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.