[Home][About Mideast Monitor] [Issues] [Search] [Mailing List] [Submission Guidelines] [Support] [Contact]
Sreeram Chaulia is a writer on global issues for the Hong Kong-based Asia Times. He has worked for international peace and humanitarian organisations in war zones and is currently purusing a PhD in Political Science at Syracuse University in New York.
In recent years, the Middle East has witnessed a pervasive assertion of Shiite political power, much to the chagrin of the region's predominantly Sunni Muslim-dominated governments. While many experts agree that the Shiite revival is likely to herald momentous change, there is little consensus as to on what direction this change will take.
One school of thought, best articulated by Vali Nasr, views the Shiite revival as a ray of hope for jumpstarting political reform in the region. Nasr argues that Shiites have become "both an objective and a subjective democratic force" – that they have embraced democracy not only as "an episodically useful vehicle" for reversing centuries of subjugation at the hands of Sunni Muslims, but also "as an idea in itself."[1] Skeptics counter that Shiites have as many anti-democratic tendencies as Sunnis and that projections of Shiite-led democratization are wishful thinking given facts on the ground. There is some validity to both arguments, but close examination reveals a more complex picture.
The idea that the religious beliefs of a given society have some influence on its receptivity to democracy is widely accepted. Hinduism's emphasis on non-violence and Christianity's emphasis on compassion and forbearance, for example, are thought to be conducive to a democratic political culture. The Catholic-Protestant schism may help account for differential rates of early democratization in Christian countries.[2] Although comparative democratization studies have tended to treat Islam as a monolithic faith ill suited to democracy, there are important, politically relevant differences between the Sunni and Shiite branches of the faith.
Shiite theology and religious practice are imbued with a profound antipathy toward tyranny. Shiites believe that the Prophet Muhammad designated his son-in-law, Ali, as his rightful successor (the term Shiite is an abbreviation of shia'at Ali, "partisans of Ali") and recognize a line of the Prophet's descendents (via his daughter, Fatima, and Ali) as infallible imams. According to the Shiite historical narrative, the authority of these imams was unjustly usurped by a succession of caliphs who led the rapidly expanding Islamic empire. In 680, Ali's son, Hussein, and a small band of his followers were killed by forces of the Ummayad Caliph Yazid in the battle of Karbala.
Hussein's martyrdom is seminal in Shiite religious identity. The first ten days of the month of Muharram are devoted completely to annual commemoration of his death, culminating in the festival of Ashura and elaborate ritualized processions of mourning and self-flagellation. More broadly, the experience of persecution under the Sunni-dominated Caliphates led Shiites to develop a lasting self-image as a persecuted minority. In contrast, Sunni Muslims recall the first century of Islam in idyllic and triumphalist terms, with Shiites cast as "rejecters of the truth" (rafidis).
While fears of Shiite revolts led medieval Sunni jurists to uphold any government as long as it maintained order and protected the Muslim (Sunni) community, Shiite jurists preached against injustice and oppression. The following passages are from Sifat ush-Shia (The Qualities of the Shia) by the tenth century theologian Ibn Babawayh, one of the so-called "four books" that relate the teachings of the imams:
[The believer] forgives him who is unjust to him, he gives to him who deprives him, and he behaves well with him who behaves ill with him . . .
He does not backbite anyone, pride himself against anyone, or oppress anyone. He shows tolerance when he is oppressed . . .
Such theological rejection of absolutist despotism did not evolve with as much depth or sophistication within Sunni Islam, a faith that spoke the language of rulers more than that of the ruled (at least until the twentieth century).
Respected ulama (religious scholars) of the Safavid period (17th century) in Iran reiterated these themes with special emphasis on the rights that subjects have against rulers. They stressed avoidance of tyranny, accountability and access of holders of temporal authority to subjects. To Mulla Baqir Majlisi,
If kings show gratitude for their power and domination and if they observe the rights of the subjects, their kingdoms will last. Otherwise, they will soon disappear. A king will remain while he is an unbeliever, but not while he is a wrongdoer.[4]
Shiite ideals of accountable and fair governance were revived by a number of prominent Shiite clerics during the time of the 1906-1911 constitutional revolution in Iran, notably Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Naini. Even secular Shiite intellectuals who employed Western ideas of constitutionalism, sovereignty of the people, and liberal democracy were carrying on the long-established tradition of dissent in Shiite Islam.[5]
Although Shiite political culture is imbued with an ethos of rebelliousness, after the first two centuries of Islamic history, revolts were generally the exception, not the rule. This is an important dialectic, as Moojan Momen explains,
Those who wish to lead the Shii masses can, if the opposition seems overwhelmingly superior or it is expedient to do so, enjoin upon the Shiis the patient endurance (mazlumiyyat) of the imams. And yet when the opportunity seems right, the Shii masses can be whipped up to the frenzy of revolution by appeal to the spirit of the uprising (qiyam) of Husayn. [6]
In other words, Shiites are driven to revolt when their spiritual leaders mobilize and urge them to, not when conditions are objectively intolerable. This leaves the dominant agency in bringing about political change firmly in the hands of the ulama, not in that of the amorphous Shiite masses.
The mainstream Usuli school of Shiite jurisprudence embodies a sharp bifurcation of the faithful into mujtahids (jurists competent to interpret divine law) and muqallids (followers), with the highest religious authority known as a marja taqlid (source of emulation). The privileged spiritual status of Shiite ulama is quite different than the status of Sunni ulama, who are essentially "religious functionaries, learned in religious matters but no different from other believers."[7]
Religious Shiites look to mujtahids for guidance on even the most mundane activities. Even the shah of Iran was "was theoretically bound, no less than his subjects, to submit to the authoritative guidance of a mujtahid and in effect to make the state the executive branch of ulama authority," notes Hamid Algar.[8] Although secular intellectuals were the driving force behind the 1906 revolution, they too found it necessary to acquire support from a critical segment of the ulama in order to win the support of ordinary Iranians.
To become a marja, a mujtahid must attain social popularity through an elaborate network of patronage that ropes in notables within seminaries and in the world of business and secular politics. Wealth and social connections, more than philosophical advancement, matters in the attainment of marja status. Charisma, oratory and ability to resonate messages with mythological memories are additional factors that go into making the legend of a marja, but these are largely facilitated by the network of disciples and marketing of image that come with possession of an immense treasury.
Whether the Shiite ulama's exalted spiritual status and financial autonomy from the state promoted democratization depends on the underlying social and political context. Those ulama who supported the constitutionalists in early twentieth century Iran were troubled less by the Qajar dynasty's autocracy than by its failure to defend the Shiite realm (and the interests of the pro-clergy merchant class) against foreign threats. Their primary concern was to preserve Iran as a "society of believers" and expand their own influence.[9] The 1906 constitution granted broad powers of oversight to the ulama, who were to act as watchdogs to ensure that all legislation was in accordance with Islamic law. Thus, while the ulama took a "progressive" stance in fighting monarchical tyranny, after 1906 they became reactionaries, ranging against modernisation and secularisation advocated by the Pahlavi dynasty. "In both cases, they were acting consistently with the preservation of their own power."[10]
While Iran's 1979 revolution is the paradigmatic illustration of Shiite Islam's anti-authoritarian ethos and the immense power of the ulama to mobilize the masses against perceived injustices, the Islamic Republic established in its aftermath highlights a dangerous paradox. As Hamid Dabashi observes,
Shi'ism is a religion of protest. It can only speak truth to power and destabilise it. It can never be "in power." As soon as it is "in power" it contradicts itself. [11]
Iran's Islamic Republic, while founded by a marja (Ayatollah Khomeini), ultimately saw the rise of an entrenched economic and security elite who sidelined the most influential ulama and "transformed the traditional structure of the seminary into a quasi-governmental institution that prevents . . . marjas who want to be independent actors from engaging in independent activities without government supervision."[12] Thus, the bulk of Shiite clerics were either 'Sunnified' into servants of the state or slipped into political (if not spiritual) obscurity. Since the death of Khomeini, the government has been concerned "not so much to spread revolution but to uphold the prestige of the state."[13]
Nevertheless, for all of the institutional deficiencies in Iran, the Iranian people participate in elections, believe in the efficacy of their votes to affect politics, and have grown to understand the fundamental logic of democracy far more than most Sunni (and all Sunni Arab) countries. The vast majority oppose velayet-e-faqih (guardianship of the jurisconsult), the theological basis of the Islamic Republic. In no other Muslim country except Shiite Iraq has the public rejected clerical rule as strongly as in Iran.
Female subordination in Muslim countries is often said to contribute to the Islamic democracy deficit, as patriarchical relationships in the family and community reproduce themselves at the political level. Shiite Islam is somewhat more conducive to egalitarian gender relations than orthodox Sunni Islam. Divorce and inheritance laws, for example, are less discriminatory toward women under Shiite sharia (Islamic law).
As Nasr illustrates, "Shiism celebrates the strong characters and bravery of female figures in a way that has no parallel in Sunnism."[14] Particularly noteworthy in this regard is Imam Hussein's sister, Zaynab, who bore witness to his martyrdom at the battle of Karbala (AD 680) and helped secure the survival of his infant son (and the line of imams descended from him). Her mother, Fatima al-Zahra (the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad), is also highly revered by Shiites as a sinless, perfect human being (insan al-kamil).
The centrality of such heroines to the symbolic repertory of Shiism has "served as a means for empowering women and helped to promote a sense of gender-specific identities for women."[15] Lara Deeb's study of gender relations among Lebanese Shiites shows how the exemplar of Zaynab inspires many women to volunteer with social service organizations, seek formal employment, and participate in debates and dialogues about community development.[16] Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, the most influential Shiite cleric in Lebanon, cites Fatima's example of participation in public affairs, which is said to include lessons and lectures to both men and women in schools and mosques:
All the reports of her socio-political activities show us that it is absolutely possible for women to enter the social and cultural life. Therefore, there is no obstacle for a woman to become a mujtahida and for people to follow her taqlid (model of imitation).[17]
Shiite history records other notable mujtahidas. Iranian Ayatollah Hossein Mazaheri (a hardline conservative) recently pointed out that the daughter of Majlisi was both "a scholar and a mujtahida" and hailed her intellect, albeit in a slightly demeaning parable about marriage (she married his student, Saleh Mazandarani):
It is said that once Mazandarani was unable to solve a question of jurisprudence. When he came home and referred it to her, she was able to give a learned reply to the question![18]
Perhaps the most famous contemporary mujtahida was Amina al-Sadr (commonly known as Bint al-Huda), the sister of the late Iraqi Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr. When the latter was arrested in 1979, she gave a fiery speech in the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf calling on the people to demonstrate, sparking riots that forced the regime to release him (significantly, when the secret police arrested and executed him the following year, they made sure to eliminate her as well).
Whether Shiite women in practice enjoy substantially more freedom than Sunni women is debatable. If one compares Iran and Saudi Arabia – two countries where Shiite and Sunni fundamentalists have been relatively free to impose whatever restrictions on women they see fit – the former clearly comes out on top (e.g. Iranian women can drive and vote, Iran has had a female vice-president),[19] but there are many intervening variables that help account for this, such as the legacy of Pahlavi rule. Sunni women are more liberated than Shiite women in Lebanon, but this may be because they are far wealthier. Although honor killings in Arab countries appear to be an almost exclusively Sunni franchise, domestic violence against women is rampant among both sects.
Shiite and Sunni attitudes toward tolerance of other faiths also differ substantially. According to Stephen Schwartz, Shiites "have never sought to impose their dispensation on the whole of the Islamic world community, nor have they attempted to impose theological conformity within their own ranks."[20]
Schwartz's claim is somewhat overstated – there have been instances of Shiite rulers abusing Sunni minorities (e.g. in Iran) and certainly a great deal of Shiite repression of the Baha'i faith (a sect that broke away from Shiite Islam). Nevertheless, one discerns a general trend among Shiite authorities to abjure aggressive violence against Sunnis and non-Islamic faiths. When Shiites have taken up arms against non-Shiites, it has not been to impose their religious beliefs or cleanse the land of "unbelievers."
Nasr and others have argued that the empowerment of Iraqi Shiites following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 is a positive force for democratization in the region. There are several components to this argument.
Many Westerners and Iraqis alike predicted that the collapse of Baathist rule would arrest the decades-long decline of the Najaf hawza (seminary) relative to the Iranian hawza in Qom and restore its rightful place as the preeminent center of Shiite theology, weakening the influence of Iranian theocratic authoritarianism in the process. "If there is freedom in Iraq, many [students] would go to Najaf. Qom would be lessened as a place of scholarship," Sayyid Fadlallah of Lebanon remarked hopefully in 2003.[21]
Established in the eleventh century, the Najaf hawza was by far the most influential Shiite seminary until the establishment of modern Iraq in 1921 (it had enjoyed semi-autonomous status under Ottoman rule). Decades of oppression at the hands of Sunni rulers led to its eclipse in favor of the Qom hawza, which is barely a century old. Even so, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Najaf had by far the largest international following of any Shiite marja at the time of the regime's fall, despite having been under house arrest for years.
According to one estimate, nearly 80% of Shiites worldwide follow Sistani and contribute between $500 million and $700 million annually to his network.[22] Nasr maintains that "many more Iranians recognize Ayatollah Sistani as their religious leader now than did before 2003, and many more now turn their religious taxes over to him."[23]
At the time of the Iraqi regime's collapse, the conventional wisdom was that Sistani would adhere to the traditional quietist approach to politics and restrict his influence to providing values and guidance for social order (nizam al-mujtama). Sistani's mentor, the late Ayatollah Abol-Qassem Khoi, personified this tradition, and his own career as a mujtahid appeared to follow in Khoi's footsteps. Although Sistani clearly had little choice but to avoid political activism under Baathist rule, after the fall of Baghdad he publicly disavowed a political role and made clear his preference that clerics not serve in government.[24]