The Odd Characteristics of Najaf's Interventions in Politics
What I have found the most interesting and intriguing about the Najaf marja'iyya in post Saddam Iraq is not so much their reluctance to enter too deeply into politics, which is discussed, nor their willingness to insert themselves whenever they wish in remarkably effective ways for the most part, which is discussed as well, but rather how their sporadic interventions in political affairs are at best tangentially related to Islamic law.
If someone were to say in the abstract that there was a body of Muslim scholars somewhere in a society who were powerful but not in control of the state, nor did they want to be, who on occasion did find it necessary to put themselves in the heart of political disputes, and then asked you to predict what those disputes were, it wouldn't be hard to make intelligent guesses. The smart money guess on what those disputes would be would be on core doctrinal matters, matters that the nonscholarly Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Wahhabi clerics of Saudi take up. Interest on loans. Alcohol. The veil, or at least "respectable" clothing for women. For the Wahhabis, women driving (nobody else things of that as core, but clearly they do). I'd say homosexuality but that's pushed so far into the deepest closets and the margins already that there's no real reason for the scholars to get exercised on it.
Yet the Najaf clerics don't speak about any of these things with any real fervor. Sure they declare them to be violations of shari'a, they aren't liberalizing on such matters, but they more or less place all of these things into the category of sins that don't need to be enforced by the state or made matters of state concern. Between shaming and tribes, they've got this covered as well as they feel they need to.
So where do the Najaf clerics find themselves engaged? Opposing state largesse distributed to parliamentarians. Demanding open list elections rather than closed list elections. Criticizing school textbook treatment of Islamic history. It's not that you cannot make Islamic arguments in favor of the idea that state legislators aren't supposed to be robbing the public treasury to get lavish homes on the Tigris, it's just that there is so much else you would expect them to really focus on that is Islamic. And, most recently, as reported in the media, mediating disputes between rival Islamist parties. There has been much concern about this, with the suggestion that clerics shouldn't be in politics, but really, what in the world do Islamist parties fight about? It's not doctrine, it's more political--how seats are divided, who gets what share, if party A wants ministry X what ministry do you have to give Party B to apportion fairly. About as far removed from shari'a as you can get.
Why do they do this, when their own political allies, those forces in Parliament who seek their intervention the most, do often call on Islam to suggest measures such as bans on alcohol? Why isn't the marja'iyya involved in this too? Frankly, because it's divisive, and they don't want to be seen as divisive or sectarian, They go out of their way to suggest they represent all Iraqis, a matter I've mentioned before. They want to be seen and understood as a national symbol, appealing to all, and nothing will annoy secularists more than women's clothing campaings.
Good governance issues, however, from more open elections to limits on public wealth sent to parliamentarians IS certainly something all Iraqis care about, from the most Islamist to the most secular, in fact they are among the most important matters for Iraqis. And hence their intervention on such matters, to demonstrate they really have the public's interest in mind.
It all just goes to show, I suppose, how marginal the application of "Islamic law" is to so many facets of the discussion.
HAH
If someone were to say in the abstract that there was a body of Muslim scholars somewhere in a society who were powerful but not in control of the state, nor did they want to be, who on occasion did find it necessary to put themselves in the heart of political disputes, and then asked you to predict what those disputes were, it wouldn't be hard to make intelligent guesses. The smart money guess on what those disputes would be would be on core doctrinal matters, matters that the nonscholarly Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Wahhabi clerics of Saudi take up. Interest on loans. Alcohol. The veil, or at least "respectable" clothing for women. For the Wahhabis, women driving (nobody else things of that as core, but clearly they do). I'd say homosexuality but that's pushed so far into the deepest closets and the margins already that there's no real reason for the scholars to get exercised on it.
Yet the Najaf clerics don't speak about any of these things with any real fervor. Sure they declare them to be violations of shari'a, they aren't liberalizing on such matters, but they more or less place all of these things into the category of sins that don't need to be enforced by the state or made matters of state concern. Between shaming and tribes, they've got this covered as well as they feel they need to.
So where do the Najaf clerics find themselves engaged? Opposing state largesse distributed to parliamentarians. Demanding open list elections rather than closed list elections. Criticizing school textbook treatment of Islamic history. It's not that you cannot make Islamic arguments in favor of the idea that state legislators aren't supposed to be robbing the public treasury to get lavish homes on the Tigris, it's just that there is so much else you would expect them to really focus on that is Islamic. And, most recently, as reported in the media, mediating disputes between rival Islamist parties. There has been much concern about this, with the suggestion that clerics shouldn't be in politics, but really, what in the world do Islamist parties fight about? It's not doctrine, it's more political--how seats are divided, who gets what share, if party A wants ministry X what ministry do you have to give Party B to apportion fairly. About as far removed from shari'a as you can get.
Why do they do this, when their own political allies, those forces in Parliament who seek their intervention the most, do often call on Islam to suggest measures such as bans on alcohol? Why isn't the marja'iyya involved in this too? Frankly, because it's divisive, and they don't want to be seen as divisive or sectarian, They go out of their way to suggest they represent all Iraqis, a matter I've mentioned before. They want to be seen and understood as a national symbol, appealing to all, and nothing will annoy secularists more than women's clothing campaings.
Good governance issues, however, from more open elections to limits on public wealth sent to parliamentarians IS certainly something all Iraqis care about, from the most Islamist to the most secular, in fact they are among the most important matters for Iraqis. And hence their intervention on such matters, to demonstrate they really have the public's interest in mind.
It all just goes to show, I suppose, how marginal the application of "Islamic law" is to so many facets of the discussion.
HAH
Comments