Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Casper

Al Afghani , Khomeinism and the Masons

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This topic isn't intended in any way to be abusive , those are informations that need clarifications , the one who may feel offended , he can stop reading it .

I would not jump to radical conclusions , but suddenly I read a notion that Syed Jamal al Deen al Afghani was a leader of a masonic lodge in Cairo . I have read about this man in Hezbollah's pro AWF books , so I linked him with Imam Khomeini to discover many similarities in their thinkings to an extent that we can put them in the same line .

With some googling look what I found :

Sayyid Jamal al Deen al Afghani was the father of Islamic anti-imperialism in the Muslim world , and Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Revolution has finally succeeded in ending the influence of Western powers in Iran.

1) Freemasonry :

a) Al-Afghani was accused of being a freemason and never denied it, while 'Abduh (his sufi (sunni) disciple) openly admitted it and became both Grand Mufti of Egypt and Grand Master of the United Lodge of Egypt :

b ) He also formed and led a Masonic lodge in Cairo, among whose members were counted such promising young leaders as Mohammad 'Abduh, a future leader of the Pan-Islamic movement.

http://www.iranchamber.com/personalities/j...n_asadabadi.php

2) Achievements, Goals , and Thinkings :

a) Afghani and 'Abduh used to say:

i) Arab scholars must free themselves from the influence of Ottoman Ulema, and al-Azhar must become independent from the Shaykh al-Islam of Istanbul.

West had interests in divising the Ottoman empire for conquering the islamic nation .

While shia scholars in najaf were against the removal of the Ottoman empire , who lately admired their attitude and decided to do reforms , the traitors like Sharif Husein were working with the British to divide the empire .

Al Afghani and Abdu seems that they had the same intersets ...

ii) Differences between schools of fiqh must be reduced to a common school, and Jafarites must be recognized as a legitimate school.

iii) The door of ijtihad must be opened once again.

b ) The Ja'fari school must be accepted by sunni scholars as legitimate

This is apparently a step in favor of shiisme , but many factors will keep me skeptic about this step .

Since when shia cares that others accept them !

Why shiisme , the line of AhlulBayt (pbuh) , will be linked with sunnism , the line of the oppressors of AhlulBayt (pbuh) ?

If the west will look for us as muslims , it will not divide between shiisme and sunnism , this is the result of blending white and grey (for not saying black) and this is the biggest danger that AhlulBayt (pbuh) warned us from , the danger of mixing Faith with distorted faithes so that they can't be differentiated .

c) Al Afghani and 'Abduh tried their best to convict Sunni scholars the Sunni-Shi'ah conflict was only a result of differences in politics .

This is one of the points where classical shias and the callers for "Islamic Unity" have conflicts .

Shias view that the first 3 are Kafirs and Tyrants while AWF try to reduce the sunni-shia conflict to some politic events .

The practices of the IRI are getting more "sunni" from a shiite viewpoint :

- The arrest of scholars that invent books against sunnis believes (like hapened with Ayatullah Rustagari ) ,

-The arrest of the celebrators of "The festival of Al Zahra' (pbuh) " (Eid Farhat Al Zahra' (pbuh) ) (this is the day when the second was killed) .

-The Talbani style practices of the ruling regime .

- The fascination of Imam Khomeini with Nasibis like Ibn Arabi and the adoptation of the thinking of peoples like Syed Qutb .

It is enough to quote what Ma'mun al Hudaybi , the General Advisor of the Muslims' Brotherhood , said on al Jazeera : "The IRI is applicating the Muslims' Brotherhood's thinking" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good observations.

Also just to add, this "blending" first started after the end of the Safawid era, when the Afghan Landlord, Nadir Shah Al-Afshari, was rulling Iran. He attempted to make "Jafarism" a fifth Madhab of Sunnism, and now we see the remrants of his ideas still exists in modern Iran as an inhumane regime.

Edited by ShiaChat Dissident

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good observations.

Also just to add, this "blending" first started after the end of the Safawid era, when the Afghan Landlord, Nadir Shah Al-Afshari, was rulling Iran. He attempted to make "Jafarism" a fifth Madhab of Sunnism, and now we see the remrants of his ideas still exists in modern Iran as an inhumane regime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nadir Shah Afshar was a Chagatai Turk - not an Afghan landlord. If you don't know basic Safawid history, how can you claim to be a qizilbash?

[Edited to add: there was an Afghan king named Nadir Shah. He ruled between 1930-1933. But you're not thinking of him]

Edited by roya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With due respect, your theory needs a little more work and more study. You're confusing political interests as conspiracies. For example, you say Taliban style practices. The Taliban were influenced by Wahhabi petrodollars and Naqshbandi thinking. Clearly that is not the case in Iran. I personally don't see a difference between Taliban and komiteh and Saudi "religious police" but that is not because of some conspiracy to elminate Shia and Sunni differences. That is the manifestation of the same line of thinking that these rulers have in common.

Also, you seem to be highlighting what fits your assumptions and ignoring the big picture? It's not a secret that these three figures you selected wanted pan-Islamic unity, but the IR didn't even achieve Shia unity, so I don't see how your theory is relevant??

DJ: well he writes like "Iran" or "Afghanistan" existed formally then. Certainly Afghan tribesmen sacked Isfahan, but Nadir Shah Afshar was a Safawid ruler himself who took the territory back from the Afghans and his empire stretched from what is no Iran to parts of India. It is after his death that the modern day borders more or less started to form. Anyway - Nadir Afshar was interested in political consolidation, not religious ones. He was not very religious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nadir Shah Afshar was a Chagatai Turk - not an Afghan landlord. If you don't know basic Safawid history, how can you claim to be a qizilbash?

[Edited to add: there was an Afghan king named Nadir Shah. He ruled between 1930-1933. But you're not thinking of him]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am sorry you are right, he was not an Afghan, he was from Khorasan, and he conquered all the way to India. However, Nadir Shah is not a Safawi. There were 4 rulers between Safawids and Qajars, and Nadir Shah was one of them.

I doubt you are Qizilbash either. :huh:

Plus I do not care for the Sawafids apart from the Sufi order and Shah Ismail Safawi (ra)

Edited by ShiaChat Dissident

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah) (salam)

It is certainly of some signoficance that Jamal al Deen al Afghani and / or Mohammad Abd'hu were members of a Masonic Lodge, founded or helped found one or one of them was a Grand Master of the Cairo Masonic Ladge.

What is of far greater significance is the almost inbelievable extent and penetration of the publicity provided by the imperialist powers to their "thought" as also of the likes of Iqbal, Syed Qutb, Syed Mawdoodi, and self-professed followers and admirers of these estimable gents.

It will also be instructive to objectively study and dispassionately analyze the net effect that the body of "thought" regurgitated by them [and afforded worldwide audiences courtesy of the West] has had on professed Muslims, and the adherents of the Shia faith [islaam].

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats two losers you've owned in two days Roya!

You're on a role!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hey who's the other one?

I am sorry you are right, he was not an Afghan, he was from Khorasan, and he conquered all the way to India. However, Nadir Shah is not a Safawi. There were 4 rulers between Safawids and Qajars, and Nadir Shah was one of them.

I doubt you are Qizilbash either. :huh:

Plus I do not care for the Sawafids apart from the Sufi order and Shah Ismail Safawi  (ra)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i am sorry but you really got owned this time, part time alevi part time safawi part time akhbari.

I suppose that you're only a wannabe.

Laanat inshallah @)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×