Tuesday, December 25, 2007,11:09 pm
What's in a Smile? Answer: Everything

This article was originally published in the December 2007 edition of The Messenger, the Islamic newsletter distributed by the Metroplex Organization of Muslims in North Texas.

If there is one defining emblem of modern-day Iran that could capture the nation's spirit within its subtle brilliance, it is the unfaltering smile of a single revolutionary figure: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Apart from being a constant suggestion of his spiritual contentment and humble beginnings, that ever-present grin is a sign of all that the neoconservative world finds unlikable- a pretty good indication that this man must be in the right.

Long before the chaos of 9/11 had made its mark on modern history, America's most ardent war hawks were already brainstorming a hit list of the nations that didn't 'comply with their standards of democracy' (read: were not advantageous for the financial interests of those concerned), and hence the 'Project for the New American Century' drew up the blueprint for its 'Axis of Evil' campaign; though the Bush Administration would have to wait until the tragic attacks of September 11th (the 'New Pearl Harbor' the neocons had been dreaming of) to have a good enough excuse to publicly demonize the targeted nations. High up on this list from the get-go were oil-rich Iraq and Iran, and while North Korea might have served as a good diversion from the obvious zionist interests endorsed within the 'Axis' campaign, it was only a matter of time before Kim Jong Il would lay forgotten (though recent news reports show that President Bush is now personally exchanging letters with the dictator he allegedly loathes; referring to him as 'Dear Chairman').

Although the already-delicate circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq led to their respective downfalls at the hands of invading forces, Iran is inevitably a force to be reckoned with, and certainly has always presented a different sort of challenge. While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq simply meant shooting down the very self-employed puppets America had helped establish, Iran is the brainchild of a revolution that stood for something beyond the comprehension of the common warhawk mind: truth. What excuse could Bush & Co. pull out of their hats to go to war with spirited Iran? The 'national tragedy' card had been used up in the invasion of Afghanistan, and the neocons had already looked sufficiently ridiculous with the outing of the lies that led up to 'Operation Iraqi Freedom', so the third time around, it was clear that the story would have to be much more elaborate; one based on probable fact and not invisible weaponry that a wild goose chase would never turn up.

Rewind to 1974, when a study conducted by the Stanford Research Institute found that in order to meet the energy demands of its bustling population, Iran would need over 20,000 megawatts of electricity by the early 1990s. Now, 33 years after that need was first addressed, Iran modestly aims at reaching that level by 2020, saving the country a projected $10 billion per year. Backed by the express persuasion of then-Chief of Staff Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in 1978 President Gerald Ford signed the final draft of the US-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement, which offered Iran the "chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.” The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'. Before one even needs to wonder why the United States would now be asking for war with a country that is merely embarking on the very course agreed upon only 3 decades prior, one very important catalyst needs to be factored in that changes everything: the 1979 revolution of Imam Khomeini (ra). The US-Iran Agreement was signed about 8 months before the revolution, at a time when Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah whom the US had helped install in its 1953 CIA coup, was still in power. Let us think back to 1953 and remember America's single motive in the deposition of Prime Minister Mossadegh: his parliament's proposal to nationalize Iran's oil industry and effectively kick out profiteering Western powerhouses such as Britain's Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Now fast forward again to 1979, when nuclear development was halted by Imam Khomeini in the face of the Iran-Iraq War for five years, with research picking up again shortly thereafter, but this time independent of its former Western backers. Just as the US could not bear to see Iran rid itself of Western oil profiteers in 1953, it again suffers today at the prospect of Iran finally carrying out its nuclear development needs unaided by most of its previous investors.

Findings similar to those of the 1974 Stanford study have subsequently been reported in recent times by researcher Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins University, who stated in Dec. 2006 that "in five years, Iranian oil exports may be less than half their present level, and could drop to zero by 2015," and thus "Iran's claim to need nuclear power might be genuine, an indicator of distress from anticipated export revenue shortfalls." Despite the clear statistical necessity of an Iranian nuclear enrichment program, as well as the clear historical motives that expose the neocon position, the American people cannot be expected to objectively research the real roots of the issue and politicians are certainly not about to tell them, making President Bush's propaganda job a whole lot easier.

Indeed, by taking advantage of the mere existence of nuclear developments that have consistently met international precedents and are in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines, the Bush Administration has ignored Iran's tacit compliance to the rules and turned the nation's innocuous attempts to supply its people with an inexhaustible energy supply into the backdrop of World War 3.

Until early December of this year, the Administration was doing a 'darned good job' of making the American public panic in a manner very reminiscent of pre-Iraq War days. However, Bush & Co. were dealt a stifling blow on December 3rd, when a consensus of the US's 16 national intelligence agencies concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003, in contradiction to the 2005 finding that Iran was definitely 'determined to develop nuclear weapons'; which has been the basis of President Bush's feisty anti-Iran rhetoric for the past several years. Although the IAEA had already refuted the House of Representatives intelligence committee's report on Iran's alleged nuclear capability in September 2006 and dismissed the allegations then as "outrageous and dishonest", mainstream American media outright ignored such statements of the IAEA until this December, when the source of the information proved too mighty to be denied. It was certainly unprecedented that American intelligence would actually admit to findings of this nature after having had no problem omitting crucial details prior to Iraq (i.e. no, Saddam doesn't actually have any WMDs), but maybe it was the 600-page criticism and international ridicule US intelligence officials faced after the Iraq blunder that led them to be a bit more honest this time around.

With regards to whether or not he felt his talk of World War III in spite of him having knowledge of the NIE report would call his credibility into question, President Bush had this to say: “No, I'm feeling pretty spirited – pretty good about life." Well, that's great, Mr. Bush. We like our world leaders to feel good... but we'll take President Ahmadinejad's smile over yours any day. It's a whole lot more believable.
 
posted by R
Permalink ¤ 2 comments
Monday, December 24, 2007,11:54 pm
The Ka’bah – What is it really?
The Hajj season is upon us, when millions of Muslims journey to Mecca and circumambulate the Ka’bah, that simple square building that we face toward when we pray. How strange it is that an insignificant structure such as this is the center of our hajj rites and the direction of our prayers! Why is this tiny stone cubic house so important? The Ka’bah has great cosmological significance that we all should understand in order to make better sense of our rites and prayers. The Ka’bah is the physical correspondence of the highest heaven.

The Ka’bah is called the Bait al Allah or Kaba e Allah, meaning House of God. But we know God needs no house, and is not confined to any space. It is also called the first house of mankind. Yet no human is known to have ever lived in it, so what does that mean? It is certain that Abraham (as) constructed the Ka’bah. But, before he built it, when he moved Hagar and Ishmael (as) to the empty desert, he said, “O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Thy Sacred House….” (Qur’an 14:37) So he was already aware of the Ka’bah before he built it! Many scholars say that the Ka’bah was first built by Adam (as) but the structure had wasted away. All agree at least that it existed somehow prior to Abraham (as).

The Ka’bah is like the Bait ul Mamur (the Oft-Frequented House) and is said to be built directly under it. The Bait ul Mamur is a house located in the fourth heaven that angels circumambulate and enter. Several traditions state that Adam (as) had prayed at that house, as well. So to understand the Ka’bah, we need to understand the Bait ul Mamur. So what is the significance of Bait ul Mamur? Both the Ka’bah and the Bait ul Mamur are symbols of how God brings about and attends to His creation.

To understand that, we have to first understand how the decrees of Allah swt come to reality. The Qur’an says, “And your Cherisher-Lord creates what He wishes….” (28:68) and “Surely His commanding is such that, when He desires a thing, He just says to it, “Become!” and it becomes.” (36:82) These two ayahs describe creation as mashi’ah (wishing), iradah (desiring), and amr (commanding), as well as symbolizing it by speech of Allah swt. All of these indicate that creation is the production of the outcome of Allah’s mashi’ah. A hadith of Ahlulbayt (as) says, “Allah created the Wish through itself, then He created the things through the Wish.” The Wish is symbolized as “the Water” or “Waters” in Qur’an and hadith. For example, “And from the Water We made everything alive.” (21:30) The scholars tell us this ayah also shows that every created thing is alive in some fashion. The fact that water (H2O) is repeatedly described as Mercy from Allah swt contributes to the symbolism of the Wish from which creation begins as the ultimate Mercy of the Creator.

The Creator-created relationship is a polar one, with the Creator in the seat of guardianship and authority. This position of guardianship is in the Qur’an called ‘arsh, which is translated most often as “throne (raised, shaded seat of authority)” or “empyrean” (the highest heaven). As Allah swt is not confined to a body, it does not mean a literal chair throne. The Arabic verbal root meaning of ‘arsh is a pillared structure raised from the ground. The Wish descends from and is beneath the empyrean “… and His empyrean was over the Water.” (Qur’an 11:7) Imam Ali bin Husain (as) said that in the ‘arsh or empyrean is a likeness of every created thing, and this is the meaning of “And there is not a thing except that its treasuries are with Us.” (15:21) The empyrean is also the gate of Allah’s administration over Creation: “He projects His guardianship uniformly to all creation over the empyrean; He administers the command.” (10:3)

Imam ‘Ali (as) has said that the empyrean is a cubical structure made of four pillars of light – one white, one yellow, one green and one red. The white light is the light of consciousness (‘aql) and knowledge and is the first, foundational pillar. Its symbol in the Qur’an is the pen (qalam). The green light is the Preserved Tablet (Lawh Mahfuz), the record or soul (31:28) of creation in the empyrean. The yellow light pillar is the Spirit (Ruh) as mentioned in Qur’an 17:85. It is through the Spirit that prophets and those close to Allah swt receive their knowledge and power. Ruh is related to rih, the wind. Thus, according to Imam Baqir (as), just was the Wish is symbolized by water, the Spirit is symbolized by wind - a movement and energy that effuses everything. The red light of the empyrean is the blood line that connects the empyrean to the physical universe or nature; it carries all the vibrations of created things.

So the Ka’bah is itself an ‘arsh, representing the ‘arsh of Allah swt, the highest heaven. Like the empyrean, it is a cube, with four corners mirroring the four corners of the empyrean. Imam Sadiq (as) quoted the Prophet (saw) about this correspondence. “The Ka’bah is called the Ka’bah because it is square-based. It is square-based because it is in correspondence to the Bayt ul Mamur. The Bayt ul Mamur is square-based because the empyrean is square-based. The empyrean is square-based because the phrases upon which Islam is based are four: Subhanallah, Alhumdulillah, La ilaha illa allahu, and Allahu akbar!” The corner with the black stone corresponds to the corner of the empyrean of the white light (consciousness). Incidentally, some hadith say that the black stone is actually white, but blackened by repeated touching. As pilgrims move around the Ka’bah, the move past the pillars of consciousness (white), then Spirit (yellow), then Soul (green), then nature (red).

With this knowledge, we can understand why we face toward the Ka’bah when we pray. We are facing toward the symbol of the highest heaven where Allah’s swt guidance, mercy and creation are all projected from. So facing toward the Ka’bah symbolizes facing towards the gateway between the physical Universe and Allah swt. This does not imply that Allah swt is confined out of the physical Universe, but rather refers to the methodology of creation, guardianship, and bestowal of mercy.

Scholars have noted that the Ka’bah is empty and has in its cubic shape all cardinal directions in three dimensions. All to be seen there is absoluteness, eternity. It is not a shrine. It is a symbol, a projection, a source of connection to the highest heaven, and an opening for the descent of Allah swt’s Wish into manifestation in the physical Universe. Some hadith indicate that the creation of the land of the Earth began at the location of the Ka’bah, as it is the Origin of physical creation. It is the symbol of our original home as we manifest from Wish in the empyrean, and that is why when we go for pilgrimage, we do not pray shortened prayers like travelers. We are going back to our source.

The hajj rites all are steeped in symbolism. We recreate the actions of Abraham (as) and Hagar (ra) to represent and learn from their deeds. Therefore, it is probable that the symbolism of the Ka’bah as the ‘arsh has a significant meaning in the context of those rites and our understanding of our roles in the Universe and in the Ummah. Knowing that the Ka’bah is itself a symbol can give us much to ponder about the possible meanings of events in history such as Imam ‘Ali (as) being born in the Ka’bah. At the very least, the Ka’bah as a symbol of the ‘arsh has very deep implications about the direction we face when we pray.

References:

The History of Ka’bah by Hasan Zafar Naqvi
Islam Dynamic: The Cosmology, Spirituality and Practice of Walayah by Idris Samawi Hamid
Hajj: Reflections on its Rituals by Ali Shariati

Taken from Otowi
 
posted by Ya_Baqiyatullah
Permalink ¤ 0 comments
,11:47 pm
The Shia Revival - A Critique

A Review of Vali Reza Nasr's "The Shia Revival"

There are many ideas and concepts presented in Vali Reza Nasr's "The Shia Revival," more than a few of which would face a great amount of skepticism by a sizeable portion of the Shia community worldwide. Of course, that in itself does not disqualify his ideas. However, the Iranian-American professor's lack of references and the questionable nature of those presented, do promote a skeptical view toward much of the information presented in his book.

Furthermore, accepting some of the information he presented, his interpretations of them are also questionable.

While it is not my intention to get bogged down in what discredit's Nasr's book, I do believe I should briefly quote the major issues and state my misgivings. Of course, I do not claim that all what is in this book is false, indeed many of the incidents mentioned may be true, but the interpretations therein deserve some analysis.

Nasr narrates that during the Iraq-Iran War, Sheikh Mehdi Haeri Yazdi, a student of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, visited the latter in home to express his grief over the horrors of the war. There, Yazdi was reported by Nasr to have said, "It is not right for the Muslims to kill Muslims. Hundreds of thousands are dying in a war that has no end and no good purpose." Khomeini replied, "Do you also criticize God when he sends an earthquake?" Nasr than states that, apparently according to Yazdi, Khomeini considered himself to be on the last and fourth question of Irfan/Sufism, where he considered himself to be able to "function as a virtually divine lawgiver." Nasr then makes no attempt to even analyze and criticize this interpretation. His next paragraph claims that, although Khomeini used Shia ideas and history to mobilize the masses, yet "his politics and religious views reflected not so much Shia history and theology (indeed, he was something of a theological innovator and maverick) as the authority he claimed by virtue of his understanding of mystical doctrines."

Now, considering we accept the above narration, it forces us to ask a few questions. First, we are to blindly accept Yazdi's interpretation of Khomeini's words? Reading the ayatollah's words, it seems like it was his opinion that the Almighty's plan was to have a war between Saddam and Iran. Does this mean that Khomeini was functioning as a "virtually divine lawgiver," as Nasr writes? This seems like a dubious interpretation, as it was not Iran that attacked Iraq; rather, it was the reverse. Had Khomeini felt himself to be given the authority to judge how the Divine Plan, or fate, works out, would not he have himself started such a war?

It is true that Imam Khomeini did not accept many ceasefires with Iraq, but taking a look at his statements and writings it is evident that, having gotten rid of one oppressor (meaning the Shah), he felt it his religious duty and obligation to rid a Muslim nation of another oppressor (meaning Saddam). When one is following a religious duty, he is obeying the Divine Lawgiver's command, not functioning as one himself. How then one could imagine that Khomeini put himself in the role of God is beyond comprehension, especially given that this great scholar's works are full of ethical and spiritual themes all tied to subservience to God in all matters. One wonders, then, what is the extent of Professor Nasr's familiarity with Ayatollah Khomeini's works. And supposing Nasr had not meant that Ayatollah Khomeini did not consider himself "The Truth," he should have worded this very serious statement more clearly.

Afterward, Nasr makes a very sweeping and bold statement. He claims that Khomeini's theology and beliefs came not so much from Shia'ism, as from "mystical doctrines." This means that Shia doctines are separate from what is called mystical doctrines, and most likely the latter term means Sufism, or Tasawwuf.

If Nasr is contesting that his own view of Sufism/Irfan is that it lies without the fold of Shia'ism, he should have made that clear and not pretended that it was the view of all Shia scholars. At the very least, he could've given a brief background of the different viewpoints on the subject.

An attempt to divide the followers of different scholars?

I will quote excerpts of one more situation he narrated, which is particularly of interest to Shias, and which shall also be met with some skepticism. Nasr spoke many times of the relationship between Grand Ayatollahs Khoei and Khomeini, and the former's attitude toward the Islamic Revolution and the latter's views on Islamic governance, as espoused by his concept of Wilayat Al Faqih (rule of the religious jurisprudent).

Nasr says, "Khoei and Khomeini did not like each other. During Khomeini's Najaf years (1964-78), the two had kept their distance and often exchanged barbs through their students. In fact, Khomeini's lectures on Islamic government were a response to a provocation from one of Khoei's students. Khoei saw velayat-e faqih as an innovation with no support in Shia theology or law." He goes on to claim that, near the end of the Shah's tyrannical rule in 1978, Ayatollah Khoei sent the Shah an aqeeq (agate/carnelian) ring and a special prayer. After the ousting of the Shah, "Khoei went further and denounced his theory as deviation from Shiasm." Finally, he goes on to claim that Imam Khomeini borrowed his religious governance theories from Plato's Republic, which he also claims to be ironic, and ends by saying, " This was Shiasm reduced to a strange (and, as it would turn out, violent) parody of Plato."

First, I must say that I was a little disappointed when I looked in the notes section to see his references for this event. I saw, "interview with a senior aide to the Shah" only. Apparently, he based his entire view of Ayatollah Khoei's true attitude toward Wilayat Al Faqih and Imam Khomeini solely from a senior aide to the late Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, a person who would have had good reason to create friction between followers of the two scholars.

I am disappointed that Nasr did not reference any of the works of Ayatollah Khoei and he did not quote any students of the ayatollah (who consist of many of the great scholars of Iran and Iraq today, including Ayatollahs Seestani and Behjat). I really do wonder how he establishes his view that Ayatollah Khoei was ambivalent or against Imam Khomeini, and furthermore, that he was against the Islamic Revolution.

While it is true that Khoei had some different views on the subject of Islamic governance from Khomeini, especially regarding the extent of authority of the faqih, that is normal amongst the scholars even today. From where could he conclude with certainty that Khoei supported the Shah and opposed the revolution and Islamic government, despite any academic differences?

Scholars, and indeed our own holy infallibles, have often had dialogues with the oppressive rulers of their times, even aiding them when it was for the sake of Islam and humanity.

For example, it is narrated that the cursed tyrant Yazid bin Muawiya, after he slaughtered the Prophet's household on the land of Karbala, asked the surviving son of Imam Hussain, Imam Sajjad, what was a way of receiving forgiveness. Despite facing a request from the same cursed being who had ordered his family's butchery, and killed most of his immediate male relations and worse, the Holy Imam responded and answered this question.

Could we imply by Imam Sajjad's responding that he actually supported Yazid? Such a thing would be absurd. The fact is that engaging in dialogue with a tyrant could be for many possible reasons, and due to many possible intentions. Of course, it must be remembered that we don't know much about any of these supposed interactions between Khoei and the Shah, or if they even occurred.

Finally, on the matter of Wilayat Al Faqih and Plato's "Republic," Nasr claims that the former came about as a "reduction" from the latter. I'm not sure what "reduction" Nasr meant, but he should know that the philosophers of Islam and Shiasm have long investigated the ideas of the great Greek Philosopher Plato. This certainly does not mean Khomeini produced a carbon copy of the concept with his version of wilayat al faqih, but even if he did, what would that matter if the concept does not contradict the faith? However, Nasr does not at all discuss this delicate point and vaguely states his views of such political philosophy as being outside the fold of Shiasm due to it being Plato's idea. For those interested in the underpinnings of this complicated subject whether they agree with it or not, Nasr's analysis falls woefully short.

The goal of this book?

Although some may disagree with me, I found that a certain message, composed of two elements, was most striking.

Professor Nasr says at the end of his book:

There will also be new forces to contend with―the new Shia voices, separate from the old Arab order with which Washington is so familiar. When the dust settles, the center of gravity will no longer lie with the Arab Sunni countries but will be held by Shia ones. The center of gravity will move eastward, away from Egypt and the Levant to Iran, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf. The United States does not know the Shia well. That will have to change, if for no better reason than that the Shia live on top of some the richest oil fields in the region. It is in America's interest to take Shias and the Shia revival seriously. It will not be easy for the United States to balance the demands of Sunnis with those of Shias, or to hold the hands of the Sunni establishment as it contends with the Shia challenges and the Sunni backlash to it. It is a process that must begin with an understanding of the nature of the conflict and the future that it will shape.

Nasr makes that point that the US will have to get to know the Shia better and mentions that they sit atop some of the richest oilfields, as an effective enticement. He seems to propose engagement with the Shia by the US, even at the cost of relations with the "Sunni establishment." I find this idea very curious, as not long ago, he spoke much against Imam Khomeini?to me it seemed he was clearly attempting to discredit Khomeini as a legitimate Shia leader by a shaky theological argument?and the Iranian Islamic Revolution and governance. Yet, Nasr desires engagement with the Shia.

Is it possible to antagonize the ruling/revolutionary clergy and yet cultivate relations with the Shia? Perhaps it would be possible if the truth were that the "revolutionary" Shias were a fringe minority. But, are they really a fringe?

There is no way to know for sure whether or not revolutionary Shias are indeed a negligible minority, even if Nasr wants to assert that. Although we lack statistics, we may notice a few things that indicate they are far from being on the sidelines in current Shia thought.

There are many rallies by Shias in countries other than Iran, many of them carrying large pictures of Ayatollah Khamenei [currently supreme leader of Iran] and Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah [currently secretary general of Hizbullah].

Additionally, there is the fact that the present epicenter of Shia seminary training lies in Qom, Iran, and many of the scholars from all over the world are trained there. Their thinking and development has often been influenced by revolutionary ideas; they enjoy support from their own very large communities in part because of revolutionary rhetoric they have picked up.

Last but not least, the majority of grand religious authorities are located in Iran. Religious, spiritual and even worldly guidance for much of the Shia world comes from there. As the revolutionary Iranian government is widely viewed as giving support to these authorities, an attack on Iran would be seen by many as an attack on these authorities who religious Shias are fiercely loyal to.

Furthermore, the Islamic Republic gives material aid to Shias all over the world, and this is evidenced certainly by the massive amounts of aid given to the victims in southern Lebanon of Israeli aggression and reckless state-sponsored terrorism.

With all the above points to consider, one must question whether Nasr's stated goal to focus on sidelining revolutionary Shias is an option. Is it truly possible that the US can cultivate relations with the Shias while antagonizing what may be their largest and most powerful supporter in Iran? It seems doubtful to me. Yet this important point is not considered by Nasr in his book.

If Professor Nasr truly wants to create a sort of US/Western-Shia alliance or promote such a unity, he would be best advised to first himself understand the current scholarship and scholarship on Islamic governance and the centrality of the Islamic Republic and Revolution to the worlds' Shias and even the entire Muslim World.

Written by Cyan Garamond
 
posted by Ya_Baqiyatullah
Permalink ¤ 0 comments