Religionization of politics in Iran: Shi’i seminaries as the bastion of resistance

Abstract

Four decades after the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a wealth of scholarship exists detailing the failures and achievements of the ruling clergy. Such lines of inquiry explore not only the economic, political and foreign policies of the clerical establishment, but also the performance of the ruling clergy in the religious sphere. However, an important matter that has attracted scant interest is the ruling clergy’s policies regarding the Shi’i traditional orthodoxy, that is, their fons et origo. Reminding readers that governmental-Shi’ism emerged as a marginal discourse within the Shi’i seminary in the 1970s, this paper explains how the ruling clergy waged a calculated campaign aimed at transforming the flexible, pluralistic and independent nature of the traditional orthodoxy into a system dependent upon the state and submissive to its government-centric reading of Shi’ism. We argue that the ruling clergy have succeeded in establishing and making state-sponsored institutions important players in the seminary and Shi’i establishment. However, they have failed to abolish the traditional orthodoxy in which distance and independence from the state have remained foundational features.

Keywords:

• Governmental-Shi’ism
• Shi’i seminary
• Iran
• traditional orthodoxy

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 ‘Traditional orthodoxy’ refers to those members of the clergy loyal to the centuries-old Shi’i tradition of keeping its distance from the state apparatus. This segment of the clergy is depicted as ‘quietist’ in the relevant literature; R. Brunner, ‘Shiism in the Modern Context: From Religious Quietism to Political Activism’, Religion Compass,vol.3, no.1, (2009), pp.136–153; J.-P Filiu, 'The Return of Political Mahdism', Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, vol.8, (2009), pp.26–38; D. Hermann, 'Political Quietism in Contemporary Shi’ism: A Study of the Styasat-i Mudun of the Shaykhi Kirmani Master ‘Abd Al-Riḍa Khan Ibrahimi', Studia Islamica, vol.109, no.2, (2014), pp.274–302, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43577570; N.R. Keddie, Religion and politics in Iran: Shi’ism from quietism to revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press 1983); P. Smyth, 'The battle for the soul of Shi’ism', Middle East Review of International Affairs, vol.16, no.3, (2012), pp.1–20. However, we maintain that while they are – and have always been – engaged in politics, their political modus operandi has been subtle. In other words, it has not aimed to take over the state apparatus.

2 We use the terms ‘ruling clergy’ and ‘governmental-Shi’ism’ to respectively refer to the adherents and discourse that emerged in the 1970s and claim dominance in Iran today.

3 Marja’-i taqlid is the highest-ranking authority in Twelver Shi’i community, and the words and deeds of those who have reached this level serve as a guide for believers who are unable to exert independent reasoning (ijtihad).

4 These are all newly developed notions. Since Shi’i jurisprudence has never been in charge, state apparatus, topics related to the governance has never included in the Shi’i jurisprudence. But his expectation is that maraja’ should have conceptualised and added these new dimensions to Shi’i jurisprudence.

5 H. Rahimpour-Azghadi, Full text of speech by Rahimpour-Azghadi in Faydiyya school [Matn-e khamel-e sokhanan-e rahimpour-Azghadi dar madraseh faiziyyah] (2018), https://bit.ly/2CoDOtQ.

6 B. Gholipoor, Insurgence of ‘revolutionary’ seminary against ‘Purity’ seminary [Toghyan-e howzeyeh elmiyyah enghelabi moghabel-e howzeyeh elmiyyah taharat] (2019), https://bit.ly/2MDUoJM; Y. Mirdamadi, Qom experiences strife between ‘secular jurisprudence’ and ‘revolutionary jurisprudence’ [Qom dar keshakesh-e figh-i secular va fiqh-i enghelabi (2018), http://www.bbc.com/persian/blog-viewpoints-45314046.

7 A number of Khomeini’s pupils secretly founded this first and only structured clerical organisation in Qom in 1961. Today, it is the most powerful organized group of clerics in Iran’s seminaries whose members often assume powerful positions in the state. JMHEQ is also the leading patron of the state in the seminary, and plays a decisive role in how state resources are distributed in the seminary.

8 M. Yazdi, A Grand Ayatollah Is Chastised For Meeting With Reform-Minded Politicians, 28 October 2018, https://bit.ly/2Wg8bdJ.

9 J. Faroughi, Yazdi’s letter to Shubairi-Zanjani: Leader’s message and trivialisation of Shi’i Marja’iyyat[nameh Yazdi be Shubairi-Zanjani: Payyam-e rahbar va ibtizal-e marjaiyyat-e shi’a] (2018), https://www.dw.com/fa-ir/iran/a-46074114.

10 A.J. Newman, Twelver Shiism: unity and diversity in the life of Islam, 632 to 1722 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013), p.4.

11 The main branch of Shi’ism (Ithna ʿashari, or the twelve Imams) purports that the right to govern was directly given by God to the twelve Imams, Imam Ali and eleven of his descendants, and are believed to be infallible. As a messianic figure, the twelfth Imam, Mahdi, is believed to be living and is expected to return to form a just government

12 R. Khomeini, Book of Leader V.21 [sahifeh Imam: Jeldeh 21], (Tehran: Moasseh Tanzim va Nashre Asare Imam, 2006) p.279.

13 M. Khalaji, ‘Islamic Republic of Iran and the new order of clerical establishment’ Iran Nameh [Journal of Iranian Studies], vol.24, nos. 2 and 3, (2008), pp.1–36.

14 H. E. Chehabi, ‘Religion and Politics in Iran: How Theocratic Is the Islamic Republic?’, Daedalus, vol.120, no.3 (1991), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20025388; M. Kadivar, Testing the Revolution and the Regime with Ethical Criticisms: Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Rouhani, Slander and Marja’iyat [Enghelab va nezam dar buteh naghd akhlaghi: Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Rouhani, mobaheteh va marjaiyyat] (Durham: Self-published e-book, 2015).

15 N. Ghobadzadeh and L.Z. Rahim, ‘Electoral theocracy and hybrid sovereignty in Iran’, Contemporary Politics, vol.22, no. 4 (2016), p.455; A. Kazemi Moussavi, Religious authority in Shi'ite Islam: from the office of mufti to the institution of marja' (Kuala Lumpur: International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization, 2007); A, Mehregan, ‘Multivocality in Shia Seminary’, Sociology of Islam, vol.5, no.1, (2017); A. Shirkhani and A. Zareh, Transformations in the Qom Seminary after the victory of the Islamic Revolution [Tahavollat-e howzeyeh elmiyyah Qom pas az pirouzi enghelab-e islami] (Tehran: Markaz-e Asnad-e Enqelab-e Eslami, 2005).

16 M.H. Semati, ‘Theory of resource mobilization and the Islamic revolution of Iran’ [Nazariyyeh basij-e manabe va enghelab-e islami], Law & Political Science, vol.35, no.0, (1996).

17 A. Ashraf, ‘Bazaar-Mosque Alliance: The Social Basis of Revolts and Revolutions’, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, vol.1, no.4, (1988); ‘Union system, civil society and democracy in Iran’ [Nezam-e senfi, jamei madani va democracy dar Iran], Goftogu, vol.4, no.14 (2006); J. Foran, Fragile resistance: social transformation in Iran from 1500 to the Revolution, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993).

18 M. Mozaffari, ‘Why the Bazar Rebels’, Journal of Peace Research, vol.28, no.4, (1991).

19 M. H. Pourghanbar, ‘Formation of Islamic Motalefeh’ [Shekl-giri moutalef-e eslami], Journal of Historical Sociology, vol.6, no.1 (2014), pp.45–71; R. Roohbakhsh, The role of Bazar in the 15 Khordad uprising [Naghsh-e bazar dar ghiyam-e 15 khurdad] (Tehran: Islamic Revolution Documents Center, 2002).

20 A Husseiniyaha is a congregation hall for Shi’i commemoration of the martyrdom of Imam Husay ibn Ali, the third of the Twelve Imams who was killed by Sunni Umayyad Caliph Yazid I on 10 October 680 CE.

21 A. Sreberny-Mohammadi, ‘Small media for a big revolution: Iran’, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, vol.3, no.3 (1990).

22 One informal certificate is issued at the advanced level by seminaries, an ijtihad permission statement, indicating a person is capable of independent reasoning and would be primarily used to assist jurists to build their reputations. For further discussion see A.A. Velayati, Shiʿa’s role in Islamic and Iranian culture and civilization (Tehran: Amirkabir, 2010), pp.84–90.

23 A. Furati, Clergy and politics: issues and outcomes [Rouhaniyyat va siyasat: masail va payamadha] (Tehran: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thinking, 2011), p.40.

24 M. A. Kadivar, 'The Ayatollahs and the Republic: The religious establishment in Iran and its interaction with the Islamic Republic', New Analysis of Shia Politics, vol.6, no. 28 (2017), pp.6–9. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Rfej6q

25 M. Khalaji, Balancing Authority and Autonomy: The Shiite Clergy Post-Khamenei (Washington: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2016).

26 R. Isaniya, Independence of the Islamic seminary and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran [Estighlal-e howzeyeh ilmiyyah va doulat-e jomhouri islami Iran] (Qom: Academy of Islamic Sciences and Culture, 2016), p.158.

27 A. Shirkhani, ‘The process of the development of the Supreme Council and Management of the Seminary’, Payame Hawza, vol.1 no.1, (1992) p.8.

28 A. Khamenei, Speech delivered during a meeting with the learned jurists of Qom seminary [Dar didar be jamie az fuzalayeh howzeyeh immyyah Qom] (1992), http://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=2587.

29 With the establishment of this Supreme Council, the previous management body, the Council for the Management of the Qom Seminaries, automatically ceased to exist.

30 The reference to maraja’ is made in a loose way so as to facilitate the claim that plans benefit from their overall contribution and support, while in practice engaging only a small number of acquiescing maraja’.

31 For the complete charter see Iran Data Portal, Charter for the Supreme Council of the Seminary (1995), http://irandataportal.syr.edu/charter-for-the-supreme-council-of-the-seminary.

32 For detailed discussion about these institutions and their activities see Furati, Clergy and politics [Rouhaniyyat va siyasat: masail va payamadha]; Furati, ‘The nature and features of seminary political knowledge’, Siyasat-e muta'aliyya [Danesh siyasi howzavi, seresht va mokhtasat-e un], vol.1, no.1 (2013), pp.97–126.

33 M. Moghtadai, Imam Khomeini’s wilayat-i faqih course will be taught in the seminary [dars-e wilayat-i faqihe Imam Khomeini dar howza tadris mishavad] (2010), https://bit.ly/2VdtjkG.

34 A. Khamenei, The Leader's meeting with clerics, teachers, school managers and students of the Qom seminary [Didar be jamie az ulama va asatid-e va mudiran-e madares va tollab-e howziyyah ilmiyah Qom by rahbar-e enghelab] (2010), http://farsi.khamenei.ir/news-content?id=10345.

35 N. Makarem-Shirazi, ‘Grand Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi’s view on the seminary and response to the new demands’ [Hawza: pasukh be niyazha az negaheh Ayatollah al-uzma Makarem-Shirazi], Pegah-e Hawza, vol.7, no.38 (2003).

36 A. Javadi-Amoli, ‘Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli’s view on the only way to Islamise the universities’ [Tanha rah-e islami kardan-e daneshgahha az didghaeh Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli] (2010), https://bit.ly/2VqqOeT; A. Khamenei, Speech in meeting with university professors [Didar be jamie az ulama va asatid-e va mudiran-e madares va tollab-e howziyyah ilmiyah Qom by rahbar-e enghelab] (2009), http://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=7959; A. Khamenei, The Leader's meeting with clerics (2010), http://farsi.khamenei.ir/news-content?id=10345; M.-T, Mesbah-Yazdi, Mesbah-Yazdi’s critique of university textbooks (2012), https://bit.ly/2QhCjl2.

37 Discussion about these differences falls beyond the scope of this article. For further discussion see S.A. Hairi, ‘There has been scientific growth in Najaf and scientific decline in Qom’ [Najaf rushd va Qom uft-e elmi dashte ast] (2017), https://fa.shafaqna.com/news/357251/; M.B. Irvani, Differences between Najaf and Qom seminary [Tafavothay-e howziyyah Qom va Najaf] (2014), https://bit.ly/2QdBxFr; S. Mervin, ‘Introduction’ in S. Mervin (ed.), The Shi'a worlds and Iran, (London: Saqi, 2010), pp.9–26.; Smyth, ‘The battle for the soul of Shi'ism’.

38 H. Rahimpour-Azghadi, full text.

39 M. Motahhari, F. Arshad and H. Dabashi, ‘The fundamental problem in the clerical establishment’ in L.S. Walbridge (ed.), The most learned of the Shi'a: the institution of the Marja'i Taqlid, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp.161–182.

40 H. Modarressi Tabataba'i, Crisis and consolidation in the formative period of Shi’ite Islam: Abu Ja'far ibn Qiba al-Razi and his contribution to imamite Shi’ite thought (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1993), pp.10–15.

41 N. Calder, ‘Khums in Imami Shii jurisprudence, from the tenth to the sixteenth century A.D.’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol.45, no.1 (1982), pp.39–47.

42 Khalaji, ‘Jomhori-e Islami va nazm-e novin rohniyat’ [Islamic Republic of Iran].

43 R. Isaniya, Independence of the Islamic seminary and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran [Esteghlal-e mali howzehayyeh ilmiyyah] (Qom: Academy of Islamic Sciences and Culture, 2016) pp.194–197.

44 Navvab quoted in M. Shafiei, ‘Financial independence of the seminaries’ [Esteghla-e mali howzihayyeh ilmiyyah] in A. Furati (ed.), The Clergy and the Islamic Revolution II [Rouhaniyyat va enghilab-e islami jelde 2], (Qom: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thinking, 2015) p.139.

45 N. Makarem-Shirazi, ‘State is indebted to seminary’ [Howza az doulat talabkar ast] (2019), https://www.dw.com/fa-ir/iran/a-47093071.

46 S. Gieling, ‘The "Marja'iya" in Iran and the Nomination of Khamanei in December 1994’, Middle Eastern Studies, vol.33, no.4 (1997), p.781.

47 Quoted in Mohammadi-Rayshahri, M. Khatereha: Mohammad Mohammadi Rayshahri [Memories: Mohammad Mohammadi Rayshari (Tehran: Islamic Revolution Documents Center, 2004) p.306.

48 As a jurisprudential principle, the emulation of a dead marja’ is not permissible. When a marja’ dies, his emulators must shift their adherence to a new marja’.

49 JMHEQ, What is the Opinion of JMHEQ about Sheikh Sanei's Marjaiat? (2010), http://www.jameehmodarresin.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1595.

50 S. Golkar, ‘Clerical militia and securitization of seminary schools in Iran’, Contemporary Islam, vol.11, no.3 (2017). DOI:10.1007/s11562-017-0384-8; M. Khalaji, ‘Iran's Regime of Religion', Journal of International Affairs, vol.65, no.1 (2011), pp.131–147; M. Yazdi, Establishment of a confidential commission monitor religious treatises[Tashkil-e comisiyon-e mahramaneh nezarat bar resaleha] (2011), https://bit.ly/2MjqLxn.

51 S. Kholdi, ‘The Hedging Mullah: A Historical Review of the Clergy's Struggle for Hegemony and Independence in Modern Iran’, Constellations, vol.17, no.1 (2010). DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2009.00584.x.

52 Mervin, ‘Introduction’.

53 M. Khalaji, The last Marja: Sistani and the end of traditional religious authority in Shiism (Washington, D.C: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2006) pp.6–7.