Sistani in London: Some of you have sent me the analysis by Juan Cole of Sistani's London trip. While I respect Juan's knowledge on Shi`ite matters (although I do not necessarily always agree with his political interpretations--but than again I do not agree with anybody, and barely with myself sometimes) this particular post is based on an article in Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat (cited by Juan). But dispatches from or on Iraq in Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat or in Al-Hayat always carry the interests and perspectives of US occupiers. Both newspapers are Saudi-owned and financed, and Saudi Arabia (especially as of late) is trying so hard to please the US administration. Their obsolete initiative for a Muslim/Arab force in Iraq (there were no takers) was just one example of Saudi desperate attempt to please US government. Al-Hayat also carried a story today on Sistani's visit in which it wanted to send a message of Sistani's strong opposition to As-Sadr, which is not untrue. But both Al-Hayat and Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat gloss over Sistani's rejection of US occupation, and his adamant refusal to meet with any American envoy or messenger. The criticisms of the Americans by two former members of the Iraqi puppet government council (Salamah Al-Khaffaji and Muwaffaq Ar-Rubay`i--both were very close to occupation authority) yesterday reveal a rising displeasure of the Americans among "moderate" Shi`ite ranks, and perhaps a rise in As-Sadr's popularity. The New York Times has an article today about the police role that As-Sadr's militia has been playing after month of earning a reputation for thuggery. Even As-Sadr complained publicity a few weeks ago that his own men have "filled my heart with pus"--not a lovely image or expression but refers in Arabic usage to a case of deep pain. But remember that US-commissioned polls in Iraq reveal that As-Sadr's popularity is quite significant, and he cannot be simply dismissed as an insignificant voice in Iraq. If Sistani has left An-Najaf to allow the Americans to take over the city (as both Al-Hayat and Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat have implied) his leadership would for all intents and purposes be severely shattered or undermined. Al-Hayat today states that Hizbullah boycotted the visit of Sistani to Beirut (he passed through the airport and stayed for no more than 3 hours) due to deep ideological differences while I found that Hasan Nasrallah was very respectful of Sistani and defended him against his Shi`ite and non-Shi`ite critics in the Arab world when I interviewed him in June. Certainly Sistani's exit is significant especially when you remember that the man has not left his house in 6 years, but it may make things more difficult--not more easier--for the occupiers. And Ishaq Fayyad, perhaps the 2nd most influential Grand Ayatollah in Najaf, is less politically passive than Sistani. The New York Times today on its first page carried a headline that "Najaf cemetery cleared." What a victory? What a resounding victory against...the Najaf cemetery. Hail the chief and salute the troops, NOW.

Grand (not really) Ayatullah Sistani on Homosexuality. My very dear (2nd) ex-wife, Maria, asked me this:
"I've heard from a few people that Al-Sistani said that gay people should be killed in the worst possible ways. This doesn't sound like the Al-Sistani that I've heard you describe, so I thought you'd know whether or not it is true."
I wrote back:

[T]he thing about Sistani is this. People use the word "moderate" using only the criterion of attitude toward the US (which makes fanatic Saudi Arabia also "moderate.") Sistani is "moderate" only because he does not call for armed insurrection against US occupation troops in Iraq. In reality, there is nothing "moderate" about this man, if one is to consider his social and economic views, or his views about matters of culture, or the status of non-Muslims. It is telling that he is one of the few Ayatullahs, for example, to refuse to condemn latm (self-flagellation) in `Ashura' commemoration. Even Khamenei in Iran has come out against latm. Grand Ayatollah Fadallah, for example, has in the last decade come up with very progressive views on social, economic, and sexual issues. On homosexuality: yes, Sistani takes a very intolerant position. He says on the matter (you may survey some of the views of Sistani on the English section of his site, although it is not as comprehensive as the Arabic or Persian sections) this:

"What is Liwat?

Answer: Liwat is inserting the male organ in a same sex person.

What is the ruling of Liwat?

Answer: It is one of the Greater Sins.

What is the ruling of Liwat and Suhaq (lesbiansim)?

Answer: Morally impermissible (haram). And the doer should be punished, nay, the doer of Liwat should be killed in the worst manner."
*A Sistani spokesperson lied to the BBC News website in the recent article (posted somewhere on this page) about gays in Iraq.

Sistani

A lot of Shi`ites in Lebanon and beyond were displeased with my article about the sectarianism of Hizbullah. Many wrote to me displeased with my strong criticisms of Sistani. Several asked me to explain my denunciation of Sistani. I will say this: you may research the archives where I have written a lot about Sistani. I am not castigating all Iraqi Shi`ites of course: and I know that there are Shi`ites in Iraq who are opposed to the American occupation and who are supporters of the Palestinians. I never do wholesale denunciations of sects, despite what my enemies claim. Some Iraqis write to me, including groups that are involved in opposing the occupation. But the major Shi`ite sectarian parties: Da`wah and its reincarnations, Badr militias, and the rest in that lousy puppet government that is set up there are exactly tools of foreign occupation. But I fault Sistani more than anyone: he is the key legitimizer of the occupation. If Sistani were to have issued a ruling against foreign occupation and against the puppet government and against the sectarian divisions of spoils, the plot to fragment Iraq along sectarian lines would have been foiled. Sistani is a horrible figure in the contemporary history of the Arab world, and my animus toward him will only increase, with every new death in Iraq.

I read an opinion by Israeli historian Amatzia Baram in the US press, who, I read, is advising the US occupation in Iraq. Baram, mind you, was one of those who assured the US government that Iraqis, especially Shi`ites, would greet US forces as "liberators" and greet them with "sweets and flowers". He did not speculate, in fairness, whether they would make tiramissu for them. This Baram was analyzing Arab culture by the typical references to "honor" "tribes" and "face saving." Those dreaded cliches about Arab society. These are the people who reduce analysis to that over-quoted proverb, "Me and my brother against my cousin, and me and my cousin against the stranger." And this is not true. Arab royal families are closer to US than to one another. So there. And Bush met with Husni Mubarak. I laughed when I saw that picture. Does the US government think that they reach out to Arab public opinion when they cuddle the Egyptian dictator who is nicknamed the "laughing cow" by Egyptians who think that he resembles that cow on the famous (but not delicious) French cheese? What will Mubarak do for them? Today's statement by Grand Ayatollah Sistani cannot be underestimated. This could be the last step before Sistani issued that one fatwa--eagerly awaited by non-Iraqi Arabs--which would begin the countdown for US withdrawal from Iraq. I was certain that US occupation would not work; but Bremer's mistakes and arrogance, only expedited US failure beyond anybody's expectations. To trigger a fight with Muqtada As-Sadr before June was just idiotic. Muqtada was digging for this kind of fight, that only made him look like a victim of US intolerance for press criticisms. In fact, before this episode, As-Sadr had been largely deflating on his own. He would issue ultimatum, warnings, and statements but not follow through, which made his "credibility" suffer. He was looking weak, before Bremer elevated him. He has been marginalized by Sistani. But now: he is getting the popular glory that had eluded him. Sistani's statement could indicate a prospect of a Sistani-As-Sadr's alliance: Sistani needs as-Sadr for street power; and As-Sadr needs Sistani for moral-religio legitimacy. Bremer could have easily went along with proposals by the governing puppet council to diffuse the crisis, but he is too stubborn. When asked on Meet the Press last Sunday to identify the party to which powers will be transferred at end of June, he answered by stressing that this was a good question. He has no clue. Rumsfeld wants to convince himself and the public: that it is all an outside conspiracy; that all Iraqis are solidly on US side, except the "thugs, criminals, and terrorists." If they believe that, the situation is worse than I had thought. If they do not believe that, they are only deceiving the US public. Watch Bush today repeat this cliched answer. It is all about an international conspiracy; I wonder if they will blame Zarqawi again. I have not heard his name in a while. How can they link him to the Shi`ites knowing his bigoted anti-Shi`ism, which he shares with Bin Laden. We are witnessing the Lebanonization of Iraq. And when militias take over, it takes years, or decades to dislodge them.

Full translation by Angry Arab of the Sistani accord:
"1. Removal of weapons from the cities of Najaf and Kufa, and the withdrawal of all armed elements from the two cities, and their categorical non-return.
2. That Iraqi police assumes the responsibility for security and law preservation in Najaf and Kufa.
3. The withdrawal of the multinational forces from the cities.
4. That the Iraqi government pays reparations to those harmed in the recent battles.
5. It is incumbent upon all political, social, intellectual parties and sides to be part of the political process which will lead to general elections, arriving toward full sovereignty."
There are Arab press reports regarding secret elements, pertaining to the release of prisoners on both sides. There is no question after reading this that As-Sadr got what he wanted, and the Iraqi puppet government demands were not met. After all, a similar offer of these terms were submitted last week by As-Sadr and were rejected by `Allawi. On the most important issues, As-Sadr did not compromise: he did not surrender his weapons, and Arab media are widely reporting that most weapons were placed in special hiding places. He refused to commit to join the political process leading to the puppet elections. And finally, he refused to recognize the Iraqi puppet government. As-Sistani (as my friend Amir was commenting) had to return to Iraq and offer this deal, to save his own "neck." Had Sistani returned to a destroyed Najaf with US (or Iraqi puppet) forces inside the Imam `Ali mosque, he most likely would have been met with rotten tomatoes (or potatoes). This deal saves Sistani and Sadr's political fortunes. It was also surprising to see former Iranian president Rafsanjani heaping praise on Sistani yesterday. This, again, proves that Sistani seems to be playing a very sneaky game.

My Interview with Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah (leader of Hizbullah in Lebanon) (June 2004)
I began by asking a long question about the position of the party toward Iraq. I expressed my puzzlement at the very vague and ambiguous position of the party vis-à-vis developments in Iraq, where it is not known whether it supports or opposes resistance, whether it accepted or rejected the now defunct puppet governing council. I mentioned that the party’s relations (friendship) with the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (which was represented in the puppet council) add to the confusion, and wondered how the party feels toward Ayatollah Sistani. I ended my question by asking, what can be translated as “What is the matter”? Nasrallah, laughed, and said: “The matter is…” He then paused and said: “Recently, somebody mentioned your name. And I said: Dr. As`ad has an American style. We Arabs begin an interview or a meeting with 30 minutes inquiries about health and family, while Dr. As`ad begins immediately with a 3-part question.” He then explained to me the party’s position. In sum: the party is not far off from the position of Ayatollah Sistani without being opposed to Muqtada As-Sadr either, although I got the impression that Party of God people do not find As-Sadr to be politically mature. He expressed strong fears and concerns about elements of the resistance in Iraq. He said that he cannot be expected to support a resistance (as Arab masses expect him to do) that does not announce itself to the world, and that does not have a declared agenda. He then talked extensively about the Wahhabi network very active in Iraq, and that it has a strong sectarian agenda. (I found that many Arabs do not believe that there is a Wahhabi network in Iraq, and think that this was invented by the Americans for propaganda reasons—I even read that in the comments’ section of this site). Nasrallah believes that Saddam’s Ba`thists and even Wahhabis are willing to negotiate with the Americans all in order to prevent a rise in Shi`ite power. The Party seemed very concerned about the Wahhabi fanatical network and believes that the network will strike at Shi`ite targets in the Arab world, outside of Iraq, very soon. I asked Nasrallah why he does not talk about the Wahhabi fanatical network publicly. He said that he cannot do that because it will inflame Sunni-Shi`ite tensions or even conflicts. I got the impression that Hizbullah believes that Iraqis should chart their own course of struggle, without intervention from the outside. He said that Sistani is not a politically active cleric (that “he is not a Khomeini”), and that under the circumstances has conducted himself very well. He said that in fact, Sistani was expected to act less critically of the US occupation, and told me of the principled rejection by Sistani of meetings with any American official since the beginning of the occupation. Nasrallah also rejected the notion that Sistani is a coward; a belief often expressed in Arab media and public. He also talked about the depth of Shi`ite suffering under Saddam, and that families are discovering that many of their members, whom they had long assumed were in jail, had been murdered by Saddam’s regime. He told me that probably a million Iraqi Shi`ites were killed in the 1991 uprising (that figure sounds too high, I think). He said that Iraqi Shi`ites have strong fears of Saddam’s people, many of whom are still active. He also strongly condemned the methods of the “resistance” (i.e. car bombings): he said that they seem to be willing to kill 90 Iraqi civilians in order to kill one US soldier. I asked him whether the party’s position was shaped by Iranian or Syrian pressures, and he said no. I was also surprised that the party did not sever ties with the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; but that it merely expressed disagreements with them regarding their participation in the puppet governing council. I left the interview with the strong feeling that the party is watching developments in Iraq with extreme caution, not out of fear of the Americans, but out of concern for the potential sectarian conflict that may emerge from Iraq. I asked Nasrallah about domestic developments, particularly the very strong showing of the party in the recent municipal elections, where they swept in Biqa`, the southern suburbs, and the South (with the exception of Tyre where Amal won). But the party, in my opinion, is not strong in handling the Lebanese domestic agenda. It does not seem to have fashioned a program for social and economic reform, and benefits a great deal from 1) Nasrallah’s strong popularity and influence; 2) from its role in leading the resistance against Israeli occupation of Lebanon; 3) from the corruption and incompetence of its main Shi`ite rival in Lebanon, the Amal movement. But those factors are transitory and the hedonistic Lebanese society can never reconcile itself to the ultimate religious agenda of Hizbullah. The party seems to be aware of that, and for that reason, it rarely if ever now speaks about an Islamic republic in Lebanon. It also has broadened its alliances, and often runs with communist candidates against the Amal movement. But Hizbullah’s influence may in fact grow if Syria were to pull out of Lebanon, as the Amal movement has very weak support in the country, and benefits greatly from serving as a client of the Syrian government. But the Party, perhaps due to its very close relations with Syria, has been quite inactive in dealing with the deep socio-economic problems caused by pro-Globalization agenda of prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Hizbullah's bloc in parliament does not constitute an impressive force of opposition, despite its size. That is why I believe that the left in Lebanon has a chance to emerge and champion the cause of the poor and the oppressed, but they have been mostly either asleep, or on the payroll of the prime minister. What troubles me most about the Arab left is that they seem to have fatalistically accepted the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as if it is the verdict of providence. I believe, on the other hand, that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism should spur Arab leftists to organize and act in order to present a secular and progressive alternative to movements that ultimately will fail in delivering the solutions to the pressing problems faced by the people. I did not get to interview Anis Naqqash, who was out of the country. I was interested in his analysis of the Iraq situation.

The position of the mysterious Ayatollah Sistani is still not very clear. (By the way: this is the only knownvideo of him). Do you know that he has not stepped out of his house in 6 years? Muqtada As-Sadr's people are now suspicious about the attention around Sistani; representatives of Sadr have even been quoted in the Arabic press suggesting that he is doing Iran's bidding, and that a "deal" may soon be struck between him and US occupation, that would US plans. Sistani's positions are always such that they can be interpreted in more than one way: when asked by Shi`ites if they should sell and engage in business transactions with the occupiers, he said: "Yes, but ask them politely when they plan to leave Iraq." On the elections: he says that he may change his position if the UN would state that elections are not possible now. Do you know how easy it is for Bush, or any American official far below the rank of Bush, to get to push Annan to do anything, ANYTHING. So UN will send a delegation to Iraq, and they will do as US pleases. Is that how weak Sistani's position is? But I do believe that the public (what they perjoratively call as the "street" in the US) can also influence Sistani, as Sistani can influence the public: the relationship in that context is dialectical, as Marxists would say.

I was watching (or listening while working) to a weekly talk show program on Al-Manar TV called Bayna Qawsayn. It featured separately a representative of Sistani and a representative of As-Sadr. As-Sadr's representative (his spokesperson in Baghdad) was talking about the Mahdi Army. The Mahdi refers to Al-Mahdi Al-Muntadhar (the Awaited Rightly-guided One) which is a reference to the 12th Imam who the Shi`ites believe disappeared but will return one day to spread justice on earth. He said that he had read that the 12th Imam had appeared mysteriously in the past to help members of the community in difficult situations. He then proceeded to tell about an "episode" that he has witnessed "himself" recently when mortars in Najaf started firing by themselves at US targets. He said that it was so ferocious that enemy planes were falling off right and left. I could swear that I saw the able host (Batul...I forgot her last name) smile. She had to keep a straight face though. And then the representative of Sistani. The Sistani camp are believers of what Hengry Kissinger called "constructive ambiguity." She asked him a simple question about whether Sistani supports armed resistance to US occupation. He answered by talking about how much he loves peaches when they are ripe. She asked him again, and he answered by telling her how much he loves bread fresh out of the oven. And when she asked him the 3rd time, he indicated that Legally Blonde I was much better than the sequel (I happen to agree). That particular question, you will never get a Sistani representative to answer, although he did talk about the role of the clerics in leading "Jihad" against the British in 1920.

Grand Ayatollahs' Record: There is much talk in the Arabic press about the silence and passivity of the Grand Ayatollahs in Iraq regarding the events in Najaf. Ayatollah Sistani (who had never left his house in 6 years although he is now in London) had declared that Imam Ali Mosque is a "red line." Yet, his recent statements have been rather vague and timid, although we are told that he is "pained" by what happened. There is in the Arabic press denunciation of Shi`ite clerics (and 4 of the 4 Grand Ayatollahs in Iraq have miraculously left Najaf in time to miss the recent showdown), and some Arabic websites have circulated rumors to the effect that Sistani is dead, but that his death has not been announced. Permeating some of the Arab press analysis and reactions is undoubtedly a measure of the classical anti-Shi`ite hostility that resides in some Sunni quarters. (I know about such matters being born to a Sunni mother and a Shi`ite father). But Sistani's position is not surprising. These clerics (Sistani in particular) have not been known for their political courage under Saddam. The late Grand Ayatollah Al-Khu'i was also not known for his courage under Saddam. Many of those clerics have pursued of a policy of live-and-let-tyrants-oppress over the years. Of course, there also have been other courageous clerics, like Muhammad Baqir As-Sadr (not to be confused with Muhammad Sadiq As-Sadr--Muqtada's father) who (along with his sister) was executed by Saddam. You also have to remember that in history, the masses often moved the clerics in their direction, and not vice-versa. And Sistani may not recover after his recent London visit, and Muqtada's leadership (politically speaking regarless of his low clerical standing) may soon outrank the status of higher ranking clerics.

It really bothers the American occupation authority that Ayatollah Sistani refuses to meet with American officials. Some newspapers, like the Washington Post, do not even know, or do not want to admit, that Sistani refuses to meet with Americans. In an article about Sistani today in the New York Times, the paper was clearly unhappy that Sistani does not meet with US colonial administrator Paul Bremer, so it says: "Perhaps to distance himself from the day-to-day fray of politics, and to remain on a level above the occupation forces, he has refused to meet with Mr. Bremer himself." What? What kind of explanation is that? And what is that about "distancing himself from day-to-day fray of politics? He meets with officials from the Arab League, UN, the Iraqi puppet council, etc. This will hurt the feelings of the New York Times, but let me deliver it to them: Sistani does NOT want to meet with Bremer because he believes that it may lend legitimacy to the detested occupation. Get it?

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)!"

Hizbullah issued a statement supporting Grand (not at all) Ayatullah Sistani against the criticisms that aired against him on Al-Jazeera. The statement made an odd reference to the marji`iyyah standing "against foreign occupation." Is Hizbullah talking about the same Sistani, or have they invented a new and improved version of Sistani? When did this Sistani stand against foreign occupation? I mean, yes, he is quite vocal against computer chess, but foreign occupation?

Sistani: Cleric of the Occupation

This diary of the July War of 2006 by an aides to Nabih Birri reveals that the latter had to pressure the Sistani to issue a statement about the Qana Massacre II.  Sistani  must have been scared of his American sponsors.  I have said it before and I say it again: Sistani will be remembered in Middle East history--or should be remembered--as akin to Antoine Lahd.

There is so much to talk about in this leaked memo. It contains so many obvious axioms presented as original policy ideas. So badly presented and argued by the National Security Adviser of the US. Look at this one: "Consider monetary support to moderate groups that have been seeking to break with larger, more sectarian parties, as well as to support Maliki himself as he declares himself the leader of his bloc and risks his position within Dawa and the Sadrists." Don't you like "monetary support to moderate groups"? Would you not want to know how they define "moderate groups"? How about this idea: "Engage Sistani to reassure and seek his support for a new nonsectarian political movement." This brilliant National Security Adviser wants to engage Sistani (the NSC adviser does not know that this not-grand-at-all Sistani has refused to meet with any American official) in order to form a non-sectarian group? Does he think that Sistani is a communist? Or how about this: "Step up our efforts to get Saudi Arabia to take a leadership role in supporting Iraq by using its influence to move Sunni populations in Iraq out of violence into politics." Notice that officials in this administration really think that the royal families of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are quite popular among the Arab people. This is quite hilarious.

"Has Sistani met with any American official in the past 3 1/2 years? Frederick Jones, the NSC's communications director, said yesterday that no American official has ever met Sistani." (But he regularly meets with US puppets). But you have to read this column: the dude is quite furious that Sistani has not met with Americans. Meet with Tony Danza, o Sistani).

Vancouver, Blue River Restaurant, and a McGill's Sociologist bizarre theory on Israel and anti-Semitism: CBC is so superior to all US media. It with pain that I am forced while traveling to consume an amount of US TV news that is not good for my health. While in the US, I only get exposed to it while driving (through satellite radio). I watched Christiane Amanpour do some "reporting" from Iraq this morning. Does this really pass as "foreign news reporting"? It is celebrity reporting, without a doubt. It would not be much different if you send Mariah Carey or Orlando Bloom to cover Iraq, and probably Carey would be better informed. When Amanpour is reporting, SHE is the story; the foreign country, the people, the "elections" are mere props for her to walk before the camera and offer the most vapid observations about foreign policy that never deviate from the narrow parameters of the Democratic-Republican divide. A divide that is much less of a divide if you look at it from outside (geographically and ideologically speaking). And the persons in Iraq who were interviewed before the CNN camera had the same realness and authenticity to their voices as White House-managed photo ops' characters. Those Iraqis who speak to CNN (mostly in English but some in Israeli-translated Arabic) are Iraqis that I rarely see on Arab media. I realized today that even the pro-US/pro-Saudi Al-Arabiyya, which I regularly criticize, cover the story much better. Perhaps because they don't rely on Amanpour, and their correspondents do roam the streets freely, and without the usual bevy that accompanies US correspondents (US forces, cooks, chefs, cleaners, potato slicers, body trainers, interpreters, editors, carpenters, etc). And why have elections in Iraq? Why the expense? Just ask Grand (not really) Ayatollah Sistani. His verdict always (miraculously) matches the popular vote. When Sistani says "yes" it is a national yes, and when he says "no" it is a national no. So from now on I propose that elections in Iraq are managed as follows: you send one person (accompanied by a UN observer so that Annan can do what he does best, provide the legitimacy and cover to obscure the US moral pudendum) and on national TV, that person would ask Sistani: "Is it a yes or a no, o great Ayatollah Sistani?" Don't you think that it would be equal and much cheaper than those costly and gimmicky election rituals? And do you notice how many of those rituals the US likes to hold (every few months) to give an image of a "process" as if the US knows what it is doing, and in order to give the American public an image of democratic fruits in Iraq. Unfortunately, it works. For some reason, the American public is always impressed when it sees the Iraqi genetic ability to dip the index finger in ink. They never knew that. Americans never knew that Iraqis can on their own dip their fingers in ink. It is way too complex a process for the Iraqi people, assume many Americans. Some fingers I saw today looked like it was dipped in blueberry juice, but who cares. As long as Bush can have images to lift up his sagging political fortunes. I then stumbled across a sociologist from McGill University on a program called "Israel Today" (not to be confused with another show called "Israel last Thursday"). The guy was basically making that silly point about criticism of Israel amounting to anti-Semitism. His argument was so weak, and so did not impress his host, that he introduced a new element to that charge. He argued that any attention to Israel (beyond a certain level approved by him presumably) would be anti-Semitic. Of course, he was not being sincere: because when US and Western press gave the most fawning and favorable coverage to Israel after its creation--read destruction of Palestine--nobody complained. None of the Zionist advocates complained about too much attention to Israel. It is only the negative coverage that displeases him--so it the quality of coverage, and not the quantity that really bothers him. But what bothered me about the esteemed professor was his weak or non-existent logic. He so badly needed an Elementary Logic course. I mean if I decide to devote my life to human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, I would be accused of Anti-Arabism, or anti-Islamism? It must be that, as he is saying that if you devote "more attention than permitted" to Israel, you are then anti-Semitic. But look at it differently. ADL and other Zionist organizations also devote way too much attention to developments in Israel, much more than they do to any other country, but that would not be considered anti-Semitic by the criterion of the sociologist in need of logic training. I said it before, and I say it again: one's position on Israel does not determine whether one is anti-Semitic or not. You can be pro-Zionist AND anti-Semitic, and that applies (in my opinion--and to the opinion of a stranger who is sitting next to me in this internet cafe on Main St--to many Christian fundamentalist groups in US whose views on biblical prophecy are indeed anti-Semitic. You can say that the pro-Zionist policies and actions of Great Britain after WWI (including as we now know well of Lord Balfour) were motivated by anti-Semitism. Yet, you can be opposed to the very idea of Israel or to the idea of Israel IN Palestine (as Maxime Rodinson once said that he is not opposed to a Jewish state on the moon, and by that he means that some people may be opposed to a Jewish state "in that place" but not necessarily in any place anywhere) or the idea of a Jewish state in general as some Orthodox Jewish sects do, without being anti-Semitic. Of course, you can be opposed, as I am, to any state with a religious label, especially if its founding had displaced another volk, as Israel has. Zionist can't deny that fact, and that is why they had to subscribe to the notion of the inferiority of "the other" and that explains Golda Meir's remarks about the "non-existence" of the Palestinians. She meant their non-existence as "superior us." This is not to say that some opponents of Israel are not also anti-Semitic, like neo-Nazis and others. But not all opponents of Israel are. You have to find out and study 1) discourse; 2) motives. The esteemed professor introduced "consequence" as a factor, meaning that if one's views resulted in too much attention to Israel then it is anti-Semitic. Let me say this in conclusion: it does not bother me in the least that pro-Zionist propaganda has gotten to be much more stupid, much more crude, much more illogical, much more ignorant, much more bereft of facts and evidence, than any other time in Zionist history. In fact, I like that, perhaps because I know that among world public opinion support for Israel exceeds that of the Palestinians only in US, Israel (and Russia recently). Keep this quality of propaganda and in few years Israel would become popular only in Israel. The dishes at the Blue River restaurant in Vancouver are just great. They reminded me of Chez Panisse in Berkeley, only better and less pretentious.

The Saudi King of Jordan: Strong reactions in the Arab world (not only in Shi`ite quarters) to the foolish statements by the foolish King of Jordan in which he warned of Shi`ite zone of danger. Respected Lebanese columnist, Joseph Samahah, today called him `Abdullah Az-Zarqawi, and compared his rhetoric to the rhetoric of Abu Mus`ab Az-Zarqawi. He said that the blatantly sectarian talk of the king is unprecedented. And the foolish King dared to question the loyalty and pedigree of Grand (not really) Ayatollah Sistani on MSNBC, and the host talked about Sistani's Persian accent in Arabic. Now, I am no fan of Sistani and will continue to mock this cleric (who was submissive under Saddam and is now submissive under US occupation) but Sistani's Arabic is far superior to that of the King, who hails from...HIJAZ, not from Jordan.

If you would like to see Sistani's (unfunniest) home videos, click here. I visit Sistani's site regularly in order to examine his most recent rulings on life and politics. This is why I am stunned when I read accounts of Sistani in Washington Post as if he is some secular modernist. I also notice that his Arabic site contains fatwas (binding religious rulings) that are not on his English site. But I think that the English site contains fatwas that are in response to submissions made in English. Here is an example of a Sistani ruling:
"No: 1
Question: What is an orgy?
Answer: It's forbidden." " (Did he answer the question?)

Grand (not really) Ayatullah Sistani receiving orders from the US

"The Foreign Minister also suggested that the USG should prod Ayatollah Sistani to speak out in favor of a unified Iraq and national reconciliation among different Iraqi sects and groups. "You have paid a heavy price in blood and treasure, and Sistani and his people have benefited directly. You have every right to ask this of him," Prince Saud al-Faisal said."

Al-Akhbar's coverage of Sistani

An irate reader sent me a report in Al-Akhbar about a statement by Sistani on the protests in Al-Akhbar.  He was correct to indicate that the article in fact distorted what Sistani has said when he ONLY supported the protests after they took place and he typically opportunistically also supported those who did not participate in the protests. (thanks Haroon)