I've found Sistani a positive influence for some time but for a while I've not been sure how much to trust him. I didn't distrust him per se, but I was unclear on his motives.
You've made the point manifest: time after time after time he has come out in favor of moderation, of restraint, of democracy, of unity.
You're right that if he wanted to he could probably call for--and cause--a bloody and horrible civil war. He could destroy Iraq's hope for a better future. He might even make himself chief ayatollah of an Iran-style Shia theocracy, and he refuses to even step into that direction.
I have said a few times that I don't expect any Iraqi Jeffersons or Franklins or Washingtons to step forward, but you know what? I may have been wrong.
Oh, and by the way, here again we see that those who sneer at the idea that there could be any such thing as a genuinely moderate muslim simply haven't been looking very hard.
According to date, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani is neutral on America and apparently also with respect to his many years under the regime of Saddam Hussein and now we are led to believe he is currently having vapours over democracy for Iraq ?
Well, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. His philosphy was apparently always more or less secularist, but that was when there was little chance for him to wield power (Hussein wasn't big on sharing). The fact he's become a leading proponent of democracy is telling.
Yep, the proof is in the pudding (or putting). Of course Sistani wsa "neutral" on Saddam--any cleric who wasn't at least publicly neutral toward him was killed.
Neutral toward America is also fine. If he were anti-American he'd be sponsoring the insurgency rather than opposing it.
We should be "led to believe" what the evidence so clearly shows us by his actions--what he could have done, and what he did do instead.
Sistani is strongly in favor of the blasphemy laws that have been so useful to Middle Eastern despots in squelching political reform. He declares that the ruling on those who "slander Allah, the Prophet, the Imams, religion or schools of law (madhhab)... is death." This penalty could be imposed on any Muslim who "slanders," that, is criticizes, an Imam's interpretation of the law, as has occurred in Iran and Afghanistan.
In such an environment, any political debate, any challenge by a Muslim to a particular interpretation of Islam, could bring a death sentence. This is what happened to Sudanese reformer Mohammed Taha, perhaps the country's most famous religious teacher, and a devout Muslim, who called for debate about the role and content of sharia.
While Osama is a violent, non-diplomatic supporter of these apartheid laws, Sistani is a non-violent diplomatic supporter of these laws. In Iran, the Mullahs run things. In Saudi Arabia, religious leaders don't govern directly. Both are Islamist states that follow apartheid laws.
Well, I wouldn't argue he's an unalloyed moral paragon. Sistani does have his critics, and with good cause. But for being what he is, his behavior has been remarkably responsible.
While Osama is a violent, non-diplomatic supporter of these apartheid laws, Sistani is a non-violent diplomatic supporter of these laws
Yes, but that's an extremely significant difference. It's the difference between people like Osama and people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc. Do I agree with the views of either? No. But the latter I can coexist with.
Perhaps the truest test of Sistani's principles will come when Iraqis challenge and defeat those laws through the democratic process.
I believe Sistani was under house arrest in Iraq prior to the invasion. I believe Sistani was one of the first people that al-Khoei, the cleric who was killed by Sadr's men, went to see in Najaf after he came in with our marines. It should be noted that al-Khoei lived in exile in the UK and was more or less a political liberal. His father who was the leading Grand Ayatollah during much of the 80s was Sistani's mentor.
The question is whether Sistani is a political liberal irrespective of his social and religious conservativism. So far the answer appears yes.
Again, the proof is in the putting: has he supported the Constitution? Yes. Has he urged Iraqis to participate? Yes. Has he come out against terrorism? Yes. Has he urged his fellow Shia to show restraint against the terrorists? Yes.
Has he run for office himself? No. Has he endorsed any candidates or party? No.
You know, there were fire-and-brimstone baptists who made Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson look like limp-wristed liberal pansies who supported the US Constitution AND were major movers and shakers behind the 1st amendment.
He's on the right side of all the big issues. He may be an 18th century man but he's distinctly forward-looking for one.
I'm sorry, but when Sistani declares that I, my family and everyone I know is 'untouchable':
Islam divides things into pak (pure) and najis (unclean). Al Sistani lists "ten things are essentially najis." They include blood, shit, piss, dead bodies, pigs, dogs -- and infidels (kafir). Even the tears of an infidel, if he eats pork, are unclean.
Islamic theologians debate who exactly is a kafir, and especially whether the term applies to Christians and Jews. Sistani has a fairly humane interpretation of Islam. He believes Christians and Jews may be pak, not najis. Then again, they may not be. Because of the uncertainty, he advises, "it is better to avoid them."
.. I can't see him as being forward looking or liberal. I have no respect for the man.
Unlike Sistani, the Iraqi people do seem to understand George Washington's ideas, and they've show than through their defiance of terrorists threats. People often unite under a religious banner to fight tyranny, and, when tyranny has lost, they lose some of their interest in the dogma. If democracy is a success in Iraq, we can thank the Iraqi people, not Sistani.
Well, your own link says he agrees they may not be untouchable. And Christian preachers say all the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc., are condemned to hell, so six of one...
I wouldn't call Sistani liberal, but he is secularist and he is principled, and he has been the most important force for democracy and peace in Iraq.
You've made the point manifest: time after time after time he has come out in favor of moderation, of restraint, of democracy, of unity.
You're right that if he wanted to he could probably call for--and cause--a bloody and horrible civil war. He could destroy Iraq's hope for a better future. He might even make himself chief ayatollah of an Iran-style Shia theocracy, and he refuses to even step into that direction.
I have said a few times that I don't expect any Iraqi Jeffersons or Franklins or Washingtons to step forward, but you know what? I may have been wrong.
Not a very Jeffersonian insight, I'd say.
Well, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. His philosphy was apparently always more or less secularist, but that was when there was little chance for him to wield power (Hussein wasn't big on sharing). The fact he's become a leading proponent of democracy is telling.
Neutral toward America is also fine. If he were anti-American he'd be sponsoring the insurgency rather than opposing it.
We should be "led to believe" what the evidence so clearly shows us by his actions--what he could have done, and what he did do instead.
Freedom House isn't enthusiastic about him either. According to Freedom House, Sistani supports apartheid Sharia laws.
Sistani is strongly in favor of the blasphemy laws that have been so useful to Middle Eastern despots in squelching political reform. He declares that the ruling on those who "slander Allah, the Prophet, the Imams, religion or schools of law (madhhab)... is death." This penalty could be imposed on any Muslim who "slanders," that, is criticizes, an Imam's interpretation of the law, as has occurred in Iran and Afghanistan.
In such an environment, any political debate, any challenge by a Muslim to a particular interpretation of Islam, could bring a death sentence. This is what happened to Sudanese reformer Mohammed Taha, perhaps the country's most famous religious teacher, and a devout Muslim, who called for debate about the role and content of sharia.
While Osama is a violent, non-diplomatic supporter of these apartheid laws, Sistani is a non-violent diplomatic supporter of these laws. In Iran, the Mullahs run things. In Saudi Arabia, religious leaders don't govern directly. Both are Islamist states that follow apartheid laws.
While Osama is a violent, non-diplomatic supporter of these apartheid laws, Sistani is a non-violent diplomatic supporter of these laws
Yes, but that's an extremely significant difference. It's the difference between people like Osama and people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc. Do I agree with the views of either? No. But the latter I can coexist with.
Perhaps the truest test of Sistani's principles will come when Iraqis challenge and defeat those laws through the democratic process.
I hope they do. If there are a lot of Iraqis like the brothers at Iraq the Model, they may.
The question is whether Sistani is a political liberal irrespective of his social and religious conservativism. So far the answer appears yes.
Has he run for office himself? No. Has he endorsed any candidates or party? No.
You know, there were fire-and-brimstone baptists who made Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson look like limp-wristed liberal pansies who supported the US Constitution AND were major movers and shakers behind the 1st amendment.
He's on the right side of all the big issues. He may be an 18th century man but he's distinctly forward-looking for one.
Islam divides things into pak (pure) and najis (unclean). Al Sistani lists "ten things are essentially najis." They include blood, shit, piss, dead bodies, pigs, dogs -- and infidels (kafir). Even the tears of an infidel, if he eats pork, are unclean.
Islamic theologians debate who exactly is a kafir, and especially whether the term applies to Christians and Jews. Sistani has a fairly humane interpretation of Islam. He believes Christians and Jews may be pak, not najis. Then again, they may not be. Because of the uncertainty, he advises, "it is better to avoid them."
.. I can't see him as being forward looking or liberal. I have no respect for the man.
Unlike Sistani, the Iraqi people do seem to understand George Washington's ideas, and they've show than through their defiance of terrorists threats. People often unite under a religious banner to fight tyranny, and, when tyranny has lost, they lose some of their interest in the dogma. If democracy is a success in Iraq, we can thank the Iraqi people, not Sistani.
Well, your own link says he agrees they may not be untouchable. And Christian preachers say all the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc., are condemned to hell, so six of one...
I wouldn't call Sistani liberal, but he is secularist and he is principled, and he has been the most important force for democracy and peace in Iraq.