Iran's latest developments and the players

Iran's latest developments and the players


It's a development like this that I was waiting for, before blogging about the Middle East again. I know that the people who kept visiting my earlier blog posts about this were probably let down, but here is the new one and I thank you for your continuing interest in my posts.

Thethe deal that was signed with Iran in Geneva on Saturday is all over the Sunday talking-head shows today, with "the usual suspects" howling exaggerations (like demanding total dismantling) over it. Still, even the line of the howlers has changed significantly, in this regard: Netanyahu, for example, was howling for total dismantlement and is now howling about just military dismantlement. That'll work. Republicans that now have a stance to Netanyahu's right are the ones whose howls are tone-deaf. Still, Netanyahu's proclamation that this makes Iran more dangerous is what renders Iran's claim that Israel is some kind of rabid dog to the ear of the critic to have credibility, exaggeration though it may be. This isn't helping. Neither Netanyahu nor Iran forwards their respective cases one whit with this level of nonsense.

Worse, though, is the hardline positioned by rabid dog Republicans to Netanyahu's right, as they will affect the U.S. position eventually. If they held any kind of sway, then that would be a disaster, clearly.

UPDATE: I just got a challenge question that requires response. The question: why should an oil-rich nation like Iran be permitted to use nuke power at all? Answer: global warming. Duh. No nation should be forcibly condemned to be confined to only fossil fuels for energy. I'm dead certain that the international petroleum lobbies are salivating at any prospects of forcing a nation to use nothing but fossil fuels for which they'd be richly paid for drilling/mining, but it's the petroleum lobby that poses the next best reason why limited nuke power should be permitted even to Iran--the first and foremost reason being global warming.

UPDATE 2: It's just been brought to my attention that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow did some excellent reporting on the behind-the-scenes negotiations that, per her report, was not just about Iran's nuclear capabilities but also its proxy involvement in Syria. She also did a recap of relations with Iran going back to Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal. Those of you who want further details, I do refer you now to the Rachel Maddow blog. Developments involving Afghanistan have become interesting, too, regarding the end-run made around Karzai via direct dealing with Afghanistan's Loya Jirga. A president that has to answer to the governing body elected by the people is indeed appropriate and I'm sure Karzai doesn't think so, with Karzai having his attitude in common with Egypt's Morsi. All of these things are definitely worth keeping an eye on

In terms of how Islamic governments have functioned historically, even under the Caliphate Empire, tribal law (sharia) was never supposed to dominate other tribes, which each had their own sharia. This imposition of Wahab sharia over non-Wahab tribes is historically unislamic; this is the reason why the House of Saud in Arabia has stood on shaky ground at its inception and is now standing on ever-thinning ground, unable to stand without international support particularly without the support of the U.S. and Britain.

It is a plain and simple fact to all reasonable Muslims that the success of the spread AND the flourishing of the Caliphate Empire was because of the local governments by different tribal sharia, not because of the central government. Also contributing to this was the spoils system set forth by the central government and adopted from Muawiya's practice of spreading Islam across the north African coast. Wahabs who proclaim they're fighting for a new Caliphate empire while imposing Wahab tenets on others simply have no realistic grasp on Islamic history whatsoever

Some months ago, a question about the difficulties of governing by the Incas came up on Yahoo Answers, and the answer I gave for that is a universal truth for all empires: the more repressive the central government gets, the higher the price gets for executing that repression gets. This was true of the Alexandrian Empire all the way through the current governing practices of the Sauds and Syria's Bashar al-Assad, and was even the case of imperial Rome after it had abandoned its republic days as it levied ever-increasing taxes to support that repression.

Repression is not sustainable no matter who commits it. The Caliphate Empire was a success as long as Shiites lived by their own tribal sharia and the Sunnis lived by theirs; this was a co-operation that lasted until the Turks came in, in the 13th century, after the Moguls flattened Baghdad, dominated repressively, and re-ignited that Sunni-Shiite schism which had been resolved with the peace accord at the conclusion of the Day of the Camel. Whether under Omayyad government or Abbasid government, the Caliphate Empire held together and flourished because the primary power was tribally local sharia. The Roman Empire was most successful when it was a genuine republic.

The Sauds rose to power pretending to be Islamic when they weren't, and the same is true for Al Qaida, and the same is true for Morsi. Allah is diminished by these who claim that their rule is his will; what transpires now is insha'allah beyond the control of any mere mortal or any collection of mere mortals who claim Allah's favor.

Any who claim that their side is what Allah wills and that Allah's honor depends on bloodshed committed by mere mortals appear to my eye as blasphemous. If Muslims intend to be the best representatives of Islam to the non-believer, then it would benefit Islam to call Islamists on their blasphemy, for they are the worst people to represent Islam to anybody, believer or non-believer.

It's on the souls of Muslim parents when they send their children schools that teach blasphemy and idolatry under the disguise of Islam. The Holy Koran is holy as a recitation, not as a book, and to revere the book (the Quran in inferior form) is idolatry. Christians who defile books titled "The Holy Quran" are just stupid--but so are the Muslims who kill fellow human beings of Allah's creation over an inferior object of Man's creation.

Should good devout Muslims suffer for the blasphemous idolaters to be the representatives of Islam to the world? Pose this question to your cleric and demand his fatwah on it. Yes, I am aware of previous fatwas on various questions regarding Islamists, but not on this question in particular, nor on the questions of whether these things are ruled to be actual blasphemy and actual idolatry. Seriously--Islamists appear to be in need of a formal declaration that their de facto blasphemy is blasphemy actual, as well as their de facto idolatry.

Is the Quran destroyed because a book or even a bunch of books were destroyed? No.

Is the book desecrated just because the written words, without their prescribed recitation present, are in that book? No because the word "desecrated" presupposes that the book was sacred, and no book is sacred without being idolized; Allah did not make that book.

Is the book which contains the written words of the Quran without their prescribed inflections in place, an inferior form of the Quran? Yes. The Quran is proper and most perfect when recited with inflections in their proper places as the Prophet (PBUH) recited it; what's in the book is more arbitrary.

Is one tribe's sharia inferior to another tribe's sharia just because it's different from Wahab sharia? No, because no cleric in the Caliphate Empire thought so. The precedent set for that answer originates from the Caliphate Empire itself even as it was run by the first four Caliphs.

These questions cry out for widespread universal fatwahs because Islamists ignore all of them, teaching what they claim is Islam which is in conflict with the Prophet's Islam (PBUH).
-----..oo0{O}0oo..-----

There have been other developments this weekend which pertain to the Middle East, like theMiami Book Fair International (I followed that with great interest for the entirety it was broadcast on CSPAN2 on Saturday..."program number
316330-1" on their website; it's been broken down into 10 separate videos HERE and the specific Middle East panel's video is HERE) and there was a broadcast this morning on Radio Australia that I want to cover, so I'll publish this entry now and add those items later in the day. (UPDATE: Sorry, but that broadcast still hasn't turned up as of Dec. 6 and I'm considering that one a total loss. Will edit this post to remove other references to it. Dang and a half)

It may be slow going, though--working from 2 different weather forecasts, one of which forecasts snow and the other, a "wintry mix" which includes sleet, which contains the threat of power/service outages again. And again, will just have to see what actually transpires and work around that.

Previous pertinent post regarding Iran is THIS one; pertinent to Syria and remaining situations in the Middle East and the history thereof areTHIS one, THIS one, THIS one, and THIS one. These would be more pertinent to the discussion of what transpired at the Miami Book Fair, as would be the previous post on the Great War.
...

Syria:BBC Newsnight aired a story of a British jihadist in Syria. Speaking of Newsnight, GAWD I miss Aaron Brown. Go Sun Devils!

Saturday UPDATE, Lebanon: The sectarianism mentioned here and elsewhere on this bloghas surfaced in the Lebanese town of Tripoli, says Al Jazeera English (and pretty much most of Twitter, in that region). As I've mentioned earlier in this post and elsewhere, the differences between Shiite and Sunni were resolved centuries ago until the invasions of the Moguls, Seljuks and Uygurs in the 13th century, a time when sharia law meant something other than what it means today among the Islamists. In Lebanon, here we go again. Yesterday, I heard about unrest in Tunisia, the place that sparked the whole Arab Spring thing, a thing not confined to Arabs. So, my Muslim friends--are we looking not at unity but at Balkanization? I hope not the latter. Consider carefully, and consider the value of reversing that old Reaganism into Verify, Then Trust.


{Mr. HF, I sincerely hope that I have your undivided attention in this post because Middle East history, including Islamic history, is some of the most treacherous, weedy historical terrain to navigate and I remain concerned that you'll get stuck in the weeds there...that, and this is the closest I'll ever get to making book recommendations, still with the caveat that triangulation remains necessary. {Sorry, but as of a check of the ABC website Dec. 6, I conclude that this isn't happening. What I heard was right after the Lynn interview, and what followed the interview was Sufi Meditations Episode 5; yet what I heard was a Q A with mention of the book in question. Search engines aren't producing it either. This is all so much water so far under the bridge at this point that I'm just giving up on it altogether. Some things are just simply lost causes and this is undeniably one of them. National Geographic will at least establish the following: 1) the Caliphate Empire fell by Mongol invasion in the 13th century; 2) the Mongol rule fell by Turk invasion and the subsequent Turk tribes were intermingling to become the Ottomans 3) the Moors were on the run, and not teachin Spaniards anything 4) those Turks had absolutely no interest in Moors.

Equally important is the following: Sunni Muslims will not give a reliable account of Shiites, and the reverse is true; the best 3rd party overview of Islamic history will come from Sufis but they'll skim over a lot of it in their focus on direct divine experience and be, for the most part, apologists. The most inaccurate overview of Islamic history will come from the other two Abrahamic branches of religion--Judaism and Christianity. Those two groups can be counted on to give an entirely bogus account of what sharia law is/how it functions/what made it necessary when it began/how it evolved/how Sunni sharia is different from Shiite sharia.

There is no shortcut to reading *all* of these sources to triangulate your own assessment of what actually happened, and arrive at your own conclusion. Navigation via triangulation is the only way to avoid getting stuck in the weeds.

The person being quizzed in the Q A I heard was the same person who conducts the Sufi Meditations series on Australia Broadcasting: Sheikha Fatima Fleur Nassery Bonnin. Under the circumstances, I would advise that you listen to those for any information tidbits that may accompany any given Meditation in the series, as it's my humble opinion that even though she's an apologist, her accounts of Islamic history, when she gives out those tidbits, is quite detailed as well as quite accurate..but then you'd have to simply trust my fiat on that, and that's problematic, isn't it. But I say this because I've previously arrived at those same details via my own navigation and can independently confirm her accounts that I've heard thusfar, EXCEPT when she states that the main difference between Sunni and Shiite is an issue of succession.

It's exceedingly more complex an issue than that; it's an excuse to avoid the very tall, very dense, very tangled weeds which prove difficult and treacherous for even the well seasoned time traveler. It's with that in mind that I wish I could have been of better help. I suppose I could mention 4 guideposts that will assist in maintaining/regaining your bearings: Mohammed himself, Abu Bekr, Abu Bekr's daughter Ayisha, and Mohammed's daughter, Fatima--with the additional detail that Ayisha became Mohammed's wife and Fatima became Ali's wife. These are just starter guideposts. For the birth and development of sharia, and as pertains to Cordoba Emirate, the guidepost is Muawiya. For Palestine and Persia, it's Calif Omar with the knowledge that Muawiya served under Omar in the beginning AND that Omar is referenced in the Omiyad period of Cordoba's governance under the Empire.

Wending one's way through the shift in law from Omiyads to the Abassides and then to the fall of the Empire prior to Ferdinand and Isabella is a whole 'nother thicket of dense, tangled weeds right there, in addition to which are the changes made by the Turks compared to the fleeing Moors. There's just no way I can do better than that, and that's the end of that. I just hope you found at least a little bit of something useful in all this, if you're even reading any of it at all. Finis. Good luck.}

In the previous posting of navigation tips at the bottom of the second recipe posting, I covered tips confined to perspective navigation, in terms of temporal contemporaries. In this area, temporal triangulation is also required, and I'll cover that in this post. Changing altitude in both contemporary perspective AND temporally is required, so that means keeping close track of your position with each change is very critical.

It's important to keep in mind that I'm not intending to speak as any kind of expert--I speak as someone who has gotten stuck in those same weeds numerous times; I simply speak as someone who has been there, done that, and discovered where the guideposts are located.Every path through those weeds is unique only to the traveler--it's really the best thing to do, for you to chart your own course, as I can no more retrace my own steps to tell you about where I've been, and that's just a simple fact.

I point out again that the reason for any questions I've had were in the interest of comparing notes--your journeys are entirely your own to make and simply aren't expected to even vaguely resemble the ones I've taken. Weeds in particular retain no paths readily. You will find that asking yourself the tough questions will also produce analytical skills that give you your own answers and new triangulation co-ordinates to explore further...and then you'll find that you, yourself, will become independent of any given book while satisfactorily arriving at a conclusion as to what actually happened in history. Try it. :) You too, DM--I would think that you of all people would find it refreshing to have access to material that hasn't been altered by the ADL prism/filter first. You boys have the helm now--go for it.

Seriously--every instance that you access Project Gutenberg, you come aboard my time machine, inside the control room where the core is located...and you'll get no better opportunity at some behind-the-wheel time machine navigation experience than that. If it's any consolation, know ye that I've gotten the tough questions when I went over to Yahoo Answers, and my response to those has usually been "That's an interesting question--I'll go and find out what the answer is". Sometimes I do find the answer; sometimes I don't, but just looking into it contains adventure enough for me, and if I find no answer, I still produce search results. The fun for me is in the expedition itself...you know...just taking the ole TARDIS out for a run. Any excuse to take the old girl out on a run is a good one.

DC, I would recommend for you a refresher on basic training in navigation before fiddling with the control room...thus: Navigation Basics and Time And Relative Dimensions In Space, explained. Of course you can take it...or leave it and stick with being a typical historian. But where's the fun in THAT? There's nothing wrong with being extraordinary, contrary to popular opinion. The worst it ever does is make ordinary people riled. Been there, done that, and you should know firsthand--as an eye witness. :) The term "overachiever" actually doesn't cover it, ha.

Still, I'm well past arguing any of it at this point, and this is just to put stuff out there even if the end result is that you're never going to read it. It's just out there, and I won't argue this point or any other along these lines henceforth; these are just like outgoing messages on an answering machine that isn't taking calls. These asides are just courtesy posts in case it makes some kind of difference to the other party; at this point in time, whether they're read or not, or if you or they dismiss me as completely daft despite the quality of the questions I've asked...oh wait, you didn't leave any room for questions...it all makes zero difference to me.

They're just out there, and that's all. You and I haven't had the long track record of Q A difficulties as these two gents have had and I thought at the very least they deserved some sort of insight as to where the questions come from and why, even though the standard answer to them have been some variation of "I haven't read about that aspect, sorry". It's gotten to the point that I know what they'll say before they say it and I've had enough of that from them and others. It's always the same; it never changes and is predictable. You and I haven't got that sort of track record, so I'm sure these explanations would seem more daft to you than to those two gents.

It's always been the case that I'm better off finding my own answers to my questions, and so it shall be henceforth. I have more productive things to do with my time than attending only to be spinning my wheels for naught. Don't get me wrong--such things as you guys do is great for people who have just scratched the surface of history's basics, but for the entirety of the times I've attended, I've been well beyond the basics, so it's simply just not for me, and despite all the years I've enjoyed the presentations, I could have spared a lot of people a lot of grief by just not going. And thus it has come to pass that I'm just not going. I may very well be all other kinds of daft--I'm just not THAT daft. I can watch on TV, I can get stuff accomplished at home while I'm watching, nobody gets rudely put off or irked, I can research then answer my own questions--frankly, it's what I wind up doing in any case-- so the only point of attending is to waste gasoline. It's pointless otherwise; this way, everybody wins.

DC, I did say that you are appreciated. I'm not taking those words back, and that's why the invitation to you to board the time machine remains extended even if you think the whole thing is bonkers. Give the ole girl a spin first before jumping to conclusions, eh? Or just wander about in Project Gutenberg if you insist; nonetheless, even Project Gutenberg is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.

Mr. HF, although I don't use the term "temporal triangulation" at the two links I just provided, they do cover the issues of old resources vs new, why each is equally important but by themselves, each aren't reliable. Editors of any era remain gatekeepers of their own age, reflecting the sensibilities of their own age, and so what info is revealed by each is going to be necessarily different, too. By all means, review the material at those links at this time with temporal triangulation, as such, being your focus.}







Certain ones of these are always bigger on the inside and smaller on the outside. Choose wisely, choose many.