Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani

Who is the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani? The most important Shiite cleric in Iraq, a nation that is 60 percent Shiite. This means the reclusive 73-year-old leader wields a tremendous degree of influence over the nation’s future, experts say.

What are his views on postwar Iraq? Sistani has tacitly supported the U.S. occupation of Iraq and wants the members of Iraq’s transitional and permanent governments—as well as the framers of a new Iraqi constitution—chosen through direct elections. He also wants Iraq to be an Islamic state. This concerns U.S. policymakers, who would prefer a secular Iraq. “If Sistani gets everything he wants at this stage, you’ll have the Islamic Republic of Iraq up and running,” says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service.

What is the source of Sistani’s power? He is a revered Islamic thinker and one of the most respected Shiite clerics in the world. Experts say most of Iraq’s Shiite Muslims turn to Sistani for guidance on how to live their lives in accordance with Islamic law.

What kind of Islamic state does Sistani want? Sistani has said that no law in Iraq should conflict with Islamic principles, and he wants Islam to be recognized in law as the religion of the majority of Iraqis. He has not promoted an official role for Islamic clerics in Iraq’s new government; clerics play such a role in neighboring Iran. Some experts say Sistani’s religious philosophy favors creation of an Islamic state that, compared with neighboring Iran, would seem moderate. “Sistani is not a [Ruhollah] Khomeini” [the spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran], says Yitzhak Nakash, professor of Middle East studies at Brandeis University and the author of “The Shi’is of Iraq.” Some U.S. Iraq experts believe Sistani could support an Islamic state that is compatible with elections, freedom of religion, and other civil liberties, and a government that is perhaps more religious than Turkey’s, but more inclusive than Iran’s. Others are less sure.

What is the difference between Sistani’s philosophy and that of Iran’s government? The Iran revolution deepened a growing disagreement within the Shiite community over the proper relationship between religion and politics, says Juan Cole, an expert on Iraqi history at the University of Michigan. Ayatollah Khomeini was a proponent of an Islamic political theory that emerged in the mid-20th century called velayat-i-faqih, or rule by Islamic jurist. This theory backed the idea that governments with authority over Shiites should be run by religious clerics in accordance with Islamic law. A more traditional Shiite position—often called quietism—holds that clerics shouldn’t get involved in day-to-day affairs and instead should serve as an authority independent from politics. Sistani has long favored the quietist tradition.

Has Sistani expressed opinions about the occupation of Iraq? Yes. While he has not made any public appearances since the occupation’s start, he has issued guidance to Shiites about the proper response to the war and has met with visitors and issued statements from his office in Najaf, one of Shiism’s holiest cities. Members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council meet with Sistani, as did former U.N. Special Representative Sergio Vieira de Mello (who later died in the August 19 bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad). Sistani has refused to speak with L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the U.S. occupation authority; he has not given a reason for his reluctance to meet with Bremer.

What has he said? Sistani’s first statements after the start of the war were viewed as tacitly supportive of the U.S.-led effort to depose Saddam Hussein. He counseled followers that they could work with the occupiers—as long as, at the end of every conversation with them, they “would ask [the occupiers] when they were leaving,” Nakash says. “Sistani has been very, very helpful as far as the American presence in Iraq is concerned. Because of him, the insurrection has not spread to the Shiite areas.”

Sistani has also condemned some aspects of the U.S. plan to return sovereignty to Iraqis. In June, he issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, stating that the framers of Iraq’s constitution had to be elected, not appointed as favored by some governing council members and U.S. officials. In November, he issued another statement saying that elections—not a system of regional caucuses organized by the coalition—would be the proper way to select a transitional government.

What is the reaction to his statements? They are taken seriously, because losing Sistani’s support would deeply compromise the legitimacy of the coalition’s actions and could lead to resistance on the part of his followers, according to some recent press reports. Sistani’s June fatwa helped shift U.S. planning on how the constitution would be written—in effect, delaying the process so that an election could be held. His November statement has thrown the Bush administration’s latest plan to create a transitional government into doubt. The governing council and coalition must now decide how seriously to take Sistani’s call for transitional assembly elections. If they heed him, the fear is that it will set a precedent that allows a Shiite cleric the final say in politics. On the other hand, if they ignore him, “any government they put in place now will collapse after they leave,” Nakash says. “We cannot over-push the secular democratic card—we must be realistic. The government created has to reflect the will of the majority of the people.”

Why does Sistani support elections? In part because they are the most legitimate expression of the will of the Iraqi people, Sistani argues. If chosen through elections, “the parliament would spring from the will of the Iraqis and would represent them in a just manner and would prevent any diminution of Islamic law,” he wrote in his November statement. Analysts also say that Sistani appears to believe that Shiites, as the majority in Iraq, will affirm Islamic ideals if given the chance. “I think he sees democracy as a way of getting what he wants. He doesn’t fear it,” Katzman says.

Do Sistani’s recent statements indicate that he is taking a more activist approach to politics? This is the fear of administration officials and others, who believe that Sistani may be carving out a Khomeini-like role in Iraq by acting as the dominant power behind the scenes, Katzman says. He has been meeting regularly with members of groups thought to be sympathetic to Iranian-style Islamism, including governing council members affiliated with the Islamist group al-Da’wa and the Supreme Council for Revolution in Iraq. Other experts, however, say that while Sistani is speaking out more than he did under Saddam Hussein’s regime, there is little evidence that he would call for resistance from his supporters if he does not get his way. Because he is so respected, there may be little need for such dramatic steps, Cole says. “What’s more likely is that he will stand by his position and eventually, when the Americans leave, he will get what he wants,” he adds.

What is Sistani’s background? Sistani was born near the Iranian city of Masshad, a holy place of Shiite pilgrimage centered on the tomb of Imam Reza, the eighth Shiite imam. At age five, Sistani began studying the Quran, the Muslim holy book, and continued his studies as a young man in the Iranian city of Qom, according to Sistani’s website, sistani.org. His rise to eminence began when he moved to the Iraqi city of Najaf in 1952. There he studied with the some of the most important Shiite clerics of the time, including the Grand Ayatollah Imam Abul Qassim al-Khoei, a major figure in the quietest tradition. When Khoei died in 1992, Sistani was selected by his peers to head the most important hawza—or network of schools— in Najaf. He has written many books on Islamic jurisprudence, and over the years has gained a reputation as one of the top Shiite religious authorities in the world. Some 10 percent to 20 percent of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are Shiites.

Did Sistani have any rivals for leadership of the hawza? Yes, Cole says. One of the most important was Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, who was gunned down in 1999 along with one of his sons (Saddam’s forces are suspected in the murder). Sadr preferred the more activist, Khomeini-like tradition, urging underground resistance to Saddam’s rule. Sadr and other critics portrayed Sistani as a timid coward and referred to him derisively as the “silent authority,” Cole says. Today, Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, considers himself a rival of Sistani and calls on Iraqis to resist the occupation.

How are Iraqi Shiite leaders chosen? They rise by consensus through the ranks, from the level of prayer leader to ayatollah, a title awarded to those who have exhibited mastery of Islamic law and jurisprudence and have attracted many followers. The apex of the hierarchy is the marjah al-taqlid, or object of emulation. Sistani has attained the level of marjah.

What’s the role of a marjah? A marjah has the authority to interpret Islamic law and provide guidance to Shiites on day-to-day matters. All lay Shiites, Cole says—even relatively non-religious ones—have a marjah. His admonitions are often related to mundane questions of so-called personal law, such as whether a Muslim is permitted to wear perfume (yes, according to Sistani) or sell lottery tickets (no—it’s a form of gambling, Sistani says). While more than one marjah is followed in the Shiite world today, Sistani is probably the most influential, Cole says.

Is the marjah speaking in the name of God? No, Islam experts say. He is practicing ijtihad, which is defined as the competence to use independent judgment to decipher the Quran and other sacred Islamic texts. Only the most advanced clerics are awarded permission by the hawza to practice ijtihad. The interpretation of a marjah is his best judgment and can sometimes be wrong. But according to Shiite tradition, as long as the marjah gives the interpretation his best effort, Allah will forgive any error, Cole says.

Some in the west call for moderate Muslims. Some say the problem is literalist fanaticism. Some say they need a hierarchy or authority to adapt their doctrines to the modern world. Some call for people who are actually learned instead of merely rote memorizers. This guy fits every particular. He is not a literalist but believes in interpretation. He recognizes the need for interpreting authorities, rather than rule by dead letter. He has willingly supported democracy and avoided conflict with us.

The only thing anybody might refuse to accept about him is that he is a religious Muslim. If that is the problem, if that is unacceptable, then we are in the wrong business. If that is unacceptable then we are committed to destroying the Islamic faith by force, root and branch. If we are supposedly so committed, we should forget the idea of democracy and go straight to installing our own preferred tyrant in Baghdad, and turn the shredders back on. Because nothing else is going to do it.

If, instead, we mean the stuff we've been saying, then the people of Iraq are free to choose their own political future. And if they freely choose an Islamic Republic, with Islam in the constitution and judicial review by traditional qadis, then that is their business. If they later act in ways hostile to our interests, as they will be free to do, then we will deal with them again. I don't think they will, at any rate not immediately. Freedom is quite a precious thing, and people with a taste of it will tend to want to keep it.

Sometimes the only way to make a man trustworthy is to trust him.

What action can we take to lobby our lawmakers to ensure no theocracy is put in place in Iraq? I am afraid our government, in an effort to appease anti-war protestors, will pull out and leave this country to the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

I've read the Koran and it is not about peace. The only tolerance in the Koran is Allah's forgiveness to Muslims who commit atrocities against anyone deemed 'other'.

I bought the penguin press edition of the book in hopes to find passages about tolerance, peace, loving thy neighbor, and suicide as a crime. I could not find it. I was astounded at the brutality and rigidity of the book.

No nation run under Islamic law can be anything but totalitarian, brutal, and merciless.
If anyone can recommend an effective way to let our lawmakers know that any theocracy in Iraq is unacceptable, please let us know.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.