A Great Question

One of the important problem that i am reminded of for an Islamic rule is posed by current Iranian crisis. Even though situation is very specific to Iran and Twelver Shi'ism the lesson can be passed on any theocratic government. At the heart of the conflict in Iran lies quite an important ideological question, a question which has split the clergy and the faithful.

The question is thus - is ultimate authority over affairs of the state lies with God or with Ummah (The people). And if we believe it is with God, will that state need a religious ruler. And if God is to give guidance through a spiritual ruler, who will make sure the ruler is just and not a tyrant.

Now, Twelver Shi'ism differs from the Sunni tradition in a handful of important ways — not only in its belief in who was the legitimate heir to the Prophet Muhammad's leadership of the community of the faithful after his death, but also in its attitudes toward political authority and devotion. But one of the most important differences is the Shi'ite tradition's unique practice of ijtihad — the use of independent reasoning to pass new religious rulings. This is absent in Sunni tradition which limits possibility of political adaptability of Islamism to politics.

That much is clear is the very history of the Islamic Republic. In the early 1970s, Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini deviced a new model for Shia government. Khomeini was a marja al-taqlid (a model of emulation), and he interpreted the Koran and Hadith to conclude that God had decreed for Islamic government — in the absence of the Twelfth Imam, who would return one day in the messianic tradition and launch his own reign of justice. Khomeini called this vision of the clergy being given authority over governance "velayat-e faqih", or guardianship of the jurist. This religious ruling is frowned upon by "traditional" ayatollahs, who advocated withdrawal of clergy from politics - so called quetism; to this school Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq belongs. Because of its position of non-interference most of the queitist clergy was sidelined during the time of Islamic revolution, and was of no importance to ideological machine of Iranian Khomeinist state. However a more politically active "liberal" clergy also existed in Iran - from the time of 1906 revolution, clergy that empowered women, - to this school Grand Ayatollah Montazeri belongs.

How to deal with Iran

Iran as a state always confounds observation - a modern state, religious theocracy with popular yet limited democracy; a state of multiple identities or no identity at all. Islamic Republic of Iran. It is Islamic yet Republic, and Aryan and Persian speaking too. Ultimately it is a state and society which has always frustrated others. Ottomans first, then Russians, French and British - and now the West in general - they were all frustrated in their plans to subjugate the peoples of Persia. Yet Iran, soaked in Shia religion and Persian culture is not a monolith; the gaps between many Irans show well during the times like these.

Old Persian strenght lay in ability to frustrate plans, complicate, scheme and plot against others. Persian state's survival against odds and bravery is admirable. I will not mention democracy, Israeli and Western fears of today, for this is irrelevant to this profoundly un-Europoean state.

Right now, as Aryanist and Shia clergy hybrid Iran stands against a great aspiration of Eurasian political and economic continuum. This aspiration is for Turkish domination in Eurasian space in a distant yet achievable future; it is not a dream of Pan-Turkist nutter. The duel between Russia, Turkey and the West will need to be mediated by peoples of Iran and ultimately will decide the fate of all Muslims.

Iran is a dual state of Turkish and Persian identity. Turkish nation of Iran are not a minority like Kurds or Lurs but coeval founder of Iranian selfhood. Evolution of political and religious thinking in this direction will accomodate varios strands of Iranian society and integrate it back into Turkic-Persian Muslim cultural space. Seljuk Empire of Modernity could be born.

It also needs to be tanglibly demonstrated that Shia religion and Iranian state are not identical twins, as is shown now within the political system of Iran. The falsehood of clerical order build after the Revolution is a mockery of all Shia aspirations to free will, since the times of Imams. Once both Turkish and Persian strands of Islam are integrated, the divide of Islam, which Arabs are unable to cure will be healed over.

Iran needs to end its isolation from the Muslim and Western world and Turks of Iran are instrument to achieve it. Without necessary destruction of geographical space of Iran, the meaning of "Iran" may be profoundly changed.

Shah Abbas

I have attended an exhibition in British Museum - another one in series devoted to great rulers of the past.

This major exhibition explores seventeenth-century Iran through the reign and legacy of one of its most influential rulers, Shah 'Abbas I (reigned AD 1587–1629).

Abbas reign, with its military successes and efficient administrative system, raised Iran again to the status of a great power. 'Abbās was a skilled diplomat, tolerant of his Christian subjects in Armenia and Georgia when it suited him. He sent many embassies to Italy, Spain and England in order to create a pact against the Sunni Ottomans, of which the author of the book on Abbas i am reading at the moment delights in telling.

His power was more absolute than that of the sultan of Turkey. While the sultan was limited by the dictates of Sharia law as interpreted by the chief ulama, the Shia Safavids were not so limited. Theirs was a theocracy in which the shah, as representative of the hidden imam, had absolute temporal and spiritual powers. He was called the Morshed-e Kamel ("most perfect leader") and as such could not do wrong. Ismail I, the founder of the dynasty, used this power to his advantage claiming divinity as "incarnation" of the Hidden Imam. Abbas was more moderate in his demands on Islam but being the arbiter of the spiritual law put him in a position when his very real piety (he walked barefoot for 2 months to a place of pilgrimage) was hard to distinguish from his also real zest for sex with boys and wine drinking.

I mainly blame Abbas for wholly Persianizing the state of Iran, for from then on Turkish identity of Iran as a Qizilbash state was finally forsaken. History could have had a different turn, and Iran could have been Turkicized (or as Azeris may say - Azerisized). I also blame ShahnAbbas for finally weakening Ottoman Turkey and saving Christian Europe from her mortal foe. Europe never returned the favour, of which Iranians - who have great sense of history - are quite aware.

The Night of Power

In the name of God, the Benevolent, the Merciful.1 Lo! We revealed it on the Night of Predestination.2 Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Night of Power is!3 The Night of Power is better than a thousand months.4 The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees.5 (The night is) Peace until the rising of the dawn.

Laylat al-Qadr (Arabic: لیلة القدر) (also known as Shab-e-Qadr), basically the Night of Decree or Night of Measures, is the anniversary of two very important dates in Islam that occurred in the month of Ramadan. It is the anniversary of the night Muslims believe the first verses of the Qur'an were revealed to Prophet Muhammad.


One of the many devotional pictures showing unusually the face of the Prophet and Family. This picture represents the prophet Muhammad in the middle, with his veiled daughter Fatima on his left hand side, his cousin and son in law on his right hand side, and his two grandsons, Ali's og Fatima's sons, Hasan (in green) and Husayn (in red). "The holy family" or "the Holy Five" has a high position among all Muslims, but particularly among Shia Muslims. Behind Muhammad stands an angel (Gabriel) with the Quran in his hands. for the angel Djibril was the one who brought the first revelation to Muhammad on that very night, the night of Power. In this picture, like in many other representations of Ali, he holds in his hands one of his characteristics, the double pointed sword Dhu 'l-Faqar.

Two Dark Days

There is a certain feeling that makes Ashura a special day here – black flags, atmosphere of subdued conversation and lack of shallow entertainment on TV. This year in Azerbaijan, Ashura takes on another meaning as it coincides with a recent tragendy – Baku massacres of 1990.

Kerbela and the martyrdom of Imam Hussein posesses a great power in the psyche of some Muslims- the Shia community, specifically. The death of Prophet's grandson takes an almost cosmic significance of an eternal struggle of Good and Evil, which takes place everyday inside and outside of any human soul. In a way – as Shia say - the whole World is Kerbela and everyday is Ashura – which is not taken to mean literally that everyday is a day of mourning, but only that everyday this eternal struggle is being waged. A struggle between Day and Night, Ahuramazda and Ahriman, God and Satan.

Some consider Ashura - an eternal mourning for a person who died 1300 years ago - a meaningless event and threatening in a very barbaric way. But in reality it is very static; despite an opportunity to mobilize crowds and take them towards revenge on Yazid, and - like in modern Iran - to relate it to yodays conflicts waged against Muslims in Palestine and beyond, Ashura stays strangely apolitical. Ashura mourners are passively resigned to the fate of eternal defeat and of perpetual injustice, which had been dealt on them and would stay this way until the day of Reckoning. They weep instead, madly, hysterically - just like they danced on a wedding a month before. What starts from a passion play moves to float in a river of tears, to culminate in chest-beating, ululations and self-mutilation amongst most fanatical (though strictly prohibited). Some of these events are frenzied outpourings of uncontrollable emotion which is beautiful to watch. No acid, drink or drugs – just people letting themselves reach an emotional crescendo of humility and self-effacement.

Mourning is usually a time for a reflection and to see how a thousand years of it can affect a nation. Our Shia psyche elevated what most certainly was a grave tragedy of Black January (I still remember blood on the streets and Russian soldiers taking people to be shot) into a cosmic nation-defining catastrophe. A sort of secular Ashura, with Armenians and Russians being our Yazids. We have to mourn twice this week.