The Supreme Existential Importance of Islam; It's Personal and Cosmic Significance

When it comes to Islam , it is the only thing that I've ever been like this with (as I wasn't with Christianity for instance, nor Thelema, nor Buddhism or other things I explored along the way in my journey), is that even reading on basic things like Salaah can make me tear up because of how much heart and truth there is in it.

Reading a Jewish or Christian prayer for instance, just doesn't bring me any kind of feeling compared to it. Islamic prayer is a heavily powerful thing.

Unlike the other two Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Christianity) I feel a strong feeling of "this means something", that when I read the Qur'an, when I recite in Salaah, when I read about Prophet Muhammad (A.S.), the Ahl al-Bayt, the Companions (Sahaba), I feel this immense awe and love, as well as an immensely piercing confrontation of day-to-day consensus reality. 

Islam is conceived as so dangerous and confronting for a reason and it's not terrorism or "barbaric" punishments, it is it's ontological nature as a religion beyond all the other religions and the transformative power it has. 

Islam liberates the individual to God, it isn't "liberal" it is Haqq (Truth/Reality), it brings the Worshiper to direct awareness of him/herself and to God. It is a sword that separates the wheat from the chaff, it is itself a spiritual quality control in a sense. 

It is universal and archetypal, it is by it's very nature anti-tribal and cross-continental. It is immensely powerful by it's words alone.

No religion has what Islam has. 

Other religions have good and true aspects but nothing as unified-ly profoundly principle as what Islam has.

With Islam unlike Judaism and Christianity there is this sense also of spiritual determination, integrity, etc. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, there is not a sense of self-hatred and embarrassment to being deeply spiritual/religious/pious. Jews and Christians in their root mentalities feel they need to apologize (even extreme fundamentalist Evangelical Christians!). Whereas in Islam, if you truly accept and believe it, then you defacto cannot hold such a view. Islam is something one is humbly unashamed about, even in light of social stigma in the west. It is something so hard to articulate. 

Far more than Christianity (even though that Jesus calls it out in various places), Islam (and God in the Qur'an) strongly criticizes hypocrisy. We are to cleanse/purify ourselves of our hypocrisy and truly embrace the truth and justice we are called to and what we profess to believe. This means that being at odds with the world around us, being Nomads in a sense (as I mentioned once) is part of the deal. 

Anyway with the experience of Islam, it's messages, it's practices, it just overwhelmingly brings me joy when I embrace it. When I got through tough times I need to not let go of that spark, I need to keep letting it grow. 

I see all the Islamphobia, hatred, controversy towards Islam in the media and internet as a cosmic thing. Islam won the hearts of the hostile Meccan Pagans and spread all throughout the middle east within several decades of Prophet Muhammad's (A.S.) death, and in the 20th/21st century is the same thing happening again. The general westerner is too stupid to realize how this works. Islam is so much more criticized in intensely hostile ways and extremely unfairly for a reason, and it is not something that leaves any scar on the legacy of Islam in the long-run in the future.

The willingness to depict Islam as "desert tribal religion stuck in the 7th century" just shows hoq little thread left the propaganda against Islam has. The overuse of distortion and misinterpretation of Islamic history and Islamic teachings also show this too.

Secular-atheistic-modernity is the bridge between a Catholic-dominated west and an Islam-dominated future. Not globalism and not authoritarianism but you get my drift. 

It's only a matter of time that the west's propaganda falls against itself in epic ways and the majority west embraces Islam. 

Everything that modernity created and developed with science will be dealt with in a similar way to which Muslims dealt with science in the middle ages. We will surpass western science and unveil more mysteries of the universe. 

This is obviously one reason that fanatical Christians often want to frame Muhammad as an "antichrist" and Islam as an "antichrist religion", because Islam will very much succeed Christianity in numbers eventually. 

Unlike Christianity, Islam has had a much richer track record and has a larger legacy to adjust to. Christianity doesn't have any of these benefits, no other religion does. 

Even though Christianity was an international religion it hasn't had any of the room for benefit that Islam has, nor has it gone through as many phases as Islam. Islam has had phases, whereas Christianity has undergone schisms and internal controversies.

The only major internal controversy in Islam is the Sunni-Shia split but aside from that it is a diverse religion which accommodates it's diversity while upholding orthodoxy, something Christianity was completely incapable of doing.

Anyway, I just love Islam so much.

The Unquestioned Worship of Technology; And The Wrath Of God

Throughout the Qur'an is the frequented phrase "walk throughout the land and see what became of those people's destroyed before you". There is also the notion of natural and supernatural destruction throughout history.

In modernity we have the notion that just because we've built some impressive technology, that we are somehow superior to those in the past or even "God-like". There is definitely a Faustian and Promethean notion to all of this.

Now we, in "modernity", come to take it for granted and accept that technology has now made us useless and that technology itself is our future, rather than ourselves.

As basically all the Postmodernist philosophers have noted, we are living in an age of disassociation. We collectively have no idea what we are anymore and our collective "brain" is guided by big tech corporations. Our place in society has been inverted to serve them, rather than each other.

Anyway, from here we find the whole Dystopian idea so consistent in modern scifi.

However as I mentioned the Qur'an, the referenced notions in the Qur'an, as well as the Quranic and Biblical lessons found in the Flood of Noah and in the Tower of Babel are so freaking universal I think. Both these stories, related to different time periods before Prophet Abraham (A.S.) are signs and warnings against this kind if Faustian/Promethean spirit which is so much at the heart of 'modern' people's minds these days.

It doesn't matter how sophisticated, how strange the technology we create is in the future, we will never be "gods". At some point the internet will cease to be because of some kind of natural disaster. We see floods and hurricanes all the time. Matter of fact we're in the middle of a plague at the moment.

These messages, are not pleasant but they are beautiful in how much they speak to the heart of our existence which modernity seeks to separate from us.

God's wrath and judgement is on everything we do, personally and as a collective planet. Our games and illusions we create for ourselves are only means of distraction, when we uphold these ideals that are contrary to our Fitrah, we are merely waiting for our own self-created demise. The rise of Nihilism (whether self-acknowledged militant nihilism or veiled through assumption) is a further testament. Within this idolatry of technology is a new form of self-hatred and existential self-sabotage.

Between my love for avant garde art and Islam

So I've been studying Marina Abramovic lately and I find her incredibly interesting in different ways but at the same time I can't digest lots of her work at once. I am skeptical of certain celebrity endorsement of her but it seems more like a lot of pop stars want to make her like a kind of Serbian female Warhol, which she's not.

Anyway, some other artists I love include the filmmaker Stan Brakhage (who's work you may find is like a precursor to elements of Kubrick and Lynch, except he's way more abstract and more direct within avant garde tradition).

I also love the playwrite and director Richard Foreman, whom I discovered through John Zorn. Foreman I see relating to many elements of the intense, primal spiritual art that I have mentioned in relation to Iannis Xenakis, Aleister Crowley, Stravinsky's Le Sacre, Antonin Artaud, Austin Spare, Jani Christou etc. 

I think in relating to that 'primalness', that 'true' art is an awakening experience that awakens the subject experiencing it to the reality of existence. Not in a pretentious pseudo-gnostic sense but in a truly primal, unfiltered manner. That there is something lurking behind the daily experience of reality and both what produced it (birth) and where it ends up (the graveyard). 

Sure the Macabre has one relevance but I'm not speaking of basic gothic horror stuff or even Lovecraftian horror, because it is a lot more extreme than either and yet not as dressed-up either, it is completely unfiltered and completely self-aware. 

Out of this comes an archetypally transcendent impulse rooted in the ground of one's being, the impulse towards God/Allah/YHWH/Brahman (not speaking religion-specific in this sense), the thing that both 'causes' but which also frees us from this initial realization, the thing which is both the peace and the suprapeace, a pure kind of transcendent pleasure (Paradise in Islamic terms). 

I do think that I see Islam relating deeply to this, as with the Prophet prior to the significantly great Prophet Muhammad, such as Prophet Abraham and Prophet Moses. 

On some level it is like the apes in Kubrick's 2001, they pick up the bone and smash it, they discover tools, they discover the intellect ('Aql), they also understand the greater calling of humanity.

But the rest of humanity needs the basic safety, so they rest on the animal instead of the intellect and therefore (in conjunction with modernity) must therefore deny God and remove metaphysics from their collective societal worldview. 

So every throughout history in the Abrahamic scheme, a great Prophet is chosen, who stands up against the apes and calls them to the intellect ('Aql). 

The apes, in reaction, choose a parody of the intellect (materialist-empiricism) as a further assertion away from the primal truth. 

(I'm just using analogies from Kubrick's 2001 here).

The age-old, absurd, crisis about "Eternal Hell", of the theologians and philosophers

 It does greatly amuse me that many people get stuck in moral outrage and angst about the idea of "eternal hell" and then trap themselves in speculative struggle with an idea relating to a metaphysical reality which they have intellectually abstracted in a manner that has nothing to do with the subject to begin with.

It is treated by Christian and some Muslim theologians as one of the ultimate "problems" of faith. This really shows the utter idiocy of what we Abrahamics let perpetuate under the skin. Letting poor understandings and a lack of direct experiential engagement in our traditions, send us down an Aristotelian dead-end.

I find the whole question Idiotic, when they never ask WHAT IS HELL?

These idiots who spend their time in crisis, both believers and theologians/philosophers are that dense in the head that they don't even come to correlate that both Paradise and Hell are, in some manner, theophanies of God itself. The idea of "the return" to God, the center of our beliefs and the very things which we come from and return to. Completely ignored.

One path results in divine ecstacy and the other results in the purification and refining of the soul the hard way. 

Both are encounters with Ultimate Reality, al-Haqq, (God/Allah) at it's highest direct intensity.

There is no room for speculative headscratching. No room for any moral discontent when the questioner is making up their own sophistry and trying to attack at an imaginary problem that is simply not there in the Abrahamic religions' conception of hereafter.

To think that so many believers, theologians and philosophers can't grasp the WHAT of the situation makes me wonder. To fall for it shows that they don't really know the details of their beliefs and spiritual problems they are trying to solve and that they are merely responding to prior intellectual tradition rather than actually engaging the Revelations themselves.

This all is also supported by how the Bible itself calls God "a consuming fire". 

The significance and potency of Islam is so strong that it spawned the entire Western Civilization which furiously tries to copy everything it achieved and make similar pronouncements but with an inverted morality

Islam and the Holy Grail

 Something really significant that people don't often consider with Muhammad, is that; given how the Arab pagans used to bury their female infants alive because they viewed daughters as curses. How significant is it that Muhammad's only progeny surviving past childhood was Lady Fatimah. And how through Fatimah (who married Imam Ali obvs) that Muhammad's successorship was advanced. 

Also, though you may know (I think I've mentioned it before) but Surah Kawthar is a promise God gave to Muhammad before the birth of Fatimah. The word Kawthar means "abundance" but it also, in Hadith, is metaphysically referred to as "the fountain in Paradise". From there it is obvious where Cup/Chalice symbolism in Qur'anic verses about Paradise factor into this.

The layers of symbols associated with Fatimah is profound. The whole "holy grail" myth in the middle ages comes out of Shi'ite tradition, relating to Fatimah and Ali, but as it was appropriated into the Parzival story (which Crowley and other occultists of his day very much loved) where Christianized to be about Jesus rather than Muhammad.

However of course the "holy grail" is also connected to Alchemy/Hermeticism as well, with the concept of Magnum Opus or "the Great Work".

One further interesting connection there is between Fatimah's Sophic aspect and the Babalon of Thelema, to which Crowley attributes the Grail symbology in texts like Liber Cheth and Liber 418.

This is all part of a grand mystery nonetheless. It is really upsetting that so many western esotericists/occultists want to exclude and bastardize Islam from this conversation when it undoubtedly contains all the missing pieces. The answers of western occultism are to be found where the biggoted minds of so many westerns don’t want to look: Islam, but not just that but Shia Islam (the seed where Sufism sprouted too).

Christianity's forgotten mystery

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

(John 20:20-23)

......Only to be later revived and reinterpreted by both Pentecostals and Mormons.

The Baha'i New World Order

I find it funny that conspiracy theorists (or similar) haven't jumped at this yet:

Baha'i New World Order

(I'm not entirely sure but Baha'i's might have actually coined that term, which later emerged curing the Cold War era)

I've very rarely see it ever brought up.

The Baha'i "New World Order" and it's future legislative court, the "Universal House of Justice" (the group of old senile men staring at a wall), have an interesting kind of relation to both the Sunni Caliphate idea and the Catholic Papacy idea. Baha'i's have basically created a mishmash of both ideas, but leaning towards the Catholic idea in terms of religious authority but leaning towards the Sunni Caliphate in terms of how it will comprise unified territory across countries (aiming for the entire world, like both prior systems hoped to achieve but didn't).

In terms of Baha'i strategy they both play the Jewish/Christian card of 'pity us, we're persecuted' (which was a historical reality for Shia Muslims and Bayanis/Babis but we didn't make that historical reality the pillar of our faith) and try to nudge their way into the United Nations and European Union area of politics, as both provide good room for expansionism when things start to go to turmoil. 

From Kitab Aqdas (also appearing as chapter 70 of Gleanings From the Writings of Baha'u'llah):

Of that, while he has fluffy language, he doesn't have the eloquence of the Qur'an. What takes Baha'u'llah a whole paragraph to express, the Qur'an can express in two phrases. In the Qur'an, a single word can be a universe in itself, in The Bab via his extreme Ta'wil, there can be a tendency towards this through the way his works esoterically relate to the Qur'an.

But in Baha'u'llah, he is always overcompensating for what are usually very basic, straight-forward sentiments. 

The Qur'an has no fluff, neither The Bab, but Baha'u'llah really does. His fluff does appeal towards the kind of vague sentimentality people have towards the poetics (rather than the theology and experience) of Sufism et al.

Between Quranism and more traditional forms of Islam: Authority and Hermeneutics

Between Quranism and more traditional forms of Islam (Sunni, Shia, Ibadi etc), there is the tension between the transhistory and hierohistory latent in the Qur'an very basic structure, discourse, doctrines and themes, and the actual historical context that chapters and verses are revealed it.

The Qur'an, as a transhistorical, hierohistorical, divine, sacred scripture of the speech of God, it is itself a talismanic unveiling within any point in history, as it points to the metaphysical nucleus which embodies any point in time, it is universal.

However the reception of the Qur'an itself and the Prophet who received it, is himself a part of this transhistory, this hierohistory in the same manner that the other prior Prophets mentioned in this scripture itself by the very fact of their inclusion.

Quranism, at the least, provides us with an important reminder about how the scripture, while being linked to rich streams of hermeneutical tradition spanning 1400 years, is itself also transcendent of it, but not separate from it. Quranism shows us that scripture is a vital well always renewing itself within any time period. The problem them comes down to orthodoxy and heresy in terms of action and belief, as too much emphasis placed on the subjective, personal, individual interpretation alone spawns fundamentalism (however light or extreme). 

In terms of Shi'ism, this however is, in terms of Prophetic and post-prophetic hermeneutic, it is embodied in the concept of Walaya (Imamate), the raison de etre of Shia Islam. The hermeneutic is once exoteric through the Prophet (who is the Law instructor), even though the Prophet himself was very esoterically inclined. The esoteric hermeneutic, the life itself of the text being revitalized through the successive Imamate whom are themselves pieces of the hierohistory, and like the Prophet himself and his life, a reflection back to the past Prophets, so to does the events in the lives of the Imams reflect this same concept. As does their hermeneutic destroy the 'dead letter' idea surrounding various factions of scripture hermeneutic. 

The lesson is to not straight-jacket the scripture, as it is living in our times. This goes both ways.

On Antinomianism and Esotericism, in light of genuine Islam

 A thought that pertains to esotericism and antinomianism.

So one of the books I brought with me during this moving stuff is one on the Assassins (Alamut Nizari Ismailis) and one of the prevalent ideas about them was the idea that they were, in their higher-ups actually purely Kafirs and so forth.

This of course was a myth and a very poor misunderstanding of what Ismailism teaches, which is still Shia Islam but it does have a Neoplatonic tint (which is one of my eers with the Ismailis besides otherwise liking them in their classical period).

However many Ismailis do hold the view of the Pillars of practice as being things that don't need to be adhered to, such as Salaah or Hajj etc.

This gives me good room to explain something crucial, as it seperates initiation and tradition from counter-initiation and counter-tradition (as Rene Guenon calls it). 

Gnosis (Marifa/Ihsan) is not an ideology or a belief, it is an experience of knowledge itself through God. 

It is not something that one gets through elitist means, and it is open to all who strive in the esoteric path. 

True esotericism in regards to Islam, does not oppose or downplay the importance of exoteric basis of the religion.

It understands the station of Ihsan to be within Islam and Iman, not seperate from it. 

To forsake Salaah is not something esoteric, it is just plain Kaffir.

The esoteric path is not about abrogation or denying the outward forms of the tradition, it is about diving deeper into these very things, understanding their implications and engaging even MORE intensely with the practical element.

An esotericist does not stop praying and think himself above prayer, an esotericist does the opposite, prays far more longer, intensely and with more heart (Qalb) than the average Muslim.

As for Law, Law is not abrogated, it is absorbed into the profound spiritual and mystical experience that one continues to keep reaching the more you practice and hone your practical skills in prayer, mediation and so far. 

The esotericist does not treat the Qur'an or the Sunnah or the Imams with insignificance, rather the esotericist treats the Qur'an, Sunnah and Imams with more significance and listens even more closer, quieter, carefully to what the words of God and the Prophet and the Ahl al-Bayt are implying.

Within the tradition is so much tools and pathways replete to work with that should continue to enrich and inspire.

As we say with immense conviction, the Qur'an is the greatest mystical, talismanic, magical scripture as well as the greatest guide in all aspects of life. One must first grow a very strong relationship with the scripture.

This by no means can come from passive reading, one has to hop inside the text of the scripture, one must situate themselves within the vibrations of the sounds that one utters reciting it, one must hop inside the meanings of the words and the letters of the Arabic alphabet, the numbers, the signs the scripture speaks of, it's warnings, precepts, the wisdom of it's laws. The vibrant profound beauty and power that comes from it is the basis of one's entire life.

This is the book of God, which has passed through billions of hands, minds mouths over the past 1400 years and retains controversy in the west, it is fundamentally the most important book there is. 

As for the Ismailis, they get much right but they have a tendency historically after a certain point to go lax and rest on their laurels. Esotericism is just intellectual fluff without the experiential aspect.

Experience is as much reciting the Qur'an (cultivating the Qalb and 'Aql) as it is Salaah and Dhikr.

All of this progressively creates within oneself an awareness and guiding alignment with the way of things in existence. The world no longer becomes just an incoherent sequence of causal phenomenon, you now see that you are part of the thing which God has set in place, to which you are originated, you belong and return to. That God has placed manifest Ayah everywhere in all existence simultaneously and that you as a piece of causal Phenomena can both transform and transmutate things, and that the power of God is over all things, that (as supported overwhelmingly by orthodox Sunnism and Shi'ism) the Surahs of the Qur'an can have direct magical and supernatural miracle effects with intent. That all things can be brought towards the Glory of God. 

What is Islam?

Some people speak of it with particular reverence but the fact remains that Wahdat al-wujud is just an understanding of how the universe relates to the "names and attributes" of God. God is infinitely apophatically transcendently absolutely One, this is not the number one as in counting (as that would amount to being a polytheist with one deity) but rather in terms of Unity. Since EVERY single thing in existence according to the Qur'an, is a Sign (Ayat) of God, this means that everything is manifest of and reflective of the Unity of God. This is Tawhid. (the Qur'an is a microcosm of this idea as every verse and every letter is also an Ayat, and in terms of the verses we literally call them ayahs too followed by the number). The thing that separates Tawhid, and Abrahamism itself, from other more metaphysical abstractions like Brahman, is that there are inner processes within this Unity of God which bring it's manifest "creation" to the knowledge of it's source. This is marked by the concept of Revelation and Angelology (seeing that there is an Angel attached to everything as well, which should not be taken as a physical belief). In one awesome Hadith from Imam Ali which has always stuck with me, Ali separates three different categories and how they relate to each other, these all relate to typical questions of a "meaning of life" et al. Ali says (paraphrasing) "God gave the Angels 'Aql but no desire, God gave the Animals desire but no 'Aql, in the Humans (or sons of Adam etc) God gave both. So who strives towards his 'Aql and overcomes his desire is greater than both the Angels and the Animals". The 'Aql itself also does not connotate just intellect in the common sense used in english, it connotates a mode and organ of consciousness. Sufis explored the terminology of Qalb (heart) and Qtub (axis/pole) to further get at this word ('Aql) as taught by the Ahl al-Bayt and early Sufis. Anyway in the Islamic view of existence, it's all about Gnosis ('ilm, Ihsan, Marifa, Irfan). Something you may find interesting if you've ever noticed it, but the Qur'an (and Islam in general) prioritizes the word Truth (Haqq) over all others. Whereas the Christian prioritizes the word Love. Truth is absolute and eternal, whereas Love is conditional and relational, also indicating dependency (which is obviously something antithetical to God, but then Christian theology is a literal intentional paradox). Aside from that, Haqq itself is an even higher name for this IT than the word "God" itself. Interestingly Imam Sadiq comments upon the same thing himself in several Hadith where he points out that stating the word "God" itself points towards nothing without knowing the meaning of the word. The Ahl al-Bayt were very spiritually and intellectually sharp. Imam Sadiq says the meaning of the word points towards God, not the word "God" which could point to things that are very much the polar opposite of God (as evident in the anthropomorphism that tends to lurk within Salafi and Athari Theology). As the Qur'an affirmatively states page after page, God is beyond what people ascribe to God, but what "God" Reveals about God through Revelation are signs and symbols which are the path to the knowledge of God. The practice of ritual, of prayer, of meditation etc are all essential on the practical level with this. As the Qur'an also says multiple places, there is NOTHING like God, there is no likeness that can be found among "creation" that can even begin to analogously appropriate God, for "creation" is that which is manifest and conditioned, and God is that which is unmanifest and unconditioned. Also, as the Qur'an repeatedly mentions throughout, in different variant phrases "all things originate from God and to God is the return of all things" (this means everything not just some things).

The function of Revelation and the station of Prophethood though  is a particular mark, in accordance with the profound apophatic theology of the Oneness of God, is something that makes the Abrahamic religions so radically anathema to the history of religion itself. I really do find it highly remarkable this aspect, in ways which the average follower of the three Abrahamic religions does not think deeply enough about. While the early Gnostics may caricature and adversarialize it, the notion of Prophet after Prophet throughout history receiving some kind of 'supernatural' (I find that word distasteful tbh) messages consistent throughout history, which teach the system of enlightenment which doesn't merely just cover the mystical but covers all aspects of human life (as a truly holistic system should), which not only does this but chastises and makes an example of the failures of followers of past receivers of the 'supernatural' messages, is just profound to me. Compared to the non-Abrahamic traditions, the Abrahamic tradition is not idealistic (in the colloquial sense, not the philosophical position) but rather it rather has a very strong grasp on human nature and all of our deepest neurosis'. Just as with anthropomorphism/polytheism, it very strongly banishes all of our negative influences and enjoins awareness of consequence and responsibility. The response is then upon the followers/believers ourselves and what we do with what we've been given in this tradition. As the Qur'an points out about Jews and Christians, we are not to be holding onto our Deen like an object we own or as a method of usurping God to control others (which is the basic idea of the Dajjal prophecy, which would apply to figures like Umar, Muawiyah, Yazid, Hitler, many governments and any religious terrorist organizations, all of whom I very openly despise).

Conspiracy Theories, Apocalypticism, Secularism, Extremism, Eschatology, Politics: Some Thoughts

 When it comes to conspiracy theories, I like how random nobodies often end up being resources in doing otherwise arbitrary dot connecting. It can be both useful in the study of symbol, psychology, anthropology, sociology and sometimes actual conspiracy. 

It can be useful studying this stuff both towards understanding the minds of people who write that kind of stuff (psychoanalysis) as well as understanding how our societies actually function in terms of networking, symbiology and so forth.

I generally do not believe many 'conspiracy theories'. Though of course eschatology and conspiracy theories have a direct overlap in content and purpose often. As a Muslim and therefore a religious person who does hold eschatological beliefs (though not uncritically) I speak of myself in those areas of overlap, I guess.

That said, for instance, I am very pro-Jewish but anti-Zionist. I oppose the Zionist ideology just as I do Daesh and the American Government, but I do not hold eschatological implications towards these things, even though it'd be so easy to give in and give them eschatological credibility. (and even more if I was a Protestant Christian)

But in terms of Jewish history and Christian eschatology, it is easy to relate to the sentiment that in modernity we are trapped in Babylon again, except globally. In the Apocalypse of St John, it is definitely a certain sad and ironic lament, later taken up with more hostility and hysteria by Protestant Christians. Yet the Catholics, for their years of political power, rejoiced in what they thought was the 'Millennium of Christ' as rulers of Europe, Asia etc. 

Jews at one point actually ruled and had empires, they thrived for some time. For around 1600 years Christians ruled everywhere through what is now dubbed "The West". 

They've largely lost that luxury and are under "Pagan" rule now through secularism. 

It's only a repeat of ancient history though. There was a point in the life time of previous Prophets where neither Judaism nor Christianity existed. 

Our central, defining patriarch, Abraham, is one such example. 

The irony at least for Christians though, is that literally since the very beginning, their law system has not been Torahic, but rather a syncretized amalgamation of secular pagan law anyway. Christians (except for the Nazarenes and Ebionites) have never followed the Torah, so in a way they've always been Babylon anyway.

Since the destruction of the 2nd temple, Jews have been scattered anyway. 

Any fear towards secularism coming from Jews and Christians is a matter of pride.

As for Muslims it's a much more different situation, but due to the fall of the Sunni Caliphates, there is not much they can really complain about without also being hypocritical. 

I am in no way justifying or defending modernity or our secular west either here. But perspective has to be noted in regards to certain demographics of people, many of whom are very familiar to us.

Authority in Islam part 2, Fiqh/Sharia - Salafism, Sunnism, Twelver Shi'ism, Ismaili Shi'ism

 Some more thoughts regarding the different Islamic sects.

Despite epistemic issues regarding the present state of Imamate (which is in the realm of "Sacred Mystery" for Twelverism, and is rather mundane and dethatched for Ismailism with their 4th Aga Khan) there are other aspects to this which shed more light on it.

Salafis represent radical (in the negative sense, not positive) subjunctivized hijacking and subverting of the previous sect they have crawled out of (Sunnism). Salafis largely reject the four Madhhabs that Sunnis traditionally follow, although they may often identify with one of the four Madhhabs on grounds of methodology. 

Salafis reject the concept of Taqlid, which is to live in adherence to an established school, and rather place emphasis in their own personal practice upon the once-abandoned practice of Ijtihad (which is best summed up as the process of debate about what is considered authentic and how it is applied). 

The practice of Ijtihad back in the formative period of Sunnism (between the Ahl al-Hadith movement up to the canonization of the Four Madhhabs and 'official' identification as "Sunni" in the 11th century) was reserved only to those scholars with a mastery of Arabic and who had devoted their lives to the study of Islamic law and theology. 

Such high-ranking people were called Mujtahids. 

Sunnism itself throughout it's history has been gradually dismantled, from a once very vibrant tradition (which I say obviously in a generous manner being not at all fond of Sunnism) towards, through the Ottoman Caliphate being gradually wiped out and replaced with individual modernist governments (incorrectly considered "Islamic"). 

For Sunnism, it's actually impossible to truly follow the religion these days, not because of the generic western narrative of "iSlAm iZ iNcOmPaTiBlE wItH mOdErNiTy" but rather that there are very few, if any, Mujtahids to clarify Sunni jurisprudence and no country actually follows the Sunni Sharia. So there is no continuity or application going on in the first place.

On the Shia side however things are quite different. 

On the Ismaili side, the Nizari Aga Khans all basically gave the occams razor and said "just follow your country's law, you'll be alright, just don't go against Qur'an or Sunnah".

On the Twelver side, however we actually have a living tradition of Mujtahids and especially Marjas. The most famous Twelver Marja is obviously Ayatollah Sistani. 

Sistani, for example, dedicated his entire life to learning the sciences of Fiqh and guiding people towards a moderate and reasonable application of the Sunnah in the modern world. 

That said I don't agree with Sistani on everything, but his status of authority actually means something unlike these Salafis who go and take absolute authority into their own hands, looking for the least nuanced and least thoughtful approach to their Deen they could possibly choose, leading obviously to the massive demographic of Salafis who are also terrorists. 

In terms of Fiqh, Shia Islam is far superior to the state of Sunnism. 

For Sunnism to get back on it's feet, it would have to do something like the Council of Nicaea to re-unify itself and to clarify various issues (regarding Fiqh as well as theological issues - such as the Salafi Shirk of the anthropomorphism of God).

Authority in Islam part 1: the question of 'which sect is the true sect?'

In terms of myself spiritually in Islam, I admittedly am still dealing with my own dilemmas. 

While the epistemology of both Judaism and Christianity is pretty laughably weak, Islam is a different situation.

When it comes to Islam, Sunnism is pretty easy to reject for it's central premise having no doctrinal basis and for it being undeniable that Muhammad chose Ali as his successor, it's repeated very plainly many times before his death. Ali is more than obviously the appointed successor, this created massive issues for people like Umar and Abu Bakr. Ali was quite consistent in his claim as appointed successor afterwards also. 

The occam's razor of the Sunni position of Ali being their 4th Caliphate, is that if he was the fourth Caliphate according to them, then as he claimed to be Imam right after Muhammad's death (and Muhammad appointed him as such) then logic dictates that Ali was the rightful successor, not Abu Bakr.

Election holds no water against divine appointment. Muhammad was not 'elected' as a Prophet, Moses was not 'elected' as a Prophet. James (brother of Jesus), Joshua (son of nun), etc were not 'elected' as Successors of Jesus and Moses respectively. They were both appointed directly by their respective patriarchs. 

The Davidic Israelite Kingship was not 'elected' it was passed down through blood, as appointed by God.

However when it comes to Shi'ism itself I hit a brick wall in some aspects. 

I love and admire the 11 prior Imams, however when it comes to the 12th Imam (the Mahdi/Qa'im in Ghayba) there is the issue of his hiddenness. This of course has a beautiful mystical angle, but it isn't that far from the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church (yada yada) or individual Christians (in the case of Protestants).

Whereas Ismailism in general is a little too syncretic, albeit a noble endeavor. It's epistemology however is a little flimsy and it's Imamate reduces the importance of Imams. The Aga Khan has said some good stuff but he is nowhere near advanced in knowledgeable in Islam as any of the even smaller 'saint' figures in Islamic history (whether mystics, philosophers or jurists). 

The present state of Nizari Ismailism makes me confident that if the Ismaili line is correct, that the Nizari line isn't. 

The Nizaris of the Alamut period (famously called the "Assassins" or the "Hasishins") were truly special though, and inspired me a lot when I first got into Islam.

The Tayyibi side of Ismailism is also interesting but they tend to fall under the same area as Twelver Shi'ism, in that they each have a last Imam that went into hiding. Now, for Twelvers, while we had four Babs (Gates) who were deputies for the Hidden Imam during his minor occultation, the Tayyibi sects have their Da'is (like authoritative missionaries, kind of) who are left as authority. 

I have an interest in, and respect for, the Tayyibis, but it's the same dilemma but in another aspect.

It seems that all forms of Islam fail under the epistemic measurement. It doesn't mean that Muslims as a whole have false beliefs or anything, but that there appears to be no truly valid authority. In many ways this has been approached in very reactionary ways by movements such as the Salafis/Wahhabis, Deobandis, Barelvis and other modernist-Sunni reactionary conservatist 'reform' movements.

Sunnism itself is though an anachronism. It built itself up from the antagonisms against the Shia, from day one. It's predecessor is the Ahl al-Hadith movement. The Sunnis fully came into fruition in the 11th century and never existed as a sect before then. They are basically a systematic syncretism of many counter-Shia movements. 

On the other hand the "Quran-alone" people also lack authority as well, as they tend to be like the Protestants of Islam (if various forms of Sunnism wasn't already) in the Sola Scriptura thing. Like Protestants it falls into the 'seventy sects' idea with individual interpretations taking precedence over any unified authoritative interpretation of the text.

The whole topic between all of these groups is quite nuanced and a difficult conversation that all of these groups will never want to truly try to figure out together. Strong biases always creep in and nobody is exempt from succumbing to such things.

Reflection on the Short Surahs of the Holy Qur'an

The shortest Surahs in the Qur'an are often the most paradoxical. They often in so few words have as much expression and impact, both in history and in an individual's spiritual life as an entire long Surah (like Baqarah for instance). 

The shortest Surahs remind me that, as the Qur'an itself is one-thing and a complete divine word, so to is each Surah itself a complete universe of it's own. 

Each Surah itself is anyway, a layer of the Qur'an. 

Each Surah is a layer beyond the last Surah, but not in order of revelation (which itself is objectively vague, though some things are solidly certain) and not in order of Mushaf. 

This non-linear aspect is important. 

Depending on the context and the person, out of several different Surahs, there is always one that a person will consider "the heart of the Qur'an". 

The three Surahs that most prominently reflect this notion are Surah Fatihah (7 verses), Surah Yasin (83 verses) and Surah Ikhlas (4 verses).

Those three Surahs themselves are perfect demonstrations about everything Islamic at it's core. Surah Ikhlas of course, is metaphysically the most profound and total Surah there is, but it's theme is all Tawhid and not other aspects. 

Surah Fatihah is the profession of many of the main doctrines all summed up in the signature obligatory divinely-revealed prayer. Whereas Yasin is an explanation of all the core Islamic doctrines, with a particular focus on both the hereafter and past rejection of Prophets. 

Just thinking, in regard to my present jihads (or as to say, my intellectual debates) with the Christians, I was reminded through having an urge to recite Surah al-Nasr, that the Qur'an's power, both historical and individually, has a nature so greater than the Bible ever has. 

Although the Bible, being a compilation, has various verses that are very commonly repeated, and certain prayers that have been felt in high regard, even certain verses quoted in commemoration of different later historical events, it is not in the way and with the same weight that any single Surah of the Qur'an is to both it's initial history and it's present history. 

The Qur'an is not a story, and it is not about solely Muhammad and the early Meccans, nor is it solely about the many Prophets it reiterates fragmentarily throughout. The Qur'an is, rather about us and God, across time, across continents, across even planets perhaps.

Messiahs and Heretics

Overall, outside of Islamic (or Shi'ite) Orthodoxy, my continually biggest fascinations and obsessions are obviously:

John Dee/Edward Kelly/Enochian Magic

Sabbatai Zevi/Jacob Frank/The Donme

The Bab/Babism

Aleister Crowley/Thelema

This is leaving aside Dharmic stuff.

The four subjects above all seem to intersect in many ways. To a lesser extent I would also connect Jesus, Paul of Tarsus and the Apocalypse of John to this overarching interest, however even though there are antinomian tendencies in the ways Jesus and Paul are interpreted by Christians, it still leans far too much over to moralism (in what is contained in the New Testament) than having a strong enough root in the above four.

The Apocalypse of John does obviously relate to John Dee and Aleister Crowley.

The Bab on the other hand claimed to be the Imam Mahdi, much like Sabbatai Zevi claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. 

There are interesting parallels between Jesus, Zevi and the Bab. 

Anyway all of these intersect with their hyper-esoteric, occult, mystical, magical and antinomian aspects combined with very obvious apocalyptic undertones through all of these figures. At the same time, they are all subject in the mainstream to conspiracy theories about them, often utterly absurd.

They're all some of my favorite people to study with their own strange histories and very enlightening metaphysical insights - again leaving aside Shia Islam which is my orthodoxy with the Qur'an, Muhammad and Twelve Imams.

One thing also about the above (including Jesus himself too) is that the concept of Messianism itself seems to be very strongly esoterically tied to heresy itself. 

On the eXoteric level, having studied (and continuing to) all of these figures, here is an overview of how these 'heresies' intersect: 

1. Jesus (the most famous and popular Jewish Messiah Claimant), according to Christians, claimed to be God-incarnate, a heresy against Jews. Also never fulfilled any of the expectations that Jews expected of the Messiah, so was a heretic in his claims on that basis as well.

2. Jesus according to Paul, abrogated the Torah, a heresy against both Jesus and Jews

3. Muhammad received revelation (Qur'an) which affirmed Jesus as Messiah but staunchly denied Jesus ever claiming to be God-incarnate - a 'heresy' to Christians, and a re-establishment of Jesus as a Jew.

4. Dee and Kelly in their Angelic transmissions, received some confirmation that Jesus was not God-incarnate but also denied other Abrahamic theological doctrines, a heresy against Christianity (and against Dee's own beliefs) and a confirmation of aspects of Islam without ever mentioning it

5. Sabbatai Zevi, claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, encouraged transgressing the Torah (law) to liberate the world from it's current fallen state, a heresy against Judaism. Not only that Zevi ended up converting to Islam in 1666, while inwardly still being a Kabbalistic Jew

6. The Bab claimed to be the Mahdi, claiming his own new scriptures and tradition and new prophetic cycle, a Heresy against the finality of Muhammad in Islam and against the traditional orthodox Shi'i view of the Mahdi

7. Crowley both affirmed and denied conceptual tendencies (typified by the Antinomian) in all of the above, but did not make claim to the Abrahamic tradition, nor the Dharmic tradition, rather claimed their major figures where part of rather the Thelemic current*

(*as found best outlined in the Book of Lies, Chapter 7)

That outline is only the surface level as it goes way further than just that.

Also with Zevi/Frank like with The Bab and his followers, the later idea of immersing in other traditions with your true beliefs concealed, or actively practicing another religion and taking on it's belief system, became a shared trait with Crowley, Chaos Magic, the O9A later on.

Though this, due to persecution and not malicious intent, kind of goes back to Shia Islam (through the concept of Taqiyya - which conspiracy theorists love and which is utter bullshit, a total intentional misrepresentation of a concept) and not Judaism/Zevi/Frank per se, though not so much in the context of pretending to follow another tradition. For Taqiyya, one would still say they are a Muslim (and it's in the context of Sunnis persecuting Shia) but one would not explicate the details of their beliefs as a Shia and would tend more towards generalities shared with Sunnis in order to not be singled out.

Though of course Jews had to put up with lot of persecution at various times, typified by the Babylonian Exile, but such a concept didn't seem to exist back then.