Iran, it seems, is experiencing a textbook case of conflict between the aggressive and absorptive power of the secular state and religious authority.
In today’s Financial Times, Najmeh Bozorgmehr reports that Iran’s highest ranking cleric is getting sideways with the officially Islamic regime in Tehran, a symptom, perhaps, of clerical unhappiness with the tendency of the modern state—especially those that claim religious sanction—to become the sole arbiter of all dimensions of society, including the sacred dimensions.
The particular issue is narrowly legal. Grand Ayatollah Hosein Vahid Khorasani has told his students that self-incriminating confessions made under the duress of imprisonment are not valid. This bears on the controversy surrounding a woman condemned to be stoned to death after confessing to having engaged in an adulterous affair.
There are doubtless many subtle undercurrents at work in Iranian society and politics. But it is a mistake, I think, to try to plot this episode (which is not the first—this summer the clerical establishment spoke out against the claims by the Iranian regime to define Islamic law) according to a secular left/right distinction between “reformers” and “hardliners.” And indeed our policy wonks consistently make this mistake.
The larger issue, it seems to me, is classical and has a long history in the West: Who will speak for God? Just as the church faced a aggressive secular power during the medieval investiture controversy, a power that wanted to draw to itself all authority, both worldly and otherworldly, the Iranian clerics must reckon with a secular state that wants to maintain its legitimacy by claiming sacred sanction, which, at the end of the day, will tend toward gaining control over the mechanisms, institutions, and authorities who rule on questions of the sacred.
As I said, this is not a progressive vs. conservative issue. Instead, it’s a sacred vs. secular issue. Or more precisely, the clerical assertion of independence reflect an essentially conservative move, if by conservative we mean modern conservatism’s commitment to limited government. For the secular sword is limited, restrained, and humanized precisely to the degree that it is prevented from taking control of the sacred. When Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Emperor Henry IV during the investiture controversy, he was saying, in effect, “The things of God you cannot control!” It was a crucial first step toward limited government.
Here’s hoping Grand Ayatollah Hosein Vahid Khorsani says the same.
December 30th, 2010 | 11:18 am
Iranians don’t see a division between secular and religious as you do. It would be nice if writers on Iran had actualy visited there at least once.
December 30th, 2010 | 12:25 pm
While the former may be true (no secular/religious split), the latter is an absurdity. Should one refrain from writing on heaven or hell if one has not visited there at least once?
December 30th, 2010 | 1:06 pm
Yeah Hass, you have no idea what you are talking about. Traditional Shiism (the majority religion of Iranians) actually sees religious authority as being distinct from political power (partially b/c it views temporal power as corrupt/corrupting).
The velayat-e faqih system in Iran is an innovation and abomination of the 20th century (although the seeds probably lay in the scholarship from the Safavid-era onward), which a large part (maybe even a majority) of the Shiite world does not follow. Ayatollah Sistani is an example of the ‘Quietist’ Najaf school in Iraq, and Ayatollah Shariatmadari (the junior, imprisoned) in Iran.
Besides religious Shiites who reject the Islamic Republic’s official system, there are also millions of Westernized secular people who see a division. It would be nice if ignorant commentators did not generalize for all Iranians.
The one good thing about the Ahmadinejad government is that it will CRUSH the clergy (although it is my sincere hope followers of the Najafi school will carry on traditional Shiism in Iran) associated with the regime, as they are a parasitical class who must be cleansed from the body politic.
December 30th, 2010 | 1:22 pm
Hass is an agent of Iranian government.
There is almost no iranian that wants any sort of religion in the state. Sure if you go to Iran and talk to people they may say something else, but there is a reason for that: they don`t like to be raped, tortured, and killed by people like Hass.
Things are changing rapidly and secular movement will write the history of Iran in the next decade. Islamic religion is doomed in Iran as more and more people can see that Islam has nothing with Iranian culture (islam is violent and Iranian culture is civilized).
December 30th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
Sorry, its Ayatollah Boroujerdi who is the most vocal advocate of Quietism today in Iran(again, keep in mind that velayat-e faqih and political Islam are modern innovations, not in any way traditional). Quietism effectively advocates something like secularism (although there are differences), not to mention the millions of Iranians who are secular in the modern sense of the word.
December 30th, 2010 | 1:42 pm
Until Iranians say no this Barbaric Faith and the jebbrish Tazy book, they won’y have Freedom. Islam and Democracy cannot co-exist.
December 30th, 2010 | 1:49 pm
I read the FT article, but I think it is exaggerating. These kinds of differences are inherent in the Shia system of Marja’iyya, in which every Marja’ is entitled to his own views (as far as they’re not considered radical like Ayatollah Sanei’s case), and only the people who choose to follow him, have to practice his decrees. So other Marja’s don’t have to abide by Ayatollah Khamenei’s views (unless they start to actively undermine the state, e.g. by speaking to the media and entering politics), and the Islamic Republic generally understands this. There are Marja’s who oppose the Velayat-e Faqih principle, and they have been teaching their rationale at the seminaries for years.
Considering the fact that Ayatollah Vahid has told this to his students (and not to a media outlet), IMHO there’s no significance in this news. That’s been happening for years. Just ask some seminary student in Qom.
December 30th, 2010 | 2:05 pm
Ramin,
Can you elaborate on how did you find that Hass is an agent of the Iranian government? Furthermore, how do you know that “There is almost no iranian that wants any sort of religion in the state”? I’m an Iranian living in Iran and I know a lot of people who want a larger role of religion in the state. There are also many people who are secular.
One has to consult opinion polls to understand what most Iranian people really want. A Zogby poll in 2005 and another WPO poll in 2008 found out that almost two-third of Iranians are either satisfied with the status quo or want a larger role of religion in the state (I can provide the links if needed).
Probably you don’t believe such polls since you claim that Iranians fear to say what they believe. Well, based on my observations I don’t agree with you, and the results of these polls are almost consistent with what I see here, but I’m curious then of what other objective means you have, to find out what Iranians really want.
December 30th, 2010 | 3:05 pm
Mahmood,
Exactly what planet are you from? And where did you get these statistics?
People in Iran are so afraid that they won’t even get in to political discussion in a taxi cabs anymore, and if they do, get out of the cab far before they reach their destinations.
So please you know as well as I do that these statistic don’t mean anything. The last election clearly showed what people of Iran want, and that is a secular government, but as we all know we Iranian have a funny way to express ourselves. If 2/3 of Iranians are happy, then there would be no need to cheat people out of their votes.
December 30th, 2010 | 4:19 pm
Manouchehr,
First, my name is Mohammad, not Mahmoud.
Second, here are the polls I mentioned about the religious/secular argument:
Zogby 2005: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1147
WPO 2008: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/609.php?nid=&id=&pnt=609 (Download full report for complete results)
Third, you mentioned the last year’s election. I challenge your assumption that Ahmadinejad was not going to win. Western polling agencies performed several opinion polls before and after the election, all of which pointed to his 56%-66% vote. There is no published poll by a Western organization which concludes otherwise (I’m citing Western polls because they can’t be accused of not being impartial in the Iranian election). Here are them:
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT Iran Survey Report 0609.pdf
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639
http://www.ipacademy.org/news/general-announcement/209-iran-lebanon-israelis-and-palestinians-new-ipi-opinion-polls.html
GlobeScan also did another opinion poll just before the election, whose complete report I couldn’t find but the last poll (IPI) cites it and says that 56% had told GlobeScan that they were going to vote for Ahmadinejad.
There’s also an analysis of these polls here:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php?nid=&id=&pnt=652&lb=brme
So fraud might have happened (I’m not sure) but Ahmadinejad was probably going to win anyway. I didn’t vote for him, and I preferred Mousavi over him (I voted for neither), but I believe that he was genuinely elected (unfortunately).
Fourth, these polls don’t necessarily mean that most Iranians are ‘happy’. It’s more complex than that, and depends on how you define happiness. For example, the last poll (IPI) like most other polls, has found that a majority of Iranians are unhappy with their economic status.
Fifth, we should not overestimate the security climate when assessing Iranians’ responses to these polls (The last link I provided above also discusses this issue). There have been cases that Iranians were willing to answer very sensitive questions against the will of the government; for instance see this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2008/iran-080309-voa01.htm
December 30th, 2010 | 4:44 pm
I think I posted a comment on the main topic, but it seems to have not been submitted correctly. So I try to type all that again.
I think that FT has exaggerated the story. Such differences are inherent in Shia system of Marja’iyya: Every Marja’ is entitled to his own views (unless they diverge too much from mainstream Shia, like Ayatollah Sanei’s case) and only the people who have chosen to follow him are expected to observe the decree. So neither Ayatollah Vahid can expect Ayatollah Khamenei’s followers to follow his decree, nor the government expects that the Marja’s don’t express their religious findings among their students. There are several Marja’s who oppose the very principle of Velayat-e Faqih (which is the cornerstone of the Islamic Republic) but their opposition is confined to their classes in the seminaries (unless they become politically active, e.g. speak to the media on mainly political issues which are not related to religion, again as Ayatollah Sanei’s case)
This is in no way something new, and such differences between Marja’s have been around for centuries, including after the revolution, and the Iranian government generally understands this. It resembles academic difference. That’s no secret; just ask some ordinary seminary student in Qom (e.g. students of Ayatollah Shobeiri Zanjani).
So IMHO, there’s nothing significant in this event which can be dubbed as ‘news’. With due respect to the blog post author, the analysis offered is not valid since this is more a sacred vs. sacred issue, since government officials are also required to follow their own Marja’ (which in most cases is Ayatollah Khamenei himself).
December 30th, 2010 | 7:11 pm
Mohammed’s intervention is helpful, and it’s a good reminder of how difficult it is for a relatively uninformed observer like me to interpret events.
That said, I do believe that the modern (essentially Western) nation state, which has been adopted by Islamic societies, will of its nature tend to absorb religious authority into itself. Last summer, for example, the Financial Times reported a controversy between scholars in Qom and the Revolutionary Guard. The issue was the claim by the Revolutionary Guard that non-clerical Muslims could make judgments about the Islamic integrity of Iran. In other words, secular power was expanding to encompass (and streamline and make more useful for nationalist purposes) the mechanisms of religious authority, which are based in piety and learning, not the sorts of skills that allow one to wield political power.
Thus I want to reemphasize my main point. A liberalized view of secular power in Iran may come, not from Western notions of human rights, which, while accurate to some degree, tend to lack social weight, but instead from a growing awareness by religious authorities that they need to distance themselves from the Leviathan of the nation state in order to protect the integrity of their religious authority.
December 30th, 2010 | 7:18 pm
Mohammad,
I lost interest in this discussion right about when you said Ahmadinejad, legitimately won or would have win the election.
However, everyone’s opinion must be respected
Good luck
December 30th, 2010 | 7:50 pm
IT is known that the Islamic Republic of Iran has hired agents who know some English to post on boards and on various parts of the internet to spread their propaganda that “Iranians and the regime are one”.
Someone came on here claiming to be an Iranian who loves Iran and said it is “clear” that Ahmadenijad won refusing to acknowledge various elements of the Islamic Republic who have defected overseas have detailed how the fraud occurred.
On the other end, I would call Iranians what you would call “fake Muslims”. Majority of Iranians are not religious at all and while they may call themselves Muslim in the way most Americans call themselves Christian. The vast majority of Iranians (80-90%) want a completely secular government and over 90-95% are against the regime. This ranges from normal everyday people to taxi drivers. This is coming from someone who has spent considerable time in Iran in the recent past.
Iranians are a freedom loving people who have learned the mistakes of the Islamic Revolution; and will never, ever again return to a religious government and demand nothing more than freedom, democracy, human rights, and a separation of religion and politics.
December 31st, 2010 | 11:48 am
siss,
I wish you and Manouchehr would argue in a more responsible way, specifically addressing the points I raised.
I am not an Iranian government agent; I’m an ordinary Iranian student studying software engineering at Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, and I doubt that the Iranian government has the sophistication to recruit English-speaking people to comment on a not-so-known-in-Iran website (which is blocked in Iran anyway, and I’m using Tor anonymizer as a proxy to view here).
I wish that people (on both sides) would argue in a responsible way, instead of name-calling. On any contentious issue (like the allegations of fraud in Iran’s election), the only way to arrive at facts is to consider all available evidence, hearing both sides of the controversy, and deciding based not on personal preferences, but on objective facts, as inconvenient as they would be.
I don’t expect readers to unconditionally accept what I say, but I ask them that they rely their observations on the most objective sources and consider both sides’ arguments before coming at a conclusion. Even if the conclusion is not the same as mine, that would be the better way.
December 31st, 2010 | 12:04 pm
siss,
Also I forgot to mention that contrary to what you said, I had not claimed that it was ‘clear’ that Ahmadinejad won. I just claimed that Ahmadinejad was probably the true winner, regardless of whether any systematic fraud happened or not.
One more point about the Zogby poll I mentioned: The link I provided says that “Nearly equal percentages of respondents want Iran to become more secular and liberal (31%) as want the country to become more religious and conservative (36%).”
I had originally read the story in a 2005 Reader’s Digest issue, and what I said (two-thirds either satisfied with the status quo of religion’s role or wanting a larger religion role) was from my memory. The link I found on Zogby’s website does not mention the percentage of the people who want Iran to remain as religious/secular as it is today, and it doesn’t mention the remaining 33%’s opinion. So I may have to consult the RD issue again (if I can find it!) to be sure, but still if one assumes that most of the remaining 33% were the people satisfied with the status quo, my two-thirds estimation remains almost valid.
At last, sorry for my numerous, long comments! I tried to contribute to the debate as much as I could.
December 31st, 2010 | 4:36 pm
Any poll taken in Iran is flawed by its very nature and is not scientific. Those who want freedom are scared to respond to their feelings due to the oppressive nature of the Islamic Republic and how such people are prosecuted, tortured, and jailed.
There is no possibility Ahmadenijad was the “winner”. NO POSSIBILITY.
What type of sophistication does it take to post on message boards??? Sites are blocked but not for their agents. What a ridiculous claim.
Speech by Former Interior Minister Detailing Election Fraud Released:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/12/mohtashamipour.html
I personally love Ahmadenijad; he is the biggest gift for the freedom movement. He has single handedly weaked the IRI. Khatami kept the regime strong for 8-years along with their relations with Europe. Now all of Europe and the international community is against the IRI.
More evidence; Iranian diplomats defecting due to election fraud:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/13/world/main6862333.shtml
You share some of my Ahmadenijad’s tactics my friend; to “discuss” this issue such as discussing whether the Holocaust “really happened or the extent of it” when it is fact. There is no real discussion or “debate” with solid, verifiable and undisputable facts. These are such tactics people like you use with such events as mentioned. Other sorts of discussions you would probably like to debate would be “who was behind 9/11″…right?
Such dubious tactics are the trademarks of such people and don’t deserve real discussion rather it provides an insight to your mindset of defending the Islamic Republic when it is clear that the vast majority of Iranians want to live in a free and democratic society which values secularism, freedom, human rights, free press, and the values of being a human being on this planet. Iranians are good people who have learned the mistakes of the past 30-years and as a student of history, we can conclude that such regimes cannot and will not exist once their time has passed and people demand freedom; regardless of the blood that is shed. The only question is how long it will take and how much more blood will be shed but I am confident a free Iran is in the very near future (within the next couple of years).
January 8th, 2011 | 3:46 pm
[...] R. R. Reno on whether Shia Islam in Iran is about to have an Investiture Controversy moment. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact