Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Ya Aba 3abdillah

Sayyid Ja'far As-sadr

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=19895

Q & A with State of Law Coalition Member Jafar Baqir al-Sadr

16/02/2010By Huda Al-Jasim

Baghdad, Asharq Al-Awsat- Despite acknowledging the failures of the current government, Jafar Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr, the son of Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, has joined Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition. Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr was a founder and leading member of Nuri al-Maliki's Islamic Dawa party, as well as father-in-law of Muqtada al-Sadr. His son, Jafar Baqir al-Sadr, is also a religious cleric, having studied in Iran. He has returned to Iraq and is standing for election to the Iraqi Council of Representatives as part of Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition.

The text of the interview is as follows:

Q) What big is the challenge faced by the State of Law coalition at the forthcoming elections which are scheduled to take place next month?

A) Despite the excellent achievements made by the [state of Law] coalition during the provincial elections, there are important challenges that must be faced in order to secure a victory with a comfortable majority at the current elections; such as protecting the national project which is something that has been built for everybody over the previous years, and not being drawn to using contradictory slogans for this project for the sake of electoral outbidding, It was this project that enabled the coalition to make excellent achievements at the previous election. Governmental failures in some files may cast a shadow over the coalition, despite the fact that many of these [failures] are as a result of the structure of the government which is based upon a quota system, as well as ministers not being directly responsible to the Prime Minister, and the disruption of governmental work by some parliamentary blocs.

Q) Why have you chosen to join the State of Law coalition, rather than another electoral party? And why have you chosen to appear on the political scene at this time?

A) Iraq is passing through a very sensitive period, the political process in Iraq is at stake and such circumstances require all efforts for the sake of escaping from them. [We want to] install the new Iraq and make a success of the political process, and attempt to get rid of the negative aspects and failures. At the same time, the security agreement concluded by the Iraqi government with the occupation forces with regards to a timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq has lifted the major issue that prohibited me from direct participation in the political process. What also encouraged me was the State of Law coalition which shares some of my ambitions with regards to a national project that is away from sectarian or partisan alliances, as well as its clear economic vision for building Iraq politically, economically, and socially. In the next stage, we are in need of a government with a will and determination and which is in possession of a clear and promising transformative project.

Q) Where did you live during the previous period, and where you expect to get involved in politics?

A) There have been many stages in my life, the most prominent of which is when I lived in Kadhimiya [in northern Baghdad] in the care of my cousin Ayatollah al-Sayyid Hussein Ismail al-Sadr, following the death of my father. After my university education I returned to Najaf in the nineties in order to study at the hawza at the hands of the Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr. As a result of the pressure of the regime, and at the behest of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr who wanted to spread his message to the Iraqis in Iran, he sent me there in the late 1990s, and I continued my religious studies there…until after 2003 when I left Iran. I continued my studies and research, in particular on the ideological debate between the cultures of the east and west, however I also paid attention to the course of events and the development of the political process [in Iraq] since the collapse of the former regime. I retained good relations with most political parties, who I supported with mediation in order to resolve some problematic issues.

Q) What are your political interests outside of standing for parliament, and do you have any ambitions to assume a senior state position in the next Iraqi government?

A) I think that standing for a seat in the Council of Representatives is the beginning of an [ongoing] political activity in which I can invest myself and my experience and scientific and cultural knowledge to serve Iraq and its people, especially the poor, and the marginalized and disadvantaged, as well as to contribute to building cultural and ideological awareness to the young generations. As for a position [in government], this is not an end in itself, but a means for an individual to achieve his goals.

Q) What is your view on the future of the political process in Iraq, and when will Iraq finally see political or military stability?

A) The future of the political process is linked to the ability of each Iraqi [internal] component to build genuine partnership in order to lead Iraq, as well as everybody feeling that they have a hand in drawing up Iraq's policies and building its future, and not marginalizing any class or component for any reason. This will reduce the foreign intervention which is a negative factor in achieving stability in Iraq because it exploits the internal division and benefits from this in order to achieve its own interests. The economic file is also an important factor, for economic growth and fairness to the marginalized classes and finding solutions to society's problems such as unemployment, poverty, the lack of housing, is a key part of achieving stability.

Q) What is the nature of your relationship with Muqtada al-Sadr, do you agree or disagree with his positions?

A) Muqtada al-Sadr in a devoted national figure, he has courageous positions in confronting the occupation and he desires sovereignty, independence and stability in Iraq. These are all things that I agree with him on, but I disagree with him on the way that he pursues and resolves such issues.

Q) In your opinion, has the deterioration in the political and security situation in Iraq that has taken place over the past few years been caused by foreign intervention? And what is your opinion on the Iranian or Arab role in Iraq?

A) There are many reasons for this [deterioration], including the policies of the former regime whose results have come to the surface following the regime's collapse, as well as some decisions made by the foreign transitional government, such as the decision to dissolve the army and the security services, as well as Debathification. [in addition to this] the political discourse of the ruling class promoted feelings of sectarianism and racism at the expense of an [iraqi] united national identity. Regional interference also played a role in aggravating the situation because the foreign military presence in Iraq created a fear in some neighboring countries regarding the US project in the region, and the emerging democratic experience in Iraq [also] concerned some people, while the fundamentalist terrorist forces that considered Iraq to be an "arena of jihad" benefited from this and so under the pretext of jihad they started utilizing violence and splitting ranks and sowing discord. Today we need a unified address from all Iraqis to the neighboring countries in order to reassure them that the new Iraq is not a danger to anyone, and that it is outstretching its hand to everybody in order to build the best relations. In return for this we do not accept any interference in our affairs and it is up to these countries to stop this and work to promote national unity by solely dealing with the Iraqi state via official channels, as ties with any component or internal organization is not in the interests of a unified Iraq.

Q) All electoral lists are campaigning for Iraqi unity and in the interests of Iraq. How should the electorate decide between the electoral lists genuinely seeking Iraqi development and unity, and those who do not?

A) Iraqi voters showed great awareness during the provincial elections, as the atmosphere which was full of sectarianism and partisanship was transformed and they [the electorate] sided with coalitions of national discourse that possess ambitions projects to serve their citizens, away from sectarianism and the politicization of religion. I rely upon this awareness at the forthcoming elections.

Q) Do you believe that the coming stage up to the elections will result in political violence and assassinations, and if so who do you believe will be responsible for this? Will it be internal or external parties?

A) I hope that this does not happen, and I have confidence in the efforts of the security forces – the army and police – in creating a safe environment until the day of the elections, as well as in ensuring the equal participation [in the elections] of all components of the Iraqi people. As well as [preventing] irresponsible electoral campaigning from disturbing the [electoral] atmosphere, and denying those who want to utilize this opportunity in order to attack the political process through violence such as terrorist groups or pro-Saddam groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

islamic revolution...kick the greatest satan out of Al Rafidein.

I'm not an expert in Iraqi politics, but I know enough about Islamic politics to know that any collaboration with the enemies of Islam is a big question mark, and I'm not sure what his idea of ridding Iraq of the occupation is. They didn't build the largest US embassy/fortress in the world for fun, they didn't spend I don't know how many hundreds of billions in the past 7 years for some barrels of oil. Fighting them is the ONLY way, and if he can't see that, that's a question mark.

And again I don't know what he's talking about great achievements of the Maliki traitor government are, since I haven't been back in 20 years, but I know a lot of people who come and go, and they say if it wasn't for the A'immah, they would never go back. That's aside from the horror stories I've had to listen to over the years of the backwardness and poverty and ignorance.

The country needs a revolution. Unfortunately they don't have a leader.

Edited by thecontentedself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

islamic revolution...kick the greatest satan out of Al Rafidein.

I'm not an expert in Iraqi politics, but I know enough about Islamic politics to know that any collaboration with the enemies of Islam is a big question mark, and I'm not sure what his idea of ridding Iraq of the occupation is. They didn't build the largest US embassy/fortress in the world for fun, they didn't spend I don't know how many hundreds of billions in the past 7 years for some barrels of oil. Fighting them is the ONLY way, and if he can't see that, that's a question mark.

And again I don't know what he's talking about great achievements of the Maliki traitor government are, since I haven't been back in 20 years, but I know a lot of people who come and go, and they say if it wasn't for the A'immah, they would never go back. That's aside from the horror stories I've had to listen to over the years of the backwardness and poverty and ignorance.

The country needs a revolution. Unfortunately they don't have a leader.

Under his watch, against all odds

-The Iraqi constitution has been respected

-The US has failed to turn Iraq into a client state

-The terrorists have failed to establish a significant presence in Iraq

-The terrorists have been significantly weakened in their capacity to murder

-A catastrophic and bloody civil war has been prevented

-The democratic process has been kept from disolving

-The integrity of the Iraq's borders has remained intact, with a government maintaining relative freedom of movement for itself in all regions

-Power has been transferred from the various groups and miltias to the central government where it would be in any civilised state

-Strenuous efforts have been made to reach out to all groups, including the regions that were traditional supporters of the former tyrant, something that they themselves would never have afforded to us Shia

-A competitve bidding process for the oil production and development has been established

-Investment and reconstruction has taken place

-Legal action has been taken against Ba'athists

I could also give a long list of criticisms, mainly to do with being soft on terrorism and corruption, slow economic progress and failure to bring Black Water and US forces to account for their crimes. However, just as Maliki does not deserve all the credit for the positives, he does not deserve all the blame for the negatives either - Iraq's many and various enemies have gone to great lengths to undermine him and bring the country into chaos.

He has not done brilliantly, but he has done pretty well all things considered. Crucially, it could easily have been someone else in office who would have left the country in a far worse state than it is now. The idea that he is the head of a band of traitors is nonsense.

Edited by Dirac Delta function

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-The Iraqi constitution has been respected

-The US has failed to turn Iraq into a client state

-The terrorists have failed to establish a significant presence in Iraq

-The terrorists have been significantly weakened in their capacity to murder

-A catastrophic and bloody civil war has been prevented

-The democratic process has been kept from disolving

-The integrity of the Iraq's borders has remained intact, with a government maintaining relative freedom of movement for itself in all regions

-Power has been transferred from the various groups and miltias to the central government where it would be in any civilised state

-Strenuous efforts have been made to reach out to all groups, including the regions that were traditional supporters of the former tyrant, something that they themselves would never have afforded to us Shia

-A competitve bidding process for the oil production and development has been established

-Investment and reconstruction has taken place

-Legal action has been taken against Ba'athists

I could also give a long list of criticisms, mainly to do with being soft on terrorism and corruption, slow economic progress and failure to bring Black Water and US forces to account for their crimes. However, just as Maliki does not deserve all the credit for the positives, he does not deserve all the blame for the negatives either - Iraq's many and various enemies have gone to great lengths to undermine him and bring the country into chaos.

He has not done brilliantly, but he has done pretty well all things considered. Crucially, it could easily have been someone else in office who would have left the country in a far worse state than it is now. The idea that he is the head of a band of traitors is nonsense.

Maliki is a puppet of the United States, he supported the occupation of Iraq, he supports the US presence in Iraq. Don't be fooled by the propaganda, those Al Qaeda figures have been reported non existant, dead, captured, recaptured several times. No Muslim should trust this puppet Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under his watch, against all odds

-The Iraqi constitution has been respected

-The US has failed to turn Iraq into a client state

-The terrorists have failed to establish a significant presence in Iraq

-The terrorists have been significantly weakened in their capacity to murder

-A catastrophic and bloody civil war has been prevented

-The democratic process has been kept from disolving

-The integrity of the Iraq's borders has remained intact, with a government maintaining relative freedom of movement for itself in all regions

-Power has been transferred from the various groups and miltias to the central government where it would be in any civilised state

-Strenuous efforts have been made to reach out to all groups, including the regions that were traditional supporters of the former tyrant, something that they themselves would never have afforded to us Shia

-A competitve bidding process for the oil production and development has been established

-Investment and reconstruction has taken place

-Legal action has been taken against Ba'athists

I could also give a long list of criticisms, mainly to do with being soft on terrorism and corruption, slow economic progress and failure to bring Black Water and US forces to account for their crimes. However, just as Maliki does not deserve all the credit for the positives, he does not deserve all the blame for the negatives either - Iraq's many and various enemies have gone to great lengths to undermine him and bring the country into chaos.

He has not done brilliantly, but he has done pretty well all things considered. Crucially, it could easily have been someone else in office who would have left the country in a far worse state than it is now. The idea that he is the head of a band of traitors is nonsense.

Iraq is a client state as long as the US is present with its 50 or more bases, and their soldiers and contractors given a free hand to murder civilians as they please. I don't believe for one minute that the american government is not aware of this and that this is not happening as a result of direct orders from the secretary of war. what has the maliki government done about that? he was unhesitant to throw himself in front of is former puppet master bush when the dog was targeted with shoes, is he willing to do the same for his own people? or is the chair too comfortable?

Maliki should be tried for treason, along with anybody else who's willing to play into the occupiers hands, and anybody else who's involved in destroying my country.

(wasalam)

Edited by thecontentedself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq is a client state as long as the US is present with its 50 or more bases, and their soldiers and contractors given a free hand to murder civilians as they please. I don't believe for one minute that the american government is not aware of this and that this is not happening as a result of direct orders from the secretary of war. what has the maliki government done about that? he was unhesitant to throw himself in front of is former puppet master bush when the dog was targeted with shoes, is he willing to do the same for his own people? or is the chair too comfortable?

Maliki should be tried for treason, along with anybody else who's willing to play into the occupiers hands, and anybody else who's involved in destroying my country.

(wasalam)

As I said above, they deserve to be criticised for the poor handling of the American murderers. However, the reality is that there is nothing that can be done directly against them, their superiors have effectively guaranteed them immunity from prosecution, and they are not about to change their minds because some rag-head wanted them to.

There are only two ways to deal with this situation - through the current democratic and political process, or through uprising. Iraqis have no desire for the latter, so we forced to take the route of the former, and thats what is happening, with some degree success but not a great deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said above, they deserve to be criticised for the poor handling of the American murderers. However, the reality is that there is nothing that can be done directly against them, their superiors have effectively guaranteed them immunity from prosecution, and they are not about to change their minds because some rag-head wanted them to.

Supporting the occupation of Iraq is not just "poor handling" its being involved in the crime. Your position is that Muslims should just abandon Amr bi Ma3roof an Nahe an Al Munkar which goes directly against what Allah(swt) has advised us in the Quran.

There are only two ways to deal with this situation - through the current democratic and political process, or through uprising. Iraqis have no desire for the latter, so we forced to take the route of the former, and thats what is happening, with some degree success but not a great deal.

What do you mean "Iraqis have no desire" for Jihad, thats a false assumption and you completely ignore the thousands of Iraqis that are part of the resistance and have sacrificed their lives for the sake of Allah(swt).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said above, they deserve to be criticised for the poor handling of the American murderers. However, the reality is that there is nothing that can be done directly against them, their superiors have effectively guaranteed them immunity from prosecution, and they are not about to change their minds because some rag-head wanted them to.

There are only two ways to deal with this situation - through the current democratic and political process, or through uprising. Iraqis have no desire for the latter, so we forced to take the route of the former, and thats what is happening, with some degree success but not a great deal.

as far as I'm aware, Iraqi law applies to these soldiers and their superiors. if the superiors have guaranteed them immunity, and maliki is ok with that, then I want his head on a plate as well.

this rag-head wants nothing less than armed resistance. and our fighters are alive and well and doing just that, may Allah grant them success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

islamic revolution...kick the greatest satan out of Al Rafidein.

I'm not an expert in Iraqi politics, but I know enough about Islamic politics to know that any collaboration with the enemies of Islam is a big question mark, and I'm not sure what his idea of ridding Iraq of the occupation is. They didn't build the largest US embassy/fortress in the world for fun, they didn't spend I don't know how many hundreds of billions in the past 7 years for some barrels of oil. Fighting them is the ONLY way, and if he can't see that, that's a question mark.

And again I don't know what he's talking about great achievements of the Maliki traitor government are, since I haven't been back in 20 years, but I know a lot of people who come and go, and they say if it wasn't for the A'immah, they would never go back. That's aside from the horror stories I've had to listen to over the years of the backwardness and poverty and ignorance.

The country needs a revolution. Unfortunately they don't have a leader.

Salam,

Bro as much as i would love that it's not up to the leaders, its up to the people. Allah says in the quran that he won't change the fate of the people unless they change whats inside them. A nice quick example, Khomani and Mohammed Baqer al Sadr (quddsaa serhum) they stood for an islamic state, iranians? mashallah 3lemhum they got killed by the thoushands for it, iraqis? we let Mohammed Baqir al sadr die not known he exsisted in the first place. You see? inshallah kheer

Mohammed Baqir al Sadr didn't lose hope with us (the next generation):

"Every nation has to shed the pure blood of a Hussain. They would have to give a sacrifice. He agreed to be the Hussain of his era. He knew they would not rise immediately, but their children would rise after him. His blood would bear fruit!"

Inshallah in our life time, ya Allah

Wallahu A3lem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

Bro as much as i would love that it's not up to the leaders, its up to the people. Allah says in the quran that he won't change the fate of the people unless they change whats inside them. A nice quick example, Khomani and Mohammed Baqer al Sadr (quddsaa serhum) they stood for an islamic state, iranians? mashallah 3lemhum they got killed by the thoushands for it, iraqis? we let Mohammed Baqir al sadr die not known he exsisted in the first place. You see? inshallah kheer

Mohammed Baqir al Sadr didn't lose hope with us (the next generation):

"Every nation has to shed the pure blood of a Hussain. They would have to give a sacrifice. He agreed to be the Hussain of his era. He knew they would not rise immediately, but their children would rise after him. His blood would bear fruit!"

Inshallah in our life time, ya Allah

Wallahu A3lem

(salam) (bismillah)

Exactly my sentiments, that's why I keep telling my Iraqi brothers and sisters, that they deserve whatever calamities befall them, until the day they rise up and put and end to this insanity and selfishness and greed and corruption. When it comes to crying for Imam Hussain and doing tatbeer and other innovations, nobody beats the Sh'ia of Iraq. Yet when it comes to fighting the greater jihad...non-existent. It's not going to happen from within Iraq if it is left to the current leaderships. we need fresh minds with clear goals and uncompromising dedication to Allah swt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam) (bismillah)

Exactly my sentiments, that's why I keep telling my Iraqi brothers and sisters, that they deserve whatever calamities befall them, until the day they rise up and put and end to this insanity and selfishness and greed and corruption. When it comes to crying for Imam Hussain and doing tatbeer and other innovations, nobody beats the Sh'ia of Iraq. Yet when it comes to fighting the greater jihad...non-existent. It's not going to happen from within Iraq if it is left to the current leaderships. we need fresh minds with clear goals and uncompromising dedication to Allah swt...

Salam,

Ahsentum!! What we can do is lead by example, try influence as much as we can and work to our capacity; then the rest is to Allah

Inshallah kheer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilayet el faqih is impossible in Iraq. The persians should stop dreaming that it will happen in Iraq. Wilayet el faqih cannot work anywhere because its leader must be sinless and pure not a sinner like khamenei :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilayet el faqih is impossible in Iraq. The persians should stop dreaming that it will happen in Iraq. Wilayet el faqih cannot work anywhere because its leader must be sinless and pure not a sinner like khamenei :)

Salam,

No one said anything about Welayet Al Faqih, such a system needs to be voted in, I just want iraqis to adopt more islamic princible in terms of governance and normal life. Just none of that secterian stuff like turkey!! BTW bro, please don't call a marjah a sinner you don't need to remind anyone there not perfect, its very insulting and unmoral. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilayet el faqih is impossible in Iraq. The persians should stop dreaming that it will happen in Iraq. Wilayet el faqih cannot work anywhere because its leader must be sinless and pure not a sinner like khamenei :)

wilayat al faqih is not a persian dream. shaheed seyyed muhammad baqir al sadr (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the prophets dream has come true with the establishment of the islamic republic in Iran. I'm not persian myself, although we had a hand in the establishment of the islamic republic, yet my forefathers were freedom fighters against the british in Iraq in the 1920s. so revolution is in our blood.

wilayat al faqih is the only way to establish social justice, and this is an islamic doctrine whether you like it or not. it's not persian, or a khomeinism or whatever you wanna call it. it's Islam in it's purest form.

and please don't come on here and attack islamic leaders. nobody will benefit from that.

Edited by thecontentedself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilayet el faqih is impossible in Iraq. The persians should stop dreaming that it will happen in Iraq. Wilayet el faqih cannot work anywhere because its leader must be sinless and pure not a sinner like khamenei :)

Yes I agree we should hope for Wilayet al puppet Amriki, since Maliki, Allawi and Talabani are all sinless and pure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contented Self, Khorosani et. al.

This topic has been discussed for 7 years. The conclusion has not changed: Either we have a single democratic state(s), or we have a civil war and fight between ourselves for territory. Right now we are in a precarious state of flux between these two most-likely outcomes, and time will tell what happens

You can discuss theoretical ideals about what Iraqis should have done, and sure, Iraqis have themselves to blame for their problems in large part, I don't deny that, they are paying for their sins - not to mention the sins of others. However, we don't have a time-machine to go back 30-40 years and correct the mistakes of the past, we have to deal with the realities on the ground. The reality on the ground is that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of the type of Islamic revolution you talk about, whether for better for worse, it's just not going to happen. The truth is that there never was a chance. We can talk about why, and it would be interesting, but it's just academic. What matters in Iraq is how we can move forward and make people's lives better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contented Self, Khorosani et. al.

This topic has been discussed for 7 years. The conclusion has not changed: Either we have a single democratic state(s), or we have a civil war and fight between ourselves for territory. Right now we are in a precarious state of flux between these two most-likely outcomes, and time will tell what happens

You can discuss theoretical ideals about what Iraqis should have done, and sure, Iraqis have themselves to blame for their problems in large part, I don't deny that, they are paying for their sins - not to mention the sins of others. However, we don't have a time-machine to go back 30-40 years and correct the mistakes of the past, we have to deal with the realities on the ground. The reality on the ground is that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of the type of Islamic revolution you talk about, whether for better for worse, it's just not going to happen. The truth is that there never was a chance. We can talk about why, and it would be interesting, but it's just academic. What matters in Iraq is how we can move forward and make people's lives better.

You are merely begging the question, your entire premise is based on the fact that an Islamic Revolution is impossible in Iraq since it hasn't happened thus far. You however fail to mention the popular support right after the invasion of Iraq for an Islamic Government headed by Sayyid Muqtada al Sadr (may Allah protect him). The Americans were well aware of this and they did NOT want another Iran like "Islamic state" developing. The reply was the creation of sectarian conflicts among, Sunnis/Shias and Shias/Shias. British special forces were caught red handed dressed as Arabs planting bombs in Shia mosques. This synthetic sectarian conflict slowed the momentum of a true Islamic Government and made the ordinary Iraqis lose any hope for a true Islamic Government. Through fear and deception.

Furthermore they portray Allawi and Maliki as leaders capable of capturing those illusive/mythical Al Qaeda figures and rebuilding of Iraq whenever the people vote for them. While the country goes deeper into sectarian conflicts whenever the people dare to support an Islamic leader. The Americans have sent a clear message to the Iraqis chose a secular pro-American puppet and you will be safe from Al Qaeda, we will leave and Iraq will prosper. However dare to support an Islamic state and new Al Qaeda figures will emerge, Iraq will be unstable and we might have to stay for longer. It is unfortunate that people like yourself have bought into this deception through fear campaigns.

Edited by Al Khorasani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are merely begging the question, your entire premise is based on the fact that an Islamic Revolution is impossible in Iraq since it hasn't happened thus far.

No, I did not say that. There are a number of reasons why an Islamic revoltuion can't happen in Iraq, I have not actually stated them.

You however fail to mention the popular support right after the invasion of Iraq for an Islamic Government headed by Sayyid Muqtada al Sadr (may Allah protect him). The Americans were well aware of this and they did NOT want another Iran like "Islamic state" developing. The reply was the creation of sectarian conflicts among, Sunnis/Shias and Shias/Shias. British special forces were caught red handed dressed as Arabs planting bombs in Shia mosques. This synthetic sectarian conflict slowed the momentum of a true Islamic Government and made the ordinary Iraqis lose any hope for a true Islamic Government. Through fear and deception.

Sadr was never that popular outside his own areas. In the first elections, the UIA which was basically all the Shia together only got 48% of all votes, and in the latest, Sadr+Hakeem+Ja'afari only got 19%. Then you talk about the US producing Shia-Shia conflict. Are you seriously tellling me th fighting between Sadr and Hakim was instigated by the US? If our leaders are so gullible and so malleable that they would have Shia kill Shia in the holiest places and outside them, then why on Earth would we want to follow them? They have made no serious attempts at reconcilliation, I have not even seen Hakeem and Sadr shake hands. All they do together is join up when voting time comes.

In government crackdowns on the Mahdi Army, it was Hakeem's boys who swapped their badr brigade uniforms for Iraqi army uniforms and did the fighting.

As for Sunnis, some people just won't get it. You will one day be kneeling on the ground with your hands tied behind your back, with a Salafi ready to cut your head off and you will still say it was America. The Sunnis in general and Salafis in particular have never needed America to murder and oppress Shia. They were doing it long before America existed and they have never stopped. As I have said before, the Americans and Zionists capitalise on this, and stoke it, but it has always been there.

Furthermore they portray Allawi and Maliki as leaders capable of capturing those illusive/mythical Al Qaeda figures and rebuilding of Iraq whenever the people vote for them. While the country goes deeper into sectarian conflicts whenever the people dare to support an Islamic leader. The Americans have sent a clear message to the Iraqis chose a secular pro-American puppet and you will be safe from Al Qaeda, we will leave and Iraq will prosper. However dare to support an Islamic state and new Al Qaeda figures will emerge, Iraq will be unstable and we might have to stay for longer. It is unfortunate that people like yourself have bought into this deception through fear campaigns.

Mythical? OK, so al Qaida are figments of our imagination - figments which happen to behead people and blow up on proximity to market stalls and mosques. I'm sorry, but these criminals and their demented Salafi ideology are very real. It's like some Shia have a sadistic, inescapable urge to forgive their "Muslim" murderers to the extend that they will even deny their existence.

Now which Islamic leader is the US trying to prevent us from electing? There are none. They want a puppet, and that's why they wanted Chalabi initially then Allawi when it turned out Chalabi was deceiving them. They didn't get what they wanted. That was us rejecting their attempts to make us into their client, and despite all the pressure levied against them, Maliki and his party have still not become puppets to the Americans. You can't see beyond the superficialities of gestures and platitudes, that's the problem.

Edited by Dirac Delta function

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I did not say that. There are a number of reasons why an Islamic revoltuion can't happen in Iraq, I have not actually stated them.

I have only replied to the reason you have provided.

Sadr was never that popular outside his own areas. In the first elections, the UIA which was basically all the Shia together only got 48% of all votes, and in the latest, Sadr+Hakeem+Ja'afari only got 19%. Then you talk about the US producing Shia-Shia conflict. Are you seriously tellling me th fighting between Sadr and Hakim was instigated by the US? If our leaders are so gullible and so malleable that they would have Shia kill Shia in the holiest places and outside them, then why on Earth would we want to follow them? They have made no serious attempts at reconcilliation, I have not even seen Hakeem and Sadr shake hands. All they do together is join up when voting time comes.

In government crackdowns on the Mahdi Army, it was Hakeem's boys who swapped their badr brigade uniforms for Iraqi army uniforms and did the fighting.

The only one being manipulated was Hakeem and his US Army boys the Badr Brigade. The Badr Brigade were essentially an asset of the US army helped to murder any anti-US Islamic groups.

300px-Al-Hakim_meets_G.W._Bush.jpg

Hakeems hands are stained with the blood of innocent Iraqis. He has been duped.

As for Sunnis, some people just won't get it. You will one day be kneeling on the ground with your hands tied behind your back, with a Salafi ready to cut your head off and you will still say it was America. The Sunnis in general and Salafis in particular have never needed America to murder and oppress Shia. They were doing it long before America existed and they have never stopped. As I have said before, the Americans and Zionists capitalise on this, and stoke it, but it has always been there.

Your beloved leaders Maliki, Allawi and Hakeem work for the same people as those Salafis.

Mythical? OK, so al Qaida are figments of our imagination - figments which happen to behead people and blow up on proximity to market stalls and mosques. I'm sorry, but these criminals and their demented Salafi ideology are very real. It's like some Shia have a sadistic, inescapable urge to forgive their "Muslim" murderers to the extend that they will even deny their existence.

Al-Qaeda was the CIA name created for their Arab assets in Afghanistan, they are nothing but dupes, fanatics and double agents of Western and Saudi Intelligence. They do not exist as Obama and Maliki would have you believe, most of the Sunni/Salafi militias are nothing but the remnants of the Ba'athist regime.

Now which Islamic leader is the US trying to prevent us from electing? There are none. They want a puppet, and that's why they wanted Chalabi initially then Allawi when it turned out Chalabi was deceiving them. They didn't get what they wanted. That was us rejecting their attempts to make us into their client, and despite all the pressure levied against them, Maliki and his party have still not become puppets to the Americans. You can't see beyond the superficialities of gestures and platitudes, that's the problem.

Its very clear who the US is against and its not Hakeem or Maliki. Maliki has always supported the occupation of Iraq by his masters, how does that not make him a puppet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

You can discuss theoretical ideals about what Iraqis should have done, and sure, Iraqis have themselves to blame for their problems in large part, I don't deny that, they are paying for their sins - not to mention the sins of others. However, we don't have a time-machine to go back 30-40 years and correct the mistakes of the past, we have to deal with the realities on the ground. The reality on the ground is that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of the type of Islamic revolution you talk about, whether for better for worse, it's just not going to happen. The truth is that there never was a chance. We can talk about why, and it would be interesting, but it's just academic. What matters in Iraq is how we can move forward and make people's lives better.

I completely agree with everything you said. Very well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I completely agree with everything you said. Very well said.

He hasn't given any reasons as to why an Islamic revolution cannot take place in Iraq, he is just begging the question. Furthermore any reason he would give does not justify the repealing of the Islamic Governance, its is just an excuse to have a secular puppet state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He hasn't given any reasons as to why an Islamic revolution cannot take place in Iraq, he is just begging the question. Furthermore any reason he would give does not justify the repealing of the Islamic Governance, its is just an excuse to have a secular puppet state.

Salam,

How much iraqis do you know?

i)how much of the shia would agree?

Who would step up and be the leader?

Would our dear sunni brother agree?

Im personally not against it but you have to see the realities and try 'adjust' them. Our best bet currently is to get someone like Hugo Chavez, an iraqi version to lay the basic foundations then we can move on from there

Edited by sarmad17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

How much iraqis do you know?

i)how much of the shia would agree?

Who would step up and be the leader?

Would our dear sunni brother agree?

Im personally not against it but you have to see the realities and try 'adjust' them. Our best bet currently is to get someone like Hugo Chavez, an iraqi version to lay the basic foundations then we can move on from there

I know a lot of Iraqis including Shias, Sunnis, Kurds and Turkmen. Not that it has anything to do with this topic. I am quite certain you might not know a lot of Venezuelans or any for that matter but that doesn't mean your comments about Chavez hold any less importance. Furthermore this Nationalistic division argument you're using is nothing but a conditioning of the Western propaganda machines. The Mehdi army is the largest Shia militia group this means they hold considerable support from the Iraqi Shias, even if the support for the Wilaya was not as popular it still doesn't justify abandoning it all together. This is fallacy of population and its what the Western Secular democracy is based on. You're support of a secular socialist leader like Chavez instead of an Islamic leader is also flawed. You are basically saying the secular/socialist system of Governance is a better idea than an Islamic version.

Sayyid Muqtada Al Sadr would make the best leader of an Iraqi Islamic State. He has been the only prominent mujtahid protesting and fighting against the occupation and mass killing of innocent Muslims. He is is the only leader that can be seen as the legacy of Imam Khomeini(ra) just like Nasrullah(ha) in Lebanon. He is the only leader that has followed Imam Hussain(as) Jihad while most of the so called shias have abandoned it just like they did during Imam Hussain(as) time.

Most of the Sunnis in Iraq are former Ba'athists and/or Pan-Arab Nationalist supporters who are against anything to do with Shias and an Islamic State. They just want another puppet like Saddam in power who would give them the largest piece of the pie. This is evident in their support of the puppet Allawi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of Iraqis including Shias, Sunnis, Kurds and Turkmen. Not that it has anything to do with this topic. I am quite certain you might not know a lot of Venezuelans or any for that matter but that doesn't mean your comments about Chavez hold any less importance. Furthermore this Nationalistic division argument you're using is nothing but a conditioning of the Western propaganda machines. The Mehdi army is the largest Shia militia group this means they hold considerable support from the Iraqi Shias, even if the support for the Wilaya was not as popular it still doesn't justify abandoning it all together. This is fallacy of population and its what the Western Secular democracy is based on. You're support of a secular socialist leader like Chavez instead of an Islamic leader is also flawed. You are basically saying the secular/socialist system of Governance is a better idea than an Islamic version.

Sayyid Muqtada Al Sadr would make the best leader of an Iraqi Islamic State. He has been the only prominent mujtahid protesting and fighting against the occupation and mass killing of innocent Muslims. He is is the only leader that can be seen as the legacy of Imam Khomeini(ra) just like Nasrullah(ha) in Lebanon. He is the only leader that has followed Imam Hussain(as) Jihad while most of the so called shias have abandoned it just like they did during Imam Hussain(as) time.

Most of the Sunnis in Iraq are former Ba'athists and/or Pan-Arab Nationalist supporters who are against anything to do with Shias and an Islamic State. They just want another puppet like Saddam in power who would give them the largest piece of the pie. This is evident in their support of the puppet Allawi.

Appologies, little misunderstanding, when i asked if you knew any iraqis i was going to ask have u seen there mentality? well at least the ones i know (being iraqi).

'Furthermore this Nationalistic division argument you're using is nothing but a conditioning of the Western propaganda machines' -- i don't exactly understand

'The Mehdi army is the largest Shia militia group this means they hold considerable support from the Iraqi Shias, even if the support for the Wilaya was not as popular it still doesn't justify abandoning it all together' --I didnt say abandon it

' You're support of a secular socialist leader like Chavez instead of an Islamic leader is also flawed. You are basically saying the secular/socialist system of Governance is a better idea than an Islamic version.' -- It was nothing to do with his political ideology rather his character, his love for his people and the will power to act (Like Nasrallah, Khomani and Mohammed Baqir al sadr), where as Seyid Moktada is still not popular enough to take such a position.

Thats from a realist point of view in my opinion, but ideally i would like diffrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Appologies, little misunderstanding, when i asked if you knew any iraqis i was going to ask have u seen there mentality? well at least the ones i know (being iraqi).

I see, yes they have pretty much the same mentality and Islamic ideologies as myself, even though half of them are Sunnis they agree that an Islamic state would be the best option. However they do want a Sunni Imam that represents the Sunni community along with the Shia Imam. I have no objection to that as long the Sunni Imam is a believer in true Islamic Constitution like Hamas not a Pan-Arab Nationalist or a Ba'athist.

Furthermore this Nationalistic division argument you're using is nothing but a conditioning of the Western propaganda machines' -- i don't exactly understand

People who use arguments such as you're not an Iraqi therefore anything you say is not important and cannot be taken seriously. Using the same Nationalist argument none of us can claim affinity to Palestine or defend it since we are not Palestinian. All these borders were created by the Colonialists and these people have forgotten all about the Ummah and just go by the divisions created among Muslims by our enemies.

'The Mehdi army is the largest Shia militia group this means they hold considerable support from the Iraqi Shias, even if the support for the Wilaya was not as popular it still doesn't justify abandoning it all together' --I didnt say abandon it

Fair enough but we cant just sit on the fence and hope it'll happen one day when we don't even fully support it. You either want a Secular puppet state or an Islamic state, there is no middle ground. Anything less than an Islamic state is a compromise. Some people have been duped into believing the middle ground could be a Nationalist Secular state that is independent of American control. What they fail to see is the fact that Nationalism in itself is a creation of the Colonialists to keep the Ummah divided.

' You're support of a secular socialist leader like Chavez instead of an Islamic leader is also flawed. You are basically saying the secular/socialist system of Governance is a better idea than an Islamic version.' -- It was nothing to do with his political ideology rather his character, his love for his people and the will power to act (Like Nasrallah, Khomani and Mohammed Baqir al sadr), where as Seyid Moktada is still not popular enough to take such a position.

His whole character is based on his political ideologies. People don't chose politicians in power just because they seem like a good character, the main reason is their political ideologies. Chavez is popular with the poor people of Venezuela because of his anti-Imperialist and Socialist ideologies. That is something he can be commended for, however there is no reason we can't have an anti-Imperialist leader in Iraq that follows an Islamic constitution. Why is it that whenever Islam is brought up with politics some Muslims feel like they have to avoid it and be more like the Kuffar and follow the Chruch-State separation dogma.

Thats from a realist point of view in my opinion, but ideally i would like diffrent.

The problem is that you have been conditioned to think an Islamic State is an "unrealistic" proposition. This proposition is solely based on the Western efforts against the establishment of another Islamic state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Seyyed Moqtada is the best option. I'm not even sure he would want that. I can't think of anybody else who's popular enough to be a figurehead... Seyyed Modarresi? He's got some good views on how to run Iraq, not sure of his political inclinations though... I think it needs to be a combined group effort for the time being until Seyyed Moqtada grows politically and intellectually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see, yes they have pretty much the same mentality and Islamic ideologies as myself, even though half of them are Sunnis they agree that an Islamic state would be the best option. However they do want a Sunni Imam that represents the Sunni community along with the Shia Imam. I have no objection to that as long the Sunni Imam is a believer in true Islamic Constitution like Hamas not a Pan-Arab Nationalist or a Ba'athist.

I agree, 'sunni imam' ' shia imam' sad were at that stage in the ummah

People who use arguments such as you're not an Iraqi therefore anything you say is not important and cannot be taken seriously. Using the same Nationalist argument none of us can claim affinity to Palestine or defend it since we are not Palestinian. All these borders were created by the Colonialists and these people have forgotten all about the Ummah and just go by the divisions created among Muslims by our enemies.

These kind of people make me feel sick

Fair enough but we cant just sit on the fence and hope it'll happen one day when we don't even fully support it. You either want a Secular puppet state or an Islamic state, there is no middle ground. Anything less than an Islamic state is a compromise. Some people have been duped into believing the middle ground could be a Nationalist Secular state that is independent of American control. What they fail to see is the fact that Nationalism in itself is a creation of the Colonialists to keep the Ummah divided.

I agree! What about the kurds?

His whole character is based on his political ideologies. People don't chose politicians in power just because they seem like a good character, the main reason is their political ideologies. Chavez is popular with the poor people of Venezuela because of his anti-Imperialist and Socialist ideologies. That is something he can be commended for, however there is no reason we can't have an anti-Imperialist leader in Iraq that follows an Islamic constitution. Why is it that whenever Islam is brought up with politics some Muslims feel like they have to avoid it and be more like the Kuffar and follow the Chruch-State separation dogma.

Chavez is popular becuase he works for his country under the guise of socialism whatever, his working for the poor, he reduced poverty from 80% to 20%. Forget Chavez, use Nasrallah, or whom ever cares more about the people then his seat/position. Do you see what i mean?

The problem is that you have been conditioned to think an Islamic State is an "unrealistic" proposition. This proposition is solely based on the Western efforts against the establishment of another Islamic state.

100% true, espically through our media (who are not allowed to critise the occupation)

It is sad what we have been subjected to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree! What about the kurds?

This issue is a bit more complicated than the Shia/Sunni argument since the Kurds have more allegiance to their Secular Nationalist parties like PUK and PKK than Islam. They are heavily funded by the West to make sure they can be used as pawns against Islamic Iran and Iraq. They should be represented in an Iraqi Government but they should not dictate or hold any special status simple because they are a big minority. Iranian Governments treatment and representation of Kurds, Baluchis and Arabs in their parliament is a good guideline.

Chavez is popular becuase he works for his country under the guise of socialism whatever, his working for the poor, he reduced poverty from 80% to 20%. Forget Chavez, use Nasrallah, or whom ever cares more about the people then his seat/position. Do you see what i mean?

I agree, Iraq needs a strong Islamic leader like Sayyid Nasrullah and Muqtada Al Sadr has more in common with Nasrullah than any other puppets in the Iraqi Government.

I'm not sure Seyyed Moqtada is the best option. I'm not even sure he would want that. I can't think of anybody else who's popular enough to be a figurehead... Seyyed Modarresi? He's got some good views on how to run Iraq, not sure of his political inclinations though... I think it needs to be a combined group effort for the time being until Seyyed Moqtada grows politically and intellectually.

I am pretty certain Sayyid Muqtada would want nothing less than an Islamic Revolution and an end to the occupation of Iraq. He has made his position on this issue very clear. I do agree that it needs to be a combined effort from all our Ulema. I have great respect for Sayyid Modaressi and his sons but I don't know a great deal about their political aspirations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

What Iraq really needs is for ALL nations to stop meddling in our affairs. Syrians have bad intentions, saudis have bad intentions, americans have bad intentions and .......... don't even get me started on Iran.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

What Iraq really needs is for ALL nations to stop meddling in our affairs. Syrians have bad intentions, saudis have bad intentions, americans have bad intentions and .......... don't even get me started on Iran.

(wasalam)

You have positive interference mixed up with negative. Lets not meddle into Palestinian affairs since we aren't Palestinian, let the US army establish bases in the Arabian Peninsula and not meddle in their affair since we are not natives of that country. Your idea is the same as someone seeing their neighbours house burning and not interfering. You have no clue about geo-politics and Islamic Ummah and have been brainwashed by a Nationalist propaganda. Let us completely abandon the idea of Amr bil Ma3roof and Nahi an Al Munkar. Iraq doesn't exist in a vacuum whereby its affairs doesn't effect the rest of the Muslim Ummah. You don't think America having massed over 100,000 soldiers on either sides of Iran doesn't threaten its existence. They should just stay out of Iraqi and Afghan politics and let themselves be the next sacrificial lamb for America and Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...