Despite US anger and pressure, Syria and Lebanon have already allied with Iran.

In 2007, The Libyan leader said that Egypt, Algeria, Libya and Morocco need to make alliances with Iran.

Quote:

[b]A New Empire of the Mahdi?

Libyan and Iranian Pan-Islamic Agendas [/b]

Dr. Timothy R. Furnish - April 30, 2007

Dr Furnish is Assistant Professor of History, Georgia Perimeter College, Dunwoody, GA, USA.

On Easter weekend 2007, two important Muslim leaders issued proclamations which may prove supremely portentous for the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The more publicized announcement was by Libya’s leader Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi, who called for “the establishment of a second Shi`ite Fatimid state in North Africa.”

Less well-known was the call by the real leader of Iran, Ayatollah Sayyid `Ali Khamanah’i [Khamanei], for a “charter of Islamic unity.”

Neither of these statements can be understood without some recourse to Islamic history, whether ancient or more modern.

To understand al-Qadhafi’s declaration, one must know something of the Fatimids, a Shi`ite group that controlled much of the Maghrib during the 10th century CE, until they conquered Egypt and transferred their headquarters there, ruling it from 969-1171 CE. (The name of the dynasty comes from their claim of descent from `Ali, cousin of Muhammad, through his wife Fatimah—who was one of the daughters of Islam’s founder.) Two notable aspects of the Fatimid state were: its leaders—at least some of its caliphs in the early years—were considered to be Mahdis, or “(divinely) rightly-guided ones,” who were ushering in the kingdom of Allah; and it was a militantly-expansionist state, especially vis-à-vis its main opponent, the Sunni empire of the Abbasids centered in Baghdad. At its height the Fatimid state ruled Egypt, much of what is now Israel, Palestine and Syria, as well as the Hijaz (Arabia’s western region encompassing Mecca and Medina)—and had designs on the entirety of the Muslim world, planning to displace rivals via military conquest or undermining them by disseminating Fatimid doctrines via da`is, or professional propagandists: “the Fatimids proclaimed aloud that universal sovereignty was given to them by divine decree and that they were called to displace the Umayyads of Spain as well as the Abbasids of Baghdad and the Byzantine emperors.”

al-Qadhafi’s wish to resurrect the Fatimid polity may be dismissed as just another of his hare-brained merger schemes; but perhaps we should not be so quick to do so. It could also just as plausibly be seen as a legitimate Islamic appeal for bridging the Sunni-Shia divide and, thus, as a renewal of the pan-Islamic ideal—especially since the Libyan leader “rebuked the Arab League for ‘hating Iran.’”al-Qadhafi seems to take a rather overly-rosy view of the Fatimid system, however: he claims that “this grand Fatimid state generously allowed the existence of mini-states in its interior” and that in it “you can remain Egyptian, Libyan, Algerian, Tunisian, Mauritanian, Nigerien, Malian and so on, and [you can] stay in Sudan, the Fertile Crescent, in Jordan—but the identity will be a Fatimid identity.” While briefly moving onto more solid historical ground by asserting that the Fatimid state was the first truly Shia one, he quickly heads back into historical quicksand with statements that “we the Arabs…are attached to `Ali” [which]…means that all of the Arabs are Shi`ites” and that “if being Sunni means that you believe in Muhammad and his sunna …then the Iranians are Sunnis.”Eliding over 14 centuries of Islamic history, al-Qadhafi claims that the very existence of Sunni and Shia branches of Islam is an artificial construct imposed by colonial powers, the “foreign occupation and the Zionist settlement.”And finally, in what is most likely a naked attempt to curry political favor with the Palestinians and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Libyan leader says that “the two holy sites are not the two that we say they are today. The two holy sites are Mecca and Jerusalem.”
al-Qadhafi’s neo-Fatimism can perhaps best be understood when compared and contrasted with the similar calls for pan-Islamic unity coming out of Tehran. Contrary to much conventional wisdom, Iranian calls for Islamic unity did not begin with the Ahmadinezhad administration. Indeed, wahdat-i Islami, “Islamic unity,” has been a major emphasis of the state since 1979. Going back to the Ayatollah Khomeini, this doctrine was centered around two main points: belief in the West as Muslims’ common enemy, and the three core trans-Islamic beliefs of tawhid (divine unity), nubuwwah (prophethood of Muhammad) and ma`ad (resurrection and Judgment). Building on the precedent of the Dar al-Taqrib, “House of Rapproachement,” which existed in Cairo from 1947 until the 1970s,14 the Revolutionary Iranian government set up two bodies aimed at pan-Muslim activity: al-Majma` al-`Alami lil-Taqrib bayna al-Madhahib al-Islamiyah, or “The World Assembly for Reconciliation between the Islamic Denominations;” and Majma` al-`Alami li- Ahl al-Bayt, or “The World Assembly for the People of the House [of Muhammad].” The former’s goal is the functional unity of the seven “legitimate” sects of Islam: the Hanafiyah, Hanbaliyah, Malikiyah, Shafi`iyah (all Sunni); and the Ja`fariyah, Zaydiyah and Ibadiyah (all Shia). Interestingly, considering the close relationship between Iran and Syria today, the `Alawiyah (to which the al-Assad family, as well as most high-ranking Syrians, belong) are excluded from the World Assembly as non-Muslim, as are the Isma’iliyah and the Druze.16 This organization, as might be expected considering its grandiose goals, has met with, at best, limited success—so far. However, Khamanah’i’s “renewed call for Islamic harmony” over against “modern time Crusades” and “the failed projects of the American-led front of arrogance in…Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon” needs be seen as the latest installment in this Iranian bid to be the arbiter of Islamic unity. As for the second organization, the World Assembly for the People of the House [of the Prophet], it has a more realistic goal: to bring Shias under Tehran’s sway. The close relationship between Iran and Hizbullah indicates that it is having much more success than its more ecumenical, pan-Islamic partner.

What has this to do with al-Qadhafi? No North African country, at least by official tally, has more than 3% Shia population. So concerns about a Tripoli-Tehran axis would seem to be much ado about very little. However, the Egyptian government recently began to express concern about the alleged conversions of Sunnis to Shiaism in that country—a number that may be even greater if, as some claim, many of them as masquerading as members of the Sufi (mystical) orders. The number of Shias in Egypt is said to be as low as 700,000 and as high as 1.5 million. If the “Shi`ite Crescent”—first so named by King `Abd Allah of Jordan--should be extended into Egypt and, via al-Qadhafi, into the Maghrib, perhaps it should be re-visioned as a “Shia Sickle”—with the handle reaching across North Africa. Furthermore, as history indicates, a state need not be majority Shia in population in order to play the role of a Shia actor on the world stage: under the Fatimids the majority was always Sunni, yet the foreign policy and military campaigns ordered by Cairo were most definitely militantly Shia.

Might al-Qadhafi’s neo-Fatimism, assisted by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s aspirations, transmogrify into a real and present danger to the United States and the West? Consider: the most obvious common elements of both al-Qadhafi’s and Khamanah’i’s recently-articulated platforms include a papering-over of the Sunni-Shia divide and the creation of a united front against the West. However, perhaps the most striking, and potentially powerful, commonality to both the Libyan’s neo-Fatimism and the Iranian’s pan-Islam is, ominously, belief in the Mahdi. Recall that several of the Fatimid caliphs considered themselves, and/or were proclaimed, the Mahdi. And while eventually the state ideology was forced to concede that “the victory over the Infidels which the Mahdi was expected to bring about had been postponed to the end of time,” there is no shortage of Muslims today, both Sunni and Shia, seized with eschatological fervor about the nearness of The End and the imminent coming of the Mahdi: in January of this year a self-proclaimed Mahdi led his forces into battle against Iraqi and American troops; some books and websites openly speculate that Usamah bin Ladin might be the Mahdi; President Ahmadinezhad of Iran frequently invokes the Mahdi; and Hizbullah has created the “Imam Mahdi Scouts” to assist him when he arrives. Recall, too, that the very Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares that the state apparatus as such is in effect only until such time as the Imam Mahdi returns from his state of hiddenness (“occultation”). In such a climate, would it really be surprising if the Ahmadinezhad administration declared someone the returned Mahdi? Or if al-Qadhafi pledged allegiance to the same?

Even if Libya and Iran never reach the point of agreeing upon a candidate for the Mahdiyah, the convergence between the two on at least some policy matters—and of, thus, a potential framework for political cooperation—marks the re-emergence of Pan-Islamic ideology onto the stage of state actors; heretofore, for the last few decades, ecumenical politico-religious efforts in the Islamic world have been largely limited to non-state, somewhat marginal, actors, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb al-Tahrir and al-Qa`idah. Now it is at least possible that the Shia Sickle may be wielded, if not by the strong arm of the Mahdi, at least by the sinews of the state—either of which pushes the GWOT that much closer to an openly-declared clash of civilizations.

Speech by Qadhafi on Al-Munawa TV on April 15, 2007

[b]Libyan Leader Mu'ammar Qadhafi: All North Africa Is Shi'ite [/b]

"The new Fatimid state is ours. It is our history, our heritage. We created the first Fatimid state, and we will create the second. This is our state, and no one has the right to reject this. Whoever rejects this is barking like a dog. This is our state, which was founded on this land. It was founded by our forefathers, and we have the right [to rebuild it] if we can.

Cairo cannot escape its Fatimid destiny. Cairo is the city of the Caliph al-Mu'izz. Cairo was founded by the Fatimids. If not for the Fatimids, there would be no Cairo or Egypt. What was Egypt before the Fatimids? It was Alexandria and the pyramids. It was the Fatimids who chose Egypt, the heart of the nation, to be their capital, and so they built Cairo. Cairo is 100% Fatimid. Who can escape Cairo's Fatimid identity? What is Al-Azhar? It is the mosque of Fatima Al-Zahraa. None of those who graduate from Al-Azhar or who study there can change their identity. Al-Azhar is one of the Fatimid strongholds. If not for the Fatimids, there would be no Al-Azhar. Al-Azhar means the mosque of Fatima Al-Zahraa. Reexamine your culture and all your holidays. North Africa in its entirety is Shiite.

Today, it is said that the Shi'a is Iran and the Sunna is the Arabs. This is the greatest historical lie. The truth is as clear as day. Where did these interpretations, which are funny and sad at the same time, come from? Since when was a Shiite state founded in Iran or anywhere beyond the Arab world? The first Shiite state in history was the first Fatimid state in North Africa.

The Prophet's family were given the divine right to be rulers and Imams. This is the root of the problem today. From now on, we will not accept anyone in the Arab world who rules in the name of the religion and the Koran, or who establishes a religious state, unless he is [a descendant] of the Prophet's family. Otherwise, he is not worthy of ruling, he has neither the right, nor the legitimacy. He is pulling the rug out from under his own feet. May he fall to the lowest pit and go to hell!

I'm astounded by a country like Jordan. How come it does not belong to the Shiites, descending from the Prophet's family? Is it conceivable for Jordan to support Mu'awiya, Abu Sufian, and Hind? It is inconceivable. So why does it consider itself Sunni? They brought [the Sunni-Shiite issue] into the conflict, and they use it to justify the occupation and the protection of their scepters, and all those who are talking now exploit the Sunna, the Shi'a, the Arabs, the Persians, the Palestinian cause, Fatah, Hamas, and so on for the sake of their scepters and their thrones. They are all trying to consolidate their rule. That's it. They don't care about Hamas, Fatah, Palestine, Jerusalem, Shi'a, Sunna, Arabs, Persians, or world peace. They are all acting only fro the sake of their families, their thrones, their parties, and their own interests."