one of the filmmakers of being anti-Semitic and a Holocaust denier (which is untrue, but look up what the man actually said for yourselves). But that campaign of calumny didn’t last, but one suspects that this recent uptick of ‘flat earth’ activity was a psy op to try and bury the film’s revelations by poisoning the well with a disinformation campaign.
@ Johnno: “But the fact remains that there is no evidence for the Earth going round the sun, and recent observations that defy the Copernican Principle are accumulating.” Bulldoody.
You mean this The Principle? “Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas for which the film advocates and also complained that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Principle
Before anyone climbs on the “wikipedia is crap” bandwagon, wade through to external references at the bottom of the page.
And here’s the scoop on the religious whackadoodle who thinks the earth doesn’t rotate, everything rotates around the earth… But I guess he’s making a pile of cash hoodwinking folks like Johnno. At least $90,000 for people duped into paying to watch the film. And Sungenis admits his statements about Jews, probably purposely calibrated to incite outrage, but just inside the “free speech” line. But then that’s what this entire Anwar/Saker exchange is about, trying to place a religious overlay on a problem that has its actual cause in the secular/wealth-power systems which manipulate religious/ethnic divisions to foment conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis
Otherwise, what a load of diversionary c**p. The simple observation of “apparent retrograde motion” provided the basis for confirming the planets orbit the sun. The “orbits” required to make an earth-centric planetary/universe system work can only be mentally accepted if some force defies both the Laws of Motion and common sense. It may be possible to mathematically make an earth-centric universe “work”, but in practical and Occam’s terms, no way. And trying to claim Galileo and Einstein as equivalent while jumping over Newton is a cute trick. And I’m sure many Debate 101 contests ended with the premise that “black is white” is “true”. But that doesn’t make it so.
Yes, you prove that relying on wikipedia is still faulty. I encourage everyone to crossreference the wiki disinfo with the facts.
Mulgrew is on video admitting she knew everything she was doing in the special features, and it was impossible for her not to given she narrated the whole thing, and her agency read and approved the script before getting the job.
And some of the scientists fell for a hoax begun by a tweet from an antagonist of Sungenis’ with an axe to grind. A liberal Catholic by the name Mark Shea who claimed the scientists were misrepresented in the film, when in fact neither he nor they had even seen it as it was still in the editing room. Anyone who has seen it can even attest to the fact that no scientist was misrepresented and even Krauss had to withdraw his claims.
All this and more can be learned in the special put out to address claims made in wiki by hit pieces based on nothing as the film was not even screened to anybody yet, but the establishment hit the panic button.
Anyone who wants the facts, feel free to watch this:
https://youtu.be/0eVUSDy_rO0
Also Sungenis has been writing on Jewish topics from the perspective of a Catholic for a very long time which has made him an enemy to ecumenists like Mark Shea. If it incited outrage, it was only because someone’s toes got stepped on and it seems that it’s more liberal Catholics crying than any actual Jews. But anyway, just as with Islam, beliefs do play a role in conflicts, so just dismissing any of these elephants in the room as if they play no purpose is not rational…
And thank you ‘nice try’ for at least admitting that mathematically a geocentric system can work. And that you reject it based on what you personally feel is practical or simple according to Occam. But it is not so simple considering that in order to explain heliocentrism and the lack of evidence for a moving, rotating earth, you’d need Einstein along with shrinking lengths, expanding mass, time dilation, space warping, black holes, white holes, brown holes, dark matter, dark energy and tons if other ad hoc fixes and extraordinary fine tuning to make this house of cards stand.
Geocentrism is therefore according to Occam, infinitely simpler without all that. Might I recommend everyone to look into the neo-Tychonic model? It’s far simpler and elegant. And in a universe where we already must admit to the specialness and uniqueness of the Earth compared to the other observable bodies, this isn’t so great a leap. Our ancient forefathers all accepted this at face value save for a few civilizations who treated the sun itself as a deity. The fact is that the current consensus rejection of geocentrism is on purely philosophical grounds. Simply to reject the Christian God, the Bible, and the Papacy because they used it to cast themselves out of it. The myth of Galileo being part of their enlightenment Genesis.
Well history and science and time have not been kind to them, and you bet there will be an intense fight over this one area, because myths are important.
All you need to know the Earth rotates is a Foucault’s pendulum. As for retrograde, epicycles, etc., that may have been OK contrived explanations in the middle ages, but not with rocket launches, satellites and explorers to Mars and beyond, the current instrumentation we now have, and direct observation from space. The math for geocentrism does not work in light of currently available facts and math, and if current astronomy was so wrong satellites could not be launched and the communication systems which the internet depends on would not exist. But even ancient Greeks knew the Earth went around the sun and neither the planets nor the stars rotated around it.
Geocentrism is obviously wrong, with virtually no chance of validity. Myths can be entertaining and have some uses but they are still myths, and denying facts and reality is silly, and consume a great deal of time and energy with nothing to show for it on the end.
(Even the establishment economists and neolibcons are learning this now as their myths fall apart.)
I must have doubts you are even being serious about this.
And yet, blue, the Earth is the only pinpoint of consciousness and intelligence that we know of in the universe uncovered so far. Neither a bad or mad basis for both geocentrism and anthropocentrism.
That we know about…
but that says nothing about the motions of the planets, etc., and it doesn’t this tiny speck or one of it’s many species in the center of anything. It just means we are ignorant, self-centered, and perceptually limited, and that can be expected: even the ordinary beetle is centered on itself, as survival mechanism, but is not the center of anything but the beetle. Argument from ignorance is a fallacy.
In the expanding universe, every point seems from that vantage point to be the center since everything is moving away from it. This would also hold in a contracting or stable universe. That’s how frames of reference generally work and is the basis of relativity physics.
No matter where you are ‘you are here’.
@blue: Yes, I had forgotten about the pendulum proof. Simple, explicit, inarguable. Inarguable unless all physics, math and modern common sense is ignored.
I doubt many Saker readers are convinced by Johnno, but this sort of subterfuge is so the rest of the less-whacko accepted “god-centric” Biblical/religious firmament remains in play.
How else to keep the religious people feeling superior to a Johnno that is obviously disconnected from reality… but the Church, now there’s something to believe in!
My encouraging readers to see the ongoing and accumulating failures of religion cannot go unchallenged. So Johnno will claim black is white knowing eventually we will tire of his delusions (or more likely his profit-margin in promoting such silliness to the unsuspecting).
There is a great deal to be gleaned conceptually from ancient ideas about the universe and the human place in it, but finding a vague religious commonality with robust scientific theory is like saying god made that big rock drop on your toe because you did some moral transgression. Sorry, no, it’s gravity, in its simplest, and still enigmatic form.
@Johnno: Nice Debate 101 trick. I never “admitted” geocentrism could work in practical terms. The math to make it “happen” is many times more complex than the simple sun-centric solution. Epicyclic motion of the planets is simply not plausible, possible or in anyway reflective of the now common observable reality. It can only “work” when all reality is ignored in favour of writings originating in the limited knowledge base of various ancient sources. Those sources could not (and did not) imagine the structure of molecules/atoms, let alone sub-atomic quanta. Nor could they see the galaxies accelerating away from earth approaching the speed of light. They couldn’t conceive of light as having both wave and particle properties, which is simply shown in a properly executed, but incredibly simple slit experiment. And then there’s those pesky pendulums.
Ptolemy, Brahe et. al. were working from the limited available knowledge, which became increasingly ingrained in religious dogma for later authorities to blindly adhere to when the rational knowledge base had moved far beyond those early interpretations.
And it may well be that Einstein, Hawking et. al. may one day also be largely swept away as Ptolemy and Brahe have been, but it won’t be by Biblical, Buddhist, Mayan other ancient references carried ad infinitum.
Y’see, it’s not “theory” that galaxies rotate faster around the galactic centre than they should… they are observed doing it. Geocentricity does nothing to address this gravitational conundrum. Ditto for the observed expansion of the universe and everything in it… how does geocenticity address that? It doesn’t.
Next you’ll be telling us the universe is 6,000 years old and there were no dinosaurs. Must be a good paying gig selling pseudo-intellectual religious claptrap, but it ain’t selling here. Readers should not even click on any links to such misinformation sites, as clicks sell “impressions”. I know, my daughter works for a company that places those little clickable ads on webpages… good money in simply getting eyeballs on screens.
Moral and well reasoned! And this why we have such a soft corner for The Saker as well :)
Persian’s are natural allies of the West. Unfortunately, the West picked wrong with house of Saud. The 1973 Kissinger-Saudi deal married Sunni Islam and created petrodollar system. The Saudi “deal” requires pricing oil in dollars, and recycling said petrodollars into TBills (American Debt Instruments), and western money markets. Note that Saudi has no large and powerful bank.
Other aspects of the “deal:” U.S. Navy protection with fifth fleet, Integration with U.S. military, Front line military gear like AWACs, allowing Cartels , and recognition of Wahabbi coup leaders as legitimate. The Saudi Coup had MI6 fingerprints.
In other words, a case could be made that Wahabbi Sunni perversion is a function of alignment with anglo-zion bankster empire. If the “head” is parasitized, then the actions of the body will follow.
Shia Islam is outside of Zion/Petrodollar system, and has escaped its malevolent influence.
My complaint and worry about Shia: Abrogation has not been ejected as a guiding concept. This allows Imams to pick and choose pre medina, or post medina verses as desired. A key element enabling Takfiri behavior is also present in Shia Islam.
to the Saker
on the topic of rotten fruit…
I am not sure you would remember, but I followed this blog since before the start of the Ukrainian events… along the way you resolutely defended the choices of putin as they were played out in Novorussia. Sometimes and I say this with saddness, that stance cause you to lose some dear friends and followers.
Current events have again taken a very rotten turn for that Novorussian community. Do you think it is time for an overt confrontational respone by Novorussia to those that abuse them with these attacks? Or… must they suck it up and continue to wait until Putin has a chance to work out some kind of a deal with Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN1tPyHAgAo
This video explains the origins of Shia branching out of regular fold of Islam at the time. its a bit long (two hours) but explains everything in detail.
It was the Sunni who branched out of the regular fold of Islam.
excellent exposition, Saker. You gave me some great material for my own debates, as, like you, I am an outsider to Islam, yet have reached similar conclusions about the Shite/Sunni debates. Just had one with an interesting lady from the UAE, and was caught short unfortunately by my own ignorance on a couple of points.
It’s also good that you inserted right at the end this reference to Talmudic Judaism. Among Jewish people there has not been a schism as, say between Catholics and orthodox or Shia and Sunni, because the jewish halacha is pretty much the rule among nearly all orthodox jews. And as anyone familiar with the Old testament AND the interpretations of the Talmud can attest to, it is NOT so surprising that when push comes to shove, the religious jews will find ways of justifying say, an outright genocide of palestinians. Ways that will be borrowed from their own religious texts and for sure, from direct biblical commands (Joshua anyone?).
Now, it is also true that in more secular, humanist interpretations of jewish teachings, atrocities would be outright prohibited (though to what extent none of us can know – yet). Reform judaism makes a big deal about a concept known as Tikkun Olam, pretending it had universal scope, which it most certainly didn’t. So one could say that the humanist school of Judaism will not likely resort to religious teachings to justify mayhem committed by Jews. Alas, many (if not all) will simply substitute Jewish survival for religious edict when and if push comes to shove. That’s because the schism between the secular and religious is not deep enough to overcome a sense of tribal affinity. So yes, I predict that even if (or rather when) Israel resorts to implement its “solution” to the Palestinian question, no matter how brutal, a majority of America’s jews will find ways to justify the unjustifiable.
PS the above should in no way diminish our respect for those Jewish people who fight tooth and nail what’s being done in israel, supposedly in their name. Unfortunately, their religious teachings give them only partial cover, what with the Talmud interpretable any way one wants it to be.
One does not have to look far into the history of most ethnic groups to find examples of atrocity; nor of sainthood. Atrocities such as politically inspired persecution, genocide and individual acts of sadism have also been found among tribes of chimpanzees. Thus Jane Goodall when asked by some crass BBC interviewer “Do you like chimps more than humans”, replied “I like some chimps better than some humans, and some other humans better than some other chimps”. We and our cousins seem to have inherited a propensity to mindless violence from our common pre-chimpanzee ancestors.
The aim of civilization is not gas nor electricity nor solar nor nuclear energy; the aim of civilization is to diminish the traces of original sin. — Baudelaire
“I would claim that neither Buddhism nor Hindusim contains the seeds of the violence perpetrated by some Buddhists or Hindus”
Agree with that, and please add Taoism to the list.
However, I have to say that the 3 Abrahamic religions aren’t as pure – just read the Holy Books and you’ll find a lot of seeds, the Old Testament being by far the worst offender; frequently just pure vitriol. I happen to believe that the Nicean bible is a create of politics rather than spirituality and is the key moment where Christianity started rolling downhill, but that’s a long discussion. Way before the Great Schism.
I always wonder whether people would ever get tired to unthinkingly regurgitate the old clichés of the malfeasance of the ‘3 Abrahamic religions’, with Christianity (wink, wink) the most violent branch, of Constantine pushing Christianity downhill because he imposed the ‘Nicene bible’ (one understands that against the ‘true, Gnostic’ ones) whenever any discussion about religion comes about. I don’t hold my breath, the brainwashing was too powerful and it became a Pavlovian reflex. Ineradicable from the moment when the victims believe that these are their own thoughts.
Speaking of seeds and purity, Joseph is said to be ‘chosen’ by Jews and Christians, while Yusuf is said to be ‘pure’ by Muslims. Same story, diiferent spin, all leading us to what, exactly?
Bitter quarrels about nothing while everyone loses the point, as is the purpose of this sort of uselessness. The seeds of genocide are planted herein — because so and so insulted my beliefs we should eliminate the unchosen and/or purify the unclean.
Just now I turned on the TeeVee and RT is playing a promo for the umpteenth time, wherein some jerk screams at double volume:
People who think this way don’t deserve to live!
It’s been playing for weeks.
Someone is stirring the pot, so you keep fighting little children.
Speaking of seeds and purity, Joseph is said to be ‘chosen’ by Jews and Christians, while Yusuf is said to be ‘pure’ by Muslims. Same story, diiferent spin, all leading us to what, exactly?
Same story, same implication. God sent the flood to cleanse the earth of nephilim and similar perversions of his genetic design. This is simple, basic information.
Gen.6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had contaminated His way upon the earth.
Gen.6:9 . . . Noah was a righteous man [tzaddik], [translating the Hebrew literally] uncontaminated [free from blemish, as animals suitable for sacrifice were] in his genealogy [toldoth meaning both generations and history (listed by genealogy)] . . .
old and new do not mix do not belong within same covers
old of the devil; new of God/Jesus
vengence, hate, genocide vs mercy, love, life
someone went wrong somewhere with “judeo-Christian”
also toss out revelations
A Khan is a fake Muslim par excellence eg just like the sauds who continue with that surname, the Prophet of Islam expressly advised names be so and so son/daughter of so and so. In other words a great equalizer no House of Windsor (or saud). You will not find a shia khan !!
@Anon
It is my belief that “khan” has nothing to do with middle East or Arabs. It was implanted there by the Turkmen in ~XII century when they came down and conquered Arab peninsula and the rest of the middle East. Mongols, Tatars (which includes Turkmen) used word Khan to define one as their leader or warlord if you will, as they had no princes or kings.
Regards
The basic word is much older. Hebrew Cohen, Russian Kagan/Kogan &c.
Even applied to Gengis Khan. Disguised form (among others) John Calvin (L = 30 in gematria, alluding to 30 pieces of silver to Judas for betraying Christ; V can be a vowel or consonant).
@t-t-cats
I can’t comment about Cohen, but if we take Genghis or Aga both were called Khan, to underline their position in their society. This meant they were leaders in their Khanat (Chanat in some other languages).
Tatars in Crimea (Krim if you will) were organized in Khanats. So to end this tirade, Khanat was an area controlled by Khan.
@t-t-cats
My apologies, but I found appropriate page in English on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Khanate
Russian: Крымское ханство
“…the kind of Islam embodied in the long and bloody history of the Ottoman Empire (another complex topic I don’t want to develop here). ”
– I hope Saker really does a post on this later. From a Shia perspective it has been like this with the Sunnis from the time of the Ummayads. But even for non Shias it must be acknowledged that Sunnism has been a dark, might makes right morality force from at least the time of Timurlane. I don’t often bring these up because I do have some sympathy for the ethnic cleansing perpetrated on the Rumelian Muslims and North Indian Muslims but the truth needs to be acknowledged.
– I also hope Saker dedicates a post on Israeli-Russian relations.
Why don’t you write something on the “dark” history of the ottomans rather then see others do it? I am sure you have enough sectarian credentials to do a great expose.
High noon
An enslaving empire, that made slaves of the little boys that it captured. That conquered to rule wine producing shores, that preferred battling heretic Muslims in the east rather than Christians to the west, that massacred it’s own minorities. Don’t even want to read about them, prefer if both didn’t write about it. Theis neo ottoman (removed for language.MOD), erdogan, as an embodiment/fanboy of the ottomans is enough of a headache.
“Orthodox Christians have also committed atrocities in the 2000 years of the existence of the Orthodox Church, they have even committed some in the name of Orthodoxy, but their actions were always in direct contradiction with teachings of Orthodoxy and they could not be justified by references to the Church Fathers. In contrast, all the worst atrocities committed by the Papacy were always justified by various Papal rulings, Thomist scholastic logic and Jesuit casuistry. When the Orthodox commits an atrocity they betrays everything they are supposed to uphold; then the Papist commits an atrocity it is always justified and presented as ad majorem Dei gloriam”
———————–
Ok, so it looks like when the orthodox go on a killing spree, they violate the sacred 5th at their own risk, they are just irresponsible mavericks and they will presumably have to account for their mischiviousness to the Supreme Judge when the time of reckoning comes.
Whereas when the evil papist Catholics commit similar atrocities, they are, I quote: “always justified by various Papal rulings, Thomist scholastic logic and Jesuit casuistry”.
Always is a strong adverb. Given that warring and killing tends to be pretty continuous, there must be hundreds of such justifications available. I wonder if we could see at lease 3 or 4 cases of these papal rulings, scholastic logic and Jesuist casuistry to illustrate with concretness such sweeping grandeur in the justification of atrocities.
Further, are we to understand that whenever orthodox soldieres, for example, lose their cool and slip into a little killing spree or two during war, their orthodox religious authorities always condemn such excesses instead of remaining silent?
Or do they mostly remain silent?
And if they remain silent, what is the difference between it and tacit aproval?
You might convince yourself with that kind of rhetorical questions, but in truth you are only lying to yourself. explaining away and rationalizing a 1000 year long history of atrocities, genocide, forcible conversion. etc. with that kind of pseudo questions only shows how morally unsustainable your position is. You don’t need me to reply to you, at the most you might need Google. But, okay, I will give a first lead. Google “Dictatus Papae” for starters and notice the date (1075 – just 2 decades after the birth of the Papacy). After that, it’s just a matter of studying history.
‘Lolita’ — now with pictures
‘Even in these sophisticated latter days, “Lolita” still carries a scent of pedophilic scandal. Are we ready for an illustrated version of Nabokov’s classic? ‘
‘At the front of this volume, long-time Washington Post book critic Michael Dirda provides a graceful introduction that outlines the author’s life and articulates the novel’s extraordinary value. While acknowledging that the humor can be “disconcerting,” Dirda asserts, “There’s nothing cheap or meretricious about Nabokov’s ultra-subtle book. Neither graphic descriptions of sexual acts nor blunt obscenities will offend its readers. Here one will find, above all, pleasure in the text, the English language gorgeously employed, aesthetic bliss.”
Allowing himself one winking aside, he notes, “There’s not a flaccid sentence in the entire book.”
These are sexual puns clearly by the Washington Post book critic and by the author of this article:
‘This elegant new edition, even at $99.95, might just be the light of your life, fire of your loins.’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/lolita–now-with-pictures/2015/10/13/b7e7356e-71a0-11e5-8d93-0af317ed58c9_story.html
It ties directly into Pizzagate unfortunately:
https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/
Saker, I have no idea where you get the notion that I am “explaining away and rationalizing a 1000 year long history of atrocities, genocide, forcible conversion”. I have no doubt the history of those things is endless and am certainly not in the business of justifying it, as I think it is horrible. Having only a slight acquaintance with Thomist scholasticism (a hugely vast topic) and practically no acquaintance with Jesuist casuistry, I was genuinely curious to see if you could provide some concrete examples of such permanent justifications in them. I surmise that you cannot, judging by your answer. The 27 statements of the Dictatus Papae are indeed impressive as an example of someone (perhaps Gregory himself or whoever wrote those dictates) completely convinced that the Pope is above everything else on Earth and whatever he says, goes, period. Okay, good, so I suppose popes could easily absolve, justify and even encourage all kinds of atrocities, I would not doubt it,a s they tended to be monumental assholes and murderers themselves. But my question was much simpler and you have not ansered it at all. I just wanted some concrete examples, especially about the justifications provided by Thomas and Ignatius Loyola, and their followers. Again I don’t question they may well exist, those justifications, and all I am asking is to be given some concrete illustrations of them. Instead of providing them (which should be easy because they must be abundant) you gratuitously accuse me of justifying and rationalizing genocide for simply asking a simple question. Really it is hard to take any of this seriously, especially the sweeping statement that catholic atrocities are *always* somehow justified either by the Pope himself or by some interpretation of scholastic philosophy. They are always obeying their Church when they go into extermination mode, these extremely disicplined catholics, they never have any other motives, whereas orthodoxes they are just undisciplined, so they only err when they don’t obey. Whatever you say.
There were no killing sprees by the Orthodoxes. What Saker wrote apply only to initial christianization of only Russia and during Nikon reform, nowhere else in Orthodox world. I frequently notice here how Orthodox is fully equated to Russian Orthodox, the last naton to become orthodox. Lack of knowledge or arrogance, or both.
I frequently notice here how Orthodox is fully equated to Russian Orthodox
You are claiming otherwise ? Absurd.
Is Orthodox Christianity then a (labor) union shop where seniority determines status or military (time in grade = seniority).
PS : the Vineyard is a site about RUSSIA. Or, hadn’t you noticed ? Russia is its context. So the rest follows naturally.
I noticed that this article is about religious diferrences.
And yes, Russia is junior in Orthodoxy, that makes it more prone to err.
Russia’s proneness to err is not necessarily due to her ‘junior’ status in Orthodoxy. This is some ‘Constantinopolitan’ infatuation. The errors in the Church were started by the most ‘senior’ and passed to the more ‘junior’ in time. Actually Russia struggled to stop the spread of error.
Sure, the errors are passed… Like the Sharia patrol StopHaram in Moskow…
I wonder if we could see at lease 3 or 4 cases of these papal rulings, scholastic logic and Jesuist casuistry to illustrate with concretness such sweeping grandeur in the justification of atrocities.
Two easy ones off the top of my head.
“Kill them ALL — God will recognize his own” (Papal instructions to exterminate the Cathars in the Albigensian Crusade in France, 1209-1229)
The Te Deum celebrated in Paris at the successful conclusion of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of Protestants in France (men, women and children).
Dear Saker
I feel strongly that most of Anwar khan’s article was an illogical rant. Almost every point being made could be contradicted with facts. It was also an attempt to somehow “correct” your bias to some degree. Since after being accused of a bias, you will naturally try to be, how do I put it, inclined to be “fairer.” Which may not exactly be just or fair. Because if you are calling black, black and white, white, it is not a bias. But by calling them both grey, you would be doing an injustice to both. Or at least to unblemished white.
Although I felt your reply was sufficent, I felt the accusation of bias softened your response.
Nonetheless, thank you
I wanted you to clarify this if possible. Is this your opinion, an assumption, or a fact, this statement you made:
“The Iranians perfectly understood that and what they did next is nothin…”
Because it will give another argument to the Sunnis against Iran for something Iran may not be guilty of. The Sunni States reap the benefits of colluding with the west and Iran is blamed for not bleeding enough fighting it.
Your old friend, mindfriedo
Why did you stop contributing here Mindfriedo? Many of us here used to look forward to them.
Never thought I was capable enough, thank you Nasser
I liked what you said but I will add this:
With the Reformation came the notion of direct communication with God. It implies that no one can hide himself behind Scriptures and Teaching for what he is doing.
Scriptures and Teaching are man made and are acting as a veil betwen God and oneself.
The Journey towards God is made in darkness. There are no easy way or short cut to God.
Read the Mantic Uttair from Farid Uddin Attar and you will find that very few birds reached the Simorg’s palace and when finally they reached the palace, they found a closed door.
Those who pretend to know the way are just a bunch liars and they can be Jewish, Christian or Muslim.
The Jesuits were selling the idea that everybody following their teaching would meet God. It was just a sales speech the same thing politicians are doing to get elected.
It is a not a must to try to get to God. The majority of people are living without God but you may be attracted by him like a butterfly is attracted by the fire. Attar has a good parable concerning this butterfly telling that the one really reaching God is the one who get totally burned by the fire.
Attar was a Sunni living in Iran. He was killed by the Mongols.
Burst into flames? yes, depending on the need of the student: a poem by Hafiz: ” Stop Calling me a Pregnant Woman”
My Master once entered a phase
that whenever I would see him
He would say,
“Hafiz, How did you ever become a pregnant woman?”
And I would reply,
” Dear Attar,
You must be speaking the truth,
But all of what you say is a mystery to me.”
Many months passed by in his blessed company.
But one day I lost my patience
Upon hearing that odd refrain
And blurted out.
“Stop calling me a pregnant woman!”
And Attar replied,
“Someday, my sweet Hafiz,
All the nonsense in your brain will dry up
like a stagnant pool of water
Beneath the sun,
though if you want to know the Truth
I can so clearly see that God has made love with you
And the whole universe is germinating
inside your belly
And wonderful words,
Such enlightening words,
Will take birth from you..
And be cradled against thousands
Of hearts.”
To teranam 13 – Many thanks for the peom, I like it – Hafiz was really a ‘bienheureux” to have been germinated by God.
“Attar was a Sunni living in Iran”
Actually Iran was mostly Sunni before the forced conversions of the Saffavid. So Attar was a Sunni living in Sunni Iran.
Yes. The Safavid regime was not innocent as is sometimes portrayed. They were the “Ottomans” of the Shia world but not as successful in the Dajjalic quest as were the Ottomans.
Sunni Iran/Persian speaking world produced some of the best Islamic scholars in history.
I would declare the opposite, that the claim that all scriptures are man-made is itself an unproven man-made claim, if by man-made, you mean that God Himself isn’t capable of reaching out to mankind and revealing Himself through interaction with man in history and through inspiration within documentable records of such history and interaction.
The appeal that we should just ignore all this heritage seems to be a smokescreen to allow one to devise his own religion and morality apart from God, thereby making himself a god and this is inordinate pride. Intellectually lazy too and with a biased attitude towards past humanity as if only the modern incarnation of mankind is more sophisticated and ‘evolved’ whereas given the reality today where the current debate in the West is that one can relabel their biological gender and sexuality to be anything they want demonstrates the stupidity of mankind who constantly rebels against God and the truth.
Our Lady of Fatima prophecied such times and widespread post-Christian apostasy. There will be no peace in the world until mankind humbles itself and turns back to God. Just as God destroyed the wicked world by a flood, He will do so again by fire. But this can be averted by the Consecration of Russia. But it will be late due to the wickedness within God’s Apostolic Church whose Vicars have refused to do it for strange political and ecumenical reasons.
Thank you for this article. You raise some good points but with regard the following excerpt I disagree:
“Anwar Khan then addresses the issue of Iranian foreign policy. He writes:
“If this is not enough to dispel the “the willingness to die for the truth at any time and in any place” myth, think of other betrayals of those raising the banner of Imam Hussein’s martyrdom, for example the Iranian cooperation with the Americans in overthrowing the Taliban, based on a totally fabricated pretext—which Iranian intelligence was fully aware of. I will shed no tears for the Taliban, an entity I detest intensely. But a war on a lie can never be justified, even if it is against the Taliban. There is a BBC interview of the then Iranian President Khatami boasting about this cooperation with the Americans, and how useful the toppling of Taliban was for Iran.Yes, Iranian cooperation—such as allowing the American’s to use their airspace— was a brilliant politically expedient act, but please let us not call it Everyday is Ashura and every land is Karbala. It was hardly standing tall to the wrongdoers. It was Machiavillian machination of highest order. How about the Iranian performance in Iraq with the 2003 American invasion? Do we need to be reminded of the complete submission and then cooperation of Shia institutions with the occupiers? Iran instructed all Shia religious leaders, the most influential among them Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, to give fatwas or verdicts that resistance to the American invasion was prohibited. This was a calculated political move ensuring that the Baath party and Sunni institutions are given a resounding boot by the Americans, creating the space for the Shia outfits to grab power. Again, a brilliant political move, but hardly a Everyday is Ashura and every land is Karbala.”
I think that my friend Anwar Khan is confusing tactics with strategy. Let’s remember here that the Neocons always had Iran in their sights as the supreme target to be defeated. For example, Bush administration officials openly declared “Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran”. The Iranians perfectly understood that and what they did next is nothing short of pure genius: they used their secret agents from Iraq (such as Ahmed Chalabi) to feed the Americans false information about the Iraqi WMD program and get the Neocons all worked up about the possible threat to Israel.”
Almighty Allah has made it abundantly clear in various parts of the Qur’an that we as Muslims, as well as Humanity in general, are to avoid oppression all together and also avoid working with oppressors especially with regard the achievement of their goals.
The wars across the Muslim lands were pre-planned a number of years in advance as part of the Anglo-Zionist strategy to undermine influence of the Muslim World.
The fact that Iran partnered with the Anglo-Zionists in the latter’s destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq etc, which led to the deaths/maiming of millions of innocent people is an egregious and unforgiveable crime. Never would the Prophet Muhammad, Imam Ali and Imam Hosein (peace be upon them on all) partner with the oppressors (directly or indirectly) to wield such unwanton death and destruction! Never!
I worry about what Iran is really trying to achieve, especially from a geo-political perspective. I fear that there are significant elements within the Iranian ruling elite that have succumbed to the Dajjal’s (Anti-Christ) duplicitous and Machiavellian plans.
On the other hand (and for an attempt at balance), I recall an account of Timur laughing when he met a one-eyed ruler he had just defeated.
The ruler told him it was not right to laugh at someone with a disability.
Timur said, “I was not laughing at you, but at the fact that God holds kingdoms in such low regard that he takes this one from a one-eyed man and gives it to a lame one.”
Loved your little story talks to cats
Post more small ones like these
Like aseop’s fables, informative and with a moral lesson
This is noble and just. And it’s the core of the problem with Sunni Islam today. A true Sunni will not be oppressed, he only submits to the one God. No state, no king, no religious leader. Yet the world is now built on countries, governments, systems of control and power. It is a global system. Shia see this change in the world and say: -Ok, you want government. We give you government, but we won’t submit to you, only the one God. And our government cannot submit to anyone but Allah. So they play along, but still resist. The problem is that governments get corrupted, and I’m sure most Iranians by now know their Ayatollahs are not the saints they were set out to be after the revolution. Iran will have to cut down the power of the Ayatollahs in politics and make them purely spiritual leaders. It’s up to each and every one to find god in their hearts. Beliefs cannot be forced upon someone against his will, for he will be oppressed. Islam does not allow oppression.
You know, I’m an American Arab Sunni,( not that it matters to me, and just about all my Sunni acquaintances) and I look up to Iran, the Yemenese Houthi, Hezbollah , Iraqi Army and Shia militias, Syrians of all persuasions , as the only resistance to the onslaught I feel the Arab, and more generally , Islamic world is taking.
Who’s standing up to belligerence, hegemony, expansionism, subversion, death and destruction other than the Shia? Egypt, Sunni, with about 95 million, the most populace Arab country, is a pliant and submissive vassal of the U.S. and Israel. Pakistan seems to always be drifting in and out of coherence, have proven themselves useless to defend Palestinians or Muslims in general.
The Zionist West made a magnificent blunder when they lost the Shah and didn’t immediately join Saddam Hussein and take down Shia Iran. Iran has since and now is too powerful to take on militarily, without saying goodbye to the Petro-Dollar.
You see, the Quran has a literal side, but also a deep symbolism ingrained in many, many verses. The Wahabbi’s and Takfiris take everything literally, seeing everything taken symbolically(correctly- as Allah/God say’s many times in the Quran that its up to wise men to interpret many Surah’s- experts, in other words) to be blasphemous and quite incorrectly interpret a lot of the Hadith(means and ways, sayings of the prophet) that is scored by scholars as either Strong, Medium or Weak, as all Strong, and good to go. The fanatics interpret everything, and add some culture into it and you have Wahabbi’sm and Takfirism.
For example, no where in the Quran does it say a woman must cover head to toe. The Quran emphasizes modesty and ‘…to lower your gazes….’ .
Anyways, Go Shia! In fact, lets drop all that and say Go Islamic Resistance ! This said Islamic Resistance, on all levels(‘as the pen is mightier than the sword’) is going to save the world from hegemony and a dark and brutal future for mankind. If you want a small sample of what kind of world i’m talking about, think Russia 1917 onwards. Whence the Jews subverted and took over Russia. The began the Red terror, with its surveillance, mass arrests, mass killings, show trials, anti-Semitism punishable by death(in other words sites like this one, and all opposition) regicide, genocides, forced labor in modern Gulags, shock troop local police departments and money scams ( like shell-games) defrauding mankind of trillions.
Islam (along with many Orthodox Christians, like the Donbass honorable people, are at the front lines, we are bearing the onslaught. It was beautiful to see Russia come on board, and I await the time China says she is ‘all-in’….publically.
I would like to add that takfirism and wahabbiism is a vey small minority in the Islamic world. perhaps not even 0.0001% of the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide. and usually these are youths, and unbalanced individuals. its not even close to mainstream.
No Shia, No Sunni, just one family, one faith. Islam. This will be realized when the House of Saud falls, which it will.
Dear sir, please do not compare Talmudism to Christianity. This is grossly unfair as the Talmud is the greatest book of hate ever written by a human being.
I’m not so sure that Iran tricked the US into invading Iraq rather than Iran. I think it was fairly obvious to the neocons and to the Pentagon that attacking Iraq – which the US already had a huge history of doing – would be a lot easier to “justify” to the US public than attacking Iran. Not to mention that given the damage Iraq had already suffered, it would be a lot easier. And ten of course the US oil companies had already decided to take out Iraq because Saddam was messing with the OPEC oil price guidelines, as we know from Greg Palast.
As we know from the Leveretts, the Israelis did indeed want the US to attack Iran instead of Iraq in 2002. It was only after the neocons promised Israel that the US would attack Iran after the Iraq “cakewalk” that Israel came on board with the Iraq war.
So I think Iran had very little to do with the decision to attack Iraq, even given Chalabi being a double agent. Chalabi was probably there to be Iran’s puppet ruler over Iraq once the US overthrew Saddam. But I doubt he was the main driver of the decision to attack Iraq over Iran.
This might not completely dismiss the argument that Iran was instrumental in the US invading Iraq over Iran, but I think it weakens the argument that Iran played any decisive role in that decision.
What is fairly certain is that when Iraq turned into a quagmire – as Iran could predict – the attack on Iran was put on hold until at least 2006-2007, at which point Bush and Cheney were pushing Israel to do it. But Israel needed Hizballah taken out first, and when that failed in the 2006 Lebanon war, followed by the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that took the wind out of Bush’s sails in 2007, the war was put on hold until Obama restarted the push in 2009-2010.
Since Israel was still in a bind over Hizballah and Syria capable of being effective actors in an Iran war, Israel was forced to put off the war until the “Arab Spring” and Libya in 2011 gave everyone the idea of overthrowing Assad in Syria using the Libya model. When that failed to be a “cakewalk”, and with the intervention of Russia into Syria, the Iran war continues to be put on hold.
Make no mistake, the goal remains taking out Syria, Hizballah, and Iran – in that order. But until Russia significantly retreats from Syria, the war is on hold. The neocons are still pushing the new Trump administration in that direction, since Israel is still balking, but it remains to be seen what kind of “justification” can be cooked up to make it happen.
I am amazed that you truly believe that Orthodoxy has never condoned atrocities. I think you need to brush up on your history. Patriarch Nikon has indeed not only condoned but called for the exterminaton of all followers of Avakum. I believe you know who Awakum was. And so have done the Patriarchs after him. For reference and as a brush up of your knowledge (I believe you read Russian) I recommend Senkovskiy, Staroobradtshestvo.
I think you need to brush up on your history. Patriarch Nikon has indeed not only condoned but called for the exterminaton of all followers of Avakum
Actually, you might want to follow your own advice :-)
Patriarch Nikon gave no such order
in fact he even recognized both rites as valid
it was the Russian state under Peter I which committed most atrocities
and even he never called for the extermination for “all” the followers of Avvakum
that is a typical western exaggeration to make it all more “Russian gore” :-)
Maybe you can write something like that here where people haven´t a clue of Russian history. Fact of the matter is that from 1670 anybody who didn´t follow the new rites was buried alive (like Avbakum) burned at the stake or subejcted to all kinds of other violence. When people stood up against this there followed merciless reprisals.Whole districts were depopulated. “Почле их усерной работи в одном из нужегородских уездов число домов-хозайств уменьшилось на 10 000 а число оффинциално казненних достигало 11 000.” That is only in one district half the population was put to death. If anything the worst was over by the time Peter the Great came to power. He was indifferent to Christian teaching and abolished the Patriarchy. He abolished the confidentiality of confession. That is if the police asked a priest he no longer had the right to refuse to say what somebody had confessed to him.
I agree with you that especially Anglo Saxon historiography has a certain tendency to exaggerate
“Russian gore” and at the same minimising their own goer. I also don´t think that the history of the raskol is more bloody than the relgious wars in Europe. But it is plainly preposterous to claim that the Orthodoxy has never condoned “atrocities”. From 1670 until the 19th century hundreds of thousands of “Old believers” were killed or send to Siberia. Further hundreeds of thousands of old believers rather emigrated to Western Europe or the Americas than allow themselves to be forced to confess some religion they didn´t believe in.
And that is only one set of atrocities. Just like their catholic and protestant brethren the Orthodox clergy blessed unjust wars, the pillage, rape and subjugation of the aboriginees of Siberia a.s.o. No difference here. But just like in the West as well there were millions of dissenters. That is people who out of Christian believe didn´t want to serve in unjust wars or support a corrupt church establishment. Descendants of those people can still be found all over the world and especially in remote regions of Siberia. These are true Christians. Not the bloated Church that is getting in bed with the powers that be.
Many Old believers emigrated to other Orthodox countries, mostly in Eastern Europe, there are still diasporas there of them, very interesting ones. They speak Russian between themselves no matter were they are. This tells me that the persecutions and atrocities were not Orthodox but only Russian.
If you note the trajectory, and the adherents, of the admittedly potted history of the Wiki extract below, you may see shades of current events – specifically of Yeltsinism and the flirtation with the West of otherwise sane and stable Eurasian and Middle Eastern Nations.
The key player in the history you reference is, the ultimately ‘Westernizing’, Patriarch Nikon – the instigator of the persecution and the schism.
Thus, it becomes clear that the persecutions of “Old Believers’ and the consequent destabilization of the Russian state, while not entirely of the West’s making, could not have occurred without the erroneous reliance on Western liturgical and ecclesiastical models as being somehow ‘superior’ to indigenous Russian models.
“Nikon launched bold reforms. He consulted the most learned of the Greek prelates abroad, invited them to a consultation at Moscow, and finally the scholars of Constantinople and Kiev convinced Nikon that the Muscovite service-books were heterodox, and that the icons actually in use had very widely departed from the ancient Constantinopolitan models, being for the most part imbued with the Frankish and Polish (West European) baroque influences.[4]
Nikon criticized severely the use of such new-fangled icons; he ordered a house-to-house search for them to be made. His soldiers and servants were charged first to gouge out the eyes of these heretical counterfeits and then carry them through the town in derision. He also issued an ukase threatening with the severest penalties all who dared to make or use such icons in future.
Later research[citation needed] was to determine that Muscovite service-books did belong to a different recension from that which was used by the Greeks at the time of Nikon, and the unrevised Muscovite books were actually older and more venerable than the Greek books, which had undergone several revisions over the centuries and ironically, were newer and contained innovations.” Wikipedia
From Nikon to Marx, to Trotsky and Lenin, to Yeltsin, Russian attempts to emulate the West end in disaster.
When will Russia realize that it is not merely unlike the West but probably innately superior to it?
Well, it is hard to understand why you left out the preceding paragraph from Wikipedia:
“When Nikon was appointed, ecclesiastical reform was already in the air. A number of ecclesiastical dignitaries, known as the party of the protopopes (deans), had accepted the responsibility for the revision of the church service-books inaugurated by the late Patriarch Joasaph, and a few other minor rectifications of certain ancient observances. But they were far too timid to attempt anything really effectual….”
In actual fact the reforms were aimed at the correction of Western infiltrations in the service books, cult and iconography, bringing them in line with the universal Orthodox practice from which the ‘Russian models’ were straying away under precisely ‘Frankish and Polish (West European) baroque influences (add Judaizing)’. Nikon was not a ‘Westernizer’. There were the ‘Eastern’ prelates from Constantinople who helped Nikon and his successors with the correct translation of the Orthodox texts (which were Greek). The reforms have been an ecumenical act. The reforms have been approved by The Great Moscow Synod (Большой Московский собор). It was a Pan-Orthodox synod convened by Tsar Alexis of Russia in Moscow in April 1666, which gives it a ‘quasi-ecumenical’ character, with the participation of all Orthodox Patriarchal Sees. It modified some of the decisions of the Solvay Synod, which was a local Russian Synod (and which provoked oppositions even among the Russians). Remarkably, the Synod deposed the Patriarch Nikon.
One should not overlook the role played by the various rebellions wrapped themselves in the flag of the Old Belief as pretext of their rebellion: Stenka Razin, ‘Khovanshchina’, the Streltsy Uprising. One should try to go beyond using such sweeping generalities like West vs. East, Slavic soul, when interpreting Russian history. They are rather unhelpful.
I really recommend reading Staroobradshestvo by Zenkovskiy. He notes that there is a close connection with the arrival of printing in Russia. Just as there was with the reformation in Europe. Suddenly books became affordable and laymen read the holy book themselves.Some scholars even argue that modern Russian owes not a little to the bloom of writing that the Raskol brought forth. Anyhow the autobiography of Avakum is considered to be the first Russian autobiography in a modern sense of the word.
It is also very questionable whether the Russian church had really strayed from the path of Orthodoxy and there had been any need for the reforms of Nikon. Zenkovskyi argues that more liekly it were the Greeks who changed their rites. Whatever. There is much more to the Raskol than mere rites. After the reforms of Peter the great one might even argue whether the old beleivers were the true Christians of Russia. After all Peter the Great totally subjected the Orthodox chruch and made it into a state agency. No wonder that the Orthodox church fell apart rather quickly when the Lenin came to power. Whereas the old believers put up much more of a fight.
I have been fascionated by the Old believers for a long time and even lived in one of their communities in Siberia. They lived without electricty, tea or wodka. All things that didn´t exist when the raskol happened. They had a bloody history of repression and no liking whatsoever for the Russian state. In fact the majority rather hid in the forest than be drafted into the Red army in the second world war. They were so suspicious of any agent of the state and “normal” Russians that they only allowed me into their community when they were sure I was a Catholic and not an “Orthodox”. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the suffering that was inflicted on them during the centuries. Suffice to say that members of their community were dosed with water in the middle of winter when there was fifty degrees below zero when they refused to work at Christmas. Their bodies were left until spring and nobody was allowed to collect them. That was under Stalin. UNder the Czars they had had to flee many times. From the Wolga to the Urals, and from the Urals to the Ob river. Their last migration took place in 1930 when they travelled in the middle of the winter from the Ob to the Yennissey. Soltshenizyn wrote about them in his Archipel Gulag. In fact he met some of them in prison.
Their favourite Russian ruler by far was Nikolai II. it was the only time they were pretty much left alone until the coming of Yelzin.
The exaggerated sympathy for the Old Believers and the Raskol was due to the anti-Church animus of the Russian Westernizing Liberals, Narodniks, Anarchists, Marxists, you name it. It was a main theme of the anti-Tsarist propaganda.
exaggerated sympathy for the Old Believers and the Raskol ? ! ? ! ?
You can’t get too easily over the fact that the Old Believers were the Schism-makers.
“… I don’t believe that any of the bad actions we could blame the Shia in Iraq, Syria or Lebanon are in any way traceable back to the Shia theology or ethos. And that is crucial. Unlike the Takfiris who justify their horrors in the name of their interpretation of Islam, those Shia who commit atrocities do not, as far as I know and as a rule, publicly justify them by reference to any aspect of Shia spirituality.”
Can I ask you what do you base your belief on? I would also, like someone to explain to me what a “Takfiri” is This word is thrown around quite a bit, even ISIS is not well defined. I am not sure I have ever heard of who these people are. Just like I never found out who Al-Qaeda was.
These are terms of convenience crowned by outsiders. I have tried to read up on it, and I have asked colleagues: no one can identify these people groups. To different people they mean different things. However, no one wants to actually define these people. Are these Muslim people, let alone Sunni?
Can someone please address this before there is a discussion about the players. Shia are well identified, so are Sunni, and they are not apologetic of what they are (except when in engaging in Taqiyyah, as permitted by the former jurisprudence).
No one ever claims that they belong to these newer categories, my only knowledge is based on blogs and news media. Where are the practitioners themselves? Do they have any other members besides the ones engaged in these reprehensible activities.
Thanks,
Jenn
Jenn:
Trying to help you understand the vocabulary, the word “takfiri” comes from the Arab language word “takfir,” which generally means what Roman Catholic’s may call “excommunication”, based upon an assertion that a person is a “kaffir”, analogous to “non-believer” or “apostate.”
I suggest that you research the following words or names, being careful whose interpretation you trust (as the net is full of distrustful sources), in order to understand some of what you may read on this or other sites:
Salafism, generally translated to be a follower of the Salaf, “Salaf” being the Arab word for “companion”, referring to those who were alive and companions of the Prophet Mohammed (almost akin to “disciples”). Salafism is generally used to refer to the extreme fundamental version of Islam found in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and in places where Saudi money has been used to build mosques and madrassas (religious schools) where Salafist cleric’s spread Salafist and Wahhabi versions of Islam, to include literally thousands of such mosques and madrassas worldwide that produces the radicals that are used as pawns in the West’s proxy wars against enemies since Afghanistan in the 1980’s, where “al Qaeda” was born.
Wahhabism, which is commonly used to refer to the sect of Islam that is dominant in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, due to the alliance hundreds of years ago of the cleric Muhammed Ibn Abd al- Wahhab and the founder of the House of Saud dynasty. Underestanding ibn Wahhab is a key piece of understanding the conflict that convulses the middle east today.
In addition to al-Wahhab, research the cleric who he was a disciple of, ibn Taymmiyah.
By reading upon on what the words Takfir/Takfiri, Salaf/Salafism, and Wahabbism refer to, you should be on your way to understanding the root source of the barbaric conduct of the adherents of Wahabbism that populates such vile groups as al Qaeda and ISIS, and the hundreds of other terror groups in Syria, Middle East and north Africa (like Saudi funded Boko Haram). Those groups are but proxy armies of the western powers and their mid east allies, the gulf monarchies (all Sunni) and Israel. One of the key reasons is the maintenance of the Petrodollar, which is what ties the western powers and their banking/financial systems with the oil sheiks of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. It is perhaps the great subject of which the “free press” is not free to write.
Two articles I link to on the subjects are here:
http://www.correctislamicfaith.com/foundersofsalafism.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html
Good luck!
Thank you very much for providing some guidance. I will read up from the sources you mentioned. You were very kind and helpful. Sometimes on the campus, I ask some of my colleagues who are adherents of these sects, even students from these areas. The faculty plainly deny any such entities, and the students are just probably scared, or they think that it will effect their well being so they never open up. When Noam was active there was a more open discourse without fear. Now, to attend seminars most, I have to cross the square and go to that unmentionable place that we all despise :-)
Thank you for your kindness.
Jenn
Hi Jenn,
I see JiminNH has done a great job explaining it. Basically, the Central Theme of Islam is that, “Human Being is an Oppressor”. The True Islam of Prophet Mohammad stood against this Oppression. A man/woman can be an oppressor to wife/husband, brother, sister, father, mother, children, to the populace they rule. God tells Adam and Eve, not to approach the tree, lest they become one of the oppressors. The tree didn’t have any significance and thus they didn’t sin.
In Islam of Prophet Mohammad equal rights were given to man and woman. All humans are equal regardless their race, creed, religion and so forth. The real meaning of Kafir is to hide, meaning the Kafir hides the Truth. The tool of “excommunication” in the hands of religious leaders was a dangerous tool and the Prophet removed this tool from the vocabulary of Islam.
While the body of the Prophet Mohammad was still warm and not buried yet, the people around him went back to olden days, and oppression was in full swing. Especially, the rights of the women were done with. abu Bakr appointed himself the first Caliph, and Yemen refused to pay the Zakat (charity tax) to abu Bakr because he was not the rightful heir of Prophet Muhammad.
Yemen didn’t refuse to pay the Zakat, they refused that abu Bakr is not rightful heir of the Prophet. Since, “excommunication” was thrown out of the window by Prophet Mohammad and it applied only to individuals, so abu Bakr couldn’t call the Yemeni Muslims as “excommunicated”. He called all the Yemeni Muslims as “apostates” en-masses and declared war on Yemen.
apostate: a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.
synonyms: dissenter, defector, deserter, traitor, backslider, turncoat.
Thus, he become the first Tafkiri, he sat on the Judgement Throne, and called all the Yemeni Muslims as Kafirs. Therefore, a Takfiri is a person who sits on the Judgement Throne, and calls other human beings Kafirs, whether they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sunni, Shia ….. and then declare war on them.
Now to ISIS:
In Sunni Islam anyone can be a Caliph on Muslims in the following ways, then don’t believe that Prophet Mohammad left a rightful heir:
1. Chosen by 7 people as First Caliph abu Bakr.
2. Chosen by the will, as Second Caliph Omar willed by the First Caliph abu Bakr.
3. Chosen by the will, as Third Caliph Usman willed by the Second Caliph Omar.
4. Chosen by the masses, as Fourth Caliph Ali.
5. Chosen by Sword, as the Fifth Caliph Muawiya, who declared himself a Caliph and fought Ali and had Ali murdered, while praying.
6. Given to your sons as Dynasties, which the Fifth Caliph Muawiya, willed it to his son Yazid as the Sixth Caliph.
From then on the Caliphate become Dynasties, The Ommayad (Muawiya al-Ommayad) Dynasty, the Abbasid Dynasty, and the Ottoman (children of Thirst Caliph Usman/Othman) Dynasty.
The ISIS is an acronym for Arabic, “Islamic State of Iraq and Shyam (Levant), thus sometimes it is also written as ISIL. The Caliph of ISIS has claimed himself the Caliph of All Muslims, and any Muslim who doesn’t recognize him is a Kafir.
Between Caliph abu Bakr and Caliph al-Bagdadi, Islam is full of Tafkiris who on a daily basis sit on the Judgement Throne.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Hi Jenn,
You must have figured out by my posts that I am a Shia. Lots of people think that 1500 old rivalry has to do who was the rightful heir of Prophet Mohammad (saws). It has nothing to do with it.
It has to do with changing the real Islam of Prophet Mohammad (saws) and still keep on insisting that since we Sunni are the majority (80%), therefore we still believe in changed Islam and everyone should practice the changed Islam. Those who don’t are apostate.
Why 80% are Sunni, it has mostly has to do killing of Shia en-masses and lack of the Arabic Language. Most Shia are Arabs and Persian. Add to it:
1. Ignorance of Islamic History.
2. Ignorance of Religion.
3. Stubbornness.
4. Hiding the Apparent Truth under the rug.
5. So forth and so forth.
I did write Apparent Truth. As Truth is subjective and it is far removed from Absolute Truth. To all Muslims Quran = Sunnah of Prophet Mohammad. However, if the Quran and Sunnah are in conflict, then the Holy Quran takes precedent. It is the Sunnah which creates the trouble. The Sunnah of Prophet was burned completely and to some extent the Holy Quran too, but all the Muslims believe that the Quran is Preserved.
In Sunni Islam the Sunnah was recreated 250 years in a Scientific Method after the demise of the Prophet. The Six Authenticated Books are the True Sunnah of the Prophet. The most Authenticated Book belongs to Bukhari from Bucharest and the second most Authenticated Book belongs to Bukhari’s student called, Muslim. If anyone doesn’t believe in this Six Authenticated Books (Sunnah) is not a Muslim.
Now lets us take women’s rights. In the Holy Quran women have been given the right to inherent property from their parents. If a woman works, any money she earns belongs exclusively to her. The husband earnings are for household expansive.
According to the Holy Quran, both Man and Woman are equal in divorce. Chapter 2 of the Holy says, that triple divorce should be given at one time. Chapter 4, of the Holy Quran says, that in case of disagreement in marriage, equal represent should be given to each party. A wise man from her family is to be appointed by her, and a wise man from his family is to be appointed by him. If there is reconciliation, then these two wise man become the guarantor of the reconciliation. Failing so, if there has to be divorce, then these two wise men agree on the terms of divorce and become the witnesses to the divorce.
It is all Muslims’ belief that all Bid’a (innovation) in religion is abhorrent and leads directly to Hell. The Sunni Muslims practice the Talaq al-Bid’a, the Innovative Divorce. If a man utters, triple divorce to his wife, Talaq, Talaq and Talaq, even in anger or in state of intoxication, it is divorce. It is to punish the mighty man. But if a woman wants divorce, she has to first prove that the husband is a drunkard and wife beater. Even, after that she has to wait for 7 years. Go figure!
Here is Talaq al-Bida’ in Sahib Muslim (Authenticated Book of Muslim, Bukhari’s student):
You can Google and see how both Egypt and India have problems with this pungent Talaq al-Bid’a. President Sisi of Egypt having wars with Sunni institution al-Azhar of Egypt. The highest Sunni institution:
Best regards,
Mohamed
After the invocation of Talaq, there is a four month waiting period, a cooling off time, before the woman’s or man’s divorce can be granted. After the 4 months, the woman can re-marry, or the separated party can uphold their marriage. Not 7 years.
Love your patience and comments and your willingness to engage, thank you Bored Muslim for your comments, love them and always read them
Salam bored Muslim,
In women’s case she cannot give Talaq. She has to do ask for Khula’. Once the Judge agrees to her Khula’, that she has proven that the husband is drunkard and wife beater. Then she has to wait 7 years for the invocation of Talaq. After the invocation of Talaq then period of Ida takes places, which is 3 monthly periods for a divorcee and 4 monthly periods for a widow to ensure there is no pregnancy. In case of pregnancy the woman has to wait till the birth of the child.
In the 7 years of Khula’, they are still married and if they have sex anytime during the waiting period, the Khula is invalidated. It is basically, punishment for her, as man can marry another 3 wives.
The period of Khula differs from country to county and you can Google it:
Best regards,
Mohamed
Salam bored Muslim,
The big problem Egypt, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh …. are having with Triple Talaq (Talaq al-Bida’) is the rich Arab Kids go to these countries with their mucho money and marry in these countries, especially the virgins.
After 2 or 3 months, they go back to their countries promising that they will arrange for their wives to join them. In their country, they sent an international SMS which cost 0.15 cents, giving their wives Triple Divorce. The SMS says to her, I am giving you Talaq, Talaq and Talaq which is accepted in the Sunni Islam.
No responsibility on his part. Money Talks…
Best regards,
Mohamed
Salam
I agree that this problem is more pronounced for Sunnis. But there are no dearth of Shia men that harass their wives. I guess that is why the Prophet warned against this. There is a hadees of Imam Ali also:
If the eyes of a female cries because of a man that oppresses her, Angels will curse him every step that he takes
And it is very comforting to know that such people are cursed
Warm regards
Mindfriedo
Dear Muhammad (I hope I am not crossing a line by calling you a Dear). Thank you for your very patient and exacting explanation. It is going to take several readings for me to comprehend it fully. I take it that those who proclaim that a Muslim is a non-Muslim is the oppressor and is committing Takfir. Is that pretty much the case?
In that case, reconciliation seems simple enough for me: the past cannot be undone, as the parties which were guilty, are dead and buried. It would see that if the many sects stop declaring each other non-Muslims there is still hope for getting along.
It seems simple enough, at least in theory. Surely something not worth killing each other over. There does not seem to be any substantial theological difference, except the misdeeds of the past.
It is good to know that this foolishness can stop by being being non-judgemental.
Honestly, is this the the extent of it–I see a lot of hope and very speedy reconciliation.
Thank your for your scholarship and patience,
Warm regards,
Jenn
Salam Sister Jenn,
Tafkiri has nothing to do with oppression. The Central Theme of Islam and Holy Quran is that, “Man is a Tyrant Oppressor”.
The definition of Tafkiri is as follows:
In Islam the Holy Quran is = to the Sunnah of Prophet Mohammad (saws). It is the Sunnah of Prophet which creates problem. The recording of Shia Sunnah differs from the recording of Sunni Sunnah. The Sunni Sunnah was recorded 250 years later after the demise of the Prophet. It was primarily by a man called, Bukhari from Bucharest and his student called, Muslim from Persia.
The word Sunni is derived from Sunnah. To Sunni the 200 Million Shia are not Muslims because they don’t believe in the Books of Bukhari and Muslim. Thus, the Sunni are Tafkiris who call each and every Shia Kafir.
The Shia believe that the Books of Bukhari, Muslim and other 4 Sunnah Books of Sunni have cooked Sunnah in them and have changed the Religion. I just gave you a small example in case of Talaq (Divorce). There are umpteen examples of changing of Religion from the cooked Sunnah.
Quote me some Rock and Roll Music and you will make my day, such as Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Allman Brothers, Lynyrd Skynyrd … and I will be a very happy man.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Dear brother Mohamed
“The word Sunni is derived from Sunnah. To Sunni the 200 Million Shia are not Muslims because they don’t believe in the Books of Bukhari and Muslim. Thus, the Sunni are Tafkiris who call each and every Shia Kafir.”
To an unconcerned, non sectarian Sunni, Shias are Muslims like them. To a religious mainstream Sunni, we (Shia) are Muslims who are at maximum a little misguided. To a religious Sunni that is much more takfiri leaning, and this may be much more true of Sunni scholars, we are misguided and second class Muslims. To a takfiri, we are kafirs as are Sufi Sunnis.
It is not right to say that all Sunnis call all Shia kafir. It is like saying all Shias do the same.
There are good and bad everywhere, in fact the closer you come to the truth the more the devil will misguide. There are far better Sunnis then there are Shias. The onus on being better Muslims is on both. The Shias when they do bad are worse because they had their imams as examples.
Warm regards
Mindfriedo
Salam Mindfriedo,
I am not talking about individuals, I was talking about the group theology in total and you have always been apologist.
As far as individual, God tells Adam, don’t approach the tree lest you become one of the oppressors. The Central Theme of Islam and Holy Quran is that human is an oppressor. I don’t see whether it says, Sunni or Shia.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Thank you brother Mohamed, it was not clear earlier. You will offend good people by being general.
“In Islam the Holy Quran is = to the Sunnah of Prophet Mohammad (saws).”
Sorry but statement is patently false.
The Quran is the literal word of God whilst sunnah is the whole indirect, collection of words and deeds of the prophet.
The hierarchical order of legitimate sources of Islam ranks Quran first, Sunnah second, this is known to even the basic student of Islam ie me or any muslim kid at age 4, 5 etc
Salam Kfeto,
I am sure if you are a Muslim or not? And, if you are Quran Only Muslim. It is all Muslim’s belief that, “In Islam the Holy Quran is = to the Sunnah of Prophet Mohammad (saws).”
However:
1. If Quran and Sunnah are in conflict, then Quran takes precedent.
2. In Sunni Islam the collection of Sunnah is to quote you, “the whole indirect, collection of words and deeds of the prophet”, but this is not the case in Shia Islam.
3. The Sunni Islam considers that Six Sunni Books are Authenticated by their Authors and have NO errors in them. To Sunni their Six Books are based on Science of Hadiths (Sayings), even though they were collected 250 years after the demise of the Prophet.
4. Show me in the Holy Quran where it says to pray 5 times a day? You will only find 3 times a days.
5. Or the punishment for Zina (Fornication) in the Holy Quran and then compare it to the punishment in the Sunnah. See which one is enforced?
I can go on and on, but the above is sufficient.
Mohamed
“1. If Quran and Sunnah are in conflict, then Quran takes precedent”
That statement of yours seems to confirm mine and invalidate the rest of yours.
Anyways there’s no such thing as a Quran only muslim. If it was possible, God would have denied us the prophets and sent down instructions only.
There’s no trade, skill or craft let alone a complete religion that one can learn from theory only, you do an apprenticeship and the knowledge and practice is passed down through a living, unbroken chain of practitioners. For Islam this is the umma, the community of believers founded by Muhammad peace be upon him.
That practical, applied aspect of Quran as shown through the example of the prophet, is the sunna.
These so-called Quran only muslims are, I believe, heretic innovations born in total isolation from the islamic community, quite late actually, somewhere in the 20th century.
Scientists have deciphered the whole of the genome for several species including humans but when they can’t create a new living organism or even part thereof they have to start with a living cell, however genetically modified. not a dead one, nor a total artificial strand of dna with the exact same sequence as a natural one.
Put differently, if I lost my keys somewhere in my house a year ago, I might not be to tell with certainty which room it is in, but I can exclude rooms that I never went into, are not part of my house, or maybe were only added to my house recently.
There’s no trade, skill or craft let alone a complete religion that one can learn from theory only, you do an apprenticeship and the knowledge and practice is passed down through a living, unbroken chain of practitioners. For Islam this is the umma, the community of believers founded by Muhammad peace be upon him.
Salam Kfeto,
It doesn’t matter that the Umma now prays in six different ways. Even the 4 major Sunni sects pray differently from each other. It is swept under the carpet that differences are minor, which is not true at all. This is just one example. BTW which way the Prophet originally prayed?
There could be only two reasons:
1. Over time the people slowly, slowly moved away from the original way, thus creating the differences?
2. Or, things were intentionally changed as soon as the demise of Prophet, thus to intentionally create sectarianism and division, thus Divide and Rule?
Well we don’t have to go far for the answer, just look into your six Authenticated Books of Hadiths:
1. After the demise of the Prophet, when Imam Ali (as) became the Fourth Caliph, when he lead the Prayers the very first time, people made comments, that after a long time, we are back to how the Prophet used to Pray.
2. Quran tells us to pray 3 times, thus combing the 5 daily prayers into 3 times. Read your Books, and you Scholars are now acknowledging this. It has become more necessary in this day and age of Time Management.
3. The Talaq al-Bid’a (Innovative Divorce) was introduced during the time of First Caliph abu Bakr and regularize by the Second Caliph Omar.
I can go on and on. I gave you some examples where Sunnah has taken precedent over Quran, but you ignored them. Now is the time of knowledge and everything is available on the Internet. I would suggest at least read your own Books over the internet.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Salem Kfeto,
If the Holy Quran is higher than Sunnah of Prophet, then how come Sunni are not following the Holy Quran on Divorce?
The Innovative Divorce (Talaq al-Bid’a) is not even Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saws). It is Sunnah of Second Caliph Omar.
So how come the Sunni give precedent to Sunnah of Omar over the Holy Quran?
Muslim kids are feed Koolaid at the age 4, 5, etc and they never grow up to realize what is happening around them.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Thanks. To me it seems like a trivial problem, which is tailor made for quick solution. If accusations of apostasy are the only bone of contention–that too by a few diehards. Furthermore, if it these accusations were made by historical people. Then it appears to be a more a matter of pride than any real obstruction which is preventing people from seeking a reconciliation.
I think that both sides believe in the Koran (Quran)–which must be the same for the both parties. I looked up and asked around: it appears that the Sunnah and Hadith appear to be different. The books you mention are those of Hadith.
Do Shia have their own version of Sunnah? Were they recorded earlier? If so, is there a way to authenticate or discard the things which are not described in both? Surely, it may require some work, but I am sure it can be done in short order.
Also, is it the Shia position that Sunnis are apostates? If they are not, working with them should not be a problem. After all, the bad blood is in the past, while there is a broad agreement on Koran: yet your people are killing each other. Fighting makes hearts harder, why not attempt reconciliation?
I myself, have see the contrast between President Ahmadinejad’s very endearing and humble life style and when I see Saudi King behaving like a crazed rap star, I cannot reconcile that both are followers of the same religion.
I wish and hope that you guys will work this out instead of fighting it out. In the end both parties are victims of the west, as they seek support from outsiders rather than sit down together.
I think if the majorities of both common people want to bury the hatchet, they should just sideline hatemongers.
Best regards and good luck,
Jenn
PS: My interest in this topic started when my brother Johnny was killed in action in the early 90s.
If your brother was ‘KIA’ in the early ’90s you may be interested in this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
Dear Sister Jenn,
So sorry to hear about your brother’s loss. May his soul rest in peace. Amen.
There are not only major differences between Sunni and Shia, there are even more major differences between different sects of Sunni, so if they are killing Shia, they are killing themselves. One can look all over the world and see that it is happening.
The Shia believe in Freewill and the Sunni in Predestination. Thus, the example I gave above how the Caliph were/are chosen, it is the Sunni belief that all leaders over them are chosen by God. They believe that Prophet didn’t appoint a heir after him and therefore the First Caliph abu Bakr was chosen by the Will of God. Thus, he is not only Head of State, but he is also Head of Church as the Prophet being both. Therefore, when the Shia deny abu Bakr, they are denying the Will of God and they are called by derogatory term, “Rejectors” (thus apostate).
You gave an excellent examples of Ahmadinejad and King of Saudi Arabia. I hope you will appreciate it that Ahmadinejad was chosen by the will of masses and he is responsible to these masses. Whereas, the King of Saudi Arabia is chosen by the Will of Allah as both Head of State and Head of Church. It doesn’t matter he was chosen to be the next King by his brother who was a King himself and passed it on to his brother. It is the Will of Allah. Period.
Saudi Arabia used to be called Arabia, now it is named after the Saud Family as Saudi Arabia. I guess that is Will of Allah too. :)
Best regards,
Mohamed
“It was primarily by a man called, Bukhari from Bucharest”. Bukhari is from Bukhara present day Uzbekistan not Bucharest, Romania. What a totally uninformed statement! And this dude is the Shia scholar of the comment’s section. If he got this wrong imagine the other stuff he is cooking. But who cares. In the city of the blind the one eyed is king.
It was obvious he made a typo error. In the future please refrain from making snide comments over things like that.MOD
Dear Baseer
Try to argue with him and see if he does not best you. Also, he is being sarcastic by saying Bucharest. Or I would have corrected him.
Dear Jennifer
“In that case, reconciliation seems simple enough for me: the past cannot be undone, as the parties which were guilty, are dead and buried. It would see that if the many sects stop declaring each other non-Muslims there is still hope for getting along.”
The roots of the 12er Shia faith are in its history. As I am sure is true of all faiths. Many of our practices, some that are commendable and some that are not are based on this history.
After every salat, the Shias send salutations to their imams, first to imam Hussain the martyr, then they turn to Masshad (the martyred 8th imam Reza), and then to the kabah for the living Mahdi (ATFS). The reason Hussain is chosen is obvious, what prayer is complete without him, we are praying because of him, he has given us this wealth of Deen. The reason we turn to the Mahdi is because this is his age. But the reason we remember the 8th is because of an incident in his life. When he was on a journey he was asked by Muslims for some lesson. There were so many scholars present that the writing of pens was like the sound of the hoves of horses. The imam came out and said that the oneness of Allah is His (Allah’s) fortress and it protects those that hold on to it, then he went back to his tent, and spoke again that this axiom has conditions, then again he went back and again he returned, and he said I am one of those conditions. The Shias send their salutations to say that we remember that day. There are no schisms in Shiism that survived after the 8th imam. Schisms that predate him have survived. He is the completion of the Shia faith so to speak.
Then there are the not so pleasant facts. Like the disassociating with those that were against the Ahlulbait. The Shia faith is not complete without it. But some Shias go to extremes and forget their place and curse those that others hold dear. This also at times leads to friction.
Im nominally Sunni and I have a ‘Shia bias’ then. Except it’s not a bias if based on reality.
Nasrallah and Hizbullah are practically the only Muslim group left not kowtowing to the decadent Satanic Babylonian mages.
Your words are truthfull.
Bless you Saker and may God keep you.
We must remember that the Creator (and hence the Creation) is Dualist as opposed to Monist.
This means a thing is what it is not: it is black/soft/good beause it is not white/hard/evil.
If Goliath is unrighteous, then David is righteous,
big small
action reaction
violence anti-violence
offensive defensive
attrocious anti-attrocious
inhuman human
We must not forget that Liberal Law (read all Western consitutions) makes a dicotomy between action and reaction: between Goliath and David. If the state would charge you with assaulting a Goliath, i.e. charge you with the “crime” of self defence, the court does not take into account the action of Goliath. His deed is not weighed in; only the “action” of David is tried.
Remember that the symbol of law is the scale, but since the action is not wheighed in it means you cannot take any measurement out of what is put in the other side of the scale. So much for Liberal Law.
This has of course led to us the respective inhabitants of Western nations being programmed to equate an unrighteous action with the righteousness of reacting to a violation. The establishment uses buzz words like the “spiral of violence”, as if David was violence, and here we have the Saker speaking of the atrocities of the Badr Brigade, as if David was atrocious.
We must not forget the black-ops of Blackwater (with a Talmudic name refering to the Biblical/Koranic End Times and their current name of XE, or rather HE as it is pronounced in Greek, refering to Satan/Lucifer) and other mercenary companies and official units of the UK (like the SAS), US and others that while disguised as Arabs targeted civilians in market places. Wasn’t it them that instigated a then non-existent sectarian violence costing the lives of 10.000 Iraqis every year (+ injured and other miseries)?
This fact makes the West Goliath while making David out of both the Shias and the Sunnis. But after that, as long as Sunnis lend themseves to field Takfiri (or rather Kefiri) armies they have embodied the role of Goliath.
We are what we do and if we reproduce Goliath then we are Goliath, for we cannot be David.
Since the Goliaths are still commiting atrocities against the Shia Davids, then David has not hit Goliath hard enough for him to sieze.
the Creator (and hence the Creation) is Dualist as opposed to Monist.
@rockwool —
Pardon me for disagreeing, but I think you are conflating the Creator with creation.
Is it fair to say that Christians in the Shia world are tolerated much more than in the Sunni world? There also seems to be many more Shia converts to Christianity in Germany than corresponding Sunni converts. Can a religion that does not allow a person the freedom to leave it at will still be considered a religion?
Shias become Christians, I guess that’s because they are not that convinced of its truth. why else would one leave it? Just saying.
Hi King Lear,
In Sunni Islam, if you leave your religion, you become apostate, and therefore war should be declared on you. Remember, Abdul Rahman of Afghanistan, who converted to Christianity from Sunni Muslim.
apostate: a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.
synonyms: dissenter, defector, deserter, traitor, backslider, turncoat
You can Google it.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Mohamed
Salam
Is this not so in Shia Islam as well? Was the fathwa of Khomeini on rushdie not given on the same principle. I remember reading somewhere that rushdie even claimed later that he was still a Muslim and the fatwah did not apply.
Please clarify this for me
Salam Mindfriedo,
Your question should be why the Sunni Imams and Scholars didn’t issue the same Fatwa as Ayatollah Khomeini? The Sunni don’t love the Prophet (saws) his wives and Gabriel?
The Sunni Scholars were as wise by not issuing any Fatwa and as wise as Ayatollah Khomeini by issuing the Fatwa, which is now rescinded by Ayatollah Khamenei. By doing this, both Sunni Scholars and Ayatollah Khomeini stopped en-masses murders of Shia by Sunni.
I have not read the “Satanic Verses” by I understand it was written by Sir Ahmad Salman Rushdie on two levels:
1. In the Sunni Books it is said that the Satan played on the mind of Prophet Mohammad (saws) and the two verse regarding three goddess. This is disputed by the Sunni too.
2. And, more importantly as a Muslim his books portrays the Prophet as brothel owner, his wives as the workers for brothel and Archangel Gabriel as the pimp for the brothel. Astafgurallah.
As a Shia you will appreciate it that when Prophet was married to Bibi Khadija, she was his only wife for 27 years. After her death, he married 12 wives at a time (not 4) in his last 10 years of his life. Thus, his story was based on these 12 wives and included Bibi Aisha too. I think you understand, as Bibi Aisha is not favorite of Shia.
Ayatollah Khomeini fatwa was not based on, that he left the fold of Islam so he was an apostate, but rather he is “blasphemous against Islam”.
Sir Ahmad Salman Rushdie was very shrewd and he wanted to have rivers of blood flowing between Sunni and Shia. And of course, Ayatollah Khomeini was NOT a Lunatic Mullah as portrayed by the West.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Thank you brother Mohamed, alaikus salam
I was under the impression that the principle of the fatwa was apostery, not blasphemy. That’s the part I was confused about.
I would also like to know more about the rivalry between Khomeini and Khoei at some later time
Thank you
Salam Mindfriedo,
I am pretty sure that you know in the Holy Quran, there is no penalty for not accepting Islam nor leaving Islam:
The keen reader will notice that I removed [acceptance of] as these are extra words and are not in Original Arabic Quran.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Are you sure there is no death penalty for leaving Islam?
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper. (Qur’an 4:89)
Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him. (Bukhari 9.84.57)
Salam Lumpenkönig,
The Quranic verse you quoted has nothing to do with leaving Islam. As far as Bukhari is concerned, I am a Shia Muslim and don’t believe in Bukhari.
According to Sunni, anyone who doesn’t believe in Bukhari is not a Muslim. Bukhari was written 250 years later after the demise of Prophet Mohammad (saws).
Please read my 2 posts to Jenn (Jennifer L Shannon) above for further explanation.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Brother Mohamed
What is the quoted verse referring to? Can you clarify that. Context will make it clearer for me and others
Warm regards
Mindfriedo
Salam Mindfriedo,
One can easliy Google the Tafsir (Commentary) of verse Qur’an 4:89. And, in the Google Search, they will find mostly the Tafsir (Commentary) of ibn Kathir the darling of Wahhabi due to petrodollars. One has to take the four verses in context from verses 4:88 to 4:91.
Here is the Sunni take on these four verses:
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_489_commentary/
However having said the above, the First Caliph abu Bakr act, calling the Muslims as apostate en-masses who refused to pay him the Zakat (Charity) Tax as he was not the rightful heir of the Prophet Mohammad (saws) had to be justified. So for this reason and many other deviant reasons, the Sunnah of the Prophet was burnt, cooked, recooked and recreated 250 years later after the demise of the Prophet under Sahih Sitta (Six Authenticated Books of Hadiths). The most Authenticated Book is considered Sahih Bukhari.
So, what does this Cooked Sunnah say, such as in Bukhari. Prophet Mohammad (saws) did it, so abu Bakr was justified to do the same. And, it is the Sunni belief.
Shaikh Imran N Hosein on Saker’s blog tried to justified this behavior by saying, yes Prophet killed these people, but these people were Intelligent Enemy of State who committed Treason. He and all Sunni are caught up in their lies, as the Prophet never punished anyone for Treason, let alone for not paying Zakat Tax.
90% of the Hadiths in the Sahih Sitta are of Companions singing their Own Songs, therefore it is not the Sunnah of the Prophet. For example, Aisha saying she was six years old when she married the Prophet. You will never have the Prophet Saying this. So, is this the Saying of the Prophet?
Cooked a Hadith if the Caliph or rich people want to marry toddlers. Prophet did it, so can we. Who says, Aisha? When did she say? 250 years ago.
Now the same Shaikh Imran N Hosein on Saker’s blog said that Bukhari should be in Trash if it says such a thing. He very well knows all his Six Authenticated Books of Hadiths says the same thing, including the Most Authenticated Book of Bukhari. He knows that it is not the Truth, but who can challenge him. And, if Bukhari and Sahih Sitta should be in Trash, then from which source he takes the Sunnah of Prophet from?
From Shia source?
Best regards,
Mohamed
Salam Mindfriedo,
Once a person is pronounced apostate or group of people en-masses are pronounced apostate, then war and killing them is allowed.
The above is the definition of Tafkiri, who sits on the Judgement Throne and labels others apostate and then kills them.
Best regards,
Mohamed
My thinking on the subject ,is that only the Shia are allies (or can be allies) of Russia. On one hand “not” because they are Shia. And on the other hand “because” they are Shia. The Shia are around 20% of all Muslims. Meaning Sunni are around 80% (in various sects for both groups). The Sunni have become the tools of the West. So that leaves the Shia in need of allies. Which is the same case with Russia.The Shia states basically are Iran,Iraq,Syria,and to some extend Lebanon .Yes Bahrain and Azerbaijan are Shia as well. But play little part in the “great game”. Bahrain because tiny and weak and its occupied by the Saudis and US. And Azerbaijan because as an ex-Soviet and secular Republic. Bordered by Russia and Iran. They are trying to be more neutral in the East-West struggle hoping the Western and Saudi backed terrorism will pass them by.Iran and Syria are very pro-Russian.Lebanon,with Hezbollah,is pro-Russian. And Iraq,even occupied partly by the US,is friendly to Russia.
Why are the Shia so friendly to Russia. Its obvious. When your enemies are all friendly to the US. That leaves you to seek the help of the “other” main military power. If things were reversed. And it were the Sunni under attack by the West. They would be the ones seeking Russia’s aid.But we need to “deal with the deck” as it is. All the Sunni states in the region,are either firmly under the US thumb.Or they are trying to be more “neutral” (Turkey and Egypt “maybe”).Not a one of them can Russia count on for support.At the best they can get neutrality,at least in certain circumstances. While Shia Iran needs Russian military aid. And Shia (ruled) Syria needs actual Russian military help. And is the site of Russian military facilities. Even with “friends and allies” you can have disputes. But the bottom line is the Shia states need Russia. And Russia needs the Shia states.Without Russian aid the Shia states would fall to the US. In Iran’s case maybe not totally. But they would pay a horrible price. And could fall as well.And without the Shia states support,Russia would have no influence in the region.
Among Russia’s Muslims,very few are Shia,most are Sunni. So it isn’t a religious attraction that cements the Shia-Russian friendship.And while historically Russia’s wars against the Ottomans and Tatars (Sunni) were their main wars involving Muslims. They also warred with the Persian Empire (Iran) for the Caucasus region.So once again the friendship isn’t based on long past historical reasons. Today’s Russian-Shia friendship is based on the Soviet days,and post-Soviet days.Where after having several Sunni state friends during the Soviet days. Russia saw all of them join the Western NWO and become stooges for the US. While the Shia until the Iranian Revolution were “some what” protected from their enemies because Iran was a Western ally.And the US had a more evenhanded policy between the two groups.But after the Iranian Revolution, Shia Iran became one of the US’s (and Israel’s) main enemies. And with all the Sunni states becoming stooges for the US. The US policy changed. And the US because much less friendly to the Shia (unless they needed them as in Iraq),and much more pro-Sunni.The Shia of course are aware of all that. And turned to Russia for support.Russia hopefully knows that they can’t really depend on Turkey or Egypt,let alone Libya or Jordan for support. Iran, and Syria in particular, are their friends in the MENA. At best any of the Sunni states will be neutral at present.So whatever the merits (or not) of Shia Islam. Russia has them as allies,and only them.
“The Shia states basically are Iran,Iraq,Syria,and to some extend Lebanon.” sorry you got that wrong. Syria IS NOT a Shia state. Over 70% of Syrians are Sunnis. You are usually good Uncel Bob 1, but this was unusually sloppy.
forgot to mention that the rest of the comment was very insightful.
Haha,thanks. I covered that point further in the comment by saying Syria was “Shia ruled”. I known the majority of Syrians are Sunni. But Syria is included in what is known as the “Shia Crescent”. So I put them in that list. Lebanon also isn’t majority Shia,its split among several groups. But still the main influencing group is Hezbollah.Which even though a Shia group has much support from some of the others as well especially the Christians.
Your friend Anwar Khan sacrificed a lot by letting you publish his thoughts. It’s very rare to see or hear any Sunni Muslim standing up in this(political) way. Religion exists on the edge of politics. He crossed the boundary because of animosity against his perceived(political) foe. The battle is not religious, but political.
Thanks Saker for responding to a man completely under the influence of the Fitna tool and I mean by that the wahabi consorts working for the Anglozionist empire.Now once and for all Tufayli was ejected from Hezbollah more than 20 years ago and he is now on the Saudi payroll.Mr.Khan uses the terms sunni/shia and that is the tool introduced by the Americans after the first Gulf war and anybody growing in the region prior to this war never heard this distinction for the simple reason that Wahhabism had not yet percolated in societies and that is one of the precious gifts bestowed upon us by the Americans .So to continue to use it is just giving more munitions to the enemy.I totally agree with you in the description of the Iranian strategy and any nation with self respect would have acted in the same way after finding itself taken in a pince movement by an enemy that is a super power.All videos accusing the “Shia” of atrocities are coming out of the same office that relentlessly accuses Syria of war crimes and then gives an Oscar to an AlQaida subsidiary .That doesn’t mean that there were never any excesses as this would be impossible in war and for this examples abound in History.Finally and this blog is yours but may I suggest that you slam the door on ignoramusses who follow willingly or unwillingly the zionist agenda of the Empire?Iraq has descended into inferno for a very long time now and decency would require from so called ad hoc analysts even if carrying the name of Ahmed to remain silent. Carrying an islamic name and there are 1,5 billion people of the faith doesn’t make you an expert on arab affairs.
“To this day, many Shiites carry a small clay tablet made from the soil of Karbala on which Hussein’s blood was shed. They put the tablet on the ground wherever they pray and press their foreheads to it.” Therefore Karbala could theoretically be anywhere. Including your living room. Karbala is mobile.
Shia collaboration with U.S ended many years of Sunni rule.
The Sunnis in Iraq were the ones who, for a few years, resisted the U.S. occupation, and they were taking a toll on the U.S. military there. However, in the end, they were paid off, so the resistance fizzled in 2006/2007. Iran was dirty in the Bosnian war, and it worked with the U.S. and NATO to send weapons and fighters to BiH. Now Iran is more on the defensive because it senses it will be next for more attacks like the Iraqis, Serbs, Libyans, and Syrians have endured.
The causes of good and evil are various and uncertain. Often they are entangled with each other, diversified by various relations and subject to accidents that cannot be foreseen. A judgment on religion(s) begins with the basic tenets of each and keeps account of sundry examples, which may practically reflect the tenets (or not).
As for the nominal reason for the Iraq-Iran war had to do with land adjacent to a contested river at the border between the two countries. Who knows what bestial piece of ‘real-politik’ triggered a truly fratricidal war, to the sole benefit of we know who.
Still, a country where anyone sick could go into a hospital, be treated humanely and cured at no cost, is in my view a civilized country. I am referring to the Iraq of the “evil dictator” Saddam, where men and women had also equal access to free university education.
As for the Holocaust, it was born in 1972 in New York. Author and historian David Irving, and others, have exposed the lie of the gas chambers in Auschwitz. Stalin had nothing to do with Auschwitz or its aftermath – considering the challenges of reconstruction after WW2 and the real threat of a nuclear holocaust in the interim period before the USSR had the bomb.
Anyway, Irving does not deny nor condones the killings – notably the trains carrying Jews to the Easternmost camps where they were shot. He is a very respected historian who knows German perfectly, and who has meticulously examined massive documentation, including the microfilmed Nazi records kept at Moscow and London. England had cracked the Enigma German code.
Irving was jailed in Austria and Canada for “preaching hatred”, which is the absolute opposite of what he does and has done.
The Jews have threatened any publisher who prints Irving’s books. He now sells them from his home. I strongly recommend his “Churchill’s War” as an illuminating and impartial assessment of how Europe plunged into that real Holocaust that was WW2.
Irving travels to the US occasionally to give lectures and crisscrosses the country in a rented car. Of course he is banned by universities, even when students dare to invite him. Some of his talks are on you-tube and are very instructive and entertaining. On a trip to the US he had chosen a cost effective route that had a transfer flight in Toronto. Knowing that Irving was on board, the Canadian authorities moved the airport frontier to the door of the plane, where disembarking passengers were asked for their passport. Since Irving is banned from Canada, he was not allowed to catch the flight bound for the US and had to return to England at his expense.
Lengthy aside to show what we know already, the extraordinary reach of Talmudism and of its practitioners in spirit who “like to village curs, bark when their fellows do.”
I find one thing that most Westerners lack to see when it comes to Iranian Shias, is that Iranians are more connected to their past than their religious identity. Being Persian has a bigger meaning than being a Shia Muslim.
When this fact is implemented many evaluations of what the Iranians are doing tactically and strategically will become clearer.
Thanks Saker for your great response to Anwar Khan. Khan belongs to a species of humans called “useful idiots”. Wahabism is a branch of Sunni Islam and its spiritual home is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is using its considerable wealth to spread this barbaric form of Islam all over the world. The west is abetting this because of Saudi Arabia’s importance to the petro-dollar. Any right thinking and conscientious muslim must condemn Wahabism. The feudal despots of the House of Saud only care about the survival of their dynasty and not the wellbeing of their country. They invest in the west and fund leading universities in the west like Harvard and Yale while condemning young talented Saudis to rote learning. Wahab theology is exalted as the highest form of knowledge. Honestly speaking, Saudi Arabia is run on medieval principles. Saudi Arabia is a cancer and all decent human beings should fight to ensure the fall of the House of Saud.
An untoward thought —
We evaluate the things we see in the contexts we are familiar with. So as a Westerner (US) looking at this from “outside the box,” what comes to mind is the eastern proverb that “If the beard is not kept trimmed, it vies with the head for prominence.” (The elaboration of details into big systems should not outweigh the more fundamental, enduring reality that gives rise to them).
Also the Nasrudin joke about “the soup of the soup of the duck.” (There comes point at which, no matter what its history, it is diluted to the point where it is only water).
The ancestors of today’s Americans saw Rome similarly abrogating to itself the authority to dictate what truth was (often based on Scripture but, the way a drunkard uses a streetlight — more for support than for illumination), exercising full spectrum dominance (creating a police state with informants and confessions by torture), and killing anyone who denied that Rome was the sole, unique and infallible custodian of truth, authorized to dictate peoples’ behavior in minute detail, and the only, indispensable intermediary between man and God.
Even some of the supposedly “reformed” churches (like the Anglicans), having learned nothing from enduring this, turned right around and imposed the same persecuting system on the Scots.
People came here (US), often making great sacrifices, to live in a place where they were free of would-be antichrists (meanings of Greek Anti- include the sense of “deputy, authorized representative exercising plenipotentiary power” — exactly what the Reformers saw the Popes doing).
The result — for a while at least — was the USA as a practical example of the contention that a Christian state could nevertheless be a pluralistic one, with nobody telling anyone else what they must believe.
Ironically, in my view at least, this state of affairs had long been the case in the Middle East where there were official state beliefs (Christianity in Constantinople, Islam in Cairo, and so on) — and largely remained that way until the termites unleashed in the run up to WW I began setting one group against another group to exploit the carnage that followed in consequence. (Would mass atrocities like the Armenian genocide have been imaginable in the 19th Century as contemporary possibilities ?) (For that matter, had the Vatical threatened excommunication for military service in it, since this would necessarily entail killing fellow believers, could it even have happened ?)
However ironic, it seems that what the West gained almost without intending to (it is one thing to preach religious tolerance but another thing to seriously intend to practice it) — as an almost unspoken agreement among most of the immigrants — the Middle East seems to have sometimes lost sight of it — again without intending to.
Without intending anything but deep respect for the erudite and deeply principled contributors here, their careful dissection of points of doctrinal difference remind me of the arguments between various Protestant sects (back when people still took these seriously. Today I greatly doubt whether the average Methodist, Lutheran or Presbyterian could define and explain how his “beliefs” differ from the others — to the minimal extent that any of these are simply liberal Judaism, re-labeled and re-packaged for their consumption).
Again, intending only genuine respect and admiration for their obviously formidable learning and intelligence, I wonder if the Islamic realm in the west might be staging a sort of Islamic Protestant Reformation (?) or whether this turmoil might not be a reversion back to one in which a particular schools’ dictates allow no dissent.
With apologies for not having expressed an idea difficult to formulate in words very well — that perhaps there is Historical Development — meaningful progress toward a better state of affairs (political evolution). Or whether entropy is the natural human political condition in the long run, with empires rising, fighting each other and succumbing to degeneration.
Maybe both ?
It’s the anniversary of the Salem witch hunt. With you Cats, all due respect to the erudite and academic endless dissecting of millennia of religious delusional manipulative aggrandizement and cruelty based on “religion”, that being the assertion by mountebanks of all stripes cooking up costumes and rituals and waving incense at rubes who hope for an afterlife, having had a lousy first go-around thanks to the very same charlatans. Soldiers to carnage, horrors unimaginable, sold to the mass oppressed with religion. Ain’t nothin’ quite as effective.
A 20th Century realisation still percolating up into mass awareness : Human life requires meaning and a sense of purpose. Without this, existentialist despair, consumerism, hedonistic excess, status seeking and all kinds of other failed attempts at compensation appear like mirages and prove equally substantive substitutes.
It would appear, in a dispassionate view, that Pascal was right : that there is “a God-shaped hole” in each of us that we stuff this and that into, without achieving the peace or contentment we seek so restlessly — that God does not need people, but people need God.
If the idea of God bothers you, you could just as well say that iron filings on a piece of paper need a magnet to align them into a pattern greater than (and, absent the magnet, otherwise undiscoverable to) the individuals that comprise it.
about as smart as iron filngs I guess. One chicken finds a grasshopper and clucks, they all come running.
A sense of purpose could easily just be a fair and just society with a future for the next ones, an unruined earth, without any hocus pocus or gawd big guy-in-the-sky.which the desire for has perpetrated a billion deaths.
@plainsman —
Were not “the War on Poverty,” “the War on Drugs” and “the War on Terror” (all criminal scams sold to people by invoking their idealism) not enough examples of what campaigns for social improvement like you’re recommending come to in practice ?
Chuang Tse : Of old, the Yellow Emperor first interfered with the natural goodness of the heart of man, by means of charity and duty. In consequence, Yao and Shun wore the hair off their legs and the flesh off their arms in endeavoring to feed their people’s bodies. They tortured the people’s internal economy in order to conform to charity and duty. They exhausted the people’s energies to live in accordance with the laws and statutes. Even then they didn’t succeed . . .
When it came to the times of the Three Kings, the empire was in a state of foment . . . By and by, the Confucianists and the Motseanists arose; and then came confusion between joy and anger, fraud between the simple and the cunning, recrimination between the virtuous and the evil-minded, slander between the honest and the liars, and the world order collapsed.
When the great virtue lost its unity, men’s lives were frustrated. When there was a general rush for knowledge, the people’s desires ever went beyond their possessions . . . The empire seethed with discontent, the blame for which rests on those who would interfere with the natural goodness of the heart of man.
In consequence, virtuous men sought refuge in mountain caves, while rulers of great states sat trembling in their ancestral halls. Then, when dead men lay about pillowed on each other’s corpses, when cangued prisoners jostled each other in crowds and condemned criminals were seen everywhere, then the Confucianists and the Motseanists bustled about and rolled up their sleeves in the midst of gyves and fetters! Alas, they know not shame, nor what it is to blush!
. . . All men strive to grasp what they don’t know, while none strive to grasp what they already know; and all strive to discredit what they don’t excel in, while none strive to discredit what they do excel in. That’s why there is chaos.
I’ve been reading “The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam” and agree. Shia seems to be the more respectful of human freedom. Of course, so was Mao’s Communist China when compared to Wahhabism. Did the Western powers plan to bracket the middle east with murderous states (Israel on one side, Saudi Arabia on the other) or did it just work out that way?
Brilliant, sparkling aditions, great work, hope we get more from u and anwar khan, thank u saker for this brilliant piece
As a Muslim who is not Shia and therefore by “default” regarded as Sunni, I can attest that the hundreds of billions spent by Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Qatar and other Gulf States to promote Wahhabism in the Muslim world has skewed the worldview of many Sunnis.
The vast majority saw no problems with Saddam’s oppression of the Shia majority or his unjustified and vicious war against Iran. They have no objection to Bahrain’s oppression of its Shia majority and they are not troubled by the almost weekly bombings of Shia Mosques in Pakistan. On the other hand they are often quick to make excuses for those who justify allying with ISIS and Al Qaeda to redress injustices at the hand of the present Shia-led government in Iraq…despite the most heinous crimes committed by these Takfiris.
It is even more shameful to see so many leaders of Muslim countries pandering to the sponsors of Wahhabi/Takfiri mischief in the hope of receiving some share of their oil and gas riches.
“Weekly bombings of Shia Mosques”.
The rate of khawarij bombings has gone way down. Also Sunni Mosques are also targetted. A proxy war between Iran and KSA is being waged in Pakistan. Both need to stop.
I highly recommend this article on both the Iranian Revolution and the nature of Iranian Shi’ism. It remains pertinent today and I believe an unrivalled analysis of the Revolution and valid until today.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p141_Benson.html
Thank you for this
Keep looking for things to read
We will find out when Al-Mahdi and the Messiah come. Be united Shia and Sunni. Be united Muslim and Christian.
Indeed.
In spite of 100 years, the wealth and money and power applied, most Muslims in S.Asia know the name of Bulleh Shah over Wahab
https://youtu.be/IH8BgubvXWM
When they threaten to dynamite the Mountain it’s because they are more scared of orthodox traditional ‘Sunni’ (?) Muslims, and considering the great number of them that makes perfectly rational and reasonable sense!
“Read. Read in the name of your lord!”
What kind of Muslim would think of bulldozing that site?
Not a difficult question to answer!
A sad number of comments attacking Mr. Khan whilst ignoring his previous articles and what he has written, that which is there to be read.
Wiki is wiki but it’s easy, please have a look at this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Zi-Ping
there are schools of orthodox Islam that more or less circumnavigated the Sunni Shia divide – it helps if they were relatively isolated in china / SE Asia or elsewhere for over a thousand years, before the ‘schisms’ (which were codified at more or less the same time? Under whose watchful Eye?) were set.
Muslims established communities over a thousand years ago in other civilisations in spite of the number of astoundingly ignorant and historically insane comments here attacking Muslims for not doing so, and they did so specifically in order to establish the foundations that would allow Islam to survive the Fitna. It looks like they knew what it was that they were doing!
As with our gracious big and open hearted host, pease read some history, in the name of your lord.
Saker,I undertand that point two may be an error, then I again I may be in error: but as you can tell it’s not the kind of thing that I think is important or of any significant relevance. There is some evidence, such as some text in the latest Pepe article, that suggests that many who matter agree!
God bless you.
This is how Muslim and Christians will be united when the ‘Messiah’ will come:
“Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts)” (Sahih al-Bukhari Book 43 Hadith 656).
The Sunni and the Shia might eventually unite for the destruction of Christianity. But who in his right mind could think that the Christians would join this union? That Christ would come down as a radical Muslim to establish Sharia Law? Can they ‘unite’ with the ones who proclaim their destruction?
It is possible to, as it were, go back to their beginnings and trace the developments of all three major faiths as gradually codified deviations from the original and pure monotheism of Abraham, of Christ and of Mohammed.
What we see today is how different these have become — even unrecognizable to each other — as all three have become entrenched, heavily defended positions, each anathematizing the other two.
In this view (inadmissible here without transgressing accepted conceptual parameters, but nevertheless possible with complete integrity in both scholarship and faith), the situation is that of beards, grown so luxuriant for so long that they have replaced the heads that grew them as the embodiments of religion. And, indeed, all three can justify their dogmas and fatwas as verities established in both scripture and tradition, sure to provoke arguments (as we have seen in the Shia and Suni matter).
But underlying all of this is the possibility that, as Christ’s teaching was the instauration of the religion of Israel, and Mohammed’s of both, when all is revealed, it will be seen that, all along, there has been only one head — not three. And that, on this basis (which modern freemasonry has perverted to serve mammon), it is comprehensible that those of all three traditions who combine belief with integrity continue to recognize each other (as they have in the past) as fellow workers in the same cause.
@ Tom on March 01, 2017 • at 12:48 pm UTC
Of course Saker would reply that none of those atrocities can be directly attributed to “the teachings of Orthodoxy”, and I suppose he would be right, but the exact same thing could be said about Western Christian atrocities. Christian religion (east or west) is supposed to be against killing, at least if you stick to its let’s say “constitutional” documents, which would be the 4 Gospels as far as I am concerned.
Of course Popes, Patriarchs and the rest of the administrative lot, have found ways to cozy up to the State and turn a blind eye to its brutality, and Popes in particular were notoriously corrupt and careless about displaying their corruption. None of which changes the fundamental “teachings” of Christianity in its constitutional text as described.
Let’s consider another angle. In the Saker phrases: “atrocities committed by the Papacy” and “when the Papist commits an atrocity” it seems at first that Saker is referring to atrocities explicitly approved, condoned or commended by Popes. Then, if such acts span, as he claims, “1000 year long history of atrocities, genocide…” then it should be child’s play to list lots of such acts committed by “the Papacy” through 10 centuries of genocide. But here is the catch: it seems to me that the phrase “committed by the Papacy” is used here as a bait-and-switch maneuver aimed at contrasting it with “Orthodox atrocities” which means simply atrocities committed by orthodox people either upon their own heterodox deviants or upon foreign heterodoxe peoples, *without explicit approval from any Orthodox authority*. If so, then this is a completely bogus and dishonest comparison. Because the fraction of atrocities committed by Western Christians that can be logged as a direct consequence of papal rulings, teachings or instigations by Papacy, has to be ridiculously microscopic in comparison with the atrocities that both western and eastern Christians committed *without* any papal involvement at all, which would be the overwhelming majority.
Basically the Saker technique here consists in referring to all killings committed by Western Christians as being justified by their own religious doctrines or rulings, which would indeed make such religion loathsome in the extreme. I am not a religious person but this is sheer nonsense. And if it isn’t, I repeat, then it should be very easy to name tons of those instances, as well as those due to scholastic logic and Jesuitical casuistry, given that they are supposed to be responsible for a millennium of genocides.
In closing I’d like to comment that the attribution of religious beliefs as a cause of war is, in my opinion, almost always vastly exaggerated. Just as silly as the supposition that the American civil war was about slavery. The main cause of wars has always been the rapaciousness of ruling classes that initiate the wars.
There is a very entertaining book that makes fun of evangelical atheism, titled: The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinki.
Some quotes from it can be read here.
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1639458-the-devil-s-delusion-atheism-and-its-scientific-pretensions
The following one seems appropriate to the point I am trying to make:
“¿Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for zyklon b, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental missiles , military space platforms and nuclear weapons?
If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.”
Neither the Orthodox.
it should be very easy to name tons of those instances, as well as those due to scholastic logic and Jesuitical casuistry, given that they are supposed to be responsible for a millennium of genocides.
The Albigensian Crusade which exterminated the Cathars (Pope : “Kill them all. God will recognise his own”) in southern France.
The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of Protestants (also in France. You wanted Jesuit perfidy ? Start here) — men women and children. Celebrated by a festive Te Deum afterward in Paris.
And so on in countless additional examples.
One piece of information you are missing in your analysis is that those condemned on religious grounds were handed over to the civil arm for disposal. Standard Operating Procedure.
@additional examples
Massacres of thousands of priests, monks and nuns by the ‘Reformist, Atheist, Communist Revolution’ (in Germany, England, France, Russia, Spain, Mexico).
About ‘Standard Operating Procedure’. Public heresy was a crime under civil law, assimilated to disobedience, sedition, treason, lese-majesty, witchcraft). The secular authorities would apply their own brands of punishment for civil disobedience, which, at the time, included burning at the stake (which was a penalty for some serious crimes since Hammurabi).
The Church was just inquiring whether accusations of heresy were true and in fact the Inquisition tribunals were set in order to prevent spontaneous mob actions against supposed heretics. If the accused was found innocent he was released, if he renounced his heresy he was forgiven and a penance was imposed. But if they persisted in heresy they were excommunicated and handed over to the secular authorities. In any case the whole process does not justify the accusations of intentional genocide brought against the Church by the atheists, feminists, ‘holocaust survivors’.
Albigensian Crusade.
Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.
Entire villages of Piedmontese driven over cliffs.
Three out of many.
Intentional, premeditated genocide of men, women and children in numbers beyond counting.
‘The numbers beyond counting’.
We have estimations for St. Barthelemy. As in many other cases estimates go up the further in time or space from the event the relation of the event is.
“The number of the victims of he massacre has been greatly exaggerated. It is remarkable that in proportion to their distance in time from this event, authors increase the number of the slaughtered. Thus, Masson gives it as 10,000; the Calvinist martyrologist as about 15,000; the Calvinist, La Popelinière, as more than 20,000; De Thou, the apologist of the Huguenots, as 30,000 “or a little less;” the Huguenot Sully as 70,000; Péréfixe, a Catholic bishop, as 100,000. Modern Huguenot apologists claim the number of dead at 300,000.
“Modern estimates for the number of dead across France vary widely, from 5,000 to 30,000”.
“The number of victims in the provinces is unknown, the figures varying between 2000 and 100,000. The “Martyrologe des Huguenots”, published in 1581, brings it up to 15,138, but mentions only 786 dead. At any rate only a short time afterwards the reformers were preparing for a fourth civil war.”
“Thirty-five livres were paid to the grave-diggers of the Cemetery of the Innocents for the interment of 1100 corpses; but many were thrown into the Seine. Ranke and Henri Martin estimate the number of victims in Paris at 2000”.
For sure Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda played an essential role, as in the case of the “Piedmont Easter Massacre” (‘Cromwell, Protector of the Vaudois’, ‘Milton’s sonet On the Late Massacre in Piedmont’).
Actually ‘numbers beyond counting’ are a masque for the more realistic assessment ”we don’t know the numbers’.
Minimize.
Rationalize.
Justify.
Deny.
Every Protestant in France murdered in cold blood. Because their numbers were growing to the point where the Vatican realized it was losing control of the narrative.
Minimize.
Rationalize.
Justify.
Deny.
Repeat.
Repeat . . .
The secular authorities would apply their own brands of punishment for civil disobedience
One hand washes the other. Why else would the eagle have two heads ?
Public heresy was a crime under civil law, assimilated to disobedience, sedition, treason, lese-majesty, witchcraft)
Had this have been even remotely true there would have been no need for the Dominican (and other) secret police, spying on peoples’ private beliefs.
The Cathars — whose morals and behavior were acknowledged to be much more Christian than Rome’s even by Rome — occasioned no public scandal. On the contrary : public scandal in religious affairs was (and is) generally the result of matters like the leasing of Papal and Anglican Church lands to brother operators and the sexual abuse of children by the clergy.
I recall the great Bavarian violin maker Jacob Stainer having been thrown into prison and his tools & supplies confiscated for the crime of having read a book written by a Lutheran . . .
You may keep telling this kind of nonsense to cats. Here you talk to adults.
I warn them against expecting facts to make any impression on someone whose response is to deal in impossible allegations and insults.
True Believers are like that. (Not an insult, because I’m sure you regard yourself as one).
Mi, možemo okretati ovako ili onako, ali objektivna istina je zapisana u događajima vremena. Činjenica je da suniti sa osnovom vahabizma su prijetnja Ummetu Muhameda a.s. i to je činjenica. Sve sunitske kraljevine i Turska su pretnja Ummetu, pretnja samom Islamu.
One should see this documentary about Iran if one wants to understand what Ashura means for Iranians.
Its about the shia ethos, about war, about the American sabre rattling, about how Iranians go to Iraq knowing how dangerous it is.
Once upon a time in Iran:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgqXbJM0ooA
The destruction and occupation of Iraq by the United States of America was the second accomplishment of the Zionist owned Neo-Conservatives after the 9-11 false flag attacks and it is an absolutely crucial and unprecedented point in recent history.
The Saker points out:
1. “The Iranians perfectly understood that and what they did next is nothing short of pure genius: they used their secret agents from Iraq (such as Ahmed Chalabi) to feed the Americans false information about the Iraqi WMD program and get the Neocons all worked up about the possible threat to Israel”.
Do you actually believe that Iranian secret agents fed the Neo-Conservatives false information on alleged Iraqi WMDs ??
Ahmed al Chalabi and the so called codename “Curveball” defector were CIA assets.
The Zionist run Neo-Conservatives, CIA and DoD did not need information from Iranian “secret agents” to attack Iraq. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of the Zionists in the US.
2. “So instead of attacking Iran, the Neocons turned their sights in Iraq”.
The Zionist Neo-Conservatives planned to attack Iraq prior to any attack on Iran many many years ago. It was not because of some “Aikido” move by Iran. It is simply a well-choreographed and rehearsed move by the Zionist Neo-Cons:
A. You first arm Saddam’s Iraq (with all credit going to Saddam and his blind followers for this) with lots of weapons just enough to keep up a 8-year stale mated war with Iran, but not enough to win any war against Iran.
B. You basically let Saddam bankrupt his country due to a continuous war he could never win.
C. You tell Kuwait to dramatically increase oil production in order to put even more pressure on Saddam Hussein.
D. You then give Saddam the green light to occupy Kuwait, by sending your ambassador to tell Saddam everything is alright with you occupying Kuwait.
E. Then you bomb the crap out of Iraq and send in your ground forces.
F. You are hours away from occupying Baghdad and removing Saddam Hussein, but you change your mind to keep him in power in order plunge Iraq into……
G. a 13 year long economic embargo.
H. You produce a false flag attack 9-11.
I. Then you produce false information and connect that with your false flag attack to physically remove Iraq’s government, entire security and military apparatus and occupy the entire country.
J. Finally plunging Iraq into chaos, where you helped the infiltration of extremists to plunge Iraq into sectarian slaughter, leading up to the creation of groups like ISIS in Iraq and the eventual fall of Eastern Syria to these groups.
3. The Iranians succeeded in a brilliant “political Aikido” move to turn their #1 enemy (the “Great Satan”) against their #2 enemy (Saddam and the Baathist Pary) against each other.
Iranians were responsible for turning the US on Iraq ?
Again this is highly inaccurate and actually ridiculous. Where is the proof for this statement ?
4. The AngloZionists overthrew Saddan (good-bye enemy #1) and then got hopelessly bogged down thereby tremendously weakening the “Great Satan”.
You speak of the AngloZionists as if they are some kind of military corps or division.
Zionists do not get “bogged down”. They use officers and officials (often by means of blackmail, bribery, attractive connections or ideology) within the CIA, the US Department of Defense (which directly includes the NSA), FBI, Senate and Congress among other agencies and institutions to implement their plans with no regards to the consequences to those they are using.
If thousands of American troops have to die, billions of dollars wasted…..who cares?!? …..The goal was to destroy Iraq including as many countries around it (Syria, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.) and send the area into conflict and chaos for Zionist Israel.
5. by re-directing the USA towards an attack on Iraq the Iranians tremendously weakened the USA.
The Iranians did not redirect anything. You give too much unfounded credit and power of influence to the Iranians, without giving any proof of this power.
Because Zionist rule the US via their Zionist actors (Neo-conservative, Jewish, non-Jewish, or others), they are able to use the US war machine, money and influence, as they like.
——————–
Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”
Number 23:
“Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us”.
“Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization “.
Number 22:
“The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target”.
——————–
Bush said: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.” He also told the gathering: “By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America.”
Condoleeza Rice, who served as President Bush’s National Security Advisor, and later, as his Secretary of State, echoed the President’s outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
The security of Israel is the key to security of the world !!!
By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America.
For the Zionists in the US, Israel is the most important thing on Earth, it is the God they worship. The entire planet can be nuked as long as Zionist of Israel survive and become stronger and rule over the world.
Uri Avnery – an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, and a three-time member of Israel’s parliament – sees the Iraq war as an expression of immense Jewish influence and power. In an essay written some weeks after the US invasion, he wrote:
“Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers… The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush’s Republican party. … Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.”
Harry red
A very insightful comment indeed. I am disappointed to see this much uncritical Iran love here at this blog. Not very intelligent.