Ok, it's a criticism, but a most reverent, a most prudent
("probably"), almost embarrassed one. Mutti, as a Muslim, as an
insider, as a scholar, is expected, on fundamental points such as that
one, to offer more : clarification.
How can someone reach the conclusion that "Nonetheless, that is of
[no] importance here. What matters, rather, is that according to Evola
an initiatic connection in the present epoch is still possible,
provided one turns "to the Islamic world and the East.", when, as
recalled by T. Ciopa, Evola stated that "(...) to people who do not
want to turn themselves into Muslims and Orientals, Guénon's personal
path has very little to offer."
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@...> wrote:
>
> right near the end, Mutti says:
>
> "We take this opportunity to note that Evola probably mistook the
Twelver-Imam
> Shi'a movement as a particular branch of the Ismaeli movement, and
such an
> oversight would be truly excessive, especially coming from an
"insider". In the
> same way, Evola seems to think that the Imam is "the supreme chief
of the Order"
> as much in the Ismaeli perspective as in that of the "so-called
Twelver-Imam";
> and this would also be a significant inaccuracy, since for the
Twelver-Imam Shi'a,
> the Imam, as a successor of the Prophet, is not only the supreme
chief of an
> Order, but of the entire community.
>
> Nonetheless, that is of importance here. What matters, rather, is
that according
> to Evola an initiatic connection in the present epoch is still
possible,
> provided one turns "to the Islamic world and the East."
>
> -- they didn't even bother to proof-read this translation - he
means "of NO
> importance here."
>