What would Guenon think of post-79 Iran?

[Anonymous No.13642830]

Guenon fags get in here. What would he think? I was under the impression that Guenon thought that Traditionalist revolutions were basically impossible and the best we can do is find a strand of Tradition(Sufism in his case) and preserve it until this age ends. The Islamic Revolution seems more in line with Evola's earlier thinking that we can fight back against the forces of modernity on the political and social level. Would Guenon have been on board?

[Anonymous No.13642882]

>>13642830
Interested in this as well. Has anyone here read this yet?

[Anonymous No.13643040]

>>13642830
Its a mixed bag but after the dust settled Guenon would have probably been more sympathetic to it than the Shah who was promoting secularization and modernization. Nasr had the opposite take and apparently supported the Shah until the very end (and was accused of being a Savak informant); fleeing Iran in the revolutions aftermath. I never have understood how he squared this with the Shahs attempts to mold Iran into a western country; I suspect his position was influenced by the royal patronage and support that the school Nasr ran there received. The Iranian goverment is modernist in some regards and has aspects of its system that are concessions to democracy but at the end of the day it's perhaps the most 'Traditionalist' government on earth. What use are absolute monarchies if they use it to promote ZOG-policies and globohomo.

[Anonymous No.13643308]

>>13642830
so iran is ruled by sufi traditions now?

[Anonymous No.13643512]

>>13643308
Do you not know how Iran became Shia? The Safavids, a Sufi dynasty, took over the country and massacred all the Sunni Persians and imported Arab Shi'ites

[Anonymous No.13643521]

>>13642882
Twelvers aren't Muslims

They have shrines to Ali (shirk)
They allow sex changes
They allow surrogate motherhood
They allow prostitution (nikah mutah)


Iran has a major "internet defense force" like Israel, you can see from their Wikipedia editing team

>100,000 people heard Muhammad name Ali his successor
Yeah right

>Abu Bakr saw Ali as a dangerous rival
Is that why he appointed him personal religious advisor to the Ummah?
>Umar brutalized Ali and Fatimah
And then went on to marry Ali's daughter?
>Abu Bakr stole Fatimah's inheritance
Yeah, like a succeeding American President "steals" the White House and the state treasury

>For a Muslim deliberately to be sent to certain death has been considered sacrilege within Islam. Even the founders of the Islamist movement – Hassan al-Banna, Abu Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb – never recommended that form of jihad. That is why in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989 not a single suicide attack took place.[5] The systematic employment of Muslims as guided human bombs with the aim of killing as many people as possible was not seen in the first 1360 years of Islam but was invented only 25 years ago.[6]

>. Suicide terror has little to do with Islam and still less to do with individual despair but a great deal to do with the ideology of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini was the first to develop a full-blown death cult and a new interpretation of the aforementioned sura 3/169 of the Koran. According to his theological worldview, life is worthless and death is the beginning of genuine existence. “The natural world,” Khomeini explained in October 1980, “is the lowest element, the scum of creation.” What is decisive is the beyond: the “divine world – that is eternal.”[7]


http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/suicide-terrorism-and-islam

"The first Islamist suicide murder took place in southern Lebanon on November 11, 1982. The perpetrator was 15-year-old Ahmad Qusayr, a follower of the then just emerging Shia militia, Hezbollah. He had been inspired by the model of the Basij. Khomeini personally consecrated the act of the 15-year old with a fatwa. Later, he had a memorial built for Ahmad Qusayr in Tehran.[12]"

al-Qaeda borrowed from that, and even though al-Qaeda is ostensibly Sunni, it is Iran which supports them. Remember! Bin Laden turned against the United States for supporting Saudi Arabia, and he started targeting American civilians as a reprisal for massacres of Shi'ites in Lebanon (particularly the Sabra and Shatila massacre according to him)

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/al-qaeda-iran-cia/545576/

[Anonymous No.13643549]

>>13643521
That doesn't answer my question. I do however still have your link about the Al Qaeda open from another thread, I think it was on /his/. About halfway through and quite interesting desu

[Anonymous No.13643627]

>>13643549
>I do however still have your link about the Al Qaeda open from another thread, I think it was on /his/.
link?

[Anonymous No.13643635]

>>13643549
To answer your question, Guénon and Nasr are both perennialists. Meaning any dogmatic revolution which says this religion is right and the others are wrong is anathema to them, even if tolerates other religions. Nasr's Quran is very good but his agenda is poor. Of course a traditionalist revolution is possible, Sayyid Qatb and Maududi are extremely influential theorists of it, Maududi was very influenced by Lenin and sought to mold an international revolutionary traditionalism. Saudi Arabia was initially very supportive of that but are now against it because the House of Saud depends on the House of Al ash-Sheikh (Wahhab's family) and vice versa for regional power and they realized such a revolutionary party is bent on a new Empire without petty locam rulers. The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood--Hamas is a branch) is increasingly functioning as this party (pic related, Qaradawi) and so they are now at odds with Saudi Arabia. Also sometimes with Egyptian Salafis who despite supporting a revolutionary party, oppose democracy and think voting and running democratically is haram. The Ikhwan favor using both revolution and democratic office. But that's the state of things. Saudi Arabia is definitely a traditionalist state because their law is limited to Quran and Sunnah but their leadership is amoral and sides with Jews. Qatar (which hosts both the Ikhwan and the Taliban) is in the right corner although also willing to do the wrong thing, Erdogan is also in the right corner, hopefully Turkey will see an Islamic Revolution and overthrow secularism.

https://twitter.com/ApostateRidvan/status/1157427161743134721?s=19

[Anonymous No.13643667]

>>13642830
Iran is more in line with what Guenon advocated for but for the wrong reasons. They're Shia and Guenon thought Shi'ism had no esoteric metaphysics.

Guenon is cool but his tunnel vision prevented him from seeing a lot of things. Sufism is mostly considered kuffar shit in Sunni countries at this point, and they are just as materialist as the west. Post-Baathist Sunni Islam is just a cope against western imperialism, ineffective and not a traditional society in the sense Guenon envisioned it.

[Anonymous No.13643675]

>>13643635
>Saudi Arabia is definitely a traditionalist state because their law is limited to Quran and Sunnah

That's not what Guenon means by traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.13643681]

Who cares. Read Shariati.

[Anonymous No.13643685]

>>13643667
>Sufism is mostly considered kuffar shit in Sunni countries at this point
You are lying

[Anonymous No.13643688]

>>13643635
Saudi Arabia is purely exoteric.

[Anonymous No.13643697]

>>13643681
This.

>>13643685
I'm not. Thanks to Wahhabi dogs like yourself. Few people take Sufism seriously, and they would definitely consider a lot of things Ibn Arabi said to be kuffar.

[Anonymous No.13643708]

>>13643675
Yeah it...it actually is. Guénon sees Sharia as the esoteric manifestation of Haqiqa.

[Anonymous No.13643714]

>>13643688
I completely reject esoterocism, but you are absolutely wrong, Bin Bayyah is very much into the esoteric

[Anonymous No.13643717]

>>13643512
i thought you guys said that sufi's were massacred all the time for being themselves and no one should looking for initiation in it
but if they have a whole country to their name then how is that the case

[Anonymous No.13643720]

>>13643708
*exoteric, autocorrect

[Anonymous No.13643729]

>>13643717
It's a bunch of nonsense. Sufi practices like dhakir are beloved by all Muslims. It is ridiculous doctrines some Sufis follow that are rejected (the Barelvi for example think Muhammad is incarnate uncreated light that helped Allah create creation, obviously a ripoff of Christology)

[Anonymous No.13643902]

>>13643627
The last link in the post above me

[Anonymous No.13643944]

>>13643667
>Guenon thought Shi'ism had no esoteric metaphysics.

Where does he say this? Want to read more about it

[Anonymous No.13643984]

>>13643944
They're very influenced by Mu'tazila theology, that's why they say the Qur'an is a creation instead of God's voice

[Anonymous No.13643994]

>>13643944
he doesn't, he just says Shi'ism is more mystical than metaphysical (not that it has no esoterism or no metaphysics though); it's in his review of Arthur de Gobbinaeus persian travelogue found at the end of the SP edition of Studies in Hinduism

[Anonymous No.13643999]

>>13643944
I remember him calling them "sectarian" (definitely in a pejorative sense) in one of his books. I don't remember which book tho

[Anonymous No.13644050]

>>13643999
Shia literally means sect (Sunni comes from Sunnah, meaning "wont", specifically the wont of Muhammad; Sunnis believe doctrine must be limited to the Qur'an and Sunnah)

[Anonymous No.13644072]

>>13644050
It literally doesn't. 'Sect' in Arabic is فرقة

[Anonymous No.13644120]

what would guenon think of post-47 india

[Anonymous No.13644184]

>>13644072
As is Shia

[Anonymous No.13644196]

Why did Guenon hate materialism?

Btw the ayatollah was a gnostic

[Anonymous No.13644209]

>>13644050
Shia comes from the phrase 'party of Ali'. Come on, everyone knows this.

[Anonymous No.13644222]

>>13644196
>Why did Guenon hate materialism?
he didn't "hate" it, it's just a baseless theory that doesn't even make sense when you examine it for more than a second. materialists can even provide an adequate definition of what "material" is

[Anonymous No.13644224]

>>13644209
Sect comes from Latin, "secta" (party)

[Anonymous No.13644263]

>>13644120
he would call their system of democracy bad

[Anonymous No.13644356]

>>13644222
How?

[Anonymous No.13644404]

>>13644356
oops, meant to write "can't". they can't provide an adequate definition

[Anonymous No.13644495]

>>13644404
ok but why

[Anonymous No.13644578]

>>13643708
> Wahhabism is trad
> materialism Saudia is trad

no, it's not...cherry pick all you want

[Anonymous No.13644659]

>>13644578
Athari is literally Arabic for traditionalist lol

You are using "materialism" in an equivocal sense. As an ontology of course it isn't traditionalist. Prosperity and wealth however isn't anti traditionalist

The term "trad" refers to a cuck movement in both Christianity and Islam which essentially flips the script

[Anonymous No.13646130]

>>13643685
Arab here (mostly) and can confirm sufis are considered kafirs by sunnis except for the lukewarm modern secular western boot-licking arabs, who comprise the current generation of arabs. Sufism in the modern arab world will share the same fate as hinduism or buddhism in the west, superficial vapidness done as a show of empty spirituality on instagram, facebook and other social medias. Expect videos of whirling and stupid shit on arab instagram soon, since it's easier, funner and leads to more worldly joy than other stupid shit like yoga. Sorry if I said anything unclear I'm half asleep after all. May Jesus Christ save us all.
t. arab butthurt over the traditions and religion stolen from him by secular and self-serving dogs

[Anonymous No.13646279]

>>13643521
but isn't al-qaeda generally not aligned with Iran. what's up with their brand of suicide bombing, how did it come about as a major stratagem in branch that is opposed to the one who inaugurated it?

[Anonymous No.13647179]

>>13642830
It was a traditionalist revolution disguised as a democratic/socialist revolution.