Syed Abul Qassem al-Khoei made it clear to Saddam Hussein that whilst he had no intention of seeking a confrontation with him, because as he had said in one of his speeches, enough Shi’a blood had been shed already, he was never going to endorse his rule either. This riled Saddam more than anything else. Despite all the power and glory at his disposal, he could not swallow the fact that these old men in Najaf could openly challenge his authority. A good example came from the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam desperately wanted al-Khoei to declare his support for the war. Al-Khoei flatly refused. Although the overwhelming majority of foot soldiers in the Iraqi war were Shi’a (most were forcibly conscripted), Al-Khoei was not going to give Saddam the satisfaction of acquiescence, even if the situation demanded national unity. The Sayyed and his family suffered massively as a result. Family members were executed or imprisoned. Water and electricity to his house were cut off. His bank accounts were frozen and all access to financial help was denied. The most senior leader in the Shi’a hierarchy, the equivalent of a pope or an Archbishop of Canterbury, was made to live a life of penury. Local Shi’a tribes had to bribe his guards to have food smuggled into his house. Then came the Shi’a rebellion following the first Gulf War. The Shia, for the first time since the Najaf rebellion of 1920, saw yet another opportunity to break free of Saddam’s tyranny. Al-Khoei nailed his colours firmly to the rebel’s mast. The rebellion was a failure. Saddam’s army and his security apparatus wreaked vengeance on the Shi’a with unmitigated fury. Three of Al-Khoei’s sons managed to escape to Iran and made their way to the UK. The rest of his family were trapped. Saddam’s orders were to make the Sayyed suffer but not to kill him. Al-Khoei was made to watch as the remaining members of his large and extended family were first tortured and then executed one at a time. Al-Khoei was then made to walk over their dead bodies, put in a helicopter and brought for a personal meeting with Saddam. The meeting was broadcast live on Iraqi TV to further humiliate the Sayyed. Saddam is seen mockingly asking the Sayyed how he is feeling. The Sayyed is seen answering in a weak but very clear voice, “I am alive but would much rather be dead.” The broadcast was cut short after the Sayyed proceeded to read verses from the Qur’an. Even in the moment of ultimate defeat, the Sayyed remained unbowed. The moment perfectly encapsulated the Shi’a philosophy of the wilayat al Fiqh, the rule of the jurisprudent. I shall come to that later. Sayyed Al-Khoei died a year later, of natural causes. Saddam ordered him buried in the darkness of night with just three of his relatives present. News of his death spread like wildfire. A curfew was imposed in Najaf, Karbala and the surrounding areas. No one quite knows what happened. But it is alleged that hundreds of people were shot dead trying to enter the city of Najaf and pay homage to the dead Sayyed. Sayyed Ali al-Sistani was now the ‘unofficial’ Grand Marj’a. I use the word unofficial as none of the seminaries were allowed to endorse his appointment and it suited the Iranians, as following the death of Khomeini, they were quite keen for Khamenei to be the undisputed Grand Marj’a. End of private corridor correspondence for Daily Times readers. We will now transition through centuries of history to current events and policy issues. “My eyes are sore and my legs are thin, but I will stand by you…” This story is familiar to Shi’a across the world. The words were spoken by the son of Abu Talib ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The orator’s name is also familiar. Ali ibn Abi Talib. Fourth Caliph. Seed stock of the Shi’a. From the vision of Imam Ali, the Shi’a are now salted across the earth. Watching over them, approximately 20 Grand Ayatollahs, their deputies, and chain of command. On the Sunni side of the equation are equally strong jurisprudential traditions. My friendship with a Mufti of the Sunni Hanafi tradition has served me well in understanding the communal challenges managed by the Sunni scholars-in-residence scattered across the US. I am indebted to Dr Yusuf Ziya Kavakci for his ability to navigate patiently the questions I have posed regarding Islam in the west. His CV is impressive. In 2009, I released a private corridor brief, “Rise as One Man: Islam in the 21st century.” The emancipation and self-determination movements were identified whilst noting a tributary, which I did not identify due to the need for additional research. I observe as small droplets of available information collect on the screen. I continue to examine this uniquely Orientalist tributary movement from afar. It is strengthened by a vast river of underserved and poorly governed humanity caught up in the tumult of the emancipation and self-determination movements. It is also strengthened by a digital age. Magnification platforms exist, which allow revolutionaries to ‘paper the streets’ with propaganda in much more efficient manner than was accomplished in the prior century. No need to hammer incendiary messages onto light posts. No need for furtive word-of-mouth messages when flash mobs can be quickly created. No need for anything at all, other than a cell phone, laptop, and a Twitter account. We are in a decade where the rise of the cleric, a street-preaching prophetic voice, reaches out to touch the grievances of the masses. Behind these self-appointed revolutionary clerics is the shadow of both the good and the bad. Saint and sinner stand side-by-side for political gain. This chimera, a clerical alliance with terror organisations, is a dangerous animal bred within political labs run by mad scientists. There is a need for Level IV containment. (Concluded) The writer is a freelance journalist and author of the novel Arsenal. She can be reached at tammyswof@msn.com