Integral Neo-Ludditism?

What is the difference between the SCIRI, Dawa, and The Army of the Medhi (of Moqtada al-Sadr)? There are differences, serious importance differences.

There are of course huge similarities as well--e.g. the fact that all three are Shi'a parties in Iraq as distinct from Sunni and/or Kurdish entities.

What are some of the main themes that separate Shi'a Islam from Sunni Islam? Why have those themes been reversed, some would say, so radically since the 1970s, but particuarly since the US invasion of Iraq?

These are extremely important questions. I raise them because of a negative trend I have noticed in some of the integral movement, so-called. And that is the loss of learning about movements, systems, and ideas from the inside. As a group, as an individual defines itself, himself, herself.

Integral consciousness (or post-postmodern consciousness) is marked by its meta-systematic nature. My favorite definition of integral cognition comes from Don Beck: it is a system of systems. Integral cognition is a worldview that recognizes the (partial) reality of developmentally prior worldviews. It is a "system" that sees systems. That is its genius and its great hope for the planet.

A shadow side of that vision is only seeing structures. Perhaps because premodern, modern, and postmodern thought has so typically disavowed understanding of developmental sequences, integral thought has pounded them home with a vengeance.

Unfortunately in common practice this pounding is often bordering at times on a new anti-intellectualism. Groups, ideational movements, religious and philosophical systems are simply labeled as blue, orange, green whatever. It seems many people become so fixated on the deep structures (developmental sequences) of integral evolutionary constructs, they forget about how those structures actually manifest in the flesh and blood world.

And more disturbingly, I find, structural thinking is typically quite ahistorical. To really understand the inner workings of structures--like mass movements, theologies of different flavors, philosophical and cultural frames--one has to know the historical timeline of the country, peoples, religion(s) and so on involved.

Just describing the world as red, blue, orange, or green does not illuminate that historical unfolding.

So returning to our earlier example, a person would write off all three of those movements as blue systems. And that is true. They are (mostly) blue structures, but that doesn't explain how they see themselves or why they fight with one another?

The SCIRI(Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) is a party that seeks to create an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq. Remember Shia's make up only about 10-20% of Muslims worldwide, but they are the majority in Iran and southern Iraq. The only two such places on the planet.

The Islamic_Dawa_Party worked originally with Sunnis, was founded to fight the godless socialist atheism of the Baathist Regime. AND in opposition to Iran and SCIRI believes that the Shi'ite government should be run by the ummah--the believers--and not the ulema--the clergy. Ibrahim Jafari, the Prime Minister of Iraq represents this party. Recall PM Jafari is a doctor not a cleric.

Muqtada_al-Sadr is a theologically uneducated man of the street. He only claims religious authority from his family's lineage of gifted Ayatollahs. He appeals to the lower classes. He is an Arab Shi'ite living in Baghdad. He threatened the most revered of all Iraq Shi'ite Clerics--Ayatollah ali al Sistani. Sistani is more cerberal and drew his support from middle classes. al-Sadr is the man of the poor, a fiery demagogue igniting the passions of the dispossessed (or never-posessed). His father Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr was a moderate, a real voice of reason, who stood up to Saddam--who had promoted him in attempt to create a puppet. His uncle actually was an original member of the Dawa Party and was a close friend of Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim--the founder of SCIRI. Some have even suggested al-Sadr killed his uncle's old friend. Muqtada joined in a chorus of Arab Baghdad (Sunni and Shite) boos at the suggestion of Abdul al Hakim--current head of SCIRI--demand that the South be a Shia super-region granted the same autonomy as the Kurds in the North.

And that is just within the Iraqi Shia experience of the last 50 or so odd years.

Shia spirituality has been historically marked by a consciousness of martyrdom, of being the outsider, of the holiness of failure and sacrifice to God. The Shia are the party that followed The Prophet's (peace be upon him) cousin and son-in-law Ali. Ali was assassinated by his own. The caliphate was taken from him and given to a ruthless politico named Muawayia. His son Husayn rose up to defend his father, and was killed with his infant son in his arms, the last man standing of his small army. The Shia for thenceforth split with the Sunni (the majority party of Islam). The Shia as a result were typically apolitical, and usually withdrew into themselves. They focused more on protection of the poor, charity for the oppressed, and especially mysticism (e.g. Bahai is an outgrowth of Shi'ism). Ali was considered to be possessed of mystical knowledge, knowledge of the higher realities passed on directly to by secretly by word of mouth from Muhammad himself. This Shi'ite also became more much interested in apocalyptic and messianic movements as a result of their interest in mysticism and separation from the world.

And if you think these themes, these deep morphogenetic patterns do not continue to our day consider this question: where did the movement of suicide bombing begin?

Answer: the Iran-Iraq war. Who committed the first suicide attack? A: A young Iranian boy. An Iranian. Therefore a Shi'ite. Therefore someone raised on the consciousness of the heroism of martyrdom and of the redemptive value of the blood of the faithful warrior--just like Husayn.

From Iran, the practice of suicide bombing spread to Hezbollah (The Party of God) in Lebanon against the Israelis. Again Hezbollah supported by both Iran and Syria, is the party of Shi'a.

It was only there in the Lebanese Civil War that the first Sunnis began using the tactic. In that case The Palestinians. Only after seeing the Palestinians use suicide bombing to such lethal effectiveness did a certain Arab Sunni named Osama bin Laden consider using it in his own newly forming group known as al-Qaeda ("The Base.")

Sunni Islam is more marked traditionally by emphasis on conquering, the victorious, and the morality of the triumphant. It was of course the Sunnis who created the largest empire in the history of the world--far larger than Rome, China, Aztec, Incan, or Indian--during the Middle Ages. It was the Sunnis who were then the world's greatest scientists, philosphers, poets, and doctors. Their empire stretched from Spain through North Africa, the Persian Gulf, the Levant, through Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, even to Indonesia (today the world largest Muslim nation). Think of that. The religion is booming in Southern Africa and even within Western Europe.

Since the modern era that world, the final great blue empire has lost out to the Europeans and Americans--from their perspective the dirty, ignorant barbarians of the Northern hinterland.

When Sunnis have begun to use suicide bombings against Shi'ites, something has gone awfully wrong. The Sunnis have imported the Shi'ite theology of the underside out of rage, desperation, and a feeling of total inadequacy. The Shi'ite interestingly enough are on the march. Iran is now poised to become the power in the Middle East. Getting rid of the Taleban (on the East) and Saddam (on the West) was like Christmas---not exactly Christmas--twice in the same year for the Ayatollahs of Iran.

It was Ayatollah Khomeni would revolutionized Shi'ite theology by proclaiming that only the Ayatollahs could lead the secular realm. Khomeni was denounced in his own lifetime by other Iranian Shi'ite Ayatollahs. Prior to his overthrow of the Shah, Shi'ite theology had always maintained that the Ayatollah-Clerical Establishment were the ones to interpret the law and hold the special wisdom of the Imam (the secret, esoteric, mystical ones). But they were never expected to lead the government. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iraq, the leader of the Shi'ite community there, is of this school. He is more moderate, old guard.

The SCIRI is likely to become more hardline in the wake of the assassination of its great leader Ayatollah al-Hakim in 2004. An event that received no attention in the US press (what a surprise). Their resources and links to Iran are now wide open.

The Shi'ite have a clerical establishment which the Sunni do not. There is no Vatican for Sunni Islam--the closet thing is the University of al-Azhar in Egypt. Shi'ite religion in Iran interestingly enough is the only place where a Reformation-like movement may occur within the religion. Iran could follow the path of Western Europe. The religion of the people (in that case Catholic Christianity) which first advocates a total separation of religion and politics ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's"), then attempts a religious takeover of the political establishment--i.e. the Papal Monarchy. A revolt occurs that overthrows the religious establishment (Luther, Reformation) and the state becomes totally secularized in its wake (the modern nation state).

Sunni Islam--particularly in the Arab world--is in dire need of reform. Unfortunately the Saudi Arabians, the Protector of the Holiest Shrines in Islam--Mecca and Medina--have been overtaken by a modernist form of Islam known as Wahabhism or Salifah. It is a fundamenatlist rejection of the modern world, depicting a glorious return to the Sunni Caliphate--not a Shi'ite Theocracy. However, in its ahistoricity, its lack of sound methodology, and corrupted rote memorizations, it shows all the signs of an anemic modernist-attempting rejectionist thought pattern. Just like Fundamenatlisms in Christianity (see earlier post).

The Saudi monarchs are no real Muslims. They are hedonists and materialist band of effete overlords living in palatial paradise replete with junkets, harems, alcohol, and excess. They only manage to maintain their legitimacy by their funding of the Wahabi sect. This relationship goes back to the origins of the Saudi monarch (1920s). With their oil money they have not only supported such ideology but have exported it everywhere in the Sunni world--particuarly to Pakistan and Indonesia. This foorm of Sunnism is inimical both to the Western world and Shia. Sunni scholars denounced the attacks on the London trains, yet have not issued a fatwa--a reigio-juridical ruling...not necessarily a death sentence as with Salman Rushdie and in any case that was issued by the Sh'ia Khomeni--against the Sunni attacks on Shias (brother and sister MUSLIMS) at any point.

---

That is the kind of background knowledge I speak of. Not simply saying "blue" or "fundamenatlist" without having any deeper knowledge. In his Integral Philosophy Ken Wilber notes that not only the surface features but also deeper structures are molded by the evolutionary current. The deep structures that are morphogenetically inherited at say blue--like mythic belief structures, ethnocentricism, and agarian techno-economic structure--are there but are vastly different in Shia and Sunni cases--an even intra-Shi'ite and intra-Sunni manifestations.

It is this lack of real knowledge that is troubling to me. From non-integral sources we get good information on the background and thought patterns of different groups, (sub)cultures, religious movements and so on. But not an integral splicing--a systematic placement on a developmental curve. But with only Integral-frame thinking, we actually do not learn the real contours of any perspectives arising in manifestation. We need to unite these two.