Question: What do Schnapps, Feces, and non-Muslims have in Common?
Answer:
Well according to Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini al-Sistani, who has seemingly been supportive of the democratic transition in Iraq (most likely because he’s hoping for a Shia controlled gov’t), all of the above are najis ‘unclean.’ This means that non-Muslims are viewed by al-Sistani and his devotees in the same light as:
- Urine
- Faeces
- Semen
- Dead body
- Blood
- Dog
- Pig
- Alcoholic liquors
- The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat
All of this comes via Robert Spencer’s outstanding blog series ‘Blogging the Qur’an’ featured on HotAir. Spencer has studied the Qur’an and other sacred Islamic writings for years, and I highly recommend reading his analysis in it’s entirety. There are some valuable insights regarding al-Sistani’s role in Iraq.
However, Spencer also explains the Islamic tradition from which Sistani forms his thoughts:
This idea is based on v. 28. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the polytheists are “impure because of their inward foulness,” and As-Suyuti adds that some say “they are actually impure so that they must do ghusl [the full ablution] if they become Muslim and one must do wudu’[the partial ablution] after shaking hands with them.” As-Suyuti also notes that this verse forbids unbelievers to enter the Sacred Mosque in Mecca, although he points out that “Abu Hanifa says that People of the Book are not prevented because it is specific to idolaters.” Because of Muhammad’s prohibition on non-Muslims in Arabia, it is unlikely that a member of the People of the Book would be able to enter Mecca today.
Hmm… this type of thinking might explain this:
CAIRO, Egypt – Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations grudgingly agreed Friday to attend next week’s U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace conference, despite failing to get any guarantee of Israeli concessions.
In a sign of the skepticism, even among close U.S. allies, the Saudi foreign minister cautioned that there would be no public handshakes with Israeli officials at the gathering Tuesday in Annapolis, Md.
17 Comments
[deleted - konservo]
Christmas will soon be a thing of the past, enjoy it while it lasts. Islam, a new and healthy alternative, is IN.
[deleted, this type of crap may fly on TP, but I don't allow it here - konservo]
If you edit or delete my post, you are a racist!
[ how do you figure? - konservo]
Cambio, you’re pushing it. I, of course, allow dissenting comments, but you’re getting abusive.
From the website:
As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak.
He’s just reporting the consensus, not stating his own personal views (which seem ambivalent). Pak, by the way, means clean or pure.
“most likely because he’s hoping for a Shia controlled gov’t”
Actually, it’s because he’s concerned about the safety of the shrines. He first got involved when Muqtada al-Sadr’s rebellion, and the American response to it, imperiled the shrine of the first Imam in Najaf. I don’t think that he’d be deeply grieved by a Shia-controlled government, though.
“In a sign of the skepticism, even among close U.S. allies, the Saudi foreign minister cautioned that there would be no public handshakes with Israeli officials”
That’s presumably in order to avoid embarrassing photographs like these:
http://tinyurl.com/2kj7lw
http://tinyurl.com/38qk3z
http://tinyurl.com/38bmqv
http://tinyurl.com/3beqtz
http://tinyurl.com/3bkofs
Sergei,
They’re not afraid of embarrassment, they’re afraid of exposing the gross intolerance of Islamic fundamentalists:
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=200573&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=30246
And, Sergei,
I take it this was a joke?
I couldn’t find any pictures of him with George Soros or Rosie O’Donnell
Nice try, Sergei.
You forgot the last line:
I agree with RS on this one, there is no sign that Sistani is as sincere as people make him out to be.
I understood that as meaning “Err on the side of caution.”
I fail to see how this involves Sistani’s “sincerity”.
People try to paint Sistani as a sign of hope in Iraq:
But he hasn’t really done anything to indicate that he supports progress as far as 21st century human rights go (what if I’m not a person of the book? I not pak, am I?), nor does it seem that he wants to establish a democracy founded on Freedom and Justice.
In other words, sure, he may have made some symbolic gestures, but they were insincere.
Has Sistani ever claimed to be establishing a democracy founded on Freedom and Justice that progresses 21st century human rights? Or is he just trying to stop the violence so the shrines will be safe, the Shiah won’t be oppressed, and he can finally go on vacation?
Incidentally, “unclean” is not the same as “dirty”. If a person comes into contact with something unclean (by going to the bathroom, for example), then the person just needs to do a more complicated ablution the next time they pray. They don’t call in a hazmat team or anything.
He has convinced his Shia following to get involved in democracy, and his reasons for doing so are not the point. The point is, others (following reports in the MSM) have interpreted his actions as a sign of his moderate views. For example, read the this comment (comment 1 on the HotAir thread) and Robert Spencer’s response (comment 2).
Are we talking about his sincerity or whether or not other people’s views of him are accurate?
I sent an e-mail to his web address a couple years ago and was sent a reply within a couple days. The funny thing about it was that it was an image of a piece of notebook paper with hand writing in English.
I think Ayatollah Sistani is a ’straight-shooter’ who believes that religion and politics should not mingle. That being said, he is an extremely conservative religious leader to millions of people. He has a very conservative interpretation of Islam. I think he represents what’s left of Iraqs, Shiite/secular/conservative population.
I think he gives many people the impression that he is much more moderate than he really is. This is a combination of things that he says and does (and just as importantly, things that he does not say nor do) and the way people intrepret his words and actions.
For example, vermontdave got the impression that Sistani
however, this means that, hypothetically, religious sanctioned discrimination, and persecution based on that discrimination, could be a violation of national laws. Would Sistani be hunky-dory with Muslims being fined or jailed because they persecuted another individual for violating a religious code of conduct?
I haven’t seen anything from Sistani or his site that indicates he would accept the laws of man over religious law.
Mr P,
The dude is more conservative than the Pope!
It doesn’t mean he wants to be ‘Grand Poobah’.
I think he was in disagreement with Khomeini on many things.
Ironically, most Americans aren’t aware of it.
Would Sistani be hunky-dory with Muslims being fined or jailed because they persecuted another individual for violating a religious code of conduct?
Maybe you could ask him. He did answer VermontDave’s question.
Maybe you could ask him.
I think I will.
Mr. P,
I hope you do.
2 Trackbacks
[...] Dialogue, and Dehumanization In a previous post I expressed concerns regarding Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini al-Sistani view of non-Muslims [...]
[...] that refer back to Qur’anic verses. I, myself, have blogged about Spencer’s Q-Blog, here, here and [...]