I was not referring to the NOI... I was referring to you.

Chapter 41: (Ha Mim - Ha Mim)

33. And who is better in speech than one who calls to Allah and does good, and says: I am surely of those who submit?

34. And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and thee is enmity would be as if he were a warm friend.

35. And none is granted it but those who are patient, and none is granted it but the owner of a mighty good fortune.

Your hatred is palpable. Don't let your hatred consume you. Certainly it will not affect me, but it is clearly a disease is your heart.

Sawtul Khilafah, it appears the benefit of your insight and analysis has been undermined by your offputting rhetoric. 

I don't entirely disagree with you. Certainly the Shia of Iraq were observed by the American imperialists to harbor a concept of governance (wilayah) contrary to the establishment of Islam as a distinct ruling system. Thus, Al Sistani and SCIRI, given their adoption of the concept of no political involvement until the rise of al Mahdi ( protecting them from Saddam's regime), were pawns for the American invasion.  

Indeed, The Shia of Iraq spoke out against the American invasion and occupation, but worked with the Americans and failed to assist the Sunni insurgency.  That position became untenable and unacceptable given the American reliance on the Shia.  An appropriate Muslim position should have been to side with the Sunnis against the occupation. Instead, Al Sistani even failed to back the Sadr militia in Karbala.

As well, the Iranian republic is not an authentic representative for the Muslim Ummah. It fundamentally a nationalist state with nationalist interests which trump Islamic ideological standards.  Iran is a signatory to the UN treaties reenforcing all the bogus national borders and sovereignty of this and that nation (eg. the mighty nations of Bahrain and Kuwait), as well as a participant to the many capitalist treaties and agreements on monetary policies, trade, etc. So Iran is still a national entity like Saudi Arabia and Egypt rather than an Islamic state. The Shia concepts of politics in Iran simply have failed to establish an Islamic state and lead the Muslim Ummah.

Many Shia claim the proIslamic Iranians are still working to change Iran into an Islamic state, but the reality is Khomeini admitted that he failed to do so. And subsequent administrations have since either failed, or have abandoned the ideological jump to an Islamic state. One must question the pervasive Shia thought on ruling (wilayah) and whether the Al Sistani adoption (no politics until the Mahdi) or the similar Iranian adoption (be satisfied with nationalist quasi-Islamic governance) are being propagated within the ranks of the mullahs and ayatullahs. 

It is within this framework that Hizbullah should be placed (not simply calling Hizbullah "Hizbulshaytan").  First, Lebanon is not a viable state. It is a tiny city state. In terms of realpolitick, it is a byproduct of the colonization of the Muslim world rather than some independent people with eons of self rule.  (Note: France created Lebanon after it took over in 1918, giving Lebanon independence in 1920 partially to empower the Christian minority there).   Lebanon is less than 4 million in population but has a GDP of 22.8 billion compared to neighboring Jordan  6 million pop with 27 billion.  So along with Israel, Lebanon was designed to serve as a 'thorn in the side' of the Muslim Ummah.

Lebanon must remain in the hands of the Muslim Ummah rather than the hands of enemies of Islam. It is better for it to be part of a more viable nation, such as Syria. A wise Syrian govt would have sought to entice Lebanon into its fold, but Arab nationalist Baathism and Alawi Shia thoughts are exclusive and discriminatory rather than inclusive. What the Muslim Ummah must do is abandon its nationalism which serves to divide us. Hizbullah is not quite the entity to dissolve nationalism, though it is close. By complying with Lebanese nationalist laws, borders, treaties, Hizbullah reenforces its nationalism. Hizbullah was once known to be exclusively nationalistic. However, under Nasrullah it appears to have graduated in a more Iranian mode of quasi-Islamic thought but within a nationalist framework.  

Is Hizbullah "Hizbul Shaytan"?

No. But Hizbullah must denounce nationalism, it must call for an Islamic state. Anything short of that, even if under the assumption that it must work within the national framework, does not serve the Muslim Ummah.  Moreover, it is not a victory for the Muslim Ummah if Muslims initiate military conflict.  It is contrary to the methodology of the Prophet (saaw) to initiate conflict unprovoked and nonpreemptive. As well,  Muslim militaries must have real concrete military objectives which are pursued. The failure to accomplish them is a failed military effort. Muslims dying in battle is not a victory nor an objective. Nor is the complete destruction of a people's infrastructure 'victory'.

And so we must wait and watch the efforts of Hizbullah. Building up Lebanon just so it can be knocked down again is not a strategy. Ignoring nationalism as a dividing force within the Muslim world is not sufficient. May Allah guide Hizbullah and may Allah guide the Muslim Ummah. And Allah knows best.    

You think I m the one who is trying to make sedition between  muslims

So how about those who call hizbullah .. hizbelshaytan

No shayten but those who call hizbullah .. as hizb satan

May allah victorious all muslims shia and sunna inshallah