Ali Al-Sistani: The George Washington of Iraq?
Dave Price
At the uncertain beginning of our nation’s experiment in democracy, we were blessed with the rare gift of popular leaders whose every action was not defined by their ambitions. Though he might have held the office indefinitely, after serving two terms as President of the United States George Washington stepped down, and Thomas Jefferson followed his lead, creating a powerful precedent that continued to be observed informally for a century and a half, and was eventually codified as Constitutional law.
As Iraq endures similarly uncertain democratic beginnings, they too are blessed with a popular leader who eschews high political office that could easily be his. In fact, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has not only not sought office for himself, he has directed all Shia clerics to avoid political office as well. In the current campaign for the December 15th elections, he has gone so far as to refuse to endorse any political party or coalition. In what is certainly one of the greatest ironies in the endeavor to democratize the Mideast, Iraq’s most powerful cleric is also its leading secularist.
Of course, Sistani has not been entirely apolitical; he was the most strident advocate of holding early elections in Iraq, to the point of forcing the Coalition Provisional Authority to change its plans. The idea that Iraq would become a theocracy was a common meme of the antiwar commentariat throughout 2004, and Sistani’s leadership was instrumental in preventing that outcome. He advocated that Iraqis approve the democratic constitution in the recent referendum. Again, one is struck by the irony that the leading proponent of democracy in Iraq is the man who would probably rule were it to become a theocracy.
Sistani’s leadership in other areas has been equally auspicious. He has consistently called for restraint in the face of hundreds of deaths inflicted by Sunni suicide bombings intended to provoke a Sunni-Shia civil war. When he has disagreed with coalition policy, he has advocated peaceful, democratic means to achieve his ends. At every turn, he has advocated the path that seemed best for Iraqis rather than that which would accrue power to himself or the Shia clergy.
Perhaps in part because of his moderation, Sistani has received relatively little media attention in the West. But the contrasts to the man who is (unfortunately) the Muslim probably best-known to the West are striking. Where bin Laden advocates a fascist world Islamist state, led by religious leaders like himself, Sistani issues fatwas for a democratic Muslim society, where religion and state leadership are kept at arms length. Where bin Laden preaches mayhem and violence, Sistani urges restraint and dialogue. In the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims, Ali al-Sistani is the anti-Osama bin Laden.
As Iraq endures similarly uncertain democratic beginnings, they too are blessed with a popular leader who eschews high political office that could easily be his. In fact, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has not only not sought office for himself, he has directed all Shia clerics to avoid political office as well. In the current campaign for the December 15th elections, he has gone so far as to refuse to endorse any political party or coalition. In what is certainly one of the greatest ironies in the endeavor to democratize the Mideast, Iraq’s most powerful cleric is also its leading secularist.
Of course, Sistani has not been entirely apolitical; he was the most strident advocate of holding early elections in Iraq, to the point of forcing the Coalition Provisional Authority to change its plans. The idea that Iraq would become a theocracy was a common meme of the antiwar commentariat throughout 2004, and Sistani’s leadership was instrumental in preventing that outcome. He advocated that Iraqis approve the democratic constitution in the recent referendum. Again, one is struck by the irony that the leading proponent of democracy in Iraq is the man who would probably rule were it to become a theocracy.
Sistani’s leadership in other areas has been equally auspicious. He has consistently called for restraint in the face of hundreds of deaths inflicted by Sunni suicide bombings intended to provoke a Sunni-Shia civil war. When he has disagreed with coalition policy, he has advocated peaceful, democratic means to achieve his ends. At every turn, he has advocated the path that seemed best for Iraqis rather than that which would accrue power to himself or the Shia clergy.
Perhaps in part because of his moderation, Sistani has received relatively little media attention in the West. But the contrasts to the man who is (unfortunately) the Muslim probably best-known to the West are striking. Where bin Laden advocates a fascist world Islamist state, led by religious leaders like himself, Sistani issues fatwas for a democratic Muslim society, where religion and state leadership are kept at arms length. Where bin Laden preaches mayhem and violence, Sistani urges restraint and dialogue. In the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims, Ali al-Sistani is the anti-Osama bin Laden.
You've made the point manifest: time after time after time he has come out in favor of moderation, of restraint, of democracy, of unity.
You're right that if he wanted to he could probably call for--and cause--a bloody and horrible civil war. He could destroy Iraq's hope for a better future. He might even make himself chief ayatollah of an Iran-style Shia theocracy, and he refuses to even step into that direction.
I have said a few times that I don't expect any Iraqi Jeffersons or Franklins or Washingtons to step forward, but you know what? I may have been wrong.
Not a very Jeffersonian insight, I'd say.
Well, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. His philosphy was apparently always more or less secularist, but that was when there was little chance for him to wield power (Hussein wasn't big on sharing). The fact he's become a leading proponent of democracy is telling.
Neutral toward America is also fine. If he were anti-American he'd be sponsoring the insurgency rather than opposing it.
We should be "led to believe" what the evidence so clearly shows us by his actions--what he could have done, and what he did do instead.
Freedom House isn't enthusiastic about him either. According to Freedom House, Sistani supports apartheid Sharia laws.
Sistani is strongly in favor of the blasphemy laws that have been so useful to Middle Eastern despots in squelching political reform. He declares that the ruling on those who "slander Allah, the Prophet, the Imams, religion or schools of law (madhhab)... is death." This penalty could be imposed on any Muslim who "slanders," that, is criticizes, an Imam's interpretation of the law, as has occurred in Iran and Afghanistan.
In such an environment, any political debate, any challenge by a Muslim to a particular interpretation of Islam, could bring a death sentence. This is what happened to Sudanese reformer Mohammed Taha, perhaps the country's most famous religious teacher, and a devout Muslim, who called for debate about the role and content of sharia.
While Osama is a violent, non-diplomatic supporter of these apartheid laws, Sistani is a non-violent diplomatic supporter of these laws. In Iran, the Mullahs run things. In Saudi Arabia, religious leaders don't govern directly. Both are Islamist states that follow apartheid laws.
While Osama is a violent, non-diplomatic supporter of these apartheid laws, Sistani is a non-violent diplomatic supporter of these laws
Yes, but that's an extremely significant difference. It's the difference between people like Osama and people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc. Do I agree with the views of either? No. But the latter I can coexist with.
Perhaps the truest test of Sistani's principles will come when Iraqis challenge and defeat those laws through the democratic process.
I hope they do. If there are a lot of Iraqis like the brothers at Iraq the Model, they may.
The question is whether Sistani is a political liberal irrespective of his social and religious conservativism. So far the answer appears yes.
Has he run for office himself? No. Has he endorsed any candidates or party? No.
You know, there were fire-and-brimstone baptists who made Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson look like limp-wristed liberal pansies who supported the US Constitution AND were major movers and shakers behind the 1st amendment.
He's on the right side of all the big issues. He may be an 18th century man but he's distinctly forward-looking for one.
Islam divides things into pak (pure) and najis (unclean). Al Sistani lists "ten things are essentially najis." They include blood, shit, piss, dead bodies, pigs, dogs -- and infidels (kafir). Even the tears of an infidel, if he eats pork, are unclean.
Islamic theologians debate who exactly is a kafir, and especially whether the term applies to Christians and Jews. Sistani has a fairly humane interpretation of Islam. He believes Christians and Jews may be pak, not najis. Then again, they may not be. Because of the uncertainty, he advises, "it is better to avoid them."
.. I can't see him as being forward looking or liberal. I have no respect for the man.
Unlike Sistani, the Iraqi people do seem to understand George Washington's ideas, and they've show than through their defiance of terrorists threats. People often unite under a religious banner to fight tyranny, and, when tyranny has lost, they lose some of their interest in the dogma. If democracy is a success in Iraq, we can thank the Iraqi people, not Sistani.
Well, your own link says he agrees they may not be untouchable. And Christian preachers say all the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc., are condemned to hell, so six of one...
I wouldn't call Sistani liberal, but he is secularist and he is principled, and he has been the most important force for democracy and peace in Iraq.