The article written by the successful historian Tim in Islamic culture, has shown the depth of knowledge in Mahdism and its historic development. It appears that he understands the Mahdi movement better than those who claim they have connection with Mahdi. However, it is totally incorrect to think that Muqtada Al Sadr is going to bring to life Al Mahdi classic movement. Al Sadr is a nationalist Iraqi leader, who opposes the American occupation of Iraq. He is using the name of Jaish Al Mahdi because it is a rallying battle cry for the Shiite followers, who believe in it. Jaish Al Mahdi or other splinters are people who are using the modern technology, rather than the prayers, to beat the American occupiers in their own technological game. Otherwise how do you interpret the latest phenomena of hitting the Green Zone so accurately and killing American soldiers in their own fortress. Isn’t that an indication that they are using global positioning equipment in a very effective way to inform their fellows who are shooting the rockets to aim them to the right spots? Al Qaeda or the Sunni resistance was never able to use this technology effectively. Furthermore, the old Mahdi movement was a crude religious movement. Now Al Sadr is using it to further his own political agenda, like Hizb Allah used the technology to beat Israel recently in southern Lebanon. He realizes that what motivates the people now a days is their economic interest and well being and using religious theme is just a battle cry. He and his advisors are intelligent politically. When Al Maliki said that the militia should be disbanded and give up their weapons, Sadr response was “if Sistani said disband them I will disband them.” He knows quite well that Sistani will not say that, so he will gain ground and gain a good credit between the masses of the shiia that Al Maliki is out of order with religion in his demand because the highest religious authority did not agree to it. However, if Sistani say disband then he could say fine disband but keep your weapons for defense. In any way he would be a winner and the others would be the losers.
Thus the history is a good tool in our analysis, but let us use it in conjunction with other factors. Religions, like any other things, they change in time and are influenced by economic and social factors.
Rusk
