Wilayat al-Faqih: Notes on Iran, a Shi’a 'Leader Cleric', Islamic Caliphate, And Other Things
It is not a new concept in Islamic history, but it is new to the Shi’as. All rulers of the Islamic State after Prophet Mohammed called themselves Ameer al-Mumineen (Commander or Leader of the Faithfu), even though many of them were not very commanding or even faithful to the Faith. That was their official self-given title, including the Turkish Ottoman rulers who did not enjoy much support outside Asia Minor. They also called themselves the Caliph (Khalifa, or successor to Prophet Mohammed).
They were mainly faithful to their own power and clan, although in the process some of them expanded the state. The exception to this sorry lot were the first four Caliphs (Khalifas) who immediately succeeded Mohammed: Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali.
Shi’as are traditionally programmed to be critical of the ruler, to watch him carefully, and occasionally to rebel against him if he is deemed oppressive. Being continually oppressed and mistreated helped cement this sense of injustice and rebelliousness over the centuries. This has been the state of mind of the Shi’as since the first Umayyad monarch (Mu’awiya) usurped power and took over the Caliphate about 1345 years ago, making it a hereditary monarchy.
This idea of a ‘leader cleric’ as introduced by Khomeini is new, and it is probably not supported by most Shi’as, especially outside Iran. I certainly do not support it, but then I am against any role for clerics of any faith in any government anywhere in the world. Even the most senior Shi’a cleric in the world, Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Najaf (Iraq), does not seem to support it.
This concept puts the leader of a Shi’a state dangerously close to the absolute monarchs or lifetime dictators who rule most of the Arab world. There are some major differences: a leader cleric does not enrich himself as the absolute monarchs and dictators do and, very important, he does not hand over power to his son. Also, theoretically the ‘leader cleric’ can be overthrown.
Recent events in Iran have shown that the ‘leader cleric’ has to be above the political fray to maintain his credibility. Otherwise he will seen as something close to an absolute monarch. Ayatollah Ali Khamenai did not do that, and may have dealt a critical blow to the whole new concept of Wilayat al-Faqih.
(Note1: most Arabs and many Muslims have believed in the concept of ‘leader cleric’ simply by believing in the rule of a Caliph. Even many of the fundamentalist Sunnis who criticize the Khomeini concept publicly long for the Ottoman Caliphate, which had a not-so-faithful Turkish ‘civilian’ assume the role of the ‘leader cleric’. So, the idea that this is a new concept in Islam is not true: it is only new in Shi’a Islam)
(Note2: to the reader: this is a quite accurate assessment of these terms and currents, although I am an economist and did not study Islamic jurisprudence beyond high school (secondary school), except from my own readings. Everybody these days dabbles in religion, from American adulterous Southern senators and clerics to Arab journalists and absolute monarchs, so why not me).
Cheers
mhg
Mon Email
Comments