"The Ayatollah Sistani is an Islamist bent on establishing a theocracy not far removed from that found in Iran"

Sorry, no Islam in Government ! Put your Koran on the shelf like the rest of us has !

"Moderates" in Islam's viewpoint don't belong within it's ranks in all reality. They only exist with ignorants, apologists or people fearful of the media backlash. Secular non fundamentalist types are butchered right along anybody else who stands in the way of the Murder Cult because they are seen as fakes & hypocrites. I see it in principle the same with Christianity, except when someone fundamentally adheres to the teachings of Jesus, they pray for their enemies and pray for those who despise them, for Jesus taught it. But since Muhammad was the original terrorist, adhering to his idiotic confusion mirrors the spirit he brought forth. Its so simple, if the source is corrupt...the closer the followers approaches it, the more corrupt they become.

Behold the true muslim!

Basing a nation on a book full of lies, distortions, fearmongering, misogyny and genocide written in ancient times for a backward people makes less sense than basing a nation on the worship of a head of lettuce. And yet Islamaniacs want to do this throughout the whole world. They are lunatics, pure and simple.

Ever since Ayatollah Sistani saved Al-Sadrs butt from the US Marines at Fallujah, (we should have taken care of Al-Sadr then), I have considered him as a high ranking enemy...I suspect Ayatollah Sistani sits with the terrorist planning committee and helps coordinate attacks against coalition forces.He is a low life..

Let's assume Iraq becomes a Shiite theocracy, headed by Sistani. How does Sistani's regime survive next door to the Shiite theocracy of Iran?

Iran's mullahs cannot permit a competing theocracy. If Iran's mullahs lay out Shiite dogma as being X, and Sistani says it's really Y, devout Shiites on both sides of the border will be in a quandary. Once they start to examine theological disputes, and argue sides, that opens the door to Shiites who say "you're BOTH wrong, the correct doctrine is Z!"

As in the Highlander movie "At the end, there can be only one..."

Perhaps Sistani now realizes that he has a better chance of survival as a religious leader of a secularly-governed country

What discourages me is that the ignorance by our leaders and political elites of Islam and its central tenets to enslave the nonMuslim world is as bad today as it was on September 12, 2001. How can this be? Are our leaders unable to read and comprehend? Is it willful on their part to avoid learning about Islam, or are the Islamists and their dhimmi agents so successful in manipulating our leaders that our leaders are kept in the dark like mushrooms noursihing themselves on the BS put out by CAIR, ISNA, MSA, Esposito, Armstrong, and so many others?

The Congress and the Administration should be required to take a test about Islam. They should be required to explain abrogation, dhimmitude, taquiyya, tuquoque, and jizya and define the many methods of jihad (it's not just the sword or the suicide bomb vest). If they don't know, they should be required to take remedial education to learn the truth. Book assignments with books by Spencer, Trifklovic and so many others should be mandatory. Ignorance is not always bliss.

Robert and Hugh nailed this some time ago:

For us to allow sharia as a basis of govt. in either Iraq or Aphgnstn betrays monumental ignorance on our leaders part.

We, as infidels in the house of war (according to their formulation) have to be stupid stupid stupid to the nth degree, to have backed Sistani, to allow our central enemy, islam, a foothold in that govt.

"Are our leaders unable to read and comprehend"

....their actions sometimes defies all logic....one could ask,"do you need a bigger brick to hit you on your head?".......

Does Rosie know?

al-Sistani isn't just a 'dad' like many western fathers... instead he's a 'dad' that would like to have her killed in the worst way possible.

In the photo always shown, Sistani is the evil looking man with a black robe who looks like he is sitting on top of a large egg (or bomb). I could have figured him out without ever meeting him..by the way, doesn't he refuse to meet with any infidels? Shouldn't that have been a giant clue to the US officials? Another evil one...Something Something Hakim, another evil one who travels back and forth to Iran...and was detained by American forces a couple of weeks ago..of course, he was highly insulted and victimized..no surprise there. His son..spawn of evil Hakim, was in the US last year, as the guest of VP Cheney and staff. His message at the time was, "We have the numbers and we will do whatever we want." He didn't have to add, of course, compliments of the American soldiers and American taxpayers.

"Let's assume Iraq becomes a Shiite theocracy, headed by Sistani. How does Sistani's regime survive next door to the Shiite theocracy of Iran?"

Papabear,

On what basis should we see any doctrinal difference between Sistani and Khameini?
Instead of two theocracies in competition, I see an anschluss, or joining, of the two. We always hear that Arabs and Persians are mortal enemies but is it ethnic or religious? Is the enmity Arab vs Persian or Sunni vs Shiite? Would it be the case if Iran reverted to its roots and became a Sunni nation once again?
Given that these are not just two countries but one Arab and one not, the joining would be that much stronger. What will happen to the Kurds and Sunnis is anybody's guess.

Why is everyone so threatened by Iran?

I can put down a long list of foreign intervention in Iran aimed at exploiting oil-rich resources.

For Godsake, the US and Britain have always had their hands in their affairs, and the moment an Iranian (Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh) decides to nationalize their oil industry you could could on the CIA and British Intelligence to sponsor a coup in 1953 (see Operation Ajax if you doubt this).

Here's a document :
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.html

Once their pro-western puppet leader Mohammad Reza Pahlavi took power, his rule was autocratic. While Iranians starved to death, he spent billions on a lavish lifestyle. But of course the West was happy.

Whatever, all this information is besides the point. I only wish that people weren't swayed so easily by the media and their propaganda. Like sheep to the slaughter.

The west will always be betrayed by muslims and Islam.
Why we lose.

• Insistence that all religions are equally benevolent or equally malevolent. Creating convoluted arguments that try to equate wrongs committed when failure to adhere to doctrine with wrongs sanctified by scripture

• Refusal to accept a standard main stream interpretation of Islamic scripture always results in murder of non muslims.

• Insisting that there is a sect of Islam that is accepting of infidels kafirs and shirk .Acceptance of proclamations about the tolerance & plurality of Islam now and in history in spite of the facts and lack of proof and the direct contradictions of those traits in Islamic scripture

• Insist that “Islamic reformers” and “Mythical Moderate Muslims” have a different goal than mujahadeen with a bomb, rather than explore Islamic scripture and realize that they are human shields buying time for the jihad killers to put their pieces in place.

• To much imagination, we think we can drop spies behind enemy lines and foment discord and gain support for a western causes and at another time and place that may have been true. But with Islam and muslims we in the west will always be betrayed.

• Failure to recognize Islamic hate speech law suits, Islamic bias laws suits, Islamic offended law suits, etcetera . Failure to recognize youthful unrest in France, separatists violence in Thailand similar global Islamic events or “Islamic unrest” as “Jihad” ,

• Blackmail jihad

• Financial jihad

• Intellectual jihad

• Intimidation jihad

• Evangelical jihad

• Inspirational jihad

• Political jihad .

• Failure to name the enemy .Islam

"On what basis should we see any doctrinal difference between Sistani and Khameini?"
- from a posting above

No major difference except that Khomeini introduced the idea of direct rule by the enlightened cleric (guess who that turned out to be?), while Sistani prefers to have the Shi'a clerics, the marjiyah, as eminences grises behind the scenes. That way, they remain powerful but don't get too involved in things like garbage collection and streelights.

However, much is made, by certain people in Washington who like the idea of Sistani, and just can't, can't, bring themselves to see that this shadow-play of "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims is their own fabrication, and one that is unhelpful, even dangerous, to believe that there are "two schools" -- the Qom School (bad) and the Najaf School (good).

What they fail to realize is that whatever distinguishes Sistani from Khomeini, it is not in the realm of how Infidels should be regarded. Constantly focussing on diffrences in other areas, such as the mechanism of rule, is silly.

But not too silly for some at My Weekly Standard or at A.E.I., though at the latter they gave Ayaan Hirsi Ali a place and pretend to comprehend her.

They don't. They can't.

The arrogant swine Sistani is, Sistani still lists 'kafir' (or infidels) on his website as 'naji's- (unclean) and has steadfastly refused to meet with the infidel occupiers of Iraq.

An unspeakable, mindboggling act of arrogance that is as Islamic as the 'profit' himself.

But then he has the hide to go to London to have his prostate
(not sure, was it prostate or something else?) operated on by these same 'filthy kufr's' he so despises.

Incredible arrogance, unbelievable hypocrisy!

Only constant, persistant ridicule and exposure can cure humanity of this stupidity, perversion and evil called Islam.

Sure, the cat is out of the bag. Now we have to make sure everybody knows it!

Indeed.

It has long been clear to me, and obviously to many others, that Sistani is an Islamist imperialist. He is perfectly happy to permit the government of Iraq to have an outwardly democratic form, so long as the reality of the situation has the theocrats sitting on top of that government, and controlling it from above. The theocrats will control Iraqi society in broad strokes, while the government deals with administration and details.

It also seems quite apparent that he has very skillfully used al Sadr as a foil. Behind their outward conflicts and battle for control of the Shia, beneath their robes, they are joined at the hip. It is not clear to me whether of not or to what degree al Sadr understands how Sistani uses him as a pawn. But al Sadr has proven useful indeed to Sistani. His overt, ranting form of extremism makes Sistani appear moderate and reasonable by comparison, and this effect is perhaps his most useful aspect to al Sistani in his dealings with us. I suspect that Sistani is the real force protecting al Sadr from those in the government, and the Coalition authorities, who tried to have him arrested and prosecuted for murder, and who would take him out of the picture now if the Maliki faction, clearly controlled by Sistani, were not protecting him. But al Sadr's minions are also very useful; they have kept the relatively impotent government in check; they have kept the Sunni/Shia conflict on the stove, simmering or brought to a full boil as is convenient. Sistani might have a difficult time controlling Sadr's army without Sadr.

Like many of you, I despair over the apparent willful ignorance that permeates virtually the entire political spectrum, and the State Dept., when it comes to these issues. The nonsensical pussy-footing that characterizes our dealings with these dangerous and deceptive men, particularly Sistani plays directly into their plans. The only way to deal with them is with brute force and absolute consequences; these tactics they understand and respect. Anything else just leaves them laughing up their sleeves, and they have been laughing at our leadership for far too long.

"Sistani might have a difficult time controlling Sadr's army without Sadr."

Sistani would be more effective and more ruthless than Al-Sadr.......Al-Sadr is but a puppet on a string....he dances to the war dance as dictated by Sistani and others...Al-Sadr is a yes man, nothing more....

...Sistani longs for the day when he can destroy the current coalition cooperation with the current Iraqi government...make no mistake,,,Sistani is a snake with venomous fangs...he should have been taken out long
ago....

"The only way to deal with them is with brute force".....with this I concur....unforgiving brute force...relentless unforgiving brute force....open , in your face, brute force...daily brute force....That is the way Muslims negotiate....

Hugh, Robert et al.

The point raised here is very interesting and it would be very usefull to develop further on that.

I would like to point to the following pseudo-truths always repeated about the Shiites (some of which you already mentionned:

1. Two or three different schools of Shiism:
1. Iran: centered at Qum
2. Iraq: centered at Najaf
3. Jabal Amil, i.e. Southern Lebanon
2. The Iranian school is extremist while the Lebanese and Iraqi schools are moderate.
3. Hizbullah in Lebanon is a branch of the extremist Iranian school and does not represent the genuine Shiite Lebanese school.
4. Sistani represents the Iraqi moderate school (after all he 'collaborates' with the Americans), Khamenei the Iranian extremist school.
5. Wilayat al-Faqih or the leadership of the cleric was introduced and invented by Khomeini. This represents the Khomeinist school.
6. Iran is ruled by the Khomeinist school.
etc. and that is just a sample.
7. Iranian Shiism is often described as Persian and Safavid, as opposed to Arab genuine Shiism found in Iraq or Lebanon.

To those who are not well acquainted with how the Shiites work will not know that although these points presented above appear to be true none of them are true.

First, as a good start one has to visit a site created by followers (muqallidun) of Sistani: www.al-shia.com. Although the site has versions in many languages, the English version does not contain the important information that are found in the Arabic and Persian versions.

Anyway, one has to look at this page: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/ola/?mod=hayat which contains biography of the highest Shiite clerics (marja) in the world.

One will see that in the ranking of these clerics Sistani (being the first and highest Shiite marja) is followed by Husayn Wahid Khorasani, then by Khamenei. Following is the list of these highst marja (titled Ayatollah Ozma):
1. sayyid Ali Sistani
2. Husayn Wahid Khorasani
3. sayyid Ali Khamenei
4. Muhammad Taqi Bahjat Fumani
5. sayyid Muhammad Said Hakim (cousin of Abdulaziz Hakim)
6. Bashir Najafi
7. Muhammad Fazil Lankarani
8. sayyid Abdulkarim Musawi Ardabili
9. Lutfullah Safi Gulpaygani
10. Muhammad Ishaq al-Fayyaz
11. sayyid Muhammad Sadiq Husayni Ruhani
12. Husayn Nuri Hamadani
13. Naser Makarem Shirazi
14. sayyid Musa Shabiri Zanjani
15. sayyid Muhammad Husayni Shahrodi
16. sayyid Muhammad Ali Alawi Jorjani
(for readers who don't know sayyid is a title given to descendents of Hasan and Hosayn sons of Ali and grandsons of Muhammad through his daughter Fatimah). One should note in these biographies, thar Sistani and Khamenei are compatriots as both were born in Mashhad.

The reality is that while Sistani is the highest in rank because he has most of Shiite followers in the world, Khamenei is next to him in his marja'iyyah rank besides having the leadership of the ummah in the absence (ghayba) of the hidden Imam Abul-Qasim Muhammad son of al-Hasan al-Askari.

The reality is that Khamenei and Sistani are at the top of the Shiite pyramid in the world.

As Sistani is the master when it comes to taqiyyah, it appears for many that he rejects the leadership of Khamenei. Although he has kept an ambiguous opinion about this issue, my opinion is that he is doesn't oppose the leadeship of Khamenei. In fact on his site www.sistani.org, in the section of questions and answers, under the title of 'wilayah al-faqih', one asks him: هل يجوز تشريع القوانين أستناداً الى المصلحة؟ "Is it allowed to legislate based on profit?", he answers: يجوز ذلك لمن له الولاية شرعاً ضمن شروط خاصة. "It is allowed to that who holds the leadeship (wilayah) by law (i.e. shariah), following certain specified rules." (http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=nav&nid=5&cid=366)
While he is not explicit here about the fact that the leader of the ummah, or according to the official title 'leader of the Islamic Revolution' (rahbare enqelabe Eslami), should be one of the highest clerics, his statement does not exclude this fact.

The idea that the Khomeini invented 'wilayah al-faqih' is wrong as in Imami Shiism clerics are the representatives and successors of the hidden Imam. They hold all powers (political and religious) over the faithfuls in the absence of the Imam Muhammad the Mahdi. The difference between Khomeini and older Shiite clerics is that he was able for the first time in (Shiite) Islam to apply pure Islamic law instead of having law applied by proxy of kings or having it repressed.

One shouldn't forget that in Shiism a cleric or faqih is a doctor in law, i.e. Shariah. As Islam is political, the function of the cleric is not only religious. A cleric could be king or warrior. In fact, Muhammad and Ali were leaders and warriors. However, later clerics did not have skills to lead and to fight (mainly because Shiites were for centuries oppressed) unlike Muhammad, Ali, Hasan and Husayn. So what Khomeini did is to return to the state where the two virtues of the pen and of the sword are united again. From an Islamic point of view, what Khomeini did was something like a miracle, a karamah. But what Khomeini did was nothing new.

To conclude, there are no different Shiite schools. The center of Shiism is Iraq, and Qum comes next to it. The Shiites represent a single body, with few exceptions, headed by the highest clerics, the Ayatollah Ozmas and those following them, the Ayatollahs. At the head of the clerics are two: sayyid Ali Sistani, the highest and most knowledgeable marja, and sayyid Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Ummah.

Note: The following is a sample of my researches on the Shiites. I would have been able to contribute more to the subject on Jihadwatch if I had the time.

"we used to hear all the time that Sistani was a moderate ..."

At times like this, we need to take former Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at his word when he tells us there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Islam's eventual fate rests in the hands of a global population of Muslims who do not directly engage in jihad or openly advocate terrorism.

Our world has waited five long years for this group of ostensibly moderate Muslims to make known their disdain for terrorism. Instead, it has become crystal clear that whatever moderate Muslims there are all too often serve as a silent recruitment and resource pool for the jihadists. Worse yet, they can just as easily remain in an "unactivated" state merely awaiting some arbitrary perceived slight or humiliation that will trigger Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

All that Sistani has done is follow the profile of countless other Muslim who, upon gaining a position of power or influence, suddenly unveil themselves as devout followers of Islam with no tolerance for any dissent. This pattern has repeated itself endlessly and nowhere has any significant portion of the globe's moderate Muslim population shown behavior the least bit different from that of Sistani.

This consistent behavioral conduct must be used as a yardstick when devising policy for dealing with Muslim populations, both abroad and here in America. Until then, we will be treated to more deception, lies and violence at the hands of Islam.

"Ever since Ayatollah Sistani saved Al-Sadrs butt from the US Marines at Fallujah, (we should have taken care of Al-Sadr then), I have considered him as a high ranking enemy..."

It remains one of the great eternal mysteries that Moqtada Sadr somehow continues to steal oxygen from far more deserving lifeforms like cockroaches, lice and slime moulds.

Thanks Berytius_Libanicus,

...Very informative...

So Sistani is bad news, and would impose an Iranian-style mullocracy. Well knock me over with a feather. Just what exactly did we expect would happen when we invaded a predominantly Shiite country to establish "democracy"? U.S. interests were being served a lot better when we had a secularist Saddam Hussein serving as a counterweight to Iran. If he hadn't spoiled it by misinterpreting April Glaspie's remarks to him as a green light to invade Kuwait, we might still have that arrangement in place. Sure he was a son of a bitch, but like Somoza before him, he was our son of a bitch, and a damn sight better for us--and even for Iraq--than the Shiite regime that's likely to end up in charge there.

"U.S. interests were being served a lot better when we had a secularist Saddam Hussein serving as a counterweight to Iran."

Correction:

U.S. interests were being served a lot better when we had a secularist Shah of Iran serving as a counterweight to Saddam Hussein.

Saddam was a Soviet ally. The Shah supported, and was supported by, the US. That was until Jimmy Carter decided he wasn't good enough to be an ally of Saint Jimmy.

People overstate our "support" of Saddam. It amounted to little more than making sure he wasn't run over in a war he himself started. He was never a US ally and he never shared our goals. If Saddam had started that war against the Shah instead of while Khomeini had our hostages, you would never have seen the "tilt".

The poster above makes complete sense. Saddam Hussein was never an American ally. He was never a true secularist in the way that Ataturk was, or Bourguiba. As a Sunni Arab, he had to worry most about opposition based in the Shi'a mosques, led by Shi'a clergy, and Ba'athism can be seen as a secular facade -- a party seemingly open to all -- for what was a Sunni Arab despotism.

But he was still a Believer. He put a Qur'anic quotation on the flag, built mosques, including the Mother of All Mosques, comissioned a Qur'an calligraphed in his blood, named his battles with Iran after famous battles in the first century of Islam, even named the campaign of murder against Kurds after a Qur'anic sura.

The great loss was not that of Saddam Hussein. In fact his removal could have led, had the Americans left within a year, to a less costly and good (for Infidels) outcome, and it still can, but now that outcome is about $600 billion more expensive than it need have been. The great loss was that of the regime of the Shah, and for that one can thank the worst President, practically and morally, in American history: Jimmy Carter. And his "strategic" thinker Brzezinski (a "realist" of the appeasing, Scowcroft, completely unrealistic school), and that disastrous "Iran expert" who is still around, still running something at Columbia, still delivering himself on NPR, without the slightest embarrassment, of exactly the kind of opinions one has come to expect of him, the notorious Gary Sick. [Google "Gary Sick" and "Daniel Pipes" for a summary by the latter of what is wrong with the former].

We'ren't Adolf Hilter's Nazi's moderate ? I wonder what happened to his Generals when they became unmoderate ?

"U.S. interests were being served a lot better when we had a secularist Saddam Hussein serving as a counterweight to Iran."

Correction:

U.S. interests were being served a lot better when we had a secularist Shah of Iran serving as a counterweight to Saddam Hussein.

The two statements are not contradictory. I would agree that the Shah, like Somoza before him and Saddam after him, was "our son of a bitch." When he fell, we had to look for new allies. (But can anyone deny that Mossadegh would have been even better, in the long run?)

But he was still a Believer. He put a Qur'anic quotation on the flag, built mosques, including the Mother of All Mosques, comissioned a Qur'an calligraphed in his blood, named his battles with Iran after famous battles in the first century of Islam, even named the campaign of murder against Kurds after a Qur'anic sura.

The addition of the Koranic quotation and the Koran written in his own blood came after he decided to reinvent himself as a big defender of Islam in 1991 (i.e, after the invasion of Kuwait). Alluding to a Koranic sura that deals with military matters in connection with his military campaign against the Kurds, or to battles from the first century of Islam (in which armies from Mesopotamia conquered Persia) in connection with his campaign against Iran, is more an indication of militarism than of any leaning toward mullocracy.

Ba'athism can be seen as a secular facade -- a party seemingly open to all -- for what was a Sunni Arab despotism.

Since Ba'athism was founded by a Syrian Christian, I think its secularism was more than a facade. In any event, there were good reasons (ones that occurred to the British back when they were in charge of the tar baby that is Iraq) for preferring a Sunnite despotism to a Shiite one. Not the least of which is the tendency of the Shiites to establish a shariah-based government state.

Hello, all,

I've written a bit on Hugh Hewitt and willful blindness:

http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/search?q=Hewitt

See especially October 21, 2006.

Regards,

Amillennialist

Is Sistani an Ayatollah Ozma or just a plain Ayatollah? Youth wants to know.

Those 16 names I listed are the highest, all are Ayatollahs Ozmas, with Sistani on the top.

"Killed in the worst manner possible"?

Let's see...That would be by, um, listening to the likes of this nutcracker(death is caused by lethal doses of mind-stupefyingly lethal Islamic mega-tedium).