This person met Ayatollah `Ali Sistani last week (thanks H.): (I have removed the names)
"Yesterday, I went to visit Ayattollah Ali Sistani!!

Only six months ago, who would have believed that one day I might go and visit any clergyman of any creed? But there you are, the things one has to do for one's country!
The truth of the matter is that I, like everybody else, have been following this gentlemanيs stand on democracy and elections, and the whole thing had a rather comic tone to it: here was this old religious leader, supposedly living in the dark ages, making a stand for democracy while the US, the champion of democracy, was dragging it's feet!
The fact that members of our esteemed governing council were not enthusiastic about democracy, came as no great shock to me; most of them would become laughing stock in any democratic elections, and they knew it!
On the other hand, some circles in the sunni clergy started speaking against democracy. Now I found this really sad! Some people started circulating the idea that Sistani was for democracy because the Shiites were a majority. Well, I never bought that for the simple reason that Shiites were not a single political block!
To cut a long story short, I put on two hats hadnيt worn for a long time and that I am not usually fond of (one of a sunni and the other of a tribal chief) and joined a small delegation representing sunni tribes from the sunni hexagon (I don't see why we should have fewer sides than the Pentagon!) and went to see Sistani. My hats didn't fit, they had holes in them; I felt like a hypocrite, but I was not to be deterred!
It was a small delegation representing the Obaid (yours truly), the Janabeyeen, the Azza and Kurdish Sorchi tribe. A few other 'Shiite' friends tagged along for the honour of seeing "His Holiness".
So much for a rather long introduction!
We were an hour and a half late for the appointment (the traffic jams were something I have never seen the like of). Nevertheless, his staff, his son (and later, he himself) went out of their way to make us feel welcome.
We sat on the floor of a sparsely furnished room (very much like the reception room of a not-very-poor peasant), were served tea, had a pleasant chat with his son, a very bright (and obviously very ambitious), courteous young man of around 30.
He came in a few minutes later, didn't shake hands and squatted in that way only clergymen know how. We were introduced one by one, his eyes were alive and alert and very much like an earthly man, examining each closely!
Nazar Al.K. spoke first saying that his eminence was talking for all Iraqis when he wanted elections. As sunnis we were fully with him on that. Then he responded.
He had a heavy (and I mean really heavy) Persian accent which he didn't (and couldn't) hide. He used classical Arabic, but the structure of his sentences was not perfect.
He talked a lot, a lot! His response for 30 seconds of courteous pleasantries was a 10 minute monologue! That was when I was shocked!
The man was a secular! I have never heard a clergyman saying the things that we lot take to represent our secularism!
In response to Nazar's statement, he went on and on about sunnis and shia saying that these were doctrines differing on how to interpret Islam and they were all decent and good-intentioned. They were definitely no reason for bloody strife. He talked about the ancient pillars of the sunni doctrine and praised them all in detail and said how he respected them as men of faith and as scholars. The difference between the shia and sunna, he believed, was far less significant than the danger facing the Iraqi nation at present.
Well, personally that put him on my right side!
Then Omar S. sounded his fear that through democracy the shia would dominate Iraq, and consequently the Kurds.
He said that he didn't believe there was much danger of that happening. The shia were not a single political entity. Some are atheists, some are secular; even religious shia did not all follow the same leader.
He said that he firmly believed that the clergy should not interfere with the running of people's lives, with government or with administration. He had forbidden his followers from putting their noses into the state's affairs. He said that clearly and categorically (several times to stress the point!)
It was my turn and I said something like "As an Iraqi, I am grateful for Your Eminence's honourable stand on democracy and I think that the country is fortunate to have you in this position in this particular instant of history." (Yes I did!! And I meant it!!!!!!!)
I then asked him why he had requested the UN to examine the possibility of conducting elections. (I was partly moved by some fear I still have that the panel of UN experts may "conclude" that it is too soon or too unstable to have elections at present. Then we really would have a major problem in our hands!)
He denied that flatly and said that he never did and that my information was probably based on media reports (which was true!). He said he did not feel obliged to accept the UN ruling on elections. He thought the Americans wanted the UN involved because they were having difficulties! He was set on calling for elections as the only possible way for Iraq to regain its sovereignty.
Some of the other things he said (This is a rather loose translation!):
"The most important thing at this time is unity. Division of the people is treason! Even silence, in these turbulent times, is evil."
"Give my regards to your tribes and to the sunna clergy and tell them that Sistani "kisses their hands" and begs them to unite with all Iraqis, Shia, Kurds, Christian, Turkmen. You just unite, and count on me to stand up to the Americans! The worst that could happen is that I die! That doesn't worry me!"
He mentioned the late de Milo of the UN and said he was "a good man".
He mentioned "the one who was killed in Najaf" and said that he had "talked to him", meaning "advised him". I took that to refer to Al-Hakeem. This was the only disguised statement he made in more than an hour of talking.
He mentioned the "Arab Nation" so many times! He evidently viewed himself as an Arab. Being born Persian did not affect the fact that he was a Sayyed. He made that perfectly clear.
He does not believe in "Wilayat al Faqeeh" as the clergy in Iran do (as you know, this is the cornerstone of Khomeini's doctrine). He repeatedly stressed that religion has to be separated from government!
He was extremely humble in his talk, his attire and his mannerisms.
He was much younger than I had thought; looked like early seventies but quite agile and healthy-looking.
He talked so softly, almost in whispers, that I had to really stress myself to hear what he was saying. (Being the insolent person that I am, at one time during the meeting I said I wasnيt hearing him well !!!!! There were only three people between us! There was some space on either side of him which people left out of respect, and he invited me to sit next to him which I did!)
He didn't use any of the rhetoric clergymen usually wrap everything they say with. He was quite plain and direct. I found that really odd for a person in his position!
We were late for our appointment. We stayed there for about an hour and a half. Apparently someone else was waiting to see him. So, his son (who was apparently managing the old man's schedule) was obviously beginning to sweat, but was too polite to say anything. We finally took the hint!
There you are! I felt that I should share this experience with you and I have tried to reflect as much as I could of it in its true spirit, wil Abbas (non-Iraqis, this is a shite oath)!"