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.