by Anwar Khan
This is a brief review of an article written by brother Blake Archer Williams a short while again titled Sacred Communities and the Emergent Multipolar Landscape. Let me first commend our most esteemed Saker for bringing forth, once again, an intelligent, nuanced, and tremendously articulate pen to his one-of-a-kind forum.
To say that brother Williams’ article was refreshing and educational would be an understatement. He had the courage and knowledge to take on some very challenging conceptual issues that can be quite daunting to articulate to a modern non-religious reader. That he has done most handsomely. From the standpoint of a traditional Shia(though some may argue that subscribers of Wilayat e Faqih or as he calls it Waliyic Islam are reformists, strictly speaking), he has articulated well the basis of that tradition. More importantly, from a standpoint of a believer in the Big Scheme, he has enriched us tremendously in presenting a coherent conceptual framework in understanding many important concepts, extending to all sacred traditions, among them, 1) the indispensability of what he calls Sacred Communities, 2) the nature of Sacred Communities, 3) the right of People to assign for themselves frameworks and values that attend to their particular spiritual, social and political needs, or in other words carving out their own destinies without the threat and blackmail of modernity superimposing its sacred institutions, 4) the history and roots of some of the institutions that have come to challenge the sacred ones.
Part 1 of his article, which investigates the philosophical configuration of the Sacred and the Profane, can adorn any manual that seeks to diagnose the human condition out of its current misery, despite some hyperbole that he engages in, such as “Imam Khomeini, the greatest man the modern era has witnessed”. One of the most influential, no doubt, but “the greatest”? Some may beg to differ.
Part 2—the Solution part— however, disappoints and runs into many problems, the least being brother William’s apparent detachment from reality. Some of his replies to comments further puts him adrift from his initial brilliant analysis. To be fair to him, this review will only cover the article not his comments.
Let’s start with the most problematic of his conclusions: Waliyic Islam as represented by Iran post-1979 Revolution being (despite many of her shortcomings that the author admits) the best formula to imitate not only as civilizational model, but also the prime guard against the advances of the Anglo-Zionist empire, hence finding herself in the inner most core of the “Five Ring Circus”(not a very assuring term if we are fighting a brutal Empire).
The biggest problem with this conclusion, and I am sure many of the readers did not fail to notice, is that brother William is asking us to take a leap of faith and trust him as he assigns Waliyic Iran as a model worth following, and entrusting our loyalty to her as a leader in the fight against the Empire and its various manifestations. This, because—and this is the implication that runs throughout the article— Waliyic Iran is guided by God and will not betray the trust entrusted to her. I am afraid brother William is asking for too much.
To begin with, Waliyic Iran as the representative and recipient of the Hidden Imam’s guidance(someone in actual occultation, with body and spirit, since 941 A.D.) has a messianic mandate as the driving principle of her very existence. This mandate is not only theoretical. It permeates the beliefs of important state actors. The state legitimizes its very existence based on this mandate. If you deny the relationship between the Hidden Imam and the Waliyic state, you actually deny the foundational pillar of the Waliyic Iranian state. This relationship is understandable from the perspective of the Shia adherent, but to the other players, part of the “Five Ring Circus”, it represents obvious problems.
For example, how are the non-Shia partners to know that the strategic engagements of the Waliyic state is for the overall betterment of the Axis of Resistance—an implicit condition for the alliance in the first place— and not a messianic imperative determined by the creed of the Waliyic state? What assurances can the Waliyic state give to her partners that her current engagement in the various theaters of the Middle East is solely a passive/defensive act and not an active/offensive messianic mandate? After all the Shia scribes are clear on the conditions that will necessitate the Hidden Imam(or the Mahdi) to reemerge from his occultation or ghayba:
The Commander of the Faithful (ʾAli) said: “The Mahdi will not appear unless one-third of the people are killed; another one-third die; and the remaining one-third survive.”(Ibn Tawus, Malahim, vol. 58; Ihqaq al-Haqq, vol. 13, p. 29)
Muhammad ibn Muslim said: Imam as-Sadiq said: “The Imam of the Time will not appear unless two-thirds of the people in the world would die.” It was asked: “If two-thirds of the people would be killed, how many will remain?” He answered: “Are you not satisfied (and would you not like) to be among the remaining one-third?”( Shaykh at-Tusi, Ghaybah,p. 339; Kamaluddin, vol. 2, p. 655)
One might argue that even within the Sunni tradition, the arrival of the Mahdi (which in Sunni eschatology is not the same person as the Hidden Imam of the Shia tradition. He will be born on a later date) is predicated on death and destruction, so is Christian eschatology, why should the Shias be singled out for special treatment? The difference is—at least from a Sunni perspective—that there is no messianic imperative on which the Sunni political mandate is predicated. The arrival of the Mahdi and the events of the “End of Times” is a spiritual reminder to the flock, a reality to be understood to pierce the materialistic worldview of history. It is part of the doctrine but without necessarily carrying any imperative clause in the Now, as opposed to the Shia subscribers of the Waliyic state. The Imam is here but hidden, waiting for the right conditions to reemerge. The difference is not mere semantics. The implication of such a view is dramatic, to say the least.
Again, how are we, the outer rings, to know that the inner most circles of Iranian State are rational actors, operating on the common strategic framework of the Axis of Resistance, and not on a messianic imperative? Of course, it would be naive for anyone to reduce the aims of a powerful state and society like that of Iran to a mere fulfillment of an unavoidable Armageddon. I totally understand that and I am not suggesting that is necessarily the case. But it remains the cornerstone of the Waliyic state. What if the next Supreme Leader decides to escalate things further so that the conditions become ripe for the reemergence of the Hidden Imam? Brother Williams can only give us his word that doctrinal imperatives will not configure in state affairs. We are being asked to believe, in essence, that Imam Khomeini, and Khamenai after him, and someone after him are representatives of the Hidden Imam guided by him directly or through special instruction, conducting themselves in accordance with international law, humanitarian law, regional alliances in order to keep the region safe and prosperous so each group can maintain their beliefs and worship their Gods, and find peace and security in their ways, only to add more years to the Imam’s occultation? Is not the purpose of the Waliyic state to set the ground for the reemergence of the Hidden Imam? Can setting of the ground be done with peace, prosperity and brotherhood? If yes, then how does one interpret the Shia religious texts on the subject?
Again, I am not making light of the creedal necessity of the Hidden Imam, the Waliyic state and Shia destiny. These are parts of a whole religious eco-system. But it hardly is reassuring as a sustainable paradigm for strategic partnership with others.
If this “elephant in the room” was not enough, Waliyic Iran’s international profile since 1979 is hardly encouraging, considering she holds herself to spiritual standards absent in other political actors. Brother Williams says: “…. who is arrayed against this[Anglo-Zionist] daemonic alliance but Iran and Russia”. Well, was being an ally of Saudi Arabia and Uncle Sam in arming various anti-Serb militias in the Nato-led dismemberment of Yugoslavia any less daemonic? What was the motivation behind that? Surely it was not to help the poor Sunni Bosniaks, brethren in faith. Lessening the oppression of the Sunnis inside Iran would have been a much more admirable move for that matter. How about Waliyic Iran’s services to the Reagan administration in the Nicaraguan Contras’ case? It seems being part of Uncle Sam’s alliance is acceptable at times, especially if it offers certain economic relief. How about the creation of sectarian militias like that of Badr Brigade and ʾAsaib ahl al Haq whose reign of terror on the Sunni inhabitants(non-aligned to any group) of Iraq is an incontrovertible fact? These are outfits that answer only to Iran.
I am not suggesting that Iran is worse than any other state. Not at all. I am, however, suggesting that when it comes to politics, Machiavelli is often a bigger factor than the guidance of the Hidden Imam, slowly peeling off the veneer of other worldly piety.
But even before the 1979 Revolution, or “insurrection” as brother Williams call it, the religious figures, Imam Khomeini included, had a checkered history. Did we forget the role of religious class, among them Ayatollah Kashani, Ayatollah Behbehani and Ayatollah Boroujerdi who was the highest religious figure in Iran at the time, in opposing the nationalist and anti-colonialist Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, and their participation in the CIA led coup which ousted him? Was Mossadegh’s ouster and the ushering in of American puppet Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in any way good for Iran and its people? Can we imagine Iran today had Dr. Mossadegh stayed the course? The conservative Shias would protest Dr. Mossadegh’s increasing liberal tendencies and lack of commitment to the religious paradigm. But was not the Shah infinitely worse in that department? I get it, the democratic model is not necessarily a civilizational model for the Dispensationalists, but does that warrant siding with a figure as corrupt and Godless as the Shah of Iran? The religious establishment’s siding with the wrong person is hardly inspiring and betrays the Immaculateness of the Guardianship that is at the heart of brother Williams article. There are mistakes and then there are mistakes.
And if anyone wants to argue that for the Waliyic state to have become a reality it had to go through the necessary phase of the profanity of the Shah and hence siding with him was merely the fulfillment of a prophecy, then I a must admit to such a poverty of the mind: siding with the Godless to eventually usher in the Godly!
So when I hear brother Willams claim that “Shī’a Islam always had a political posture that balanced man’s imperfect state with his divinely-ordained imperative of enacting God’s will on Earth”, I hope he does not mean that beyond a theoretical framework because on the ground one finds more than anomalies. This is not unique to the Shias. The Sunnis suffer from the same delusions of moral grandiose, but at least they do not hold Immaculate Guardianship to their political mandate. Which brings us to yet another problem with the article: infallibility of the state. The Immaculate Hidden Imam is representative by an Immaculate Guardianship or Wilayat e Faqih. Is it even controversial to suggest that adding immaculateness + state is a deadly formula? Where does that leave the other partners in the ring when the inner core believes to be morally on a much higher ground through the Immaculate Guardianship?
Finally, the patronization that brother Williams have treated the Sunnis throughout this article was a big let down. Look at the name he uses for the Sunnis “Anti-Takfiri (Shiʾa Allied) Sonnis”, juxtaposing the utility of the majority of Muslims vis a vis their stance to Waliyic Islam. His “you are either with us or against us” rhetoric unfortunately took away from his otherwise sophisticated views.
And who says that Sunnis are “sitting on the fence”? Is the 70% Sunni army of Syria sitting on the fence? Is Ramazon Kadyrov’s Chechen brigade fighting in Syria sitting on the fence? Is the Pakistani Army’s continuous 5 year operations in the tribal areas to rid Pakistan of the takfīri TTP “sitting on the fence”? Technically speaking, Sunnis are by definition non-takfīri, unless you mean Wahhabis/Salafis who are not Sunnis to begin with and I have written about this before here and here, so no need to repeat it again. For someone who began his article emphasizing the need to get the terms right, it is disappointing to see this lack of refinement when dealing with the Sunnis.
Let me admit here, and I have also mentioned this before in other articles, the Sunni world is in a state of chaos. From a strictly doctrinal point of view, traditional Sunnism is hardly represented in any institution of merit today. There is no valid Caliphate. Traditional theological seminaries—the mainstay of Sunni ethos—is for all intended purpose extinct, or modified to watered down versions. Sufi fraternities or Tariqas, another Sunni tradition, has ceased to have any meaningful clout on the flock. The effects of western colonialism and its aftershock modern trends has been nothing short of a complete disaster for Sunni Islam. The reasons for this are many and beyond the scope of this article. So when brother Williams is asking the Sunnis that “you are either with us or against us”, which Sunni is he addressing? Are you asking the individual Sunni who has no clue about his identity to begin with and finds himself either droned by the Empire, or hacked to death by the sectarian Shia militias, or beheaded by ISIS bloodhounds? Are you addressing Sunni countries whose governments and institutions are mostly free of religious content, usually serving the interest of the Empire, against the desire of its population? Or are you addressing the traditional Sunni scholars or ulema who have already made their stance clear vis a vis the takfīri plague, only if we mind to look.
http://www.reasonedcomments.org/2016/09/the-first-international-conference.html
Even if we assume that there was an institution representative of world Sunnism, asking them to put their weight behind the Iranian lead “Axis of Resistance” when Iranian Sunnis themselves are a target of oppression in Iran is a demand lacking sincerity. Which brings me to the final point of this article.
For the “Five Ring of Circus” or the Axis of Resistance to get commitment from the remaining Sunni world, who may be sitting on the fence for good reasons, there has to be genuine pressure on Iran that it is about time that she shows sincerity and actions and not hallow words when it comes to creating a real Islamic brotherhood between the Shias and the Sunnis, serving the interests of all Muslims and not a narrow Iranian strategic ones. The oppression of Sunnis in Iran, a subject that has been in the dark for most, has to end. The harassment of their leadership and institutions has to end. For example, Sunni mosques should be allowed to have minarets and amplifiers for their called to prayer (Azan). The imprisonment and torture of Sunni Kurds on dubious charges of “terrorism” need to stop. The Waliyic state also needs to rein on the bloodthirsty Shia militias of Iraq who would make the Croatian Ustace proud. Sectarian rhetoric has to end genuinely. And the Waliyic state can do much on that front, other than PR stunts for the uninformed ones. When these measures are taken, the Shia call will find no shortage of Sunnis willing to put their lives for the resistance. But empty calls to join hands without like reciprocity will only fall on deaf ears.
Let’s not even counter this point with the history and performance of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are not Sunnis— strictly speaking— and do not represent Sunnism. They are a Zionist satellite and we should not pin our hopes on them for anything.
The core message of brother Williams is not only valid and sound, but imperative to adopt as a framework if we need to resist the Empire. Who can possible disagree with his following words:
the emerging multi-polar landscape is a spiritual one, and is one that recognizes that people of different faiths have more in common with each other on matters of substance and importance than we have differences on things that have divided us in the past (and continue to mark our boundaries), and that we have a very nefarious and powerful enemy in common which is eroding and ripping our values to shreds, call it modernity, secular humanism, neo-Paganism, the New World Order, or what you will. The basic premise of this assertion of the essentially spiritual nature of this emergent concrescence is that as time progresses and the outlines of the concrescence are more clearly adumbrated and ultimately crystalize into clearly discernable new formations, that the spiritual commonalities will trump other more traditional factors such as ethnicity, religious affiliation, cultural formations, national boundaries and geostrategic considerations.
As someone who believes in action and solutions, brother Williams’ views are a most welcome contribution. But if his proposal has any chance at embrace by the other partners, then he needs to be a little less enchanted with the Waliyic state and needs to engage in some self-criticism. And despite his impressive command of the English language, articulating the Immaculate Guardianship to the other partners is something that will not simply wash.
Salaam alaykom, brother Anwar.
Thank you for taking the time to write this useful and constructive critique. I have not read it through as yet, as I am preoccupied with another project now, but I wanted to be the first to comment, to thank you for your contribution to the conversation, and to let you know that I will respond with another article of my own soon; God willing, within the week.
Best salaams to you and yours,
Blake.
Walikum salam brother Blake,
I appreciate your receptive comment! Let me commend you again for the brilliant article. Voices of reason and old school wisdom are few in our times and it is truly a blessing that you are part of the community here. I am looking forward for your rejoinder.
Allahumma salle ‘ala Muhammad wa ale Muhammad.
The Sunni view about Imam Mahdi (as) is as usual very contradictory. The Wahhabi, and Salafi (those in Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Levant) don’t believe in Imam Mahdi as there is nothing about it in Sahih Bukhari and to some extent in the Sahih Muslim. They believe due to Sahih Muslim that Prophet Jesus (as) came back on earth, prayed behind an ordinary Muslim Imam (Leader) in a Mosque and died a natural death on Earth.
Their belief is based on being allergic to Imam Ali (as).
The other Sunni, who take their Hadiths from other 4 Sahih Books, out of 6 Sahih Books, believe like Shia. They believe as Shia, that Imam Mahdi (as) name will be Mohammad, named after his great grandfather Prophet Mohammad (saws). He will the from the descendants of Imam Ali (as) and Bibi Fatima (as). His title will be Mahdi (Guide).
These Shia and Sunni believe that Imam Mahdi will ask Prophet Jesus to lead the Prayer. The Prophet will reply his time is over and he will pray behind Imam Mahdi, to show solidarity between the Major Religions (Christians and Muslims).
In Islam a Prophet and/or Imam is the Head of Church and State. The Sunni replace Imam with a Caliph but the concept is same. So, Imam Mahdi will be the Head of Church and State.
Wilayat al-Fiqhue (Waliyic State) has noting to do with Imam Mahdi. In the absence of Imam for Shia and in the absence of Clapih for Sunni, the Waliyic State is Democratic System designed where God’s Law are over the Human Laws, in contrast to Secular Democratic System in the West, where the Human Laws are above the God’s Laws.
In a Wilayat al-Fiqhue (Waliyic State), the Committee of the Fiqhue (Religious Scholars) are above the Political Democracy, whose job is to overseas that Human Laws are not put above the God’s Law. For example, if the Political System passes same sex marriage, then it will be rejected by the Wilayat al-Fiqhue (Waliyic State) by the Committee of the Fiqhue (Religious Scholars).
Best regards,
Mohamed
Except there is no democracy in the (western) world. On the contrary, it’s become a totally corrupted Satanist – aka Zionist – tyranny, funny farm, over the centuries (Russia slightly less so).
The Wahhabis, Salafis in the Muslim world, (more recently in) Iraq, Syria, and so forth, aren’t Sunnis, but merely foreign intruders, Zionist (aka Satanist) mercenaries, terrorists, and whores.
Dear Mohamed,
Please read the article.
The other Sunni, who take their Hadiths from other 4 Sahih Books, out of 6 Sahih Books, believe like Shia. They believe as Shia, that Imam Mahdi…
Anwar has already said, … the arrival of the Mahdi (which in Sunni eschatology is not the same person as the Hidden Imam of the Shia tradition. He will be born on a later date)…, which is the correct Sunni position.
Wilayat al-Fiqhue (Waliyic State) has noting to do with Imam Mahdi.
Are you denying the ‘foundational pillar of the Iranian Wilayic state’? I ask because you are in agreement with Anwar who said, If you deny the relationship between the Hidden Imam and the Waliyic state, you actually deny the foundational pillar of the Waliyic Iranian state. (I also happen to agree with Anwar’s stance here).
…the Waliyic State is Democratic System designed where God’s Law are over the Human Laws, in contrast to Secular Democratic System in the West, where the Human Laws are above the God’s Laws.
That’s the Theory.
The Practice? Read Para 14 onwards.
Now, the question is, how do Shia and Sunnis get together in order to defeat our common enemy, the AngloZionist Axis that is wreaking so much havoc and inflicting untold misery on millions of people? I suggest we start by putting our sectarian positions aside for a second, resist the spinal reflex of positing one’s position whenever the word ‘Islam’ appears, and listen carefully to what the other has to say. Thanks.
Salam Basil,
Regarding Imam Mahdi (as), the Sunni hold three positions.
1. There is no such thing as Mahdi, as it is not in Sahih Bukhari nor Sahih Muslim. Jesus already have come back, prayed behind a Imam of Mosque and died a natural death. Please refer to Sahih Muslim. This position is held by toxic Sunni such as Wahhabi and Salafi. One cannot deny that Sunni are not toxic. And, Wahhabi/Salafi are not Sunni. This has been well exposed by the Caliphate of Bagdadi (ISIS).
2. The second position is almost like Shia but Mahdi is not born. His name will be Mohammad being the great grandson of Prophet Mohammad (saws) and from the decedents of Imam Ali (as) and Bibi Fatima (as). His title will be Mahdi. Jesus will come back too, and he will pray behind Mahdi. The Immaculate and Infallible Prophet Jesus will pray behind UN-Immaculate and Fallible Mahdi. What a contradiction!
3. The third is like position 2 above, but the Mahdi is born and is hidden. He is the Imam Mahdi (as) and the 12th Imam of Shia. Imam Mahdi (as) is Immaculate and Infallible like Prophet Jesus, therefore Jesus will pray behind him. There are lots of Sunni who hold this position too, especially Suffi Sunni who consider the Prophet (saws), Imam Ali (as), Bibi Fatima (as), Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) as the Spiritual Leaders, who are over the Political Leaders such as first three Caliphs namely, abu Bakr, Omar and Osman.
The Shia believe that the Prophet, Bibi Fatima and their 12 Imams are Immaculate and Infallible. They also believe that all Prophets are Immaculate and Infallible. Whereas, the Sunni are two opinions and most of them believe that the Prophet is NOT Immaculate and Infallible.
But the Sunni in practice consider the first three Caliphs namely, abu Bakr, Omar and Osman Immaculate and Infallible. They believe that these three Caliphs can change the religion of the Prophet and I can give you bunch of examples from the Sunni Books. One such example is Talaq al-Bida’. Unfortunately, most Sunni don’t know their religion.
To say that the Wahhabi and Salafi is a recent addition is to deny the toxicity in the Sunni Religion. These groups have been existed since the times of Prophet and the persecution of Shia continued throughout the Islamic History. If you deny it, you will never improve yourself. Or to give excuse for your toxicity, that lately in Iran and Iraq, the Shia are doing the same thing.
Look hard at the yourselves and make changes for good, not temporarily changes as done in past because someone is looking over your shoulder.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Salam Basil,
As mentioned above in theory the Sunni don’t consider the Caliphs to be Immaculate and Infallible, but in practice these Caliphs are Immaculate and Infallible as they are chosen by God through Predestination. How can God make a mistake?
These Caliphs no matter however they become Caliphs are the Head of State and Church as being appointed by God. Before I go further, I will define few Arabic terms, as they are causing some confusion.
Wali : Governor, Custodian, Protector, Helper, Friend, Leader, Imam, Maula, Aula….
Waliyat: A province in an Arab country.
Caliph: Wali, Imam, Maula, Aula, King, Malik, Sultan, President, Prime Minister, Leader ….
Fiqh/Fiqhue : Deep Understanding of Islamic Law, Sharia, Jurisprudence. Simply Islamic Law.
According to Shia, their 12 Imams (as) are the legitimate Caliph in succession after the Prophet as being the Head of Church and State. No one else. Since, the 12th Imam is hidden, the Shia have the Taqlid System put by the 12th Imam, where each Shia personally chooses his/her Islamic Fallible Scholar to interpret the Islamic Law for him/her. These Fallible Scholars are prone to mistakes as being human beings. Also, the Scholar should be alive and not dead, like Ayatollah Khomeini.
According to Sunni, the Caliph no matter, however he is chosen, such as, by a small group of five people, chosen by large group, by will, by his father/brother, by Force (Sword), king, sultan, malik, president, prime minister is chosen by God through Predestination and therefore He is the Only Head of Church and State.
Therefore, all those Caliphs Dynasties, The Omayyad, The Abbasid, The Ottoman, The King of Jordan are chosen by the Will of Allah. Anyone, who reject them is called a Rejecter (Rafidi) and therefor a Kafir. Shia are Kafir because they reject these Caliphs.
Therefore, one will not hear any criticism of Sunni as God don’t make mistakes. On Saker’s blog, one hears from few Sunni the criticism of Ottoman Dynasty, which is Music to Saker’s Hears.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Correction:
Therefore, one will not hear any criticism of Caliphs as God don’t make mistakes. On Saker’s blog, one hears from few Sunni the criticism of Ottoman Dynasty, which is Music to Saker’s Hears.
Anwar Khan
One might argue that even within the Sunni tradition, the arrival of the Mahdi (which in Sunni eschatology is not the same person as the Hidden Imam of the Shia tradition. He will be born on a later date) is predicated on death and destruction, so is Christian eschatology, why should the Shias be singled out for special treatment? The difference is—at least from a Sunni perspective—that there is no messianic imperative on which the Sunni political mandate is predicated. The arrival of the Mahdi and the events of the “End of Times”
Salam Basil,
Basically, Anwar Khan is from Pakistan a Wahhabi/Salafi country under Zia al-Haqq who keep on regularly murdering and persecuting Shia. He now lives in Jordan, another country which is under the grips of Wahhabi/Salafi.
Mr. Anwar Khan is stretching the Truth, when he says the Sunni Mahdi is not Messianic. He has to just look in his own Books for Truth. Or watch Sheikh Imran Hossein on this blog.
As far as Iran Wilayat al-Fiqhue is concerned it has nothing to do with Shaisim. It is a Governance of Islamic Laws by a Committee of Islamic Scholars. They are responsible to oversea God’s Laws are observed and implemented by the Democratic Political Entity. It is much, much better than Lone Caliph who in reality a Monarch which is chosen by The Will of Allah, and no one can question him. Any person who questions him is a Rejector thus a Kafir.
However, Iran Political System called Wilayat al-Fiqhue has flaws as any Political System and not perfect. And, nothing to do with Shia.
Blake, Saker, Sheikh Imran Hossein are optimistic people who are looking for a United System, no matter what our prejudices and schism are, we all should Unite against a Common Enemy Satan.
Dear Basil, I don’t know where you are from. But, here in the Middle East both Saudi Arabia and Iran are cooperating to have Unity within Islam. The Shia will respect the first 3 Caliphs and all Prophet’s wives and in return the Sunni will throw the Caliphate System under the bus, especially from Ommayad onward. The Sunni will no longer worship the Omayyad. This has been going on for the last four years, and will take some long time to change those poisoned minds in both Shia and Sunni.
Three years ago on the old Saker’s blog, I said that Obama and Putin are in cahoots, people taught I don’t know the meaning of cahoots. Today, due to Obama, Putin, Trump, Saudi, Iran ….. all three Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are at the doorsteps of Israel.
Netanyahu will eventually make peace in the region, but unfortunately in the meantime more persecution will occur on Palestinians and Muslims.
However, I need to see change in Anwar Khan’s mind and Sheikh Imran Hossein too. Those two being far from Middle East are not aware of the changes in wind.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Dear Mohamed
“As far as Iran Wilayat al-Fiqhue is concerned it has nothing to do with Shaisim. It is a Governance of Islamic Laws by a Committee of Islamic Scholars. They are responsible to oversea God’s Laws are observed and implemented by the Democratic Political Entity. It is much, much better than Lone Caliph who in reality a Monarch which is chosen by The Will of Allah, and no one can question him. Any person who questions him is a Rejector thus a Kafir.
However, Iran Political System called Wilayat al-Fiqhue has flaws as any Political System and not perfect. And, nothing to do with Shia.”
Thank you for this, all I wanted to hear. This distinguishes and puts things right.
My reply to Anwar khan was rude, because he was stretching the truth, and got moderated. And I’m too tired to give sources and refute every argument. Thank you for taking the trouble.
“But, here in the Middle East both Saudi Arabia and Iran are cooperating to have Unity within Islam.”
I just saw a video of a houthi sniper gun down two Saudi mercenaries with a single bullet. So I’ll wait another 3 years to see where your theory is headed.
Once again, ajrakumullah
Three years ago on the old Saker’s blog, I said that Obama and Putin are in cahoots, people taught I don’t know the meaning of cahoots. Today, due to Obama, Putin, Trump, Saudi, Iran ….. all three Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are at the doorsteps of Israel.
yes, you did indeed. in fact, you repeated that nonsense so much that I ended up banning you simply because you were preventing a normal conversation with this nonsense. Then the mods forgot about that ban. Okay, I am re-banning you because I am sick and tired of your nonsense and how you hijack an otherwise interesting conversations. Rather than waiting for the mind of Anwar Khan or Sheikh Imran to change, I suggest you deal with the problems of your own mind.
The Saker
Thank you both for your articles !!!!
Indeed, “One hand washes the other.”
I would suggest that although the recognisable public activities of Sufism may be disappearing, history reassuringly shows that their activities behind the scenes have continued through the centuries.
This is probably not the place for it, but the structural pattern at issue is the political realm usurping, and impersonating, the rightful role of the spiritual.
The Christian world has frightened itself with the prospect of “the Anti-Christ” appearing in the world since it began to have access to the Bible translated into its vernacular languages. This is imagined to be a one-time event, unique in time and space.
Behind some garbling of terms and thought, this may well be so. But while all commentators seem to assume that the Greek “anti” must convey the sense of “against, opposing,” it also means “acting in behalf of, as a deputy.” In that sense, western Christianity has had any number of them (popes), and what we are looking at in Iran is the same pattern operating in the Islamic world. Or, indeed, in any cult with a charismatic leader.
What bedevils the issue, IMO, is that the idea of the Qutub (a saint in every age who is the living bridge between the divine and the corporeal), the magnetic pole around which everything responsive to magnetism is organized, has been hijacked by those with political ambitions and impersonated.
Whether or not there really is one might be argued (more easily re. Christianity than Islam, I suspect), but that when there are numerous forgeries of something there must be an original somewhere is less so.
For whatever it may be worth (assuming anything).
Talks-to-cats,
Like always, your comments are interesting. Keep them coming. You had me thinking on that Anti-Christ point. Interesting.
Iran is the perfect enemy for Israel. Too perfect in my opinion. Is that not a fact?
So perfect an enemy is Iran to the Anglo-Zionist empire that it’s hard to imagine that they are not the best of friends behind the doors of the world stage. Like any great show they obviously must act out and pretend to be the worst of enemies, and that they do well. If we are forced to give credit where it was due, then it’s certainly not a bold claim to state that this Anglo-Zionist empire are masters at putting on a show. This is all they do, they have years upon years of experience at manipulating peoples opinions with the full power of their media and news outlets, which were bought and paid for using the shekels made from their banks.
Answer the following question yourself. How much has Israel and the Anglo-Zionist empire gained from having an enemy such as Iran to cry about on the world stage? The benefits are immense and I feel most of them are so obvious it’s not even worth mentioning here.
That’s very true what you say, and always worth considering. The Roth-child Saudi-Wahhabi regimes in the Arabian peninsula are for instance, as Anwar Khan says, pure Zionist satellites (colonies), while they more or less pretend otherwise towards the world and the Saudi tyrannized Arabs. The 1973 ‘oil crisis’ was for instance a complete hoax as well.
They might as well lay their (stolen) oil and gas pipelines right through Israel, Roth-child’s organized crime colony, and make it official.
No doubt Iran has a 5th column too, and the Anglo-Zionist empire wanted (and organized) war between Sunnis and Shia (CIA agent Saddam’s Iraq-Iran War, civil war in Iraq, Syria), but Iran and Syria are independent and therefore enemies of the Zionist Satanists, like Trump and Netanyahu (Putin’s best friend) by definition.
Thank you Anwar for taking the time to write this critique in response to Blake Williams’s apologia for Waliyic Islam. Needless to say I have benefited from the both of you. I also have to thank you for the other articles articulating the Sunni point of view on this blog. I agree with what you said in those articles.
And not least, thanks again Saker for giving space to Muslim voices and for hosting a diversity of opinion on this one blog.
Basil,
Your welcome. I am happy you found it useful.
Can anyone identify the person in the picture? (the bearded gentlemen in the white hood and cloak).
A caption would be nice.
It is Emir Abdelkader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emir_Abdelkader
It was at this point that Abdelkader came to the fore. At a meeting of the western tribes in the autumn of 1832, he was elected Emir, or Commander of the Faithful. The appointment was confirmed five days later at the Great Mosque of Mascara. Within a year, through a combination of punitive raids and careful politics….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emir_Abdelkader
Salam picquestion,
Another Caliph supposedly chosen by Will of Allah to be the Emir / Leader / Commander of the Faithful (Believers), through Force, Raids, Swords….
Best regards,
Mohamed
“Five Ring of Circus”
This is the very first time I am hearing of the above on the Saker’s Blog. I believe it is figment of Imagination of Blake Willaims.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Mohamed,
“This is the very first time I am hearing of the above”
Not surprised at all. It only shows your education. Just because we are courteous and don’t answer your gibberish, doesn’t mean you have a point. By now I thought you would have understood why I don’t answer your unintelligible and totally uninformed comments. But it seems you have not got it. Please do not pettifog the discussion here with your 3rd grade material. I suggest you find some other forum where your sectarian comments will get you some mileage. You are wasting your time here.
And don’t be a moron and assume I am from Pakistan. I am from Afghanistan. Does Gabriel descend on you and feed you revelation?
Not really sure how the moderators allow this guy to spam the comments section with his infantile stuff every time an Islam related article is posted. Beyond me.
Anwar Khan
For example, Sunni mosques should be allowed to have minarets and amplifiers for their called to prayer (Azan).
Anwar Khan is a Pakistani name either a Paktu/Patan or Punjabi . I don’t know where are you getting your information on Iran, as your information is mostly from Tafkiri/Satanic Website.
What is the difference with the Shia and the Sunni Azan?
Can you please explain me?
Also, while you are at it, can you please give the source of your Information?
Link? Or, it is just Tafkiri/Satanic Propaganda.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/02/11/466290011/the-precarious-existence-of-irans-sunni-muslims
Sunni mosques have amplifiers in Sunni dominated areas like Irani Kurdistan. but not in Shia dominated areas.
I have contact with many Iranian Sunnis in Iran so I don’t rely on NPR only.
As for your infantile questions about Shia/Sunni azan, I think you should grow up Mohamed. It’s about time.
Salam Mohamed
There are errors and mistakes, and statements that either borrow from or are regurgitated propaganda throughout. I thought I’ll take the trouble, but don’t see any use. I guess the only good reason would be that readers would not take away propaganda as facts just because it’s presented like a research paper (albeit without any sources). But then if someone is willing to believe what the author is saying, like some fanboys are doing, then they are also beyond reason.
To summaries, what the article is saying is if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, it’s a duck
But where Iran is concerned, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, it’s not a duck
I also agree with your point that wahabism is just 2-3 centuries old and Sunnis are using it as a scape goat for their actions since the inception of Islam. And of course, then you will get the argument that the Shia killed imam Hussein and we go on and on
I’m going to watch the houthi video again, warms my heart that those with honour are fighting for what’s right.
Thank you, you are more of a partisan of Ali than me
Regurgitated propaganda
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-iran-defense-minister.html?_r=0
And your point is?
Didn’t Anwar state in the article that Saudi Arabia is a Zionist satellite.
Anwar Khan,
articulating the Immaculate Guardianship to the other partners is something that will not simply wash.
The Wilayat al-Fiqhue has Nothing to do with Immaculate Guardianship. If William Blake claims that is Immaculate Guardianship, then he is not a Shia and no Shia will agree with him.
The Wilayat al-Fiqhue is a political system which is run by Fallible Islamic Scholars in Iran and has nothing to do with Immaculate Guardianship. The Shia of Iran, like the other Shia throughout the World, use the Taqlid System. I am not from Iran, but most Iranians like me do the Taqlid of Ayatollah Sistani, who is based in Iraq.
The problem lies not knowing your own Books or the Books of Shia.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3B6MGqWkpMk