Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology75%

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology Author:
Publisher: Foreign Department of Bethat Foundation
Category: Ideological Concepts

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 17 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 6425 / Download: 4408
Size Size Size
Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology

Author:
Publisher: Foreign Department of Bethat Foundation
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought

Alhassanain (p) Network for Islamic Heritage and Thought

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology contains various lessons with the aim of getting a better and thorough understanding of Islamic Ideology at 360° degrees. The Lessons presented in Teach Yourself lslamic Ideology were prepared in Persian by Mahmud Rajavi, Mahmud Muhammadi and Akbar Mirsiah from the Dar Rah Haqq Organization in Qum.

Translator(s): Laleh Bakhliar

Publisher(s): Foreign Department of Bethat Foundation

www.alhassanainl.org/english

Table of Contents

Translator's Preface 4

Lesson 1: Human Beings, the World and Ideology 5

The Role of a World View in Ideology 6

Summary of the Lesson 9

Questions to ask yourself 9

Lesson 2: Humanology (Anthropology) Part 1 10

The Differences in Attitudes 11

Types of Attitudes 11

Summary of the Lesson 12

Questions to ask yourself 12

Lesson 3: Humanology (Anthropology) Part 2 13

Intellectual Insight 13

Differences in Tendencies 13

The Differences in the Dimension of Action 13

Summary of the Lesson 15

Questions to ask yourself 15

Lesson 4: Humanology (Anthropology) Part 3 16

Is humanity the infrastructure or the suprastructure? 17

The Human Being from the Point of View of Islam 18

Summary of the Lesson 19

Questions to ask yourself 19

Lesson 5: World View 20

Divine and Material World View 21

Questions to ask yourself 22

Lesson 6: Monotheism: Part 1 23

Summary of the Lesson 24

Questions to ask yourself 24

Lesson 7: Monotheism Part 2 25

Summary of the Lesson 26

Questions to ask yourself 26

Lesson 8: Revelation and Prophethood Part 1 27

The Universal Law of Guidance 27

The Universal Law of Guidance in Plants 27

The World of Animals 28

The Needs of Human Beings 29

Meeting Human Needs 30

The Source of Consciousness in the Human Being 30

Summary of the Lesson 31

Questions to ask yourself 31

Lesson 9: Revelation and Prophethood Part 2 32

Summary of the Lesson 35

Questions to ask yourself 35

Lesson 10: Another Look at Prophethood based on Monotheism 36

The Continuation of the Message of the Prophets in Imamate 38

Summary of the Lesson 39

Questions to ask yourself 39

Lesson 11: Resurrection Part 1 41

The Human Being Is Eternal 41

The Human Being is a Two Dimensional Being 41

The Spirit in Material Schools 42

Originality and Independence 42

Unity and Stability of the Personality 43

The Substance of Perception 44

Place 44

Change 44

The Acceptance of Division 45

Summary of the Lesson 45

Questions to ask yourself 46

Lesson 12: The Resurrection Part 2 47

The Sophistry of Marxism 47

The Reasons Given by Materialism for the Spirit Being Material 47

The Brain is a Tool not the Agent of Perception 48

The Revival of Energies 50

Summary of the Lesson 50

Questions to ask yourself 51

Lesson 13: Resurrection Part 3 52

Proof of the Resurrection 52

The Grace of God 52

Divine Justice 52

God's Wisdom 53

The Role of the Resurrection in the Life of the Human Being 55

The Effects of Discipline and the Role of Resurrection in Structuring the Human Being 56

Summary of the Lesson 56

Questions to ask yourself 57

Translator's Preface

The Lessons presented in Teach Yourself lslamic Ideology were prepared in Persian by Mahmud Rajavi, Mahmud Muhammadi and Akbar Mirsiah from the Dar Rah Haqq Organization in Qum.

They proved to be so useful that the Foreign Department of Be'that Foundation decided to undertake the English translation which is presented here.

First edition by Foreign Department of Be'that Foundation in 1984

Address: Tehran, Islamic Republic of lran, Somaye Ave. between Mofatteh and Forsat

Tel: 821159-822244-82237

Lesson 1: Human Beings, the World and Ideology

In our world, with its unlimited number of creatures, the human being is a creature who 'thinks', makes choices' and then ‘acts’.

On the surface, we are confronted by the behavior and acts of human beings. For instance, we see a human being who 'oppresses'. We see another human being who is 'oppressed'. Then we see a third human being who is ‘indifferent’.

What are the motives and reasons for these various kinds of behavior? Why is one an oppressor and another, oppressed, and a third, indifferent?

Of course, many factors play an effective role in the reason behind why a human being acts in a certain way. But let us not forget that we said a human being is a creature who 'thinks' and then 'acts.’

There is no doubt that the way of thinking of human beings and how a human being thinks has a great effect upon the choices that that person makes and his or her acts. In other words, belief and one's way of thinking or the ideology of a human being plays an important role in his or her practice and behavior.

[Note: The word ideology, from the point of view of structure, means the science of ideas or beliefs. An idea is something one thinks, knows or imagines; a thought; a mental conception or image, notion, an opinion or belief. Anything existing in the mind as an object of knowledge or thought as an idea. 'Ideal', also from this root, means 'model', ‘exactly as one's beliefs are', or 'what one would wish for.'

But today the word 'ideology' has other meanings: First, in a general sense, ideology means or refers to a school of thought and action and the collection of all of the guidelines of that school of thought and action whether at the level of thought or at the level of action. When we use the word 'ideology' in these lessons, we refer to just this.

Second, ideology in the particular sense, refers only to the behavior of a human being and the rules of practice (the do's and don’ts). In this case, we will refer to this as a 'world view' or the basic ideas of a school of thought and action.]

It is the general meaning of ideology, that is, a collection of component’s of the belief system of human beings which are used for the word maktab, school of thought and action. We say, "The ideology of Islam as compared to other ideologies and schools of thought and action..."

Thus ideology means a universal or total theory about the world of existence along with or accompanied by a design for society. Because of its harmony and solidarity, it defines the way human beings should live and its goal is the well-being and the gradual development of humanity towards perfection or completion.

In an ideology, the insights, tendencies, methods and actions of human beings are defined and formed. Also, in an ideology, all of the basic lines or ways, routes, of the life of a human being, the do's and don’ts, the good and bad, the goals and means, the needs, pains and treatment and the answers to all of the needs of human beings must be made clear and defined.

In this way, the ideology of each human being or each society is the source of inspiration of that person or that society in coming to know something. This includes one's mission in life or the mission of a country, one's duties or the duties of society, individual responsibilities and society's responsibilities.

If we want to explain it in our own words, we can say 'the principles of belief and action' which underlie and explain behavior and encounters of human beings.

In the examples given at the beginning of the lesson, an individual who because of self-interests, material interests and animal desires, oppresses others, it is more often than not for the reason that he or she only looks at the world from the point of view of materiality and an animal-like life and he or she sees the sum total of life to be in these few days.

Also, the person who defends the oppressed and who fights for them and often even sacrifices his or her life in this struggle, these self-sacrifices and also struggles are because that person worships Truth and that person's beliefs are based upon spiritual values and the principles of humanity.

The indifference of the third person who is only a spectator also, in the first place, stems from the weakness of that person's beliefs and faith in spiritual values and in general , this encounter is because of the tendencies towards quick rewards and interests that are momentary like material and animal interests.

The Role of a World View in Ideology

Our age is an age of multiple ideologies and creeds. Various ideologies exist where each one claims to alone be the leader and guide for human beings. It believes itself to have a monopoly as the bringer of well-being and gradual development of human beings towards perfection and completion. Towards this end, it invites all human beings to follow its tenets and ideology.

Each one of these ideologies and creeds, whether they want to or not, are a perception of a general evaluation and finally, they offer a particular interpretation and analysis of the world. Every ideology looks at the world and human beings with a particular view and existence is interpreted in a certain way. This total outlook or perception which in reality is the infrastructure which forms an ideology is called 'world view’.

For instance, materialism is a world view based upon which existence is equated to materiality and no truth exists above materiality. According to the world view of materiality, the human beings is merely a material creature which is destroyed upon death and in no way does an enlightened future confront the human being.

Confronting materialism is the Divine world view and based upon it the world is not limited or confined to materiality. Rather, the material world is a world which is dependent and in need of essence 'from Him' and 'towards Him'.

According to the Divine world view, the world of existence has a God and a precise accounting or reckoning rules over the world. The changes in the world do not merely materially obey the endless actions and reactions The destiny of a human being and one's future obeys particular criteria. The human being is not destroyed with death. In the next world, after death, the rewards and punishments of one's deeds will be seen.

In general, the ideologies which are prevalent in the world today are one of these two world views. The basic lines of one’s desires or the way of one's reaching towards them are either based upon a world view of materiality or a Divine one. For instance, Marxism as one material ideology today, claims by offering its ideology to be able to save some of the groups of society and it has a world view based on materiality. This is why we say that Marxism is the infrastructure of materiality which its world view stands upon.

Confronting that today, Islam, as the last heavenly ideology, containing the most complete Divine world view, that is, the world view of monotheism, offers its ideology to the world of humanity. It calls or invites all to follow its guidelines which bear the responsibility of saving lost and alienated individuals of today. Its eternal questions to all of humanity, in every age, in every century from whatever group, whatever class and whatever race is this: Where do you come from? What must you do: Its special message for alienated human beings in our age: Oh mankind! Oh those who bear the mission of the Divine successors upon their shoulders, you have forgotten God and as a result, you have forgotten the self and your own mission. Today you are alienated because you are alienated from God. Return to your 'self’. Your medicine is this: Return to the selfhood of the self, the real and true self.

From the point of view of Islam, when a human being seeks the self, he or she finds God. When God is forgotten, the self is forgotten. It is at this moment that one becomes alienated and loses one's identity.

The human being is a wayfarer and religion is a way which the wayfarer must take. The human being grows in two important dimensions: Thought and action. A complete ideology and religion must guide human beings in both the area of thought and in the area of practice. Thus the important dimension of an ideology consists of the dimension or level of thought and the dimension or level of practice. At the level of thought, a principle phase and infrastructure exists which is that very world view and in the second phase, based upon that world view, the ideals of human beings are defined. And with the actions of a human being, they give a connection which is sometimes called ideology (ideology in its particular sense) which means that ideology, in truth, is the intermediary or transition between a thought and action of a human being.

(In the Islamic view, a thought, principle or strategy is then a connection with the Divine precepts. It moves through the transition of a system of beliefs which is called an ideology. And then from there, it moves to the stage of culmination, that is, the practice of that Divine principle.)

The practice of an ideology may also be divided into two sections. The first consists of the constant and permanent precepts and criteria. We normally refer to this part as the practice of religion and today it is called the strategy of an ideology.

The second part is the changing methods which obey the conditions of time and place and they change within the framework of strategies. This section is the one which today is called tactics.

[Note: Here it is relevant to know that the authority or power of ‘leadership through a religious jurisprudent' (wilayat al-faqih) which Islam gives to a religious jurisprudent’ who meets all of the conditions of a religious authority relates to this very section on the tactics of an ideology. That is, it is the religious jurisprudent who meets all the conditions of a religious authority who relates to this very section on the tactics of an ideology. That is, it is the religious jurisprudent who meets all the conditions of a religious authority alone who can assume the responsibility of being aware of the strategic issues of an ideology which he has arrived at through reasoning from the basic texts of religion throughout the various periods of history. The changing and permanent relevant Islamic laws are expressed by him as well as all of the duties which that Islamic law gives.]

Islam has in a complete way turned its attention to this issue with Islamic laws that are permanent and changing and one of the eternal secrets of this code is found at this very point.

In order to further clarify the point, we will bring forward issues on the ideology of Islam: In the ideology of Islam, in the section on world view, we say: The Creator of the Universe exists above these creatures.

In the section of the principles of ideology, we consider friendship with the friends of God and enmity with His enemies.

In the section on strategy, in order to reach our goal, we say:

"And prepare against them what force you can ...to frighten thereby the enemy of God and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) God knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in God's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly." (8:60)

That is, "Prepare yourselves and equip yourselves before the enemies of God in such a way that any thought on their part to attack you or aggress against you will be put aside."

The section on tactics contains the totality of the Islamic laws that the leaders with belief brought (the Prophets, the Imams and the Imam's successors) in a limited period of time and under particular circumstances. As an example the stand of Ayatullah Mirza Shirazi against the Tobacco concession may be mentioned.

It is also very important to know that a great section of the tactical issues of Islam form the general issues of the permanent Islamic laws which in various times and places take various branches. For instance, the very existence of preparedness before the enemy which was mentioned as being part of the section on strategy like 'preparedness' which is the issue of a ruling for the general public in whatever time or place has a new application.

It is clear that at the time of the descent of the revelation, it was to make the swords, arrows, chain mail, horses; etc. ready. The application was preparedness and in our times we have made ourselves ready with modern weapons which can answer any unmanly attack of the enemies of God and mankind.

Summary of the Lesson

1. Ideology as the Principle of Beliefs and Practice is a total or universal plan which is comprehensive and harmonized, whereby insights, tendencies, methods and actions of human beings are determined and the main purpose is to complete human beings and guarantee their well-being.

2. Every ideology is based upon basic principles which interpret a particular view of the world. These basic principles which are the infrastructure of thoughts of the ideology are called world view.

3. The ideology of Islam is based upon the Divine world view which is that of monotheism:

"Say: I am God, the One."(112:1).

4. The Islamic world view can be summarized in one sentence: Everything is from God and returns to God.

5. From the point of view of Islam, the reasons for the alienation of human beings in our age is because they have forgotten God.

Questions to ask yourself

1. What do we mean by ideology and world view?

2. Explain the world view of Islam and the world view of Marxism.

3. What sections make up the rules of practice in an Ideology?

Lesson 2: Humanology (Anthropology) Part 1

Without a study of the structure of the existence of a human being and the particularities which have separated human existence from the existence of other creatures and animals, we will reach this conclusion that a human being, without an inclination or tendency towards a school of belief or faith and growing towards that, cannot enter the arena of human life.

In order that we come to know the great design of a world view and ideology in the structure of the existence of a human being and his or her human life and also with the intention of understanding, to the furtherest extent possible, the necessity for the non-elusive elements of ideology, there is no choice but to endeavor to take our first steps towards understanding the human being itself.

What kind of a creature is the human being? What particularities do we contain that requires us to have a school of thought and action? Why do animals not need to have an inclination towards a particular school of thought and action?

In order that we come to understand the human being, it is necessary to place the issue in the midst of other creatures who we sense, for ln the opinion of some scholars, "The understanding of anything consists of understanding it in relation to other things."

In order to understand the human being among other sensible creatures, we must first, of necessity, look at all the other creatures who have the power of sensations.

There is no question about the fact that the human being is not part of the inanimate world nor part of the plant world. The discussion begins with the question, "Is it correct to separate the human being from other animals and know it to have special qualities'?"

Some have the opinion that separating human beings from other animals makes no sense. Now it is up to us to think about whether or not it is correct for the human being to be understood separate from others.

This is not an unimportant issue and the answer is not a simple yes or no. In a general sense, when the human being is compared to other animals, if we ignore the three dimensional differences, we see there are three other important basic differences: First, the dimension of insight or consciousness; second, the dimension of inclination or tendencies; third, the dimension of efforts or acts.

The Differences in Attitudes

There are four types of attitudes or methods of understanding in the human being. Animals share three of them and the fourth one belongs exclusively to the human being and this one causes the difference in attitude.

Types of Attitudes

1. Perceptions: The direct understanding of perceptions. For example, a flower is placed before you. You see it. That which you perceive in the color and shape of the flower is a result of the function of the power or faculty of perception.

2. Imagination: The indirect understanding of perceptions (the storage area of perceptions).

For example, the flower you saw, when you come home, you still have it in recollection and you understand it. In your home, no flower is before you for you to directly understand but it has been stored in your perceptions and it is something which you pay attention to without your mind. This is called the faculty of imagination.

3. Illusion: The understanding of a particular meaning. The word ‘meaning’ refers to anything which is not capable of externally being understood like kindness or hatred and the word 'particular' is in the sense of logic. In logic it is said: Whenever a concept does not accept more than one truth, it is called particular and whenever it is possible that a concept have more than one truth, it is called 'universal'. For instance, 'this chair' brings a concept to mind which the insight into one truth does not accept. But 'chair’ brings multiple truths to mind. The first is particular and the second is universal.

For example, to understand what illusion is, you come to know something, i.e. your mother and father love you and you love them. This perception is called illusion. Thus, love is a meaning and also because it is not absolute (it is your love for them or their love for you). Thus it is particular. As we have said, the understanding of a particular meaning is called illusion.

Summary of the Lesson

1. Humanity without inclination to a school of thought of faith and following that cannot enter the life of a human being.

2. In a general sense, the human being differs in three basic, important dimensions with other animals: a. the dimension of insight and awareness; b. the dimension of tendency or inclinations; c. the dimension of acts.

3. There are four types of comprehension in the human being, three of which they share with other animals. The three that arc shared are: a. perceptions, that is, the direct comprehension of sensibles; b. imagination: the indirect comprehension of sensibles; c. illusion: the comprehension of a particular meaning.

Questions to ask yourself

1. What does the human life of a human being depend upon?

2. In what dimension does the human being differ from other animals in distinguishing perceptions?

3. Describe the insight of perceptions and imagination.

4. Describe the insight of illusion and give examples.

5. Do you accept the fact that these three kinds of comprehension are shared between human beings and animals? Why?

Lesson 3: Humanology (Anthropology) Part 2

These three types of attitudes are common between human beings and other animals. It is the fourth type of insight which is special to human beings alone.

Intellectual Insight

Intellectual insight means the comprehension of generalities and their type, perceptions und differences and includes the gradual development of human beings towards completion in an extensive and unlimited sense.

For example, that which is expressed in the various kinds of knowledge or science as laws, the comprehension of all of them falls into the category of intellectual insight. This is particular to human beings.

Paying attention to what we have said so far, it becomes clear that it is true that animals like ourselves are aware of their environment and in order to continue their life, they consciously act by choosing that which is advantageous to them. They evade that which is harmful but this consciousness is essentially external, material, particular, regional, unconscious, instinctive and limited.

On the other hand, human perceptions penetrate the external and internal. 'They go beyond the limits of materiality. They contain generalities. They are not limited to a particular region or area. They are not particular to any special time but rather include an extensive history and they reflect upon the future and in this way, they are conscious. It is not only instinctive but acquired also, unlimited and progresses rapidly.

Differences in Tendencies

All animals whether human or otherwise are equipped with a series of special tendencies and inclinations which guarantee the continuation of its life and gradual development like sexual inclinations which assures the continuation of the generations of that species.

But in this, area as well, human beings have many differences with other animals. The capacity which exists in animals is usually limited, generally personal and at the most family related. In addition to this, from the point of time, also, limited, instinctive and unconscious. The support behind these tendencies is also to draw special interests.

On the other hand, human inclinations and tendencies can move forward to infinity, break the moulds of materiality, move beyond self-interests or the interests of the family, tribe, etc., free itself from the bonds of time, penetrate the past and tile future, receive strong support from consciousness and insight and replace individual interests with the highest values of humanity and the divinity, and lofty human and ethical ideals.

The human being moves forward until the point where he or she is freed from all limitations and bonds of materiality and nature and the chains of lowly animal whims and desires. It is then that he or she conquers the high peaks of love and faith (the tendency towards meta-ideals), and sacrifices everything before its Beloved.

The Differences in the Dimension of Action

The human being in the offering of acts is also without rival in the world of nature. It is true that animals also effect the environment they live in. But animals, in this dimension as in other dimensions, are imprisoned in the prison nature built for them and their behavior is generally instinctive as well as limited in area and to a particular time. They never move beyond the limits of materiality, and only move because of the pull of individual, or, at the most, family interests. In addition to these, they obey a pre-determined state, whereas the arena of the human being's actions are more extensive.

A human being can in the same way that he or she has material activity, also be active in the dimension of spirituality and meta-materiality. The human being struggles against nature and tames the natural forces upon the way of determining his or her way. They combat other human beings and are often victorious and often defeated. The most wonderous of all is that it can struggle against the self (the greater jihad) and dominate over his or her own inner self.

The human being has social capacities and inclinations, the acts of a human being accept no geographical boundaries, boundaries are broken and the world attained. He or she effects the past and sometimes takes on the color of 'immortality'.

More important than any of this is the behavior of a conscious individual who has strong and firm support of intellectual forces and rich sources of knowledge, awareness and thoughts.

The human being establishes his or her acts upon a series of universal criteria which his or her system of thought builds. In addition to all of this, the human being is free to act and he or she does not follow the determinations of nature, rather, he or she can, with free will, choose his or her own way.

The human being has, with the blessings of his or her intellect, a sense of insight which is multiple and gradually developed. This very quality is directly effective in his or her method of action. Animals have comparable acts and throughout the duration, they are uniform, and lacking in development. Whereas the acts of human beings have both a vertical change as well as a horizontal one.

Vertical change is an evolutionary change or one which gradually develops. For example, the act of building a house is a realized affair in the human being; to begin with, how to build and what to build whereas from among the multiple examples of the methods of animals, it is best to look at the honey bee. We see that with the honey bee, there is no change of gradual development nor was there ever any in building a house.

One can carefully look in the same way at the acts such as swimming, self-defense, gathering food, etc. in animals and in human beings in order to conceptualize and understand the method of vertical change in the area of human acts. Horizontal change refers to the change of external appearance and other than gradual development.

Let us look again at the building of a house. A human being does not build a house in one form, but builds, rather through the form of multiple shapes whereas animals are not like this. The complete acts like that of the honey bee can be carefully studied as an example. The other acts which were mentioned in vertical change can be studied from the point of horizontal change as well, and in an unlimited way. This change can be discovered in an unlimited way within the human being, in contrast to animals in whose act these changes are normally not found or if they exist they are very limited.

The compilation of these particularities of human beings build a multi-dimensional human being who is both material and spiritual and from among the animals of the same species in all dimensions: Consciousness and insight (knowledge), inclinations and tendencies (faith) and behavior and acts take separate ways and join the perfection of his or her unlimitedness with eternity and moves towards the Divine attributes upon the way of self-construction in nature's arena and becomes worthy of the station of 'vice-gerent' of God.

Summary of the Lesson

1. The human being shares many things in common with other animals.

2. The difference of a human being with other animals is in the three-dimension in the following way: insight or awareness of animals is external, material, particular, regional, present, unconscious, instinctive and limited.

The insight and awareness of the human being is external and internal, material and spiritual, particular and universal, present, past and future, conscious, capable of increase and gradual development, sensation, imagination, fantasy and intellectual.

The tendencies and capacity of animals: material and non-material, social, unlimited, conscious, ethical.

The acts and behavior of animals: Determined, limited, material, instinctive, unconscious, regional, present with a motive based on personal interests or family interests.

The acts of human beings: free and made by choice, material and spiritual, conscious, unlimited, universal and social, ethical and ideal, intellectual and changing both from the point of view of gradual development and from the point of external shape.

Questions to ask yourself

Describe the human being in 10 lines and explain its particularities.

Acknowledgments and Observations

The present book is the first English edition of an article which was published in an academic journal in 1994 under the name “El Islām Ši'ita: ¿ortodoxia o heterodoxia?” [Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy?]. The article was well-received in academic circles and was soon widely circulated on various Islāmic sites on the Internet thanks to a digital edition published by the Biblioteca Islámica Ahlul Bayt in Sevilla, Spain.

Thereafter, in the year 2000, the article was published in three parts in Az-Zaqalain, a Spanish language academic journal published in Qum, Iran. In response to the interest received by the article, Dr. John A. Morrow decided to translate it, edit it, and turn it into a book. As often occurs in such cases, the challenge of turning an article into a book relates to its amplification. Dr. Morrow resolved this problem by including an exhaustive amount of notes and bibliographical information from Arabic and Persian sources which, due to their quantity and quality, should be seen as a notable contribution to the original work of the author.

For all intents and purposes, this book constitutes a slightly modified version of that article originally published in Epimelia: Revista de Estudios Sobre La Tradición. The journal in question is the official academic organ of the Center for Research into the Philosophy and History of Religion (CIFHIRE) [Centro de Investigaciones en Filosofía e Historia de Las Religiones] at the Department of Philosophy of the School of Graduate Studies at John F. Kennedy Argentine University.

The book, in its present form, contains nothing new with the exception of the valuable critical and biographical notes, the translator's preface, and the detailed index, provided by Dr. Morrow. It also contains a prologue by the author and an appendix in which we further expound upon our criticism of Orientalism, from the point of view of the philosophy of the history of religion, to the broader field of social studies. Besides these addendums, we have not modified the original text in any substantial fashion for obvious reasons.

For starters, it would be impossible to alter the sentences without changing their original intent. Furthermore, any such changes might arouse suspicion, leading some readers to believe that they were done for Editorial reasons. And finally, one of the main reasons for not making any changes, save those slight details brought to our attention by those who reviewed the original Spanish version or its English translation, is that the work was written with great haste in the space of two months.

It was produced with the specific purpose of responding to endless allegations of Orientalists who, unsatisfied with characterizing Shī'ism as a fundamentalist form of Islām, stubbornly insisted on labeling it as a heterodox sect. By doing so, these scholars were merely echoing old Orientalist prejudices and supporting Muslim reformists. This reformist sector was quickly embraced by Western Orientalists as proponents of “moderate” Islām” while the traditional sector was labeled as representatives of “extremist Islām,” dangerous “fundamentalists” who make militant and violent interpretations of faith based on the Qur'ān.

The purpose of the original study, which has now been converted into a book, was to address this conceptual error which is incessantly repeated, ad nauseam, in academic circles and which passes from textbook to textbook. However, when the time came to review the book for publication, we felt much less optimistic with regards to our goal of conveying to Western readers that Shī'ite Islām is not an extreme, heterodox, fundamentalist or fanatical sect.

Evidently, we never pretended to provide a definitive “solution” to such a complex problem. Any such effort would require broader and more detailed studies. We acknowledge that many of the issues related to the topic remained outside the scope of our study. Although we are most conscious of the gaps in our study, we would never even dream of trying to fill them in the space of this exposition. Such exclusion is the understandable result of the need to assume a determined perspective, forcing us to be selective in our choice of the material covered.

In order to avoid confusing or misleading our readers, we must point out that we never proposed to write an introduction to Shī'ite Islām. This book does not study certain aspects which are crucial in the understanding of the political and metaphysical thought of Twelver Shī'ism. It may touch upon them, it may gloss over them, but is certainly does not study them in depth. Although we have drawn from primary sources in Arabic and Persian, presenting various legal and theological views with respect to issues like consensus [ijmā'], as well as traditional exegesis, both ancient and contemporary, it was not the objective of this book to expound exhaustively upon the views of every school of thought.

Our immediate and most pressing goal was to demonstrate that Shī'ite Islām is a genuine, legal and spiritual expression of traditional Islām, both in orthodoxy and orthopraxy. In the same way that Sunnī Islām is based in doctrine and practice on the basic principles of the Qur'ān and prophetic tradition, so is Shī'ite Islām, which, in its traditional form, has the added advantage of having been preserved and reaffirmed by a continuous and direct line of successors, the Holy Imāms, the natural heirs of the wilāyah, the Cycle of Prophecy.

The goal of this book, then, is to demonstrate that, far from being a heretical schismatic sect or fundamentalist form of Islām, as one hears over and over again, and which is more or less groundless, Shī'ism is the living expression of original Muhammadan Islām, perfectly preserved by his successors, the Holy Imāms from the Prophetic Household [Ahlul Bayt].

It was for this reason, that we proposed, without any polemical or apologetic intent, to present the Shī'ite point of view, with the highest possible degree of objectivity, without any concession to influence by the prejudiced views of its detractors, be they Muslim or non-Muslim. We have presented Shī'ite Islām from a Shī'ite point of view. We made sure to put aside outside influences received during our academic formation for, as G. Bachelard has pointed out, these can turn into real epistemological obstacles which impede objectivity.

Readers should not be offended if, at given moments, they get the impression that they are reading a panegyric. This impression is to be expected as this work does not contain the redundant repetition of pejorative postulations presented in Orientalist works which claim to present Islām and the Arab world “objectively.” Despite the overt contempt its secular ideologists manifest towards Islām, the West remains cynically passive.

This attitude, however, can only be understood within its historical context. The Western animosity towards Islām forms part of a long history of cultural encounters through which the West attempted to impose its hegemony on the East. It should come as no surprise that the unrepressed hatred towards Islām and Arabs forms the very basis of much Western Orientalism.

In many cases, Orientalism has been more or less officially at the service of the intellectual self-satisfaction of secular illustrated despotism and the conservatism of Western imperialist authoritarianism. Be it politically, militarily or intellectually, Western imperialism rarely hides its overwhelming aversion towards those who resist being physically or economically annexed as colonies, and those who refuse to be assimilated culturally, linguistically, mentally and spiritually.

It should be known from the onset that we are not unaware of the various aspects which have fallen outside of the reach of our study. Despite shortcomings related to time and space, we have attempted to develop our arguments in the most satisfactory fashion, using all our abilities to help readers overcome their resistance to the topic, the result of heightened sensitivities caused by events of worldwide repercussions which, directly or indirectly, involve Shī'ite Islām.

Since this book was written so rapidly as a response to current events, it cannot be considered an introduction to Shī'ite Islām. Any such claim would do a grave injustice to Muslim scholars who have devoted their entire lives to the study of one of the many fields which this book has merely surveyed with a bird's eye view. We have merely shown some of the scenery of Shī'ism, not its depth and detail. However, in our own defense, the general overview we have provided may be justified by the fact that it is not the fruit of improvisation.

This book is the result of years of study on the origins of Shī'ite Islām. Even though the book was written during the first semester of the 1994 academic year, it should be mentioned that its final form was based on various preliminary versions and partial drafts from courses and lectures we delivered in the Seminarios de historia, pensamiento y cultura del mundo islámico [Lectures on the History, Thought, and Culture of the Islāmic World] between 1991 and 1992.

This series of lectures was organized by the Argentinean Institute for Islāmic Culture and the Cultural Bureau of the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires and took place in the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires. Any good which comes from this limited contribution to the topic of Shī'ite Islām is due, in great part, to the valuable critical interest displayed by colleagues, friends, and students, whose questions and observations contributed considerably to the preparation of the final version of the book.

The very idea of writing an article on the basis of those classes and lectures owes much to the guidance of Dr. Francisco García Bazán, Dean of the Department of Philosophy, and Director of the Center for Research into the History and Philosophy of Religion at John F. Kennedy Argentine University, as well as the Editor of the journal Epimeleia. Dr. García Bazán must be thanked, first and foremost, for encouraging me to write this article.

He deemed the article a necessary contribution to scholarship. He understood, much better than most Orientalists, that Shī'ism, although representing a minority tradition, represents a spiritual current of Gnostic illumination, law and theology, which is entirely Islāmic in orthodoxy and orthopraxy, to the same extent as mainstream and majority Sunnī Islām. To be sincere, we must recognize that it was our director, Dr. García Bazán, who revived our interest in writing that article which was always in an indefinite state and which we could never come around to completing.

Dr. García Bazán's constant encouragement gave us an almost journalistic rhythm of redaction and, in little time, he granted us the time and the confidence to transform those initial rough drafts into a completed work. We are greatly indebted to the generous spirit of Dr. F. García Bazán, who, besides always knowing how and when to help us, from start to finish, has been of great benefit due to his scholarly knowledge and experience, counseling and guiding us with mastery in many ways. We will always consider it a privilege and an honor to have worked besides this great master of philosophy and comparative religion. We also thank him for permitting us to republish our work.

We are equally grateful to Hujjat al-Islām wa al-Muslimīn Feisal Morhell of the World Center of Islāmic Sciences of the Hawzah 'Ilmiyyah from Qum in the Islāmic Republic of Iran, who also happens to be the Director of Cultural Affairs for the Fundación Cultural Oriente and Editor of the Spanish version of the academic journal Az-Zaqalain, for his interest in republishing the article which gave origin to this book.

Hujjat al-Islām wa al-Muslimīn Feisal Morhell is a young specialist in traditional Islāmic sciences who is not alien to this work since he proof-read our Arabic and Persian translations and, furthermore, provided us access to all of the primary Islāmic sources which appeared in the original article. The bibliography for the book, however, has been greatly amplified by Dr. John A. Morrow.

We would also like to thank Hujjat al-Islām wa al-Muslimīn Murtadā Beheshtī, General Director of the Islāmic Thought Foundation of Tehran, and the Editor-in-Chief of the Spanish version of the journal Az-Zaqalain; Hujjat al-Islām wa al-Muslimīn Sayyid Muhammad Rizvī, the resident 'ālim at the Ja'farī Islāmic Center in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Liyakat 'Alī Takīm, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Denver, whom we thank especially for reviewing the doctrinal, juridical, and historical aspects dealt with in the present book, with truly limitless dedication, patience and generosity.

There is no doubt whatsoever that we would have faced many difficulties during the preparation of this work were it not for the constant advice and observations made by these great scholars and brilliant Muslim. Thanks to their help, however, we have overcome many obstacles and we will be certain to include their contributions in a future edition of the Spanish version of the book.

There are many people in Argentina, the United States, Canada, the U.K., Spain, and Iran, who collaborated with us during the preparing of this study, in its dissemination, and in its first English translation. In this sense, we are particularly grateful to Mrs. Sumeia Younes from the World Center of Islāmic Sciences of the Hawzah 'Ilmiyyah in Qum in the Islāmic Republic or Iran and Editorial Secretary for the journal Az-Zaqalain, for reading the manuscript of the first Spanish article, as well as the American linguist, Mrs. Barbara Castleton, from Ohio University, who had the kindness of proofreading the English translation and preparing a commendatory preface.

To Mrs. Rachīda Bejja for painstakingly correcting the Arabic transliteration and for Mr. Gustavo César Bize, Associate Professor of Arabic and Islāmic Thought in the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Universidad de Buenos Aires and at the Universidad Nacional de 3 de Febrero in Buenos Aires who was in charge of reviewing the English translation. We are also grateful to the following young Islāmologists, Mr. Ángel Horacio Molina and Mrs. María Eugenia Gantus, who read the final Spanish and English versions of the work.

They are both young research scholars at the Center for Oriental Studies, School of Letters, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, at the Universidad Nacional de Rosario, in Santa Fe, Argentina, an institution associated with the Mullā Sadrā Center for Islāmic Studies and Research (CEDIMS) [Centro de Estudios y Documentación Islámicos Mullā Sadrā] at the Universidad Católica Argentina de La Plata (Sede Bernal). We are particularly grateful to its General Coordinator, Dr. Horacio López Romano, for the generous institutional space he has provided to us, opening us the door to his installations and Dr. Sonia Yebara, Director of the Center for Oriental Studies of the School of Literature of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the Universidad Nacional de Rosario for their unselfish institutional support.

Other friends and colleagues read fragments or complete version of my rough drafts, providing an impressive volume of critical observations and facts. It would be impossible to mention them all. Nevertheless, we would like to express our gratitude to the following persons, whose constant kindness and cooperation facilitated our task: Mr. Ángel Almazán de Gracia, the Spanish cultural journalist, writer, and historian, who specializes in Sorian culture and Numantine archeology, for enthusiastically reading this work and citing it in many of his articles and books, as well as his generous and selfless support.

To Mr. Mikail Álvarez Ruiz, Director of the Biblioteca Islámica Ahlul Bayt from Sevilla, Spain, to whom we owe the first digital version of the Spanish original, and which has been well-received and distributed over the Internet. He was the first to conceive of the idea of turning our article into a book and he is also one of the most energetic promoters of our work on the Internet.

It was on the basis of the digital edition that he prepared that Dr. John A. Morrow based his English version. The valuable collaboration of Mr. Héctor H. Manzolillo, one of the most prolific and recognized translators of Islāmic texts in Spanish, also stands out. He was kind enough to review the notes to the English translation, making corrections which were greatly appreciated by the translator and Editor.

Finally, we would like to express our endless gratitude to the Editor, Dr. John A. Morrow, Assistant Professor of Modern Languages at Northern State University in the United States, to whom we owe the first English edition of our work, as well as his scrupulous critical annotations.

The exchanges which resulted from his translation have allowed us to know a marvelous human being, wise yet humble, who honors us by his irreplaceable friendship. We would also like to thank our wife, Mónica Delia Pereiras, for supporting patiently and lovingly our domestic “absences” through all the time it took us to write and correct this book.

We would also like to thank our three daughters, Ruth Noemí, María Inés and María de los Ángeles, whose affectionate interruptions made the labor of this book both pleasant and possible; to our parents, Saturnino and Elvira; to our brothers, Daniel and Cristina; and to all our family and friends for standing by us, unconditionally, in a thousand and one ways. And, last but not least, we would like to thank Mr. Muhammad Taqī Ansariyan and Mawlanā Muhammad Rizvī for encouraging and supporting this academic endeavor.

Professor Luis Alberto VittorProfessor Luis Alberto Vittor

Center for Research into the Philosophy and History of Religion (CIFHIRE)

Department of Philosophy, School of Graduate Studies

John F. Kennedy Argentine University

Mullā Sadrā Center for Islāmic Studies and Research (CEDIMS)

Department of Social and Political Sciences in Africa and the Middle East

Catholic University of Argentina de la Plata (Sede Bernal)

Associated with the Center for Oriental Studies

Faculty of Arts and Sciences, National University of Rosario

Genesis of the Work

As a result of the popularity of Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy, many readers have inquired about its genesis. In light of such interest, we decided that it would be worthwhile to contextualize the historical moment in which the work was created as well as its ultimate objective. As a close friend and colleague of the author, it is our privilege to share our inner knowledge of the works origin.

Although some rough drafts had been presented in the course of classes and conferences, it was not until 1994 that Luis Alberto Vittor felt the need to complete Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy. The author's desire to finish the work was motivated by two violent events: the explosions of the Israeli Embassy and the Asociación Mutal Israeli-Argentina or AMIA which occurred in Buenos, Aires, Argentina on March 17th and July 18th, 1994, terrorist attacks which were both attributed arbitrarily to Shī'ite Muslims.

Due to the circumstances in which it was written, the work was redacted rapidly in response to an urgent need to confront journalists, specialists, and international observers who joined together to label Shī'ite Islām as a “sect” which was “heterodox” with respect to “orthodox” Sunnī Islām. The author was also responding to seditious attempts to separate the Sunnī and Shī'ite schools of thought, labeling Shī'ites a minority of hard-core religious fanatics with a history of violence.

The enemies of Islām rallied around the tragic events in Argentina denouncing Shī'ites as “fundamentalists” and “terrorists.” Their objective was clear: a callous attempt to isolate Shī'ite Muslims from the Islāmic Ummah as an unorthodox faction composed of radical extremists.

In an unparalleled fashion, many Argentinean and American Orientalists, made tabula rasa with everything written about Shī'ite Islām from Corbin to the present, and started to echo the most hostile attitudes towards Islām expressed by early Orientalists and which had long been rejected. It was evident from the onset that certain academics were benefiting from the terrorist attacks in Argentina to launch an ideological assault against Shī'ite Muslims.

In their zeal to prove that Shī'ite Muslims had been the instigators or perpetrators of the most serious criminal attacks ever suffered by Argentineans, Argentinean and American academics stressed the minority character of Shī'ite Muslims, characterizing them as a group of sectarian zealots who stood in clear contrast to the moderation and orthodoxy of the Sunnī majority. Academic specialists, journalists, international observers, so-called “experts” on the Middle East, along with ex-intelligence officers, and military envoys, stressed the minority status of Shī'ites in order to accentuate their sectarianism.

Like cockroaches crawling from the under the wood-work in the dark hours of night, these “experts” on Islām attempted to give the Shī'ah Ithnā 'Asharī traits which belonged to other Shī'ite schools like the Ismā'īliyyah or the Zaydiyyah. They associated Twelver Shī'ites with Zaydī revolutionaries, and the Ismā'īlī Hashashīn or Assassins, in order to establish that Shī'ites were historically a group of extremist rebels who never hesitated to use radically violent methods against their enemies. The enemies of Islām employed Iblīsī analogies to say that Shī'ite Muslims were all murderers. They argued that since the Hashashīn or Assassins were Ismā'īlis, and the Ismā'īlis were Shī'ites, then every Shī'ite was a potential assassin.

Evidently, both the premises and the conclusion were false. Nevertheless, this syllogism had the expected effect. The press and the airwaves were soon speaking about Shī'ite terrorism, Shī'ite fundamentalism, Shī'ite extremism, as if they were all synonyms. It was imperative for someone to come forward to demonstrate that these terms were the result of false logic or a false logical construct whose sole objective was to demean Shī'ite Muslims.

In an attempt to give credence to accusations against Shī'ite Muslims, there are those who continue to insist that the terrorist attacks which took place in 1992 and 1994 in the city of Buenos Aires were the work of Shī'ite Muslims. In effect, the majority of encyclopedias continue to attribute these crimes to Hizbullāh or the Islāmic Republic of Iran. Despite such stubbornness, nobody in Argentina believes in these accusations and Argentinean authorities are now exploring an Israeli trail. As a result, Washington is putting pressure on the Argentine government to put an end to its investigation which is starting to annoy the United States and Israel.

The Argentinean people, however, want the guilty parties brought to justice as the events were not without deadly consequence for Argentine society. On the 17th of March of 1992, a violent explosion destroyed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aries and seriously damaged the adjacent Catholic Church and school. Twenty-nine people were killed and 242 were injured. The deaths were gruesome. Argentine television broadcasted streets littered with human remains and rubble, pieces of mutilated corpses, like the leg of a woman with a sock and shoe which was severed from her body.

In the early days of the investigation, efforts were directed towards the Islāmist trail. It was believed that the attack had been committed by a Palestinian suicide bomber who drove a mini-van full of explosives. It was suggested that he was a member of Islāmic Jihād who wanted to avenge the death of 'Abbās al-Mūsawī, the head of the Lebanese Hizbullāh, and his family. According to this version, the Buenos Aires operation had been prepared by a group of Pakistanis and coordinated by Mohsen Rabbanī, the Cultural Attaché from the Iranian Embassy. This later was even detained, one year later, while he was in Germany, only to be liberated later due to lack of evidence.

On July 18th, 1994, another explosion devastated the Buenos Aires building of the Asociación Mutual Israelita-Argentina (AMIA) resulting in 85 deaths and 300 injured. The investigation into this new terrorist bombing also attempted to uncover an Islāmist trail. The attack was attributed to a so-called Islāmic “kamikazi:” 29 year old Ibrāhīm Husein Berro who supposedly drove a vehicle full of explosives.

While it is true that Ibrāhīm Husein Berro existed, his brother demonstrated that he died in Lebanon several years before and not in the attack in Buenos Aires. Whoever drove the vehicle full of explosives, it could not have been Ibrāhīm Berro. Years later a warrant was released for the arrest of Imad Mughniyyah, a member of the Lebanese Hizbullāh. Later, the ex-Ambassador of Iran in Argentina, Hade Soleimanpur, was detained in the United Kingdom but had to be released due to lack of evidence.

All of these elements, which seem to be definitive conclusions, have been reflected for years in various encyclopedias, books, and journalistic articles, although nothing can confirm them. The most interesting thing is that with the passing of time some Argentinean investigative journalists have debunked the versions of events proposed by the Israelis and the Americans, developing their own hypothesis which is the exact opposite. According to investigations conducted in Argentina, the two attacks were committed by Israeli agents in order to counter the growing anti-Zionism of the Jewish community in Argentina. This discovery, however, took place after Vittor published his article in Epimelia.

At present, the supposed intellectual or material connection of Islāmists to the Buenos Aires attacks has largely lost credibility. The Islāmist trail is simply inconsistent with the facts and it for this reason that the American and Israeli government are pressuring the Argentineans to put an end to their investigation. While it is presently possible to speak about these events with hindsight and tranquility, the only individual who dared speak about such events, and defend Shī'ite Islām when it was being attacked by international public opinion, was Luis Alberto Vittor.

Like Prophet Yahyā, Luis Alberto Vittor was a voice in the wilderness, exposing himself to criticism, threats, and physical danger. Unlike some of the official Islāmic authorities who stood still, making themselves complicit through their silence, Vittor raised his voice and pen in defense of Shī'ite Islām at a time when doing so was associating oneself, explicitly or implicitly, to a Muslim minority of “extremists” and “terrorists.”

Putting his trust in Almighty Allāh and the solidarity of his fellow Muslims, all of whom were simple believers with no power or political influence, Vittor produced the present work which was viewed as a moral and intellectual duty. Surely, in this lies the greatest value of his work.Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy must be viewed as a work of service in defense of the followers of Ahlul Bayt. At the time it was written, there was not a single Orientalist, Arabist or Islāmologist, in Argentina or abroad, who was willing or capable of defending Shī'ite Islām.

While the Shī'ite community was being attacked from all sides, some Sunnī Muslims sought to separate themselves from the Shī'ites, echoing the arguments of the enemies of Islām who claimed that the followers of Ahlul Bayt were sectarian extremists (ghulāt).

As if that were not enough, Shī'ite convertswere accused of having links to so-called “Iranian-inspired Islāmic terrorism.” In order to divert attention from themselves, some sectors of the Sunnī community insisted on proving the Orientalists thesis correct, accusing the Shī'ite community of committing the terrorist bombings when the real perpetrators of the atrocities were not even Muslims.

As a result of these actions, many Shī'ites, both Iranians and Latinos, suffered from severe social discrimination. Many mu'minīn [believers] lost their jobs. Many mu'minīn [believers] were forced out of university, including a group of Iranian medical students. Being both Shī'ite and Iranian was seen as synonymous with terrorism and criminality. Fear ran so high during those days that, out of the entire community, only six or seven brothers, two of them converts, dared to attend the sole Shī'ite mosque in the city.

Rather than coming to the rescue of Shī'ite Muslims who were falsely accused of being violent sectarian terrorists, Orientalists like Bernard Lewis came forth to add fuel to the fire, arguing that there was a historic continuity and an ideological bond between medieval Muslims assassins, who were Ismā'īlīs, and contemporary Shī'ite fundamentalists or extremists, who were Ja'farīs. For those who dabble in academic dishonesty, they were one and the same: socially maladjusted minorities who resorted to violence and terrorism as their only means of expression.

When one reads Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy, it is important to remember the context in which it was created. At a moment in which the enemies of Islām were attempting to divide the Ummah, Luis Alberto Vittor pulled up his sleeves and pulled out his pen to demonstrate that Shī'ite Islām, despite being a minority, was as orthodoxy as the majority Sunnī Islām.

And not only that, the author demonstrated that Shī'ite Islām was the only group which remained faithful to the will of Allāh and the Prophet Muhammad: to hold fast to the Two Treasures, the Qur'ān and the Household of the Prophet.

Besides presenting the Shī'ite position, the author's goal was to reestablish the balance between Sunnism and Shī'ism which some sectors were attempting to destabilize, labeling one group as orthodox and another as sectarian, heterodox, extremist, and heretical. It is for this reason that the author devotes so much time to explaining why it is improper to label Muslims as “fundamentalists.”

Considering the context and extraordinary circumstances in which the book was written, completely changes one's critical appreciation of the work. Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy was a lone voice denouncing despots in the desert, a strident voice denouncing the indifference of academia and the vested interests of those who sought to define Shī'ite Islām as a radical, sectarian, heterodox form of Islām rather than a traditional expression of its orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

Although the author has accepted that his work to be annotated, he has always insisted that it remain intact as a reflection of the socio-historical context in which it was created. Attempting to modify certain concepts would undermine the very objective of the work, reducing it to a vain theoretical discussion. The author's goal, of course, was other: to demonstrate that the claims made by the detractors of Shī'ite Islām were false and illogical and that the fact that Shī'ite Islām has a minority status does not imply, from an Islāmic point of view, that it represents a sect in the sense in the Western Christian sense of the term.

The events of 1992 and 1994 which occurred in the city of Buenos Aires are not a thing of the past. Attempts to support the allegations made against the Shī'ite Muslims of Argentina continue to be made, accusing them of implication in the terrorist bombings. Despite the fact that thirteen years have passed since this work was originally published, it continues to be current. The enemies of Islām never sleep and nor do we.

15th of Sha'bān / August 28, 2007

Dr. John A. Morrow, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Modern Languages

Northern State University

Aberdeen, South Dakota

Acknowledgments and Observations

The present book is the first English edition of an article which was published in an academic journal in 1994 under the name “El Islām Ši'ita: ¿ortodoxia o heterodoxia?” [Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy?]. The article was well-received in academic circles and was soon widely circulated on various Islāmic sites on the Internet thanks to a digital edition published by the Biblioteca Islámica Ahlul Bayt in Sevilla, Spain.

Thereafter, in the year 2000, the article was published in three parts in Az-Zaqalain, a Spanish language academic journal published in Qum, Iran. In response to the interest received by the article, Dr. John A. Morrow decided to translate it, edit it, and turn it into a book. As often occurs in such cases, the challenge of turning an article into a book relates to its amplification. Dr. Morrow resolved this problem by including an exhaustive amount of notes and bibliographical information from Arabic and Persian sources which, due to their quantity and quality, should be seen as a notable contribution to the original work of the author.

For all intents and purposes, this book constitutes a slightly modified version of that article originally published in Epimelia: Revista de Estudios Sobre La Tradición. The journal in question is the official academic organ of the Center for Research into the Philosophy and History of Religion (CIFHIRE) [Centro de Investigaciones en Filosofía e Historia de Las Religiones] at the Department of Philosophy of the School of Graduate Studies at John F. Kennedy Argentine University.

The book, in its present form, contains nothing new with the exception of the valuable critical and biographical notes, the translator's preface, and the detailed index, provided by Dr. Morrow. It also contains a prologue by the author and an appendix in which we further expound upon our criticism of Orientalism, from the point of view of the philosophy of the history of religion, to the broader field of social studies. Besides these addendums, we have not modified the original text in any substantial fashion for obvious reasons.

For starters, it would be impossible to alter the sentences without changing their original intent. Furthermore, any such changes might arouse suspicion, leading some readers to believe that they were done for Editorial reasons. And finally, one of the main reasons for not making any changes, save those slight details brought to our attention by those who reviewed the original Spanish version or its English translation, is that the work was written with great haste in the space of two months.

It was produced with the specific purpose of responding to endless allegations of Orientalists who, unsatisfied with characterizing Shī'ism as a fundamentalist form of Islām, stubbornly insisted on labeling it as a heterodox sect. By doing so, these scholars were merely echoing old Orientalist prejudices and supporting Muslim reformists. This reformist sector was quickly embraced by Western Orientalists as proponents of “moderate” Islām” while the traditional sector was labeled as representatives of “extremist Islām,” dangerous “fundamentalists” who make militant and violent interpretations of faith based on the Qur'ān.

The purpose of the original study, which has now been converted into a book, was to address this conceptual error which is incessantly repeated, ad nauseam, in academic circles and which passes from textbook to textbook. However, when the time came to review the book for publication, we felt much less optimistic with regards to our goal of conveying to Western readers that Shī'ite Islām is not an extreme, heterodox, fundamentalist or fanatical sect.

Evidently, we never pretended to provide a definitive “solution” to such a complex problem. Any such effort would require broader and more detailed studies. We acknowledge that many of the issues related to the topic remained outside the scope of our study. Although we are most conscious of the gaps in our study, we would never even dream of trying to fill them in the space of this exposition. Such exclusion is the understandable result of the need to assume a determined perspective, forcing us to be selective in our choice of the material covered.

In order to avoid confusing or misleading our readers, we must point out that we never proposed to write an introduction to Shī'ite Islām. This book does not study certain aspects which are crucial in the understanding of the political and metaphysical thought of Twelver Shī'ism. It may touch upon them, it may gloss over them, but is certainly does not study them in depth. Although we have drawn from primary sources in Arabic and Persian, presenting various legal and theological views with respect to issues like consensus [ijmā'], as well as traditional exegesis, both ancient and contemporary, it was not the objective of this book to expound exhaustively upon the views of every school of thought.

Our immediate and most pressing goal was to demonstrate that Shī'ite Islām is a genuine, legal and spiritual expression of traditional Islām, both in orthodoxy and orthopraxy. In the same way that Sunnī Islām is based in doctrine and practice on the basic principles of the Qur'ān and prophetic tradition, so is Shī'ite Islām, which, in its traditional form, has the added advantage of having been preserved and reaffirmed by a continuous and direct line of successors, the Holy Imāms, the natural heirs of the wilāyah, the Cycle of Prophecy.

The goal of this book, then, is to demonstrate that, far from being a heretical schismatic sect or fundamentalist form of Islām, as one hears over and over again, and which is more or less groundless, Shī'ism is the living expression of original Muhammadan Islām, perfectly preserved by his successors, the Holy Imāms from the Prophetic Household [Ahlul Bayt].

It was for this reason, that we proposed, without any polemical or apologetic intent, to present the Shī'ite point of view, with the highest possible degree of objectivity, without any concession to influence by the prejudiced views of its detractors, be they Muslim or non-Muslim. We have presented Shī'ite Islām from a Shī'ite point of view. We made sure to put aside outside influences received during our academic formation for, as G. Bachelard has pointed out, these can turn into real epistemological obstacles which impede objectivity.

Readers should not be offended if, at given moments, they get the impression that they are reading a panegyric. This impression is to be expected as this work does not contain the redundant repetition of pejorative postulations presented in Orientalist works which claim to present Islām and the Arab world “objectively.” Despite the overt contempt its secular ideologists manifest towards Islām, the West remains cynically passive.

This attitude, however, can only be understood within its historical context. The Western animosity towards Islām forms part of a long history of cultural encounters through which the West attempted to impose its hegemony on the East. It should come as no surprise that the unrepressed hatred towards Islām and Arabs forms the very basis of much Western Orientalism.

In many cases, Orientalism has been more or less officially at the service of the intellectual self-satisfaction of secular illustrated despotism and the conservatism of Western imperialist authoritarianism. Be it politically, militarily or intellectually, Western imperialism rarely hides its overwhelming aversion towards those who resist being physically or economically annexed as colonies, and those who refuse to be assimilated culturally, linguistically, mentally and spiritually.

It should be known from the onset that we are not unaware of the various aspects which have fallen outside of the reach of our study. Despite shortcomings related to time and space, we have attempted to develop our arguments in the most satisfactory fashion, using all our abilities to help readers overcome their resistance to the topic, the result of heightened sensitivities caused by events of worldwide repercussions which, directly or indirectly, involve Shī'ite Islām.

Since this book was written so rapidly as a response to current events, it cannot be considered an introduction to Shī'ite Islām. Any such claim would do a grave injustice to Muslim scholars who have devoted their entire lives to the study of one of the many fields which this book has merely surveyed with a bird's eye view. We have merely shown some of the scenery of Shī'ism, not its depth and detail. However, in our own defense, the general overview we have provided may be justified by the fact that it is not the fruit of improvisation.

This book is the result of years of study on the origins of Shī'ite Islām. Even though the book was written during the first semester of the 1994 academic year, it should be mentioned that its final form was based on various preliminary versions and partial drafts from courses and lectures we delivered in the Seminarios de historia, pensamiento y cultura del mundo islámico [Lectures on the History, Thought, and Culture of the Islāmic World] between 1991 and 1992.

This series of lectures was organized by the Argentinean Institute for Islāmic Culture and the Cultural Bureau of the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires and took place in the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires. Any good which comes from this limited contribution to the topic of Shī'ite Islām is due, in great part, to the valuable critical interest displayed by colleagues, friends, and students, whose questions and observations contributed considerably to the preparation of the final version of the book.

The very idea of writing an article on the basis of those classes and lectures owes much to the guidance of Dr. Francisco García Bazán, Dean of the Department of Philosophy, and Director of the Center for Research into the History and Philosophy of Religion at John F. Kennedy Argentine University, as well as the Editor of the journal Epimeleia. Dr. García Bazán must be thanked, first and foremost, for encouraging me to write this article.

He deemed the article a necessary contribution to scholarship. He understood, much better than most Orientalists, that Shī'ism, although representing a minority tradition, represents a spiritual current of Gnostic illumination, law and theology, which is entirely Islāmic in orthodoxy and orthopraxy, to the same extent as mainstream and majority Sunnī Islām. To be sincere, we must recognize that it was our director, Dr. García Bazán, who revived our interest in writing that article which was always in an indefinite state and which we could never come around to completing.

Dr. García Bazán's constant encouragement gave us an almost journalistic rhythm of redaction and, in little time, he granted us the time and the confidence to transform those initial rough drafts into a completed work. We are greatly indebted to the generous spirit of Dr. F. García Bazán, who, besides always knowing how and when to help us, from start to finish, has been of great benefit due to his scholarly knowledge and experience, counseling and guiding us with mastery in many ways. We will always consider it a privilege and an honor to have worked besides this great master of philosophy and comparative religion. We also thank him for permitting us to republish our work.

We are equally grateful to Hujjat al-Islām wa al-Muslimīn Feisal Morhell of the World Center of Islāmic Sciences of the Hawzah 'Ilmiyyah from Qum in the Islāmic Republic of Iran, who also happens to be the Director of Cultural Affairs for the Fundación Cultural Oriente and Editor of the Spanish version of the academic journal Az-Zaqalain, for his interest in republishing the article which gave origin to this book.

Hujjat al-Islām wa al-Muslimīn Feisal Morhell is a young specialist in traditional Islāmic sciences who is not alien to this work since he proof-read our Arabic and Persian translations and, furthermore, provided us access to all of the primary Islāmic sources which appeared in the original article. The bibliography for the book, however, has been greatly amplified by Dr. John A. Morrow.

We would also like to thank Hujjat al-Islām wa al-Muslimīn Murtadā Beheshtī, General Director of the Islāmic Thought Foundation of Tehran, and the Editor-in-Chief of the Spanish version of the journal Az-Zaqalain; Hujjat al-Islām wa al-Muslimīn Sayyid Muhammad Rizvī, the resident 'ālim at the Ja'farī Islāmic Center in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Liyakat 'Alī Takīm, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Denver, whom we thank especially for reviewing the doctrinal, juridical, and historical aspects dealt with in the present book, with truly limitless dedication, patience and generosity.

There is no doubt whatsoever that we would have faced many difficulties during the preparation of this work were it not for the constant advice and observations made by these great scholars and brilliant Muslim. Thanks to their help, however, we have overcome many obstacles and we will be certain to include their contributions in a future edition of the Spanish version of the book.

There are many people in Argentina, the United States, Canada, the U.K., Spain, and Iran, who collaborated with us during the preparing of this study, in its dissemination, and in its first English translation. In this sense, we are particularly grateful to Mrs. Sumeia Younes from the World Center of Islāmic Sciences of the Hawzah 'Ilmiyyah in Qum in the Islāmic Republic or Iran and Editorial Secretary for the journal Az-Zaqalain, for reading the manuscript of the first Spanish article, as well as the American linguist, Mrs. Barbara Castleton, from Ohio University, who had the kindness of proofreading the English translation and preparing a commendatory preface.

To Mrs. Rachīda Bejja for painstakingly correcting the Arabic transliteration and for Mr. Gustavo César Bize, Associate Professor of Arabic and Islāmic Thought in the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Universidad de Buenos Aires and at the Universidad Nacional de 3 de Febrero in Buenos Aires who was in charge of reviewing the English translation. We are also grateful to the following young Islāmologists, Mr. Ángel Horacio Molina and Mrs. María Eugenia Gantus, who read the final Spanish and English versions of the work.

They are both young research scholars at the Center for Oriental Studies, School of Letters, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, at the Universidad Nacional de Rosario, in Santa Fe, Argentina, an institution associated with the Mullā Sadrā Center for Islāmic Studies and Research (CEDIMS) [Centro de Estudios y Documentación Islámicos Mullā Sadrā] at the Universidad Católica Argentina de La Plata (Sede Bernal). We are particularly grateful to its General Coordinator, Dr. Horacio López Romano, for the generous institutional space he has provided to us, opening us the door to his installations and Dr. Sonia Yebara, Director of the Center for Oriental Studies of the School of Literature of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the Universidad Nacional de Rosario for their unselfish institutional support.

Other friends and colleagues read fragments or complete version of my rough drafts, providing an impressive volume of critical observations and facts. It would be impossible to mention them all. Nevertheless, we would like to express our gratitude to the following persons, whose constant kindness and cooperation facilitated our task: Mr. Ángel Almazán de Gracia, the Spanish cultural journalist, writer, and historian, who specializes in Sorian culture and Numantine archeology, for enthusiastically reading this work and citing it in many of his articles and books, as well as his generous and selfless support.

To Mr. Mikail Álvarez Ruiz, Director of the Biblioteca Islámica Ahlul Bayt from Sevilla, Spain, to whom we owe the first digital version of the Spanish original, and which has been well-received and distributed over the Internet. He was the first to conceive of the idea of turning our article into a book and he is also one of the most energetic promoters of our work on the Internet.

It was on the basis of the digital edition that he prepared that Dr. John A. Morrow based his English version. The valuable collaboration of Mr. Héctor H. Manzolillo, one of the most prolific and recognized translators of Islāmic texts in Spanish, also stands out. He was kind enough to review the notes to the English translation, making corrections which were greatly appreciated by the translator and Editor.

Finally, we would like to express our endless gratitude to the Editor, Dr. John A. Morrow, Assistant Professor of Modern Languages at Northern State University in the United States, to whom we owe the first English edition of our work, as well as his scrupulous critical annotations.

The exchanges which resulted from his translation have allowed us to know a marvelous human being, wise yet humble, who honors us by his irreplaceable friendship. We would also like to thank our wife, Mónica Delia Pereiras, for supporting patiently and lovingly our domestic “absences” through all the time it took us to write and correct this book.

We would also like to thank our three daughters, Ruth Noemí, María Inés and María de los Ángeles, whose affectionate interruptions made the labor of this book both pleasant and possible; to our parents, Saturnino and Elvira; to our brothers, Daniel and Cristina; and to all our family and friends for standing by us, unconditionally, in a thousand and one ways. And, last but not least, we would like to thank Mr. Muhammad Taqī Ansariyan and Mawlanā Muhammad Rizvī for encouraging and supporting this academic endeavor.

Professor Luis Alberto VittorProfessor Luis Alberto Vittor

Center for Research into the Philosophy and History of Religion (CIFHIRE)

Department of Philosophy, School of Graduate Studies

John F. Kennedy Argentine University

Mullā Sadrā Center for Islāmic Studies and Research (CEDIMS)

Department of Social and Political Sciences in Africa and the Middle East

Catholic University of Argentina de la Plata (Sede Bernal)

Associated with the Center for Oriental Studies

Faculty of Arts and Sciences, National University of Rosario

Genesis of the Work

As a result of the popularity of Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy, many readers have inquired about its genesis. In light of such interest, we decided that it would be worthwhile to contextualize the historical moment in which the work was created as well as its ultimate objective. As a close friend and colleague of the author, it is our privilege to share our inner knowledge of the works origin.

Although some rough drafts had been presented in the course of classes and conferences, it was not until 1994 that Luis Alberto Vittor felt the need to complete Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy. The author's desire to finish the work was motivated by two violent events: the explosions of the Israeli Embassy and the Asociación Mutal Israeli-Argentina or AMIA which occurred in Buenos, Aires, Argentina on March 17th and July 18th, 1994, terrorist attacks which were both attributed arbitrarily to Shī'ite Muslims.

Due to the circumstances in which it was written, the work was redacted rapidly in response to an urgent need to confront journalists, specialists, and international observers who joined together to label Shī'ite Islām as a “sect” which was “heterodox” with respect to “orthodox” Sunnī Islām. The author was also responding to seditious attempts to separate the Sunnī and Shī'ite schools of thought, labeling Shī'ites a minority of hard-core religious fanatics with a history of violence.

The enemies of Islām rallied around the tragic events in Argentina denouncing Shī'ites as “fundamentalists” and “terrorists.” Their objective was clear: a callous attempt to isolate Shī'ite Muslims from the Islāmic Ummah as an unorthodox faction composed of radical extremists.

In an unparalleled fashion, many Argentinean and American Orientalists, made tabula rasa with everything written about Shī'ite Islām from Corbin to the present, and started to echo the most hostile attitudes towards Islām expressed by early Orientalists and which had long been rejected. It was evident from the onset that certain academics were benefiting from the terrorist attacks in Argentina to launch an ideological assault against Shī'ite Muslims.

In their zeal to prove that Shī'ite Muslims had been the instigators or perpetrators of the most serious criminal attacks ever suffered by Argentineans, Argentinean and American academics stressed the minority character of Shī'ite Muslims, characterizing them as a group of sectarian zealots who stood in clear contrast to the moderation and orthodoxy of the Sunnī majority. Academic specialists, journalists, international observers, so-called “experts” on the Middle East, along with ex-intelligence officers, and military envoys, stressed the minority status of Shī'ites in order to accentuate their sectarianism.

Like cockroaches crawling from the under the wood-work in the dark hours of night, these “experts” on Islām attempted to give the Shī'ah Ithnā 'Asharī traits which belonged to other Shī'ite schools like the Ismā'īliyyah or the Zaydiyyah. They associated Twelver Shī'ites with Zaydī revolutionaries, and the Ismā'īlī Hashashīn or Assassins, in order to establish that Shī'ites were historically a group of extremist rebels who never hesitated to use radically violent methods against their enemies. The enemies of Islām employed Iblīsī analogies to say that Shī'ite Muslims were all murderers. They argued that since the Hashashīn or Assassins were Ismā'īlis, and the Ismā'īlis were Shī'ites, then every Shī'ite was a potential assassin.

Evidently, both the premises and the conclusion were false. Nevertheless, this syllogism had the expected effect. The press and the airwaves were soon speaking about Shī'ite terrorism, Shī'ite fundamentalism, Shī'ite extremism, as if they were all synonyms. It was imperative for someone to come forward to demonstrate that these terms were the result of false logic or a false logical construct whose sole objective was to demean Shī'ite Muslims.

In an attempt to give credence to accusations against Shī'ite Muslims, there are those who continue to insist that the terrorist attacks which took place in 1992 and 1994 in the city of Buenos Aires were the work of Shī'ite Muslims. In effect, the majority of encyclopedias continue to attribute these crimes to Hizbullāh or the Islāmic Republic of Iran. Despite such stubbornness, nobody in Argentina believes in these accusations and Argentinean authorities are now exploring an Israeli trail. As a result, Washington is putting pressure on the Argentine government to put an end to its investigation which is starting to annoy the United States and Israel.

The Argentinean people, however, want the guilty parties brought to justice as the events were not without deadly consequence for Argentine society. On the 17th of March of 1992, a violent explosion destroyed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aries and seriously damaged the adjacent Catholic Church and school. Twenty-nine people were killed and 242 were injured. The deaths were gruesome. Argentine television broadcasted streets littered with human remains and rubble, pieces of mutilated corpses, like the leg of a woman with a sock and shoe which was severed from her body.

In the early days of the investigation, efforts were directed towards the Islāmist trail. It was believed that the attack had been committed by a Palestinian suicide bomber who drove a mini-van full of explosives. It was suggested that he was a member of Islāmic Jihād who wanted to avenge the death of 'Abbās al-Mūsawī, the head of the Lebanese Hizbullāh, and his family. According to this version, the Buenos Aires operation had been prepared by a group of Pakistanis and coordinated by Mohsen Rabbanī, the Cultural Attaché from the Iranian Embassy. This later was even detained, one year later, while he was in Germany, only to be liberated later due to lack of evidence.

On July 18th, 1994, another explosion devastated the Buenos Aires building of the Asociación Mutual Israelita-Argentina (AMIA) resulting in 85 deaths and 300 injured. The investigation into this new terrorist bombing also attempted to uncover an Islāmist trail. The attack was attributed to a so-called Islāmic “kamikazi:” 29 year old Ibrāhīm Husein Berro who supposedly drove a vehicle full of explosives.

While it is true that Ibrāhīm Husein Berro existed, his brother demonstrated that he died in Lebanon several years before and not in the attack in Buenos Aires. Whoever drove the vehicle full of explosives, it could not have been Ibrāhīm Berro. Years later a warrant was released for the arrest of Imad Mughniyyah, a member of the Lebanese Hizbullāh. Later, the ex-Ambassador of Iran in Argentina, Hade Soleimanpur, was detained in the United Kingdom but had to be released due to lack of evidence.

All of these elements, which seem to be definitive conclusions, have been reflected for years in various encyclopedias, books, and journalistic articles, although nothing can confirm them. The most interesting thing is that with the passing of time some Argentinean investigative journalists have debunked the versions of events proposed by the Israelis and the Americans, developing their own hypothesis which is the exact opposite. According to investigations conducted in Argentina, the two attacks were committed by Israeli agents in order to counter the growing anti-Zionism of the Jewish community in Argentina. This discovery, however, took place after Vittor published his article in Epimelia.

At present, the supposed intellectual or material connection of Islāmists to the Buenos Aires attacks has largely lost credibility. The Islāmist trail is simply inconsistent with the facts and it for this reason that the American and Israeli government are pressuring the Argentineans to put an end to their investigation. While it is presently possible to speak about these events with hindsight and tranquility, the only individual who dared speak about such events, and defend Shī'ite Islām when it was being attacked by international public opinion, was Luis Alberto Vittor.

Like Prophet Yahyā, Luis Alberto Vittor was a voice in the wilderness, exposing himself to criticism, threats, and physical danger. Unlike some of the official Islāmic authorities who stood still, making themselves complicit through their silence, Vittor raised his voice and pen in defense of Shī'ite Islām at a time when doing so was associating oneself, explicitly or implicitly, to a Muslim minority of “extremists” and “terrorists.”

Putting his trust in Almighty Allāh and the solidarity of his fellow Muslims, all of whom were simple believers with no power or political influence, Vittor produced the present work which was viewed as a moral and intellectual duty. Surely, in this lies the greatest value of his work.Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy must be viewed as a work of service in defense of the followers of Ahlul Bayt. At the time it was written, there was not a single Orientalist, Arabist or Islāmologist, in Argentina or abroad, who was willing or capable of defending Shī'ite Islām.

While the Shī'ite community was being attacked from all sides, some Sunnī Muslims sought to separate themselves from the Shī'ites, echoing the arguments of the enemies of Islām who claimed that the followers of Ahlul Bayt were sectarian extremists (ghulāt).

As if that were not enough, Shī'ite convertswere accused of having links to so-called “Iranian-inspired Islāmic terrorism.” In order to divert attention from themselves, some sectors of the Sunnī community insisted on proving the Orientalists thesis correct, accusing the Shī'ite community of committing the terrorist bombings when the real perpetrators of the atrocities were not even Muslims.

As a result of these actions, many Shī'ites, both Iranians and Latinos, suffered from severe social discrimination. Many mu'minīn [believers] lost their jobs. Many mu'minīn [believers] were forced out of university, including a group of Iranian medical students. Being both Shī'ite and Iranian was seen as synonymous with terrorism and criminality. Fear ran so high during those days that, out of the entire community, only six or seven brothers, two of them converts, dared to attend the sole Shī'ite mosque in the city.

Rather than coming to the rescue of Shī'ite Muslims who were falsely accused of being violent sectarian terrorists, Orientalists like Bernard Lewis came forth to add fuel to the fire, arguing that there was a historic continuity and an ideological bond between medieval Muslims assassins, who were Ismā'īlīs, and contemporary Shī'ite fundamentalists or extremists, who were Ja'farīs. For those who dabble in academic dishonesty, they were one and the same: socially maladjusted minorities who resorted to violence and terrorism as their only means of expression.

When one reads Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy, it is important to remember the context in which it was created. At a moment in which the enemies of Islām were attempting to divide the Ummah, Luis Alberto Vittor pulled up his sleeves and pulled out his pen to demonstrate that Shī'ite Islām, despite being a minority, was as orthodoxy as the majority Sunnī Islām.

And not only that, the author demonstrated that Shī'ite Islām was the only group which remained faithful to the will of Allāh and the Prophet Muhammad: to hold fast to the Two Treasures, the Qur'ān and the Household of the Prophet.

Besides presenting the Shī'ite position, the author's goal was to reestablish the balance between Sunnism and Shī'ism which some sectors were attempting to destabilize, labeling one group as orthodox and another as sectarian, heterodox, extremist, and heretical. It is for this reason that the author devotes so much time to explaining why it is improper to label Muslims as “fundamentalists.”

Considering the context and extraordinary circumstances in which the book was written, completely changes one's critical appreciation of the work. Shī'ite Islām: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy was a lone voice denouncing despots in the desert, a strident voice denouncing the indifference of academia and the vested interests of those who sought to define Shī'ite Islām as a radical, sectarian, heterodox form of Islām rather than a traditional expression of its orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

Although the author has accepted that his work to be annotated, he has always insisted that it remain intact as a reflection of the socio-historical context in which it was created. Attempting to modify certain concepts would undermine the very objective of the work, reducing it to a vain theoretical discussion. The author's goal, of course, was other: to demonstrate that the claims made by the detractors of Shī'ite Islām were false and illogical and that the fact that Shī'ite Islām has a minority status does not imply, from an Islāmic point of view, that it represents a sect in the sense in the Western Christian sense of the term.

The events of 1992 and 1994 which occurred in the city of Buenos Aires are not a thing of the past. Attempts to support the allegations made against the Shī'ite Muslims of Argentina continue to be made, accusing them of implication in the terrorist bombings. Despite the fact that thirteen years have passed since this work was originally published, it continues to be current. The enemies of Islām never sleep and nor do we.

15th of Sha'bān / August 28, 2007

Dr. John A. Morrow, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Modern Languages

Northern State University

Aberdeen, South Dakota


4