... clarification of your statements is hardly trolling. It is good practice when discussing any half serious topic. If I don't know what you are talking about I cannot respond and whatever discourse we may conduct will be as mere ships passing in the night.
1. I have no idea what a secular Sunni is. Probably the same thing as a secular Jew or a secular Hindu. In other words an oxymoron. Salafis and takfiris are not mutually exclusive ontological categories or properties adhering to a group. A salafi can and often will declare that an opponent is a hypocrite or an apostate. The Muslim making that charge is thus a takfiri. After the first Islamic civil war under abu Bakr he often declared the tribe who turned their backs on him as apostates and thus he engaged in takfir. The same things occurred during the I'll fated tenure of Ali...hence Shiaism and the now extinct kharjirites. A Muslim making the charge of apostasy need not be a salfist, he or she could just be an ordinary Joe/Mohammed. But by doing so they are being takfiris. So, In sorry, but I don't really understand your point.
2. What exactly irks you about the Shi'a revolutionary moment in 1979 (which was, in fact, localised to Iran). The ousting of Pahlavi was accomplished by a rainbow group of disparate political forces. Khomeini lead one religious faction (of which he became its leader in exile and provided it with his legitimating ideology of velayat e faqih). The other was the traditionalist, quietist (non political) faction led by Ayatollah Shariatmadari who later died under suspicious circumstances IIRC. The only places where the Shi'a revolted were in Saudi Arabia and had virtually bugger all to do with Iran despite Saudi Arabia's attempt to paint it that way. Only Hizbollah, an Iranian proxy, follows the ideology of velyat e faqih. The idea of a Shi'a uprising is a general term that is inexact and explains nothing but may be useful polemically depending on your position visavis the Shi'a.
3. Extending this argument, what do you mean the Sunni doctrine of government vs the Shi'a doctrine of government? The so called Shi'a "theory" of government doesn't actually exist. There is a ithna ashari ideology of government typified and systemised by Khomeini's concept of velayat e faqih but if you mentioned it in Najaf they laugh you out of town. The Sunni believe in a limited form of elected dictatorship the only qualification being piety. Monarchs are tolerated (in an analogy of Kant's prescription against revolting against tyrants to preserve order and prevent anarchy) so long as they "enjoin the good and prohibit evil". For the Shi'a only the descendants of Ali are the lawful heirs to earthly government and in their absence they should either accept the rule of the jurisprudent (the regime position in Iran) or, in terms of the more traditionalist position (quietism) support anyone who ensures that Islamic law is upheld (similar to the sunni position with the proviso that clerical power is not impinged upon- he of the clerics original complaints against the Shah in 79). As for the Shi'a revival, it can actually be traced back to the mid sixties when Marxism-socialism was seen as an alien ideology by many people including the previously mentioned Ali Shariati especially in his book Red Shiism and jalal ali Ahmed's collected works. Many in the clergy saw a common cause with revolutionary groups. But then it gets complicated. Non Iranian regime Ithna Ashari Shi'a are awaiting the return of the twelfth occulted Imam in whom true legitimate wilaya rests. Zaydi Shi'a have Imams that fuse the concept of (weak) consent inherent in sunnism with that of divine bloodlines of the ithna ashari. But that's by the by...
4. I don't know why you feel the need to continually spout your professional qualifications as some " argument from authority". That authority being yourself your pronouncement thereby become inviolable. Is it that you don't like being told your are wrong? Or confused? Or unintelligible? Perhps your pervasive sense of inferiority compells you to continually state that you are more qualified experientially on this forum than anyone els. But that smacks of argument from authority. That authority being yourself. I have no need to cut and paste anything. Nor sir am I not a troll. Though you may well be. Humility is, though, a virtue you might want to cultivate.
Regards, W97
Bookmarks