CULTURAL GENOCIDE AND CULTURAL CLEANSING:CASE OF KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

                                       WHO ARE THE MI6 SHIAS?

MI6 is the foreign intelligence service of the British Government which is tasked with covert overseas operations in support of British national interests. The Chief of MI6 is answerable to countries Foreign Secretary. The organization was established in 1909. It has about 2500 employees and an annual budget of about 2.6 billion pounds and has been involved in a number of covert intelligence operations outside Britain. What has MI6 to do with Shias? 
The term was used by leader of the revolution Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei in his address to Officials and Participants of Islamic Unity Conference held in Tehran on January 9, 2015 http://english.khamenei.ir/news/2000/Leader-s-Speech-in-Meeting-with-Officials-and-Participants-of .
He  said "Today, some elements both among Sunnis and Shias are working at separating Muslims from one another. If you trace these elements, you will see that all of them are connected to espionage and intelligence services of the enemies of Islam - not the enemies of Iran and Shia Muslims, rather the enemies of Islam. The kind of Shia which works with the MI6 of England and the kind of Sunni which is a mercenary of the CIA of America are neither Shia nor Sunni. Both of them are against Islam." This was in January 2015 and taking cue from this statement of Rehbar the use of this term  has become widespread and many personalities in the Shia world have been labeled as "MI6 Shias". What prompted my interest in the matter is a discussion I had with my dear cousin Dr. Syed Aqeel a very pious and a dedicated momin which was later on joined by our common and a very learned friend Dr. Asif. Dr. Aqeel had uploaded a video of Europe's Largest Markazi Majlis e Aza. The people there were mostly Pakistanis who declared their faith in principles of Tawhid, Nabuwah, Imamah, Adl and declared the Willayah of Ali ibn Talib(A.S) and Azadari of Imam Hussain (A.S) as the fundamental pillars on which they will never compromise nor will allow anyone else to do so. They declared loyalty to Agha Syed Hamid Ali Shah Mosavi the leader of Tehreek-e- Nifaz-e-Fiqha Jaffiriya of Pakistan. Then the person who was reading the declaration criticised those who labelled them as "MI6" Shias. This lead to a long discussion about this matter. I pointed out the fact that this term was used by Rehbar for the London based Kuwaiti born cleric Yasir al-Habib and the Shirazis. Both my friends challenged me on two accounts:
1) to bring forth evidence that these groups had any links to MI6 and
2) when leader used the term he meant Shirazis.
So I decided to go into this matter in detail and try to find out who these Shias are whom the Leader labelled as MI6 Shias.
First of all no one can deny that the Leader used this term. It is well documented. Now the question is what did he mean by this? What evidence did he have of any of the Shias anywhere in the world having any links with the British Secret Service. This is a serious accusation. So what is your opinion on this matter? Do you believe that when the Rehbar used this term he was talking in thin air? Do you believe in his statement or you want evidence from him before you accept this? Well he may be the Leader but he is not infallible. He can make mistakes. But say so openly. Say that Ayatollah Khamenei was making an accusation against fellow Shia Muslims for which he had no evidence. So as Dr. Asif said and I quote him, " Associating something with a Person that too a Faqeeeh without any Proof is a Grave mistake with comes under " Tohmat " which Allah considers Haram in Surah Taubah." So is Ayatollah Khamenei guilty of practising "Tohmat"? Look here if you say so it is not a sin because he may be a Marja and Rehbar but he is not a Masoom. So first thing is to make your position very clear on this matter. 
Next I have to confess that I was mistaken when I said the Rehbar mentioned Yasir al-Habib and Shirazis as MI6 Shias. When I went through the original speech of Ayatollah Khamenei I realised that he had not mentioned the name. So I was wrong in saying that he mentioned them by name. This was a wrong statement on my part and I feel no hesitation to apologize and ask for forgiveness from Allah that in my ignorance I had attributed something to Ayatollah Khamenei which he had not said. I also confess that I did not find any subsequent statements from him in which he has directly named anyone as being what he calls a MI6 Shia. The question to be asked is if you make a general statement without naming any particular person but only pointing to some traits does it still fall in the premise of "Tohmat". Suppose I say "those who sow seeds of discard between Shias and Sunnis are agents of imperialist powers" does it qualify as "tohmat". I don't think so. As the Rehbar has not named anyone in his statement (not even Yasir-al-Habib) so it cannot be labelled as a Tohmat. What the rehbar has mentioned is "elements who are working to separate Shias from Sunnis". Thus the criteria which he has given for identifying what he calls MI6 shias is  "anyone who says or does somethings which cause division, hatred and hostility between Shias and Sunnis". This is the only criteria which he has mentioned. Thus if we go strictly and literally by what he has said then only persons who fulfill this criteria can be labelled as MI6 Shias. Following this the term became widespread and was used for many different persons and for many different actions. For example it has been used for those persons and those scholars who don't believe in the principle of Vilayat-e-Faqih, it has been used for persons who practice Tatbir etc. 
09-10-2017
Having said this the question still remains what did the Rehbar mean when he used the term. There are following possibilities:-
1) Being the Supreme Leader of a country with well developed security and intelligence apparatus at his disposal he may have had specific information on the basis of which he made this statement. Infact when Ayatollah Mohsin Araki made a statement in which he openly attacked the Shirazis he claimed to be saying so on the basis of specific information about the links between Shirazis and Saudi and British intelligence. "The Shirazi circle is a well-organized political party which seeks specific objectives; it presents its political objectives veiled as popular religious propaganda, and in this path, it has the support of the forces beyond the region; I can provide incontrovertible evidence for this claim, which our intelligence services have recorded; the evidence will be divulged anytime the expediencies rule,”said Ayatollah Araki http://wilayah.info/en/ayatollah-araki-shirazi-circles-get-support-from-britain-and-saudi/.
Now who is this Ayatollah Araki and what is his status in the Iranian establishment?

  Ayatollah Mohsen al-Araki is a senior cleric and also a member of the Assembly of Experts which is charged with the selection of Rehbar. He is currently Secretary General of  the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought. He was the representative of The Leader to London and the director of Islamic Centre of England. He seems to be quite an influential figure in the establishment but it is difficult to comment about his claim of having "incontrovertible evidence". He made this statement in September 2015 and it is now more that 2 years but till now the evidence has not been divulged. So it is difficult to be sure whether Ayatollah Khaminei was talking on the basis of specific information. In his case the charge of practicing "Tohmat" can be applied if he does not actually have any evidence because he has clearly mentioned the name. He has even made a claim that he has incontrovertible evidence which he has promised to divulge at an appropriate time.  One thing has to be kept in mind however, the personality or group involved is not some ordinary person. Ayatollah Sadiq al_Shirazi is a widely respected and followed Marja who inspite of his opposition to the establishment has been allowed to continue to live in Qom and carry out his activities from there. It is possible that the government would not like to confront him directly unless it becomes absolutely necessary. In other words they might be waiting for an appropriate time to divulge any evidence which they claim to have against the Shirazis.
2) Imam Khamenei was speaking on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is clear that in cases involving role of security agencies it is almost impossible to have direct and precise evidence. This might be especially true for the British MI6. The motto of MI6 is "Semper Occultus" which means "always secret". However in many cases the circumstantial evidence is so strong that one can be reasonably sure about the matter. Classical, historical example of such a situation is the 1953 coup d'etat against the government of Dr. Mossadeq which restored the Shah to power. Everyone knew that it was the handiwork of the British MI6 and CIA but if anyone at that time would be asked for direct evidence it would have been impossible to provide. However subsequently as the secret documents got DE-classified it became clear that it was actually so. The coup d'etat was actually orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project or "Operation Ajax"). In August 2013, 60 years after, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda https://www.rt.com/usa/iran-coup-cia-operation-647/.

                      Monarchist demonstrators in Tehran downtown, August 26, 1953.

Thus many a times it is impossible to get direct evidence but you can be reasonably sure on the basis of circumstantial evidence. I will come to it later on.
3) Sometimes we use certain terms metaphorically. In this case if someone calls someone say MI6 Shia he doesn't mean that this person is actually on the pay roles of MI6 or is directly acting on the orders of MI6. What is implied is that MI6 as a secret service has certain aims and objectives say it wants a regimen change in Iran or wants to intensify the Shia-Sunni conflict then sometimes you might do something which actually has same results which the secret agency wants. In this case you may not even have heard the name of MI6 and your intentions for your actions are sincere but the results of your action are such that you are unknowingly helping it to achieve it's goals. Thus if someone calls you a MI6 Shia it does not mean that he actually accuses you of having links to MI6. What is meant is that you are a MI6 Shia because by your actions you are unintentionally helping their cause and helping them to achieve their objectives.
Now we discuss these one by one. Regarding the first possibility I have already said that it is possible that Imam Khamenei is privy to direct evidence provided to him by intelligence agencies of the country. However as I said if there is such direct evidence no one has divulged it and so we cannot be sure. Some of his followers because of his status may say that since he has said so it is enough evidence and there is no requirement for anything more but I think arguing in this way is not logical. If anytime in future such evidence is made public as has been promised by Ayatollah Mohsin Araki then that is a different issue.
Regarding the second possibility; that of circumstantial evidence let me now discuss this. I know many of my friends will blame me of being a "conspiracy theorist" but I will make my point and leave the decision to them. Is there any evidence of a conspiracy. The intent of Western powers especially USA and Britian to bring about a regimen and a system change is nothing hidden. If I say that they do intend to do so then you cannot say that I am a "conspiracy theorist" because this is not something secret and they have openly and brazenly mentioned it many times. There is a definite reason for this. The reason is that the Iranian establishment has stubbornly refused over the years to give up their support for the Palestinian cause and have vehemently opposed the Zionist regimen. In fact we all know about the famous "wiped out of existence" statement of the former Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad. If the Iranian leaders any time change their policy of opposing the Zionist regimen, give up supporting the Palestinians and say recognize the Zionist entity everything will change. As of now since the Iranian establishment is in no mood to do so and since it is seen as an existential threat to the Zionist entity so changing the regimen is a top priority. Does anyone need any evidence for this? The policy of Obama administration in the initial years was definitely for a regimen change and Obama actively supported and hailed the so-called "Green Movement" in 2009 elections which the Americans banked upon to bring about the desired regimen change. The policy however was modified after the signing of the Nuclear deal although it is doubtful whether it was totally abandoned. The Trump administration has clearly taken a more hostile attitude by threatening to move out of the deal and the Secretary  of State Rex Tillerson has openly said to the Senate Committee that the administration will encourage and help bring about a regimen change by "peaceful means" http://www.inss.org.il/publication/united-states-policy-regime-change-iran/.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/trump-iran-foreign-policy-regime-change-239930. 
Thus there is clear evidence that bringing about regimen change in Iran is the policy which USA is pursuing. This is not in anyway a conspiracy theory. As is clear from the document of The Institute of National Security Studies (INSS) mentioned above keeping in view the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan the US is reluctant to bring about this change by direct military intervention.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=70&v=1TNtFuSIzKA. 
It is clear that CIA is going to intensify it's covert activities against the Iranian Government with the aim of bringing about a regimen change. A clear hint to this is a very interesting recent development. It is the appointment of Michael D'Andrea as the incharge of CIA's Iran operations. Known as the "Dark Prince" or "Ayatollah Mike" he is the one who oversaw the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and was responsible for the drone strike campaign that killed thousands of Islamists militants and hundreds of civalians. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/middleeast/cia-iran-dark-prince-michael-dandrea.html.  So it is clear without any shadow of doubt that security agencies of US i.e CIA, MI6 of Britian, as well as Mossad of Zionist regimen are very active against the Muslims in general and the Islamic republic in particular. One strategy they have been employing right from the very first day of the success of the Islamic Revolution is to intensify differences between Shias and Sunnis and make sure they are at one others throat. If anyone has any doubt listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJFRC5eh_o4. So this is a fundamental strategy of these security agencies. It is exactly this thing that Rehbar has mentioned as the main characteristic of these MI6 Shias. Thus we can call this as a major criteria of Shias whom Ayatollah Khaminei called as MI6 shias. It is true that Imam Khaminei used this term in a specific sense and he was pointing to a specific group but if you use this metaphorically then anyone who is active in sowing seeds of discord between Shias and Sunnis becomes a MI6 Shia. It is important to remember that when used in this sense it does not mean that the person against whom it is used has any direct links with the British Security service. It only implies that by his actions he is unintentionally helping the British security agency to achieve it's objective. It is clear that when used in this context it will not fall under the category of "Tohmat". You can very well argue about the correctness of your action as many people do. It is also obvious that in such a situation the demand for direct evidence is irrelevant. It is true that there are persons in the Shia world who are against any ecumenical activities which are carried out to bring the Shais and Sunnis together. This is also true of the Sunni world. We know that there is a very powerful, resourceful group amongst the Sunnis who similarly are anti-Taqreeb. The main weapon they use is Takfeer i.e declaring the Shia Muslims as non-Muslims which then becomes justification against any taqreeb between the two sects and in extreme cases even justifies violence. However there is a whole spectrum in this with some Salafis considering Shias as heretics but don't condone violence and so on. The basic character as pointed by above is that they carry out actions which are bound to increase the strife a policy of "fundis ignis". On the Shia side there is a specific group which carries out this "fundis ignis" policy from this side and it is this specific group to whom Imam Khaminei was pointing. Let me say something about this group and it's activity.
Yasir al-Habib phenomenon  :-

Who is this Yasir al-Habib? This is the link to wikipedia article about this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Al-Habib. Yasir al-Habib is a Kuwaiti born Shia cleric who is the founder and the head of the London-based Khoddam Al-Mahdi Organization.He started his religious activities in Kuwait and because of his views about the companions of Prophet (SAWW) and wives of Prophet (SAWW) he was arrested. Later, in February 2004 he was released under an annual pardon announced by the  Amir of Kuwait on the occasion of the country's National Day, but his rearrest was ordered a few days later. Al-Habib fled Kuwait before he was sentenced in absentia to 10 years' imprisonment,and spent months in Iraq and Iran before gaining an asylum in United Kingdom which is his current place of residence. In the United Kingdom he bought a former church in pristine Buckinghamshire village close to Gerrards Cross, home to Britain’s most expensive property market,for 2 million pounds (equals to  17 crore Rupees in Indian Currency).https://www.independent.co.uk/newsuha/uk/home-news/sunni-vs-shia-in-gerrards-cross-new-mosque-highlights-growing-tensions-among-british-muslims-8671969.html.
 https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/695204/im-the-only-hate-preacher-in-the-village/
The site is called Al-Muhassan Mosque. The signboard of the Mosque reads like this http://www.almuhassanmosque.com/.
Sheikh Yasir al-Habib has a website  http://www.alqatrah.net/ and runs a satellite TV channel http://www.fadak.tv/ . What does this person represent and why has he become so controversial? If you watch his writings and listen to his videos the reason for his notoriety becomes evidence at once. It is an established fact that Shias have a problem with some of the companions of the Holy Prophet (SAWW) and two of his wives. This is a well established fact and is not something which is hidden. Now scholars in the Shia world have written a lot on this topic in a manner which is consistent with the Islamic ethics of disagreement. There have been people in the Shia Muslim who sometimes cross this limit and use language which does not suit a follower of Ahl-ul-Bayt.However this person has crossed all limits of decency. He came to lime light first when he threw a party to celebrate the death anniversary of Ummul Momineen Ayesha bint Abi Bakr. He has written a book about her which is so obnoxious that it is improper even to mention the title of this book. He calls the Sunni Muslim brethren as Bakris and uses such improper language against the companions which will put even the worse swearer to shame. He has also openly used foul language against many Shia religious figures including obviously the leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Syed Ali Khaminei, Ayatollah Sistani, Syed Hassan Nasrullah, Sheikh Vaeli and even Ayatollah Behjat Fomani. I don't find it proper to even put up a link to his tirades against the Companions of the Prophet and the Wives of Prophet but they are not hidden and are freely available on the net. However the link to his tirades against Shia religious leaders is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1l7zw3ggiE&t=43s. 
Yasir al-Habib is not the only one involved in these activities. There are others, information about whom can freely be obtained from the net. This went so far that some Shia and Sunni leaders of al-Hasa in Saudi Arabia wrote a letter to Imam Khaminei about this matter in answer of which he issued a historical fatwa declaring cursing of Companions of Prophet and wives of Prophet as haram http://english.khamenei.ir/news/3905/Ayatollah-Khamenei-s-fatwa-Insulting-the-Mother-of-the-Faithful. 

This fatwa was in fact immediately endorsed and welcomed by the Chancellor of Al-Azhar University Ahmad al-Tayeb.  Ahmad al-Tayyib wrote in a statement that the fatwa was prudent and timely and would help ram the door shut to seditions. “I received the blessed Fatwa with appreciation,” he wrote. He said it was incumbent on all Muslims to try to keep inter Muslim unity and no dispute between different Islamic sects should be allowed to harm the unity of Islamic ummah. Tayyib also noted that Egypt has ever been at the forefront of every initiative for Muslim unity.http://previous.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=145103&sectionid=351020101.

Zafar Bangash the editor of Monthly Newspaper Crescent International wrote an editorial about this historic fatwa which is worth reading https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/the-rahbar-s-fatwa-of-respect-and-unity.

Thus one can say that Imam Khaminei used this term MI6 Shias against a specific group of individuals who were generally based in London and enjoyed the patronage of British Government whose primary objective was to sow seeds of discord and sedition between Shias and Sunnis by insulting the Companions and Wives of Prophet (SAWW) and Shia religious leaders who they think were opposing them. However this term soon became a generalized one and the supporters of Syed Ali Khaminei began using it to describe many persons who may have no direct connection with either MI6 or this particular group. This is what I have mentioned as a metaphorical use of the term. Since Ayatollah Khaminei pointed to a particular characteristic of this group i.e fomenting discord between Shias and Sunnis therefore anyone who in any way had the same outlook came to be called MI6 Shia even if they have no links to the Yasir al-Habib group or to MI6.

Role of Shirazis :

Who are these Shirazis? Shirazi family is one of the many transnational, influential, religious families of Shia Muslims which has produced many great religious  personalities including two of the Marjas who played a leading role in important political events. One was Grand Ayatollah Mirza Hassan Shirazi who issued his famous fatwa against the cultivation and use of tobacco lead to the cancellation of the concession which Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar had provided to Britian

                 Tobacco Protest Fatwa issued by Mirza Muhammad Hassan Hussaini Shirazi 1890

The other was Ayatollah Mirza Muhammad Taqi al-Shirazi who was the leader of the Great Iraqi Revolution against British occupation of Iraq. One of the most important member of the family in recent past has been Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad ibn Mahdi al-Hussaini al-Shirazi. He was born in the holy city of Najaf, Iraq, in AD 1928 (1347 AH).  In 1971 he was exiled from Iraq to Lebanon by the Ba'thist regime. From Lebanon Al-Shirazi moved to Kuwait. Kuwait’s relatively liberal political atmosphere attracted Shi’ite activists, including Muhammad al-Hussaini al-Shirazi. Shirazi long waged a two-front struggle against both the Ba’athist regime in Baghdad and the Najaf clergy. Shirazi added an ideological dimension to the competition when he welcomed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to Iraq in 1965, a move that the Najaf clergy feared would antagonize the Iranian shah, whose opposition to Ba’athism they encouraged. Grand Ayatollah Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei, at the time perhaps the most prominent Shi’ite scholar, sought to dismiss Shirazi’s status as a scholar. Shirazi responded by obtaining a fatwa from Hassan al-Ihqaqi, perhaps the top cleric resident in Kuwait, attesting to his scholarship http://www.aei.org/publication/has-kuwait-reached-the-sectarian-tipping-point/. He was a prolific writer and infact at one point was even nominated for Guinness Book of World Records.  Through personal charisma and intellectual arguments, Al-Shirazi built up a large following in Kuwait and Iraq. His followers became known as the 'Shiraziyyin' and tended to be critical of existing Shi'i religious establishments. In 1979, with the victory of Islamic Revolution he moved to Iran and setteled in Holy City of Qom. He was a political theorist and developed a theory of Islamic Governance which was close to Imam Khomeini's theory of Velayet-i-Faqih although al-Shirazi favored the theory that not a single cleric, but a council of scholars should govern the Islamic State (hukumat al-fuqaha’/shurat al-fuqaha’). The relations between the Shirazis and the Iranian government went on deteriorating and reached to a point of stand-off on the death of Ayatollah Sayyid Mohammad al-Shirazi. fter his death, his legacy and school of thought were continued through the Hawzah which he had established. His brother Sadiq Hussaini Shirazi is at the helm of this school of thought^. and a leading religious authority in his own right.

                               Ayatollah Sadiq Hussaini al-Shirazi the current leader of "Shiraziyuns"
This is the leader of the group AYtollah Mohsin al-Araki was talking about. What is the role of Shirazis in all this affair.
1) The younger brother of Ayatollah Sadiq al-Shirazi, Mujtaba al-Shirazi is a close associate of Yasir al-Habib and carries about a vitriolic campaign against the Iranian Government in general and Ayatollah Khaminei in particular.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL9FSRvHWcE.
He  labeled Ayatollah Taqi Behjat al-Fomani as a heretic, an atheist, a kafir accusing him of believing in pan-theism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkNGj4WeWQ. He called Imam Khomeini as "one of the worst infidel" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYnycyQ1msc.
This person is also based in London like Yasir al-Habib and from their like him carries a vitriolic campaign against the revered personalities of Islamic Republic.
2) While Yasir al-Habib curses almost all contemporary Maraja he is full of praise for Ayatollah Sadiq al-Shirazi and considers him to be an eminent Marjaya Taqleed. Here is the video of Yasir al-Habib endorsing the recital of "Ali un Wali Ullah" in Tashud and saying that Ayatollah Sadiq al-Shirazi considers it Mustahib https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCni3xyAhE. 
I cold not find any evidence where Ayatollah Sadiq al-Shirazi has in unambiguous terms refuted or dissociated himself from the actions of Yasir al-Habib or his brother Mujtaba Shirazi. My dear friend Dr. Asif did show me evidence that he has criticised Yasir al-Habib's views about Ayesha bint Abibakr but that is all I could get. Well some people may argue that it is not important to do so but it is my personal opinion that keeping in view the potentially devastating effects of the actions of Yasir al-Habib Ayatollah Sadiq al-Shirazi should have openly dissociated himself from the views of Yasir al-Habib as well as his own brother Mujtaba al-Shirazi. Not doing so can be taken as a circumstantial evidence that he endorses their position. I agree that this is my personal view and there many who will not consider it as circumstantial evidence and I respect their opinion.
3) As was mentioned above the only criteria which Imam Khaminei has put forth about the so-called MI6 Shias is that they are active sowing seeds of discord amongst Shias and Sunnis. What is the opinion of Sadiq al-Shirazi about this. It is obvious that at his level it is not possible that he will use the same rhetoric as Yasir al-Habib and inspite of my scanning through his speeches I was not able to find any evidence where he cursed the Companions or Wives of Prophet (SAWW) by name like Yasir al-Habib does. But one thing was clear thathe is not a enthusiastic champion of any Taqreeb between Shias and Sunnis and I could find enough evidence for this. Look at this link which I got from his official website and is very clear about this http://www.english.shirazi.ir/topics/islamic-unity . This is extremely important and his view is that " Islamic Unity is only valid if all Muslims embrace the faith of the Ahl ul Bayt (As)". He goes on to say, ""Other than that, it is all a political scam". This is an extremely important and an unequivocal statement directly from his official website which leaves no space for any ambiguity. It is not only this have a look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PjEWPoV2lQ.
Some people may say that this is not a direct endorsement of what Yasir al-Habib is doing. What is he doing? He is openly, in public cursing and insulting the Companions and Wives of Prophet (SAWW). The key question which I think will clinch the evidence is here http://www.english.shirazi.ir/topics/cursing . The evidence is clear Ayatollah Sadiq Shirazi clearly endorses a public cursing and insulting of "enemies of Ahl-ul-Bayt" if it does not lead to ones death. Can there be a more clear endorsement of what Yasir al-Habib is doing? He is doing exactly what Ayatollah Sadiq al-Shirazi endorses in this extremely important piece of evidence.
It is well known that the late founder of Islamic Revolution designated 12th t0 18th Rabi ul Awal as "Unity Week" between the Shias and Sunnis, the Shirazis celebrate this week as "Week of Bara".
Thus if we take the criteria of Imam Khaminei as the one which designates anyone as MI6 Shias there is enough circumstantial evidence in my opinion to label Shirazis as MI6 Shias based on their clear position on Shia Sunni unity and public cursing. It should be borne in mind that what I have said here is based on UN-biased research on the topic which necessarily is not my personal opinion.

Metaphorical Labeling as anyone as MI6 Shias:

It is true that in our society much of the labelling is based neither on direct evidence nor on circumstantial evidence. As I have said above since sowing seeds of discord by public cursing is the only criteria given by Imam Khaminei as the one which qualifies someone to be labelled as a MI6 Shia this should also be the only criteria of being a MI6 Shia metaphoricaly. Thus if you see anyone actively involved in sowing discord between Shias and Sunnis he fulfills what can be called as "Imam Khaminei Criterion" for labelling anyone as MI6 Shias in his terminology. It has however become evident that in our society this criteria is not strictly followed and persons are labeled as MI6 Shias for a variety of other reasons. In fact this label is being used for anyone who in anyway does not endorse the political and religious views of Imam Khaminei. One of the classical example of this is to label persons who endorse and perform Tatbir as MI6 Shias keeping in view the clear direction of Imam Khaminei banning this ritual. Similiarly anyone who does not subscribe to the doctrine of Vilayet-e Faqih is labelled as an MI6 Shia. In my opinion this is not what we can deduce from the original criteria of Imam Khaminei. This is technically speaking not correct. This is an entirely different issue which I am going to address in my upcoming post "Who is Ayatollah Mike?".

CONCLUSION:

• The term MI6 Shias introduced by Ayatollah Khaminei should technically be used for those Shias who are against Shia Sunni Unity and endorse sowing seeds of discord between Shias and Sunnis by insulting and cursing Companions and Wives of Prophet (SAWW). 
  • Using the term in any other context like using it for those persons who don't endorse the political and religious opinion of the Leader of the Revolution is not technically correct.
  • There is enough circumstantial evidence that this term as meant by Imam Khaminei can be safely used for people like Yasir al-Habib, Imam Tawhidi, Allhayeri and as well as for Shirazis given their unequivocal opinion on matters of Unity and Public cursing.
  •