Posted on 09/07/2006 4:59:34 AM PDT by Marius3188
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the definitive presence of traditional Shi'ite Islam, has warned that he "no longer has power to save Iraq from civil war", and has withdrawn from politics (see Iraq loses its voice of reason, Asia Times Online, September 6).
ATol's Sami Moubayed reported, "If Sistani lives up to his word, this means silencing the loudest - and only - remaining voice of reason and moderation in Iraqi politics." He noted that Sistani's followers have transferred loyalty toward the Iranian-controlled warlord Muqtada al-Sadr.
That Iraq would break up in bloodshed has seemed predestined since late 2003, when I predicted civil war and eventual partition (Will Iraq survive the Iraqi resistance? December 23, 2003). But the collapse of Sistani's influence is news indeed. It portends the end of Islam in the Persian Gulf, as much as pope Pius XII's virtual incarceration in the Vatican during World War II augured the end of Christianity in Europe.
On the face of it the notion that Islam is in jeopardy seems absurd. Muqtada al-Sadr is a Shi'ite cleric of fanatic persuasion, close to and perhaps wholly owned by the fanatical mullahs of Tehran. But Islam is not defined by political allegiance, nor by a specific set of doctrines, but rather by a way of life. In the case of Islam it is the life of traditional society embedded in a circle of spears directed outward against the leveling empires. More than any man alive, Sistani personifies the traditional life of Islam. The end of his mission implies that his followers are thrust onto the stage of the modern world in the cruelest form, in this case a civil war of attrition. Islam, as Sistani teaches it, cannot survive the shock.
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
So if the governmnet goes after al sadar it is civil war?
There are times when Spengler sounds as if he has gone native (or is close to doing so).
I think that depends on how nasty and long 'going after al sadr' is.
When Massachusetts when after Shay, or the new Federal government went after the 'Whiskey rebels', it was quick and easy and wasn't a civil war. From the Northern point of view, the "Late Unpleasantness" was (though I incline to the Southern view that it wasn't, despite having been born in the North--the South being correct on the issue of state's rights, even though they were wrong on slavery).
Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.
We are witnessing the greatest anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life collective in the history of civilization.
We are not battling a "way of life".
We are battling destroyers of truth, destroyers of freedom, destroyers of individuals, destroyers of life. We are battling the irrational, the deceivers, the mindless.
It is our greatest battle.
This is very, very bad news. It means that Sadr is now the de facto leader of all of the Shiites in Iran. We have to kill him right away and knock down his militia, to give the government a chance.
That's part of why he's worth reading: he often 'gets' what the natives are about.
Of course, there is a subtext, which Spengler subtly omits, but which the astute reader may glean (and it is not comforting): reread his description of Islam. If Islam really is the defense of 'traditional', that is 'tribal' life against a modernity that encompasses even the Eastern Roman Empire (not usually thought of a modern), then it is the defense of barbarism against civilization, and that from its very foundation.
I'm not sure Spengler is spot on about that.
Taking his analysis as a staring point, though, one can see Mohammed's authoring of his jury-rigged scriptures and imposition of a rigid monotheism, which wasn't part of traditional tribal life (before Mohammed, the Khabbah contained the idols of each pagan Arab tribe, as well as Torah scrolls for the Jewish Arab tribes, and icons for the Christian Arab tribes), as paralleling the Meiji construction of the Emperor-cult in Japan as an attempt to strengthen national unity by providing a single focus of worship not previously present in the society whose traditions were supposedly being defended.
One could reasonably argue that Islam and the Meiji reconstruction of Japanese society represent partial modernizations in defense of an older society, but notice, both became visciously aggressive and expansionistic. For that matter, one can argue the same about revolutionary Iran, as Spengler almost does in this piece, and see that it is following the same pattern.
The Japanese model gives some hope that after a very nasty defeat, it may be possible for Islam to properly modernize and turn pacific, but one wonders what kind of defeat it would have taken to do the same to Imperial Japan had they not taken on the US in 1941 (or followed Yamamoto's original plan and occupied Hawaii, and thereby won the Pacific War) and the "Greater-East-Asian Coprosperity Sphere" had been established and the Emperor-cult had lasted centuries, rather than decades? The next few decades may make the Thirty-Years War look like a jolly picnic.
On a more cheerful note, Persian Islam, pre-Khomeini, was fairly peaceful the past few centuries (as compared with say Turkish Islam), so only a moderately nasty defeat should be needed to pacify Iran.
This Spengler guy is a crackpot, and I'm suprised more people reading this haven't seen it. He made some decent points, but trashing Mark Steyn in favor of Juan Cole should require a barf alert.
Sistani represented Islam, the real religion that permeates the lives of believers. . . . I wrote of him two years ago (Why Islam baffles America, April 16, 2004). His website, as I reported at the time, contains detailed instructions for regaining ritual purity after sodomy with an animal . . .
I know I'm about to break Godwin's Law, but here goes:
Jihad = struggle
Kampf = struggle
Mein Kampf = My jihad
Jihad = evil
It's doing well in South Korea. The trick is to avoid a state church while allowing freedom of speech.
And you believe THIS guy? LoL
There was no constitutional right to secede. There were no "states' rights" being infringed by the Union. The South's case was a complete lie pushed by lunatics and tyrants.
Does that mean we can now kill Fat Bastard, aka al-Sadr?
Anyone who can write the crap you quoted is clueless, a liar or an actual convert.
You never win a war by planning to fight the enemy to a "draw" and looking at him as something other than the enemy.
Interesting article. I've heard something similar to this:
"It is a fallacy to imagine that a deeply religious Muslim world confronts a secular West. On the contrary, Islamic radicalism is a response to a deep - I believe fatal - crisis of faith in the Muslim world."
in several other places as well. It rings true to me. The 9/11 bombers, the London bombers, and many others, were not traditional Muslims, but for the most part fully secularized men of a Muslim background. They womanized, drank alcohol, many used drugs, and so on. And then they hated themselves for turning their backs on their traditions and so took up jihad to redeem themselves. Islam, in its traditional form, and I'm not sure that there really is any other form, is essentially incompatible with the modern western world. Heck, the modern world has become increasingly incompatible with the Christian faith that it sprang out of.
I'm not sure what all this tells us, or what course of actions it suggests, but it is interesting nonetheless.
That would certainly explain why the terrorists seem to be from among the more educated, and many live in the secular West.
A simpler explanation is that Iraq now has a functioning central government. What need is there for a Shia Holy Man acting like a Medieval Pope? None. So Sistani withdraws into his proper (modern) role as a religious leader -- nothing more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.