NAJAFI

Britain the “Old Fox”

2011-12-04T00:18:00.003Z

Only a few days ago the Iranian students attacked the British Embassy and the “Gholhak Garden”, a large compound belonging to the British government, in Tehran. Doors and windows were broken, cars were damaged, slogans were written on the walls and files were confiscated. A similar incident took place more than three decades ago shortly after the Islamic revolution where similarly the students invaded the US Embassy in Tehran and took the American employees as hostages. Although the incident at the US Embassy was an initiative triggered by the so called revolutionary students the action was later approved by Ayatullah Khomeini.

The silly students managed to mix politics with religion yet again when they began to wave “Ya Hussain” flags outside the Embassy during the raid. One must ask them if this is how our Prophet or Imams ever behaved even with their enemies. The amusing part is when a young Shaikh lead the noon prayers inside the “Gholhak Garden”. It is ironic as according to Islamic law it is actually forbidden to pray on a land taken by force and indeed a Muslim is required to seek the permission of the land’s owner before performing his/her prayers.

Since the revolution in Iran the US has been labeled as the “Great Satan” and the enemy of the Iranian nation, hence all relations between the two countries were ended after the fall of the Pahlavi regime. The Iranians have the same kind of feelings towards the British regime too and “death to the UK” often comes after “death to the US” here in Iran but yet the British managed to maintain a diplomatic relation with Iran after the overthrow of Shah. The Iranians accuse the British of bringing Shah to power. They also believe that the UK was taking advantage of their country at the time of Shah and that all the problems Iran has faced since the revolution or even before were and are actually exported from the UK and therefore they despise the British regime.

The attack on the British Embassy and the “Gholhak Garden” came a day after the Iranian parliament asked the Iranian government to reduce its diplomatic ties with the British government. The Iranian regime has been specifically annoyed with the stance of the UK during the last Iranian election and the role BBC Persian played to cover and perhaps encourage the failed uprising. Though they seem to forget that it was the same BBC broadcasting the speeches of Khomeini before the 1979 revolution. The government has now two weeks to implement the request of the parliament. In basic words the British ambassador needs to be expelled by Iran and the Iranian ambassador in the UK needs to be called back to Tehran.

There were doubts if the government was actually going to implement the decision of the parliament however thanks to the Iranian students who attacked the British Embassy in Tehran, this process of expulsion and calling back of the ambassadors took place even sooner and rather than just the ambassadors ending their mission it was all the diplomats returning to their home country. A day after the mess created by the students, Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, called for calm and ironically at the same time justified the attack! Even the national TV reacted by broadcasting a documentary blaming the British regime for almost everything and again justifying the action of the students.

It is no surprise that when you have a regime that brainwashes the people through lies, censored and selected media and misuse of their emotions and further encourages such actions and violence, its nation behave in this way. Of course this is a generalisation and not all Iranians are brainwashed or despise the UK; I have personally witnessed the long queues outside the Embassy for visa applications. Sadly these people now may have to travel to another country to obtain a visa if they wish to travel to the UK.

Post-2003 and post-1979, what Iraq did not do right

2011-11-12T14:41:00.006Z

It has been almost nine years since the fall of the Ba’th regime in Iraq and I seek to compare the post-2003 Iraq to post-1979 Iran and find out why Iraq has not achieved much so far comparing to its neighbouring country Iran. One must admit that Iraq has achieved nothing significant except the obvious regime change in Baghdad. This begs the question as to how Iraq is different to Iran and what did Iran do right after the revolution that Iraq did not after the invasion.

In contrary to Iran, where Ayatullah Khomeini led the revolution, in Iraq various opposition groups with different beliefs and backgrounds came to power after the invasion in 2003. In Iran everyone was united behind Khomeini and determined to overthrow Shah and when he was overthrown Khomeini simply came in charge with no struggle for power. This perhaps allowed Khomeini to take authority and undermine other opposition groups such as Mujahedin-e Khalq Organisation and thus focus on the progress of the newly born Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact after the revolution Iran went a step further and the then PM, Mir Hossein Mousavi, set up a committee, with Abdullah Noori in charge, to cleanse governmental organisations from each individual that did not share the same Islamic or political beliefs as Khomeini. In Iraq however I feel there is perhaps lack of authority, division and conflict of interest between different political parties. Although logically having different parties and an opposition in a country’s political system should encourage competition and transparency therefore progress, this does not apply to Iraq. In Iraq the different parties indeed slow down the progress of rebuilding the country as each party is fighting hard to get its own share of the cake and often forgets what is best for the country. Instead of focusing on rebuilding Iraq the former opposition parties now in power focus on what ministries they need to take control of and how much they can benefit from them. The parties are unwilling to compromise and as a result we witnessed Iraq breaking world records by taking more than nine months after the election in March 2011 to form a government.

This authority of Khomeini was also passed on to others who he had appointed to carry out certain tasks within the new regime. A prime example of this is Sadiq Khalkhali aka the “hanging judge”, who was appointed by Khomeini as a judge to carry out trials or not and give out sentences. Inheriting this authority from Khomeini, Khalkhali started his job by going after high ranking officials of the Shah’s regime in addition to attending prisons and sentencing individuals. Khalkhali was merciless and often sentenced everyone, ex-officials as well as ordinary prisoners, to death. Many believe he was mentally unstable and certainly not just. Khalkhali executed many based on no evidence or reason and once the victim was found to be innocent, Khalkhali would simply say the victim is now a “martyr”. He even signed his own execution sentence by accident! Although handing over authority to people such as Khalkhali would seem unfair and cruel, Khalkhali indeed made sure that the former officials and the supporters of Shah paused no threat to the new regime. Where as in Iraq, perhaps due to the US intervention, the ex-Ba’thists not only received fair trials but some were even given government posts. This fact has not only wasted the government’s resources but has also led to the strength of newly oppositions and formerly Ba’thists, in Iraq and abroad. Surely this Ba’thi influence within Iraq and the Iraqi government delays the progress of rebuilding the country to say the very least. Yes Iraq tried to get rid of the Ba’thists by setting up committees to investigate individuals but Iraq being Iraq, it seems that those committees were pursuing their own political agenda rather than actually doing their job by pointing out the Ba’thists.

Another factor to mention that played a significant role in the success or not of the two countries is sectarianism or the religion of their population. In Iraq the Shi’as have the majority with over 60%, however there is also a very large population of Sunnis along with other minorities. The fact that this country of a Shi’a majority was ruled by a cruel sectarian Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussain, for over three decades, has led to the sectarianism of the post-2003 Shi’a led governments in Baghdad. Of course the sectarianism of these Shi’a led governments has then led to the sectarianism of Sunni parties and groups and so on and so forth. Sectarianism in Iraq does not end within the Iraqi government but extends to its neighbouring countries such as Saudi, Iran, Syria and Jordan. Since the very early days after the US invasion of Iraq, Iran, a Shi’a government, has been funding Shi’a militias in Iraq such as Jaish Al-Mehdi to cause trouble in their homeland. The intention of Iran is perhaps to fight the US troops and make their job harder however these militias have also often been involved in targeting Sunnis. Similarly Wahabbi countries like Saudi have been funding terrorism in Iraq since 2003 in order to avoid another strong Shi’a led government in the region. The victims of the terrorism exported from Saudi, Syria and Jordan, are often Shi’a civilians. In contrast to Iraq, Iran was ruled as a Shi’a country both at the time of Shah and after the Islamic revolution. Iran also benefits from a very large Shi’a majority of over 90% of the population. Although some reports have suggested that the Iranian regime has been sectarian towards some minorities in Iran, the fact that these minorities are very small in size, leads them to be totally harmless to the regime and incapable of destabilising the country.

In conclusion I believe that what has led to the failure of Iraq after the invasion is the lack of authority, corruption, culture, sectarianism and the interference of the neighbouring countries. However once compared to Iran, in order to be fair to Iraq we must mention that the post-2003 government in Iraq inherited a country that was destroyed by Saddam, wars and sanctions. Where as in Iran Khomeini inherited a very strong and advanced country that was left behind by the Shah.

A holy pilgrimage or a journey of fear?

2011-08-13T23:44:00.017+01:00

Millions of Muslims visit Saudi Arabia every year to pay their respect to the holy Prophet of Islam in Medina and also visit the house of God in Makkah. Also in Medina are buried four of the Shi’a Muslim Imams as well as a few other respectable and known figures of Islam.

Immediately after landing in Jeddah I took the plane to Medina to start the pilgrimage. Saudi is famous for its teachings of Wahhabism and extremism. Though I must admit I was surprised at first as I arrived in Jeddah Airport when I saw a woman driving the airport bus. Till today Saudi Arabia has not issued a driving license to any woman in this country. As a Shi’a you can always be sure that at some point along your journey in Saudi Arabia you would face some difficulties. The extremism could be sensed before you even get here from the Heathrow Airport where most of the male passengers are often wearing short dishdashas and have long beards and the females are wearing niqabs.

As I got to Medina I went to the hotel and after a bit of rest made my way to Baqee’, a cemetery where the four Shi’a Imams are buried next to each other, not far away from the Prophet’s mosque. Years ago the shrine of these Imams was destroyed by the Wahhabis and now it’s only four graves with a stone on each. The Saudis have also installed barriers and do not allow the visitors, mainly Shi’as, to get close to the graves. After reading some prayers I left Baqee’ and entered the Prophet’s mosque where he is buried. Luckily I managed to find a place between his pulpit and his house (also in the mosque, inside which he rests). According to a narration from the Prophet this specific place, between the pulpit and the house, is part of the heaven.

It didn’t take a few minutes before I was told off for my religious practices; the way I pray, prostrating on a wooden mat and praying in the afternoon. Apparently a fake Wahhabi hadeeth states that we should not pray in the afternoon (between A’sr and Maghreb prayers)! The next day I was told off again but this time in Baqee’. The Wahhabi preachers were going around the cemetery and confiscating visitors’ prayer books and often escorting them out of the cemetery for reading prayers. I was lucky that I was actually using my mobile phone and not a prayer book to be confiscated. The Wahhabi preacher approached me and told me to shut the phone and put it in my pocket. Of course Baqee’ was not the only place in Saudi that any belief other than Wahhabism was condemned. When I visited the cemetery of Ohud, where the Prophet’s uncle, Hamza, was martyred and is buried, I heard the preachers publicly cursing the Jews and Christians!

In Medina I was speaking to a young driver that also worked for the Hajj Ministry who told me that most visitors in Saudi come from Iran then Turkey and Iraq. It is interesting that despite the fact that most visitors of Saudi Arabia are Shi’as and despite their contribution to the economy of this country, yet the Shi’as face much difficulties here.

On the way to Masjid Al-Haram from the Tan’eem mosque for my second Umra, I met a Saudi man from Ehsaa’, a province where mainly Shi’as reside, who said, “you got rid of Saddam but we are yet to get rid of Al Saud, pray for us”. A few days later I was invited by a prominent Shi’a Saudi scholar outside Makkah and he was telling us about the demonstrations in Qatif, another Shi’a province, for over four months now which have received no coverage from the media. Despite these disapprovals or disagreements with the regime it is interesting how King Abdullah of Saudi is portrayed as a beloved ruler of the country. In all three cities that I visited, Jeddah, Medina and Makkah, there were massive banners hanging from school buildings, offices and houses welcoming the King back from his US visit and also wishing him a good health.

In Makkah I was praying in Masjid Al-Haram when I noticed this Wahhabi preacher in front of me whispering “evil creatures, Shi’as”. Makkah was somehow different from Medina though. Although the hatred for Shi’as still exists, they do not get picked on as often as in Medina.

After spending almost two weeks in Saudi Arabia I concluded that in Saudi race and colour make no difference, what does make a difference is one’s faith and the length of his beard! The longer one’s beard is, the more authority he has over others with a shorter beard. There are many people from Pakistan and India with long beards in the mosque sitting day and night telling other people off, sometimes even the Arabs!

In memory of my beloved uncle Sayed Abdul Majid Al-Khoei

2011-01-19T20:33:00.017Z

It feels like yesterday. It was a Thursday afternoon and I had just come home from school. It was the anniversary of the demise of my grandfather and the martyrdom of my uncles, Sayed Muhammed Taqi and Sayed Ibrahim. Father had already left for Qom that morning to attend the anniversary and because of school, I had to stay in Tehran with the rest of the family.

We hadn’t heard from my father since his departure and we couldn’t get through to him by phone. We tried and tried but that only worried us more. A few hours before Maghreb my cousin called our house from Qom and told us that my uncle, Sayed Abdul Majid, who had just returned to Najaf a few days earlier after the fall of the Ba’thi regime in Iraq, had been shot and taken to a hospital in Najaf. He asked us to pray for my uncle’s health and said he will call us again. It did not take long before he called us again to inform us that my uncle was murdered in Najaf. There are no words to describe what we were going through at that moment.

I was only two years old when my youngest uncle Sayed Ibrahim was kidnapped from Najaf by the Ba’thi regime and was never seen again. I was three when my grandfather, the Grand Ayatullah Sayed Abulqasim Al-Khoei, passed away and only five years old when my uncle, Sayed Muhammed Taqi, was assassinated, again by the Ba’thi regime, in a set-up car accident on his way back to Najaf from his routine visit to Karbala on Thursday nights.

Unfortunately due to my young age and the fact that we were living in Iran when my grandfather and the two uncles were living in Iraq, and travelling back and forth was not feasible because of the Iran-Iraq war, I never had the opportunity to meet any of them. The only uncle from my father’s family I was ever able to meet was Sayed Abdul Majid, my father’s younger brother. He was forced to flee Iraq because of his role in the 1991 Intifadha and lived in London in exile.

After hearing the tragic news and as we were all still in shock, we prepared to pray the Maghreb and Isha’ prayers and leave for Qom. Eight years later I still remember exactly how hard and impossible it was trying to control myself and concentrate on my prayers. No-one could believe it yet. It was only a couple of days ago when he called my father from Najaf upon his arrival and asked for me and said I should join him in Najaf.

We reached Qom and went to my cousin’s house where everyone had gathered to mourn my uncle’s martyrdom. It was then when I found out how brutally he was assassinated, not only with gun shots but also with swords and knives. It was then when I found out that he was never even taken to the hospital. I remember all the friends and scholars who had came to pay their respect and all the phone calls we received from the people giving their condolences. At that moment my family were also very concerned about my uncle’s friends who had accompanied him to Iraq and were trying to make arrangements for them to return to their homes as soon as possible.

The commemorating of his martyrdom lasted for more than a week with programmes organised in different cities including Tehran, Qom and Mashad by our family as well as other friends and organisations.

I remember when the Iranian national state TV reported my uncle’s martyrdom and all they reported was, “according to Al-Jazeera Arabic news channel, Sayed Abdul Majid Al-Khoei, son of Grand Ayatullah Al-Khoei, was murdered in Najaf”. They never mentioned how and why. I even remember when we had given the news to an Iranian newspaper backed by the Iranian government to publish, they asked us to provide an official letter from Bonyad-e Shaheed, (Martyr’s Organisation), if we wish to call him a martyr. Bonyad-e Shaheed is a governmental organisation in Iran which officially confirms one’s martyrdom. I wonder if each of the Wahabbi (anti-Shi’a) Palestinians who are referred to as martyrs on the Iranian state TV and newspapers have their individual letter confirming their martyrdom from Bonyad-e Shaheed.

Due to political reasons the Iranian regime was not much in favour of my uncle. He often publicly disagreed with the concept of Wilayat Al-Faqih Al-Mutlaqa, a theory in Shi’a Islam that was the fundamental idea behind the formation of Islamic Republic of Iran even though it is rejected by the large majority of the Shi’a scholars including my grandfather. Understandably it was a pain for the Iranian regime to see the son of one of the greatest Shi’a scholars who had even more followers in Iran than Sayed Khomeini and the Secretary-General of the international Al-Khoei Foundation to disagree with what is the basis of their regime.

The propaganda against my uncle in Iran started even before his martyrdom. I remember a newspaper falsely claiming that my uncle had tried to meet the Grand Ayatullahs in Najaf upon his arrival but was rejected. Of course this was later denied by the Grand Ayatullahs. The article had described my uncle as “a man in the clerical robe” in its title! This propaganda and obvious hate against him did not stop even with his martyrdom and went on to the extent that Shaykh Hashemi Rafsanjani, the Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran at the time, extended an official invitation to Muqtada Al-Sadr, who had ordered the assassination of my uncle, to visit the Islamic Republic.

Muqtada Al-Sadr is the son of Sayed Muhammed Al-Sadr who was backed by Saddam’s regime to establish his Marja’eeya to oppose the Marja’eeya of the prominent scholars in Najaf. Saddam’s regime was specifically looking for an Arab Shi’a scholar who would take side with their regime and oppose the other Shi’a scholars in Najaf, many of whom came from an Iranian background. Given that the Al-Sadr family are originally Lebanese, the Iraqi regime first went to Sayed Hussain Al-Sadr the son of Sayed Ismail and the son-in-law of Sayed Muhammed Baqir Al-Sadr, one of the students of Sayed Abulqasim Al-Khoei who had a lot of popularity in Iraq but was kidnapped and later martyred by the Ba’thi regime. Of course Sayed Hussain’s close relationship with Sayed Muhammed Baqir Al-Sadr and his Arabic background made him the perfect candidate for the Ba’thi regime but Sayed Hussain Al-Sadr refused to cooperate with the regime. It was only then that Saddam’s regime turned to Sayed Muhammed Al-Sadr, who cooperated with the Ba’thi regime but was later assassinated by them.

While those who had accompanied my uncle to Iraq had already told us that it was Muqtada Al-Sadr behind the assassination, many more eye witnesses came forward and were met by my father and other family members in Najaf just a few months after, only to confirm what we already knew. Although it was very clear who had ordered the assassination and who had carried it out, our family did not take any actions and waited for more than a year for the Iraqi courts to investigate the case. A year later when the Iraqi courts came to the conclusion that Al-Sadr was indeed behind the assassination, an arrest warrant was issued for Muqtada Al-Sadr in April 2004 by the Iraqi judge Raed Al-Juhi. However unfortunately it was too late then. Thanks to the Iranian regime that by then had trained Muqtada Al-Sadr and had helped him both in terms of weapons and money to form his militia, Jaish Al-Mehdi, which had many members, many of whom were ex-Saddamists.

Eight years later Muqtada Al-Sadr has already left and returned to Iraq several times without being arrested. His Sadrist bloc has about thirty nine seats in the Iraqi parliament with several ministries. On a few occasions my uncle’s assassination case was used politically against Al-Sadr for the personal interests of certain Iraqi politicians, many of whom were so called friends of my uncle in exile. These politicians include Al-Ja’fari, Al-Rubaie, Al-Chalabi and even Al-Maliki, politicians who have no shame, dignity and honour.

I was lucky enough to meet Sayed Abdul Majid during his visits to Iran and a few others to other countries. I can never forget his kindness, generosity and smiles. I remember his patience with me when we often debated about issues we disagreed on. Even though I was only a kid at the time and very young, I remember how he used to take me seriously in the debates to encourage me and give me confidence and at the same time I remember when he told me with the smile on his face, “do not take these debates too seriously to upset yourself”. I remember his humbleness whether he was meeting a Grand Ayatullah or a stranger asking for help.

It wasn’t till 2009 when I was finally able to visit my uncle's grave for the first time in Najaf, a city which he loved and cared for. A city he went back for to rebuild. Even during those few short days after his return to Najaf, he had already started his work by arranging clean water supplies and other resources for Najaf. He re-opened the holy shrine of Imam Ali and protected the city by keeping the US forces out of the “old city”, Wilaya. Hadn’t he done so, he could have still been with us today. It is a shame he never got the chance to finish what he had started. He had no intentions to get involved in the politics of post-Saddam and was going to officially announce it during a press conference later on the same day as he was assassinated.

Now he is buried in Najaf and I am living in London and yet once again we are apart. May Allah bless his soul and the soul of his parents and martyred brothers.

No matter how many years pass, you shall never be forgotten and your blood will stay on the hands of Muqtada Al-Sadr and the Sadrists forever. Let us pray for that day when justice is finally served.

[003.054] And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and God too planned, and the best of planners is God.

One more criminal back in Iraq

2011-01-12T16:22:00.010Z

So Muqtada Al-Sadr is back in town. The leader of the Sadrist parliamentary bloc returned to Najaf on 5^th of January after spending more than 3 years in Iran. Al-Sadr left Iraq in 2007 and went to Qom to study Islamic studies and apparently reach the status of Ayatullah by 2011, or that was the excuse.

Al-Sadr previously tried to visit Iraq early last year before the elections but once the Sadrists found out that the arrest warrant against Al-Sadr and his crew was passed by the government to all the Iraqi borders, he reconsidered the visit and stayed in Iran. In April 2004 an arrest warrant was issued by the Iraqi judge Raed Al-Jouhi against Muqtada Al-Sadr and many of his aids for their involvement in the assassination of Sayed Abdul Majid Al-Khoei a year earlier in Najaf; however for political reasons it was never put into practice.

On the Saturday after his return he was given a platform outside his house in Hannanah, Najaf, to address his supporters. Thousands of his fans, or at least who looked like his fans (as we know the Iraqi political parties and the Sadrists specifically have a history of bribing people to protest for their cause), had gathered in Najaf to see what Muqtada has to say.

It was finally the time to measure Iran’s success of 3 years of efforts to change Al-Sadr into Nasrullah of Iraq. The beginning was really good as you could see more people waving the Iraqi flag than those holding Muqtada’s pictures. That’s how it usually works in Lebanon. Then Muqtada came to the stage to deliver his speech. Surprisingly he waited for 4 minutes for his supporters to be quiet in order for him to speak. That is an amazing improvement given that in that past he has told his supporters off and referred to them as “the ignorants” for not being quiet when he wants to speak. I was already impressed with Iran’s job.

However as it is said you should not judge a book by its cover. Al-Sadr started by greeting his supporters followed by recitation of supplications/prayers and poetry (not a very pleasant voice)! One wonders if that is all he has learnt from Islam during those 3 years of study in Qom. I guess after all he has to at least pretend that he is more religious. It was after that when he switched back to his usual radical speeches. “To bother the occupiers”, Al-Sadr started with shouting out slogans such as “no to the US”, “no to Israel”, “no to occupiers”, “yes to resistance” and so on.

Although in my opinion his overall style of delivering the speech was quite different to the way it used to be, nevertheless you could often notice him using his usual catchy words such as “habibi”, my dear/love, while addressing his audience.

During his speech Muqtada said that the resistance could be in a military form or a cultural one. At the same time he insisted that the weapons should be left for the right people and not everyone should pick up one. Interestingly these guys have 39 seats in the Iraqi parliament with several ministries. The fact that they are part of the government I believe should be enough for them to either trust the Iraqi army and join them or just give up their weapons and focus on their so called cultural resistance. Al-Sadr also emphasised on the point that the resistance only fights the occupiers and does not shed Iraqi blood or kill Iraqi citizens. As pleasant and perfect that might sound, I am afraid that the sad reality is that the history of Al-Sadr, the Sadrists and Jaish Al-Mehdi, Al-Sadr’s illegal militia, contradicts Muqtada’s claims.

Al-Sadr continued with urging his followers to allow the government to prove that it is indeed serving the Iraqi nation. Focusing on the newly formed Iraqi government, he said that if the Iraqi government is serving the Iraqi nation (in terms of services, security and development) then we shall all be on the government’s side. The government must consider those projects that benefit the Iraqi nation as soon as possible, Muqtada said. Ironically enough, the Sadrists are indeed part of the government and yet Al-Sadr is coming up with this threatening attitude as if he is sitting in the opposition. What is also worth mentioning is the fact that the Sadrists, with a Minister of Sate and an acting Minister for Works and Planning, are in charge of the Construction and Habitat, Housing and Development, Labour and Social Affairs, Tourism and Antiquities and Water Resources ministries. These are the exact same ministries that should be providing services to the Iraqi nation but Al-Sadr chooses to address the Iraqi government rather than his own bloc for improving services. I can already see that day coming when this strange coalition breaks and Al-Sadr comes out to blame the government for not serving its nation.

While PM Maliki has already given too much to Al-Sadr, it seems that Al-Sadr is yet demanding for more and if Maliki fails to meet with the demands then he would have a tough time trying to stay in office. Maliki has already offered or bribed the Sadrists with 7 ministers, ignoring the arrest warrant against Muqtada and releasing many of Jaish Al-Mehdi and the Sadrists’ affiliates from jail, who by the way have been quoted saying “now we are waging a peaceful resistance against our enemies, not a military war, but I am ready to return to [violent] resistance at any moment if Muqtada asks me to”.

Before ending his speech with the request of the release of the “innocents” in jail, Al-Sadr mentioned one of the most interesting if not the most interesting point of his speech. Addressing his followers Al-Sadr said, “if you want me to be near you I must not hear anyone complaining about you what so ever, not from the Iraqis and not from those outside Iraq”. I suppose if people do indeed complaint about the Sadrists then Muqtada would be called back to Iran for further training.

On the same day as Muqtada Al-Sadr returned to Iraq, the new Iranian Foreign Minister who was born in Karbala, Iraq, was visiting Ammar Al-Hakim, Head of ISCI, in Baghdad. During the meeting the Iranian minister called for the visa requirements between Iraq and Iran to be lifted. In other words the Iranian Revolutionary Guard can freely travel to Iraq and back. Obviously this would make both the training of Muqtada Al-Sadr and Jaish Al-Mehdi much easier for the Iranian regime.

Osama Al-Nujaifi, a Sunni MP from Al-Iraqiyya and the new speaker of the parliament, met with Mehdi Al-Karbalai, the representative of Sistani, during his recent visit to Karbala. In the meeting Al-Nujaifi was quoted saying “we will meet all corrupts with a metal hand and we shall not care about their political affiliations”. Of course I wonder if that is the case then why Muqtada Al-Sadr is still walking around freely in Iraq!

A reply to "Hezbollah welcomes Ahmadinejad"

2010-11-11T21:38:00.010Z

So I received a reply to my earlier post and was asked to publish it. The following is the reply to what I had written earlier followed by my reply to it.

I feel it’s only fair that you allow me to state the opinion of the “other side” of the story.

Yes I am a Lebanese, and a fan of Hezbollah and Iran, and you might think that my opinion is a biased one based on a patriotic emotion. However, I can’t assure you that my emotions wouldn’t get involved in this response but then again, I’m not here to change your opinion about Hezbollah or Iran or so forth! So please bear with me and hear me to the end. I am not going to comment on every opinion you put forward, but mainly on the ones related to Lebanon and Hezbollah.

Noticeably, you have done your homework before you wrote this astonishing piece, which by the way, is very well written and covered almost every aspect of the visit. However, I am going to have to take you back about a week before the visit. Lebanon was going through a very difficult time with “Hariri case”, which has been predicted to could cause a civil war. This is something maybe missed by a non-Lebanese Shia, who is living happily in London to say “This came as a shock to me as Nasrullah is a Shi’a and in Shi’aism we believe Ayasha was a rebel to say the least”.

“A hand in water is not like hand in fire” - a famous Lebanese figure of speech. And for you to point a finger at the Sayed’s beliefs is something that can’t be elaborated on better then (Surah 49: Ayah 12). The Quran mentions the wives of the prophet as mothers of believers, and whether it’s metaphoric or not; it is mentioned. For all you know, the Sayed could have used it as a metaphor too!

Since you are not Lebanese, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but just so you know, less than one week after the speech, LBC channel broadcasted their talk show Kalam An-Nass, in which they asked a group of youth from the Alawite, Sunni, Shiite and Christian communities: “Will you face Hezbollah if it decided to react using arms over the indictment?” And also aired testimonies of victims of clashes between pro-government and Hezbollah gunmen in May 2008. Both Hezbollah and Jamaa Islamiya (Sunni group) condemned the episode, saying that it provoked sectarian sentiments and encouraged strife.

You have obviously misunderstood the message of what the Sayed was putting across, and in which he undoubtedly succeeded. Lebanon is currently very much in need for peace between religions as clearly there is an Israeli project taking place.

I do not know what goes on in Iraq, but I know for a fact that Ayatollah Khamenei has many followers and fans in Lebanon and his fatwas are most likely to stop “fitna” in Lebanon. Just to remind you this is Sayed Hassan Nasrullah speaking, the general secretary of Hezbollah – LEBANESE political movement. Now if Barack Obama, or Mrs. Clinton or the pope or I don’t know who condemns or jumps of the roof, is not going to mean much to the Lebanese, or Shias as a whole for that matter.

Also to add as a rule of thumb when giving a speech is mostly about good form, fit and style, this varies generally depending on the local situation. In this case, it was a visit by Iranian president to Lebanon; my simple brain tells me of course will mention Iranian leader’s fatwa which is most relevant for this occasion.

Moreover, I couldn’t stop laughing at your paragraph before last! Are you on a serious note here? If (god forbids) I was an Israeli, I wouldn’t hesitate to say the same, to save myself anymore disrepute.

Finally, something off the political tension here, I think the new born Ahmedinejad does have a lot of similarity look wise. Although, should have been named Mahmoud instead of Ahmedinejad, it’s only fair.

Wasalam,

My reply:

From what I understand you are implying that Lebanon is a unique case with high potential of civil war and Nasrullah called Ayasha as “Ummul Mo’mineen” to prevent this supposedly civil war. Let me start with telling you how the situation is in Iraq. Since the invasion we have had death on daily basis and at times it reaches hundreds; we have had Sunni militias killing Shi’as and Shi’a militias killing Sunnis; we have had Sunni and Shi’a mosques being blown up; we have had the pilgrims to the holy cities of Iraq such as Najaf and Karbala being slaughtered and blown up; and we had the tragic terrorist attack on the holy Shi’a shrine of Samarra. Each of these on its own is as capable as the Hariri’s assassination case if not more, to trigger a civil war. Now do you still think Lebanon is a unique case? Or do you not agree that Iraq has a very higher potential of civil war between Sunnis and Shi’as than Lebanon? Yet did we ever hear Ayatullah Sistani or other Shi’a figures in Iraq referring to Ayasha as “Ummul Mo’mineen”? And thank god they have still managed to stop the sectarian war between the Shi’as and Sunnis of Iraq.

Don’t get me wrong, by no means am I saying that we should disrespect Ayasha or any other individual and figure that is dear to the followers of another religion and faith. But calling her “Ummul Mo’mineen” is just unacceptable. If you want to really show your respect for her that is fine, you can just call her “Sayeda” Ayasha, but giving her the title of “the mother of the believers” is kind of going against Shi’aism.

Yes I did mention myself that the holy Quran refers to the wives of the Prophet as the mother of the believers but like I said, and you can check the tafseers of Quran, that is only a metaphor. As the tafseer of Al-Mizan suggests this metaphor is used to firstly make it clear that no one can marry the widows of the Prophet after him and secondly Muslims should respect Prophet’s wives. Taking Quran literally and calling Ayasha the mother of the believers, whether as a metaphor or not, is what Wahabbis do not Shi’as.

With regards to the condemnation letters of Ayatullah Khamenei, may I just remind you that the “fitnas” were taking place in the US and Iraq and had nothing to do with Lebanon. So for Nasrullah to give all the credit to Khamenei and claim that it was his wise condemnation that stopped the “fitnas” is wrong.

As for the burning of Quran, without a doubt Barack Obama and the US administration put in more effort to stop the “fitna” than did Khamenei. So one wonders why all the credit goes to Khamenei if you are honest, just and fair. And if he wants to only mention the Shi’as then why not mention Ayatullah Sistani as well who surely has the most followers in the Shi’a world and also condemned the action.

And as for the other “fitna”, the terrorist attack on the holy shrine of Samarra, it is very clear to everyone that it was indeed Sistani, perhaps the most influential person in Iraq and the Shi’a world, who stopped the sectarian war between Shi’as and Sunnis. Like I mentioned previously if anything it was actually Muqtada Al-Sadr and Jaish Al-Mehdi, the puppets of Iran, who started going around and killing the Sunnis.

I am really glad I could bring you a laugh but it is worth to mention that even MP Ismail Succariyeh, a member of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, says “it seems that the resistance captured and seized it (the rifle), in one of their border operations, perhaps before the liberation in 2000, or perhaps afterwards”. So before running off and calling this a lie why not first check with our own sources!

Hezbollah welcomes Ahmadinejad

2010-11-10T13:42:00.017Z

This post has long been overdue. Those following the news of Middle East would probably know that Ahmadinejad’s recent trip to Lebanon attracted alot of attention. Dr Ahmadinejad, the “democratically” elected president of Iran, made a historic trip to a country where Iran holds a great deal of influence and Power.

Hezbollah, the Lebanese political movement, was pretty much the idea of the Iranian regime and in specific the advisors to the Iranian leader in Tehran as well as the former Iranian ambassador to Syria. Since the creation of Hezbollah in the 1980s Iran has well funded, supported and even trained them and now it is all paying back! Hezbollah even owns its own militia in Lebanon which is trained by Iran and well fought against Israel in the 34 days long war during the summer of 2006.

Not very surprisingly Hezbollah alongside a few other Lebanese political movements and parties had organised a welcoming event for Ahmadinejad in Beirut, capital of Lebanon. This event was attended by politicians and religious figures as well as a large number of the ordinary Hezbollah fans. Of course the only person missing was Hassan Nasrullah, the general secretary of Hezbollah since 1992, who due to the threats of assassination by Israel does not appear in public. Nevertheless a live video conference had been arranged where by Nasrullah could appear on the large screen and welcome the Iranian president. As I was browsing through the TV channels, I came across Al-Jazeera Live which was broadcasting the event. I must admit Nasrullah’s speeches are very powerful and interesting, (it would be great to have him in your local mosque to deliver the Muharram lectures!), hence I decided to actually sit in front of the TV and watch his welcoming speech.

Nasrullah’s speech was very controversial for me to say the least thus I decided to listen to it one more time on Youtube and write this blog entry to express my humble opinion regarding his speech. Of course there is no need to mention that many Hezbollah and Iran fans would strongly disagree with such opinions.

Nasrullah first started his speech by welcoming and praising Ahmadinejad and Iran. He then went on to defend Iran and claimed what Iran wants in Palestine, Lebanon or other Arab countries is actually what those nations want themselves and there is no such thing as the Iranian agenda. Hassan Nasrullah said that “what Iran wants for Palestine is what the Palestinians want for Palestine” and “what Iran wants for Lebanon is what the Lebanese want for Lebanon, an independent Lebanon free from occupation”. This is very interesting as in another video also available on Youtube, which I believe was recorded in the 1990s after Nasrullah took over Hezbollah (although the uploader of the video claims that it was recorded in 1988), when Nasrullah is asked what his aim and ambition is he replies, “to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon but not an Islamic state on its own but part of the greater Islamic state of Iran”. This shows clearly how independent and free Nasrullah wants Lebanon to be. No matter how much Nasrullah or other Iranian supporters would like to deny the existence of the Iranian agenda in the region, there is no doubt that there is one and it is there to safeguard the interests of Iran alone.

During his speech he also gave too much credit to the Iranian leader, Ayatullah Khamenei, and his wise decisions. He praised Khamenei for the wise condemnation letter he had issued with regards to the burning of Quran in the US and how Khamenei managed to stop the “fitna”. What is funny is the fact that Ayatullah Sistani, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton as well as the Pope, all condemned the burning of Quran and probably put more effort than Ayatullah Khamenei to stop it yet Nasrullah did not mention any of these names! He also praised Khamenei for another wise condemnation letter issued after the terrorist bombings inside the holy shrine of Samarra, Iraq, where the two of the twelve Shi’a Imams are buried. Hassan Nasrullah claimed that Khamenei’s wise words stopped the sectarian war between the Sunnis and Shi’as of Iraq; however if you know anything about Iraq you would know that it was actually Sistani who stopped the sectarian war and not Khamenei who has no popularity between the Iraqis. If anything it was actually Muqtada Al-Sadr and his militia, Jaish Al-Mehdi, the puppets of Iran, who went out and started killing the Sunnis in Iraq after the terrorist bombings of the shrine in Samarra. And not to mention that Nasrullah blamed the Samarra bombing on Israel and America; sometimes I wonder if these people are fools or they just consider others as fool!

Towards the end of his speech he condemned a radical so called Shi’a cleric in London, who publically curses Ayasha, one of the wives of Prophet Muhammed. The interesting part was when Nasrullah referred to Ayasha as “Ummul Mo’mineen”, mother of the believers. This came as a shock to me as Nasrullah is a Shi’a and in Shi’aism we believe Ayasha was a rebel to say the least. Moreover history tells us that she led the battle of “Jamal”, camel, against Imam Ali, the first Shi’a Imam after the Prophet, during his caliphate. It is quite interesting because when you think about it Shi’as often refer to Imam Ali as “Amir Al-Mo’mineen”, prince of the believers, so when Nasrullah calls Ayasha, “mother of the believers”, then one starts to wonder who are the believers as clearly Ayasha and Imam Ali were not on the same path!! Yes I know Quran calls the wives of the Prophet as the mothers of the believers but that is only a metaphor and Quran explains later that this is because we cannot marry the Prophet’s widows after him; hence the example of mother is given. In Islam and Shi’aism in specific we do not take Quran literally (unlike extreme Wahabbis) and always look for the meaning, therefore it is unacceptable to call Ayasha who has led a battle against our Imam, the mother of the believers.

At the end of his speech Nasrullah thanked the Iranian leader, president Ahmadinejad and the Iranian nation for their support for Lebanon and the Lebanese nation. What is ironic is the fact that after last year's election in Iran it was indeed the Iranian nation who marched through the streets while shouting "NO to Gaza, NO to Lebanon, I will sacrifice my life for Iran!".

Nasrullah visited Ahmadinejad at the Iranian embassy in Beirut later as Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon continued. The two exchanged greetings and as a farewell gift, Nasrullah presented an Israeli rifle to Ahmadinejad which apparently had been seized from the Israeli soldiers during the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel. However later the Israeli army announced that the kind of rifle that was given to Ahmadinejad, FN-FAL 7.62 model, hasn't been used by the Israeli soldiers for the past 36 years! Who knows, maybe even your own puppet can trick you!

This historic visit of Ahmadinejad was well appreciated and celebrated by a Lebanese-Palestinian family living in southern Beirut, who decided to name their newborn baby “Ahmadnejad”!

Democracy is near absolute!

2009-06-21T13:18:00.013+01:00

Just a few days ago President Ahmadi Nejad told the Iranian nation that the democracy in Iran is near absolute. But is that really the case?!

Since last Saturday when the result of the Iranian election was announced, many have protested every day inside and outside Iran. People believe that Mousavi is the true winner of the elections and President Ahmadi Nejad cheated. Some also believe that Ayatullah Khamenei is behind all this. Because firstly the president can not do anything without the knowledge of the Leader and secondly by Ahmadi Nejad winning the election Ayatullah Khamenei proved to Rafsanjani (former President), Khatami (former President) and Mousavi (former PM), that it is indeed the Leader who has the absolute power and last say in the country.

So far during the protests about thirty people have been killed by the Basij, which operates under Sepah. A few days ago a mother and her daughter were among the seven people killed. What is funny is that the media which is controlled by the government claimed that the protestors started to fire shots first but actually these were normal people without any kind of weapon. An eye witness who was present in a protest some days ago at Hafte-e-Tir, Tehran, estimated the crowd to be about two millions. Faezeh Rafsanjani, (the daughter of former President), who was present in one of the protests, encouraged Mousavi's fans to stay on the streets till they get their rights.

Many of the oppositions to Ahmadi Nejad's government have been arrested including a cleric, Sayed Muhammed Ali Abtahi, the advisor to Khatami, the former President.

Every night you can hear people shouting "Allahu Akbar" and "death to the dictator"! For older people this brings back the memories of the revolution days about thirty years ago when the same kind of slogans were used against Shah and his regime.

Since the elections the Iranians have been unable to send or receive any text messages via their mobile phones. Also in the afternoons and at nights you can not reach any mobile phone till the next morning. Many websites such as Youtube, Facebook and BBC as well as hundreds of blogs which are some how connected to the reformists or report against the regime have been blocked. Also some satellite channels such as BBC Persian can not be viewed in Iran hence BBC was forced to change from Hotbird to Eutel Sat and Tele Star.

Yesterday during the Friday prayers which were performed by Ayatullah Khamenei himself, he criticized both Mousavi and Ahmadi Nejad and praised Rafsanjani and all four presidential candidates but also mentioned that his thoughts are closer to Ahmadi Nejad's than others. What is worth to mention is that Ayatullah Khamenei referred to all four candidates as pillars of the regime and revolution. This goes to show the true democracy in Iran.

During his speech Ayatullah Khamenei called for any protest or act of division to end but you could hear more "Allahu Akbar" yesterday night!

From the head of one of the branches of Bank Melli Iran in North Tehran to a normal employee in Tehran's Bazaar everyone is making fun of Ahmadi Nejad's absolute democracy.

Democracy reaches Iran too!

2009-06-07T01:50:00.010+01:00

It has been four years since Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad took over the office and became the president of Islamic Republic of Iran. Iranians generally have not had such a good time during these four years and now it is the time for them to go out on 12th of June and vote for their new president.

Out of the hundreds of Iranians who registered to be a candidate only four were approved by the Guardian Council (Shoraye Negahban). Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad, Mir Hossein Mousavi Khameneh, Mohsen Rezaee and Mahdi Karroubi are the only four candidates that were approved and are now running their campaigns and trying their best to collect as many votes as possible.

For the first time ever in the history of Islamic Republic of Iran candidates have been given time to have a one on one debate with their rivals live on the National TV. Perhaps the most interesting debate so far has been between the two strongest candidates, President Ahmadi Nejad and Mousavi. By law Ahmadi Nejad could be re-elected to lead Iran for another four years. Mousavi, the former prime minister of Iran at the time of Ayatullah Khomeini and now a reformist with the support of Hashemi Rafsanjani (the former president and the Chairman of the Assembly of Experts) and Khatami (former president), is possibly the biggest threat to Ahmadi Nejad's victory.

The debate started with Ahmadi Nejad criticizing Mousavi's campaign, his supporters and their attitude towards Ahmadi Nejad and the current government. Then it got more interesting when Mousavi started criticizing Ahmadi Nejad's foreign policy. Mousavi believed that Ahmadi Nejad shouldn't have arrested the fifteen British marines in 2007 and then just release them for no reason; to which Ahmadi Nejad replied that Mr. Blair wrote an apology letter and promised better relations with Iran. However later this was denied by a spokesman at the British foreign ministry. Mousavi then criticized Ahmadi Nejad for his claims when he said he was to be kidnapped during his trips to Iraq and Italy. Mousavi called such claims as lies and imaginations.

Ahmadi Nejad who seemed to have not much against Mousavi himself, started attacking his supporters. On many occasions he criticized Khatami's and Rafsanjani's governments and policies but at one point he started accusing Rafsanjani, his sons and Nategh Nouri (former interior minister and former chairman of the parliament) of stealing the government's money. Although this was against the rules of the debate, since those mentioned were not present to defend themselves but no one tried to stop Ahmadi Nejad or criticized him later.

It is crystal clear to everyone that both Rafsanjani and Nategh Nouri are quite wealthy but this was the first time ever that an official accuses them of stealing. Later Rafsanjani's office contacted the TV and asked for time to clarify the accusations against him.

Last night Ahmadi Nejad was debating his other rival Karroubi, a revolutionary and another reformist, chairman of the National Trust Party, former chairman and founding member of the Association of Combatant Clerics Party and the former chairman of the parliament. At the beginning Karroubi started defending Rafsanjani until Ahmadi Nejad started accusing Karroubi too of stealing. Ahmadi Nejad asked him where he had got the money from to buy such a big house in one of the best areas of Tehran. Karroubi didn't give a clear answer. He also revealed that Karroubi received about $300,000 from an Iranian businessman who is currently in jail for corruption. On the other hand Karroubi accused Ahmadi Nejad of ordering the central bank to pay $700m to a president of another country. Karroubi said that he will publish his proof after the election.

Ahmadi Nejad's last debate is on 8th of June with Mohsen Rezaee, a former military commander and currently the Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council.

Overall these debates have had no good to the people other than showing the true face of Islamic Republic of Iran and its officials. Democracy reached Iran too and for the first time ever an official as high ranking as the president accused another top official such as Rafsanjani who is as strong as the "Rahbar", Ayatullah Khamenei, of stealing the government's money. The more debates you watch the more you realise how messed the so called "Islamic Republic" is!!

Sistani, Marja'eeya and the Iraqi politics, how does it work?

2008-12-08T11:47:00.021Z

Ayatullah Sayed Ali Hussaini Sistani was born in Mashad, Iran in 1930. At the age of 21 he moved to Najaf to continue his religious studies that he had began in Mashad and Qom. He started his studies under Grand Ayatullah Abulqasim Al-Khoei and reached the level of "ijtihad". Sistani is one of the only three students of Al-Khoei who managed to get a written permission from him to prove their ijtihad. The other two being Shaikh Ali Falsafi and Sayed Taghi Ghommi. Falsafi was given the tiltle "Hujjatul Islam Wal Muslimin" by Al-Khoei but Sistani and Ghommi "Hujjatul Islam" only; which suggests that Falsafi is the most knowledgeable out of the three. However Falsafi never entered the field of marja'eeya and instead chose to travel to Mashad and teach in Al-Khoei's Hawza in Mashad.

After Al-Khoei's death the senior scholars, advisors and those in charge of the office of Al-Khoei all agreed that the next Grand Ayatullah they are going to choose has to be some one who is capable of handling the hawza of Najaf and and obviously is knowledgeable. Sistani was probably the best choice then. After Najaf chose Sistani a group of scholars gathered in a house in Tehran to approve the decision of Najaf. However Sistani couldn't see himself fit for this position and therefore a group of three or four of scholars including Shaikh Murtadha Borujerdi and Shaikh Ja'far Na'eeni had to go to him and convince him that it is his responsibility to take over and become in charge of the Shia community worldwide after Al-Khoei's death.

At the time and even in present it is very hard to choose the most knowledgeable as most of the Ayatullahs are all kind of on the same level of knowledge. This includes Khorasani, Sistani, Tabrizi and Ghommi. But Sistani was then announced as the next Grand Ayatullah and Shia leader by the office of Al-Khoei and other scholars. Untill 1994 he got help from the advisors of Al-Khoei who had a great influence in him.

After that he stayed in his house in Najaf and continued with his research and studies. He never entered politics and kept away from the Ba'ath Regime of Iraq. Sistani follows the same doctrine of his teacher Al-Khoei who believes that there is no political role for Ayatullah. Everything was fine untill 2003 when US attacked Iraq in order to remove Saddam. It was after that the things got abit confusing and people started to wonder what is Sistani's political role. Even now if you go to him and ask him about his political decisions/activities he would deny any involvment in politics but what we can see from outside is quite contradicting.

With no doubt Sistani is the most influencial leader in Iraq at the moment. During the first election SIIC (Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council) had Sistani's photos every where and in the background of every press conference of theirs. It is very interesting to know that there are only a few photos of Sistani around and he doesn't let anyone to take any photos of or with him. Very unsurprisingly SIIC managed to win the majority of the seats in the parliament. Sistani called this as misuse of his name and again insisted he has no political role. At the same time i remember Sayed Muhammed Bahrululoom, a senior and well respected Iraqi scholar and the father of the former Iraqi oil minister said "Sayed Sistani told everyone what is the length and width of the party they should vote for but he says i am not going to support any party in specific. All is left for him to do is to name the party!".

Many people including both Iraqi politicians and scholars are not very happy about Sistani's political decisions and activities. I personally believe that Sistani is very humble, religious and one of the most knowledgeable Ayatullahs out there but at the same time he is simple and very overprotective of his name and reputation and this is where i think the problem lies. Muhammed Ridh, Sistani's son who is in charge of his father's office in Najaf once in a private meeting said "one of the main differences of my father and his marja'eeya with the old marja'eeya of Najaf and Al-Khoei is that if they had come to a conclusion that something is wrong, they would never do it no matter how badly the public wants them to do it and if they had concluded that something is right they would do it no matter how badly the public doesn't want them to do it. But in my father's case we first have to see if something is right or wrong and then see what the public thinks and then we come to a conclusion". The problem is that unfortunately by the time they come to conclusion they always end up doing nothing or doing the wrong thing. In my belief Sistani is a "leader" and not a "follower" so i am not exactly sure as to why he needs to wait for people and see what their opinion is regarding everything he needs to do. Not forgetting the fact that he will be responsible on the day of judgement if he hasn't played his role well.

Dr Ali Al-Dabbagh, the spkesman of the Iraqi government was in London yesterday for a day long visit on his way to Washington. He seemed very unhappy about Ahmad Al-Safi's friday speech which commented on SOFA and Hameed Al-Khaffaf's approval of the speech. Both Al-Safi and Al-Khaffaf are linked with Sistani and his office. He said "i told them (Sistani) in the beginning to never get involved in details because once you do that, the mistakes happen". Sistani and his office have a very unique ability which is whenever they answer you, you could take the answer both as a "yes" or as a "no" and that is if they do answer you. Al-Dabbagh wasn't very happy about this and Sistani's political decisions. On the other hand he praised Ayatullah Al-Fayadh (one of the three maraji' in Najaf other than Sistani) for his latest letter that he issued to encourage the Iraqis to vote during the next election. Al-Dabbagh regarded Al-Fayadh as "brave". He agreed that Sistani should have taken Iran as the best example to look at and therefore not get involved in politics.

Situation will Stay like this unless a stronger marja' replaces Sistani which is very unlikely or Sistani decides to distance himself from politics and stick with religion only. In this way he will maintain his holiness again.

Wilayat Al Faqih

2008-11-17T00:07:00.034Z

What is "wilayat al faqih"? "wilayat al faqih" in Arabic means the "authority (guardianship) of the faqih (jurist)" over the ummah (Muslim community). Many think that only certain maraji' such as Ayatullah Khomeini and Khamenei believe in this authority in order to form a government and rule the country (Iran), however as a matter of fact every single Shia marja' believes in wilayat al faqih but to different extents.

Every marja' believes in "wilayat al faqih al hisbiya" which allows that certain marja' (faqih) to issue fatawa to guide the ummah, judge, collect khums etc on behalf of the Imam until his reappearance. Most of the maraji' believe in wilayat al faqih just to this extent and believe they don't have any other roles such as doing a revolution or forming an Islamic state as these could be only done by infallibles i.e. Imams, and since Shias believe their 12th and last Imam is present and living the maraji's role is limited to wilayat al faqih al hisbiya.

However there is another ideology first introduced by Ayatullah Naraqi and then used by Ayatullah Khomeini to form "Islamic Republic of Iran". This ideology known as "wilayat al faqih al mutlaqa" says that the faqih has "absolute authority" over the Muslim ummah. This allows the faqih to be involved in every issue i.e. politics and even do a revolution and form an Islamic state. Wilayat al faqih al mutlaqa is rejected by most of the maraji' as they believe that such authority could only belong to the Imams and no other person or faqih has the same rights as them.

A few names to mention of the recent maraji' who opposed the idea of "wilayat al faqih al mutlaqa" are:

Sayed Mohsen Al-Hakim, Sayed Abulqasim Al-Khoei, Sayed Mohammad Al-Rohani, Sayed Kadhim Shari'at Madari, Sayed Hussain Borujerdi, Sayed Golpayegani, Sayed Mohammad Hadi Al-Milani, Shaikh Hussain Vahid Khorasani, Sayed Ali Sistani, Shaikh Ishaq Al-Fayadh, Sayed Mohammad Saeid Al-Hakim, Mirza Jawad Tabrizi, Sayed Taghi Ghomi and Sayed Sadiq Rohani.

Ayatullah Abulqasim Al-Khoei for example states in his books that:

"There is no proof for the absolute authority of the faqih during the occultation"

"Yes there is authority (gurdianship) for the faqih in two places and those two are issuing fatwa and judging ..... however for authority in other places there are no ahadeeth with reliable sources and proof."

"So the (absolute) authority for the faqih during the occultation is not proven because it is limited to (only) the prophet (Muhammad) and the Imams."

You can find more explanation regarding the ahdeeth and why they are weak and not reliable in his "Makasib" and "Minhaj Al-Saliheen".

After reading all the explanations and the proofs regarding wilayat al faqih al mutlaqa, one starts to wonder, why is there that "most" of the maraji' who believe in this ideology have or are somehow benefiting from it!? Was this only an "Islamic excuse" for Ayatullah Khomeini to do the revolution in Iran and appoint himself as the leader? Why is it that all the "new" Ayatullahs that have graduated from the "hawza" (Islamic seminary) in Qom, Iran believe in wilayat al faqih al mutlaqa? Is this all an excuse to gain political power? Who appoints the faqih (leader)?

I remember when speaking to Hussain Khomeini (Ayatullah Khomeini's grandson) he was telling us how much his grandfather hated the hawza of Najaf and how he used to get angry and prison Hussain in his room when Hussain talked about Najaf in front of his grandfather. Maybe wilayat al faqih al mutlaqa was only an excuse which Ayatullah Khomeini could use to gain political power, be a leader and possibly threaten the thousand years old hawza of Najaf (Iraq) and strengthen the two hundrad years old hawza of Qom (Iran). Wallahu A'lam.