Thanks, but no thanks - this is how Grand Ayatollah Ali Mohammad Al Sistani has responded to an invitation to visit Iran.
The invitation was conveyed to Al Sistani at his home in Najaf, Iraq, on behalf of the Tehran leadership by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a mid-ranking cleric and a former president of Iran.
Speaking at a press conference after his audience with the grand ayatollah, the Iranian visitor did not reveal why Al Sistani had refused. However, he said Al Sistani had "offered convincing reasons for declining the invitation".
The episode is of political interest for a number of reasons. To start with, we must remember that Al Sistani was born in Iran, is an Iranian citizen and holds an Iranian passport.
Although he has lived in Iraq since his teens, the 78-year old theologian had always made a point of visiting Iran at least once a year until 1979, when the clerics led by Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Tehran.
Thus, his refusal to visit Iran is a rejection of the system created by and for Khomeini. This is a position shared by millions of expatriate Iranians who refuse to visit their homeland because of their opposition to the Khomeinist regime.
Al Sistani could not visit Iran without meeting Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a mid-ranking cleric presented by the government as 'the Supreme Guide' of the entire Islamic community throughout the world.
Because he rejects that claim, Al Sistani could not call on Khamenei. Such a move would be tantamount to endorsing Khamenei's extravagant claims.
On the other hand, Khamenei could not call on Al Sistani either. Such a move would mean an acknowledgement by Khamenei of Al Sistani's status as the primus inter pares of the Shiite clergy.
A visit to Iran by Al Sistani at this time is bound to be a major political event. Recognised as the most senior Shiite cleric in the world, Al Sistani boasts millions of followers throughout Iran.
Put under house arrest in Najaf from 1989, Al Sistani had little organised contact with Iran until 2003, when the US-led coalition overthrew the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussain.
With Saddam gone, Al Sistani was able to reopen his seminary, revive contacts with Shiite communities throughout the world, and dispatch emissaries to set up offices throughout Iran.
By the end of 2008, Al Sistani had appointed emissaries to more than 800 localities in Iran, creating the largest network of any grand ayatollah.
According to unofficial estimates, Al Sistani's network now collects the biggest share of private religious donations in Iran. His offices finance thousands of theological students and run networks of social support for the poor and the needy in both Iran and Iraq.
There are several reasons for Al Sistani's success.
To start with, most Shiites regard him as the spiritual heir to the late Grand Ayatollah Abu Al Qassem Mussavi Kho'i, the last of the major Shiite theologians of the 20th century.
More importantly, perhaps, Al Sistani represents the classical quietist version of Shiism based on a strict separation of the mosque and the state.
This does not mean that Shiism should not participate in politics or should develop no political positions. What classical Shiism rejects is rule by the clergy, a theory developed by Khomeini under the slogan Velayat-e-faqih (guardianship of the cleric).
Those Shiites, perhaps a majority, who want a clergy that is independent of government, now look to Najaf as the true centre of their faith.
The official, that is to say Khomeinist, version of Shiism espoused by Iran is regarded by many Shiites as a political doctrine rather than a religious faith.
In that context, the grand ayatollahs of Najaf, with Al Sistani as their most senior figure, are seen as protectors of the faith against those who wish to transform it into an anti-West, anti-modernity and anti-democratic ideology.
Some observers are wondering why Al Sistani agreed to grant Rafsanjani an audience when he had refused a similar request from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the latter's visit to Iraq last year.
Failing to obtain an interview with Al Sistani, Ahmadinejad had been forced to shorten his visit to Iraq and cancel a tour of Najaf, Shiism's holiest of all holy cities.
Sources close to Al Sistani claim that the reason for Ahmadinejad's failure to meet the grand ayatollah was "a question of protocol".
Al Sistani was not prepared to call on Ahmadinejad at the Iranian consulate in Najaf.
Such a move would have amounted to an acknowledgment by Al Sistani of the superior status of political over religious authority.
At the same time, Ahmadinejad could not have called on Al Sistani at the latter's home either. Such a move would have amounted to an acknowledgment that the grand ayatollah's status is above that of the Islamic Republic, something that would have angered Khamenei back in Tehran.
In contrast, Al Sistani was prepared to receive Rafsanjani because the latter had no qualms about being treated like any other 'believer' wishing to see the grand ayatollah.
Al Sistani's home in Najaf is open to all and, every day, hundreds of people from all over the world call there to see the grand ayatollah and, given a chance, kiss his hand and exchange a few words with him.
Rafsanjani becomes the most senior figure of Iran to pay tribute to Al Sistani, acknowledging his position as the highest-ranking Shiite theologian at this time.
This is of special significance because Rafsanjani is also the Speaker of the Assembly of Experts, a body of 92 clerics who could dismiss the 'Supreme Guide' in Tehran.
As the power struggle sharpens in Tehran, the encounter in Najaf is bound to encourage all those in Iran who are calling for an abolition of the position of 'supreme guide' and a return to classical Shiism in which government and religion are recognised as distinct spaces.
Classical Shiism is already functioning in Iraq where Al Sistani continues to play a major role. By going to Najaf, Rafsanjani may have posed the question: If it works in Iraq, couldn't it be tried in Iran?
Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.
Your comments
Your conclusion that "Thus, his refusal to visit Iran is a rejection of the system created by and for Khomeini." is totally baseless without any facts. Islam is a system that caters to all walks of life be it spiritual or political. Your attempt to divide the clergy on biased analogies will not work as they belong to the same school of thought.
Raza Abedi
Toronto,Canada
Posted: March 11, 2009, 18:57
Now Amir Tahei is trying to push Sistani to stand against Iran as his old tried policy of trying west like America to attack Iran failed totally, and America and its allies are trying to change the policy from war to friendship.
His is dreaming of Iran without Islamic Government.
Sistani no different from Khomeini as both fight for true Islamic system, there may be some difference of opinion but overall they love Islamic system.
Syed Qurban Hussain
Dubai,UAE
Posted: March 11, 2009, 15:11
I do not think we have the right to come to conclusions on why he has declined the invitation. There could be several reasons and basing it on just a jurisprudential difference is an attempt to cause enmity and hatred between shia clergies. Mr. Taheri, being a journalist, I suggest that you do your proper research on this matter before making preposterous assumptions.
Abbas Bandali
Dubai,UAE
Posted: March 11, 2009, 14:53
who told you that Ayatullah Al Sistani rejects the concept of VILAYAT AL FAQIH?
You should correct yourself and get an understanding completely first. This article is being read by millions of poeple and you are communicating them the wrong information.
Please make a note of it.
Furqan Ali
Dubai,UAE
Posted: March 11, 2009, 13:08
its a penetrative analysis of the ground situation, which is not really known to many readers of newspapers. the difference and distinction between the political and the theological shiism is well defined and is assimilable to common readers.
Syed F. Saud
Karachi,Pakistan
Posted: March 11, 2009, 13:05
As a matter of fact I do not see any conflict between Shia clergy. Shias in both Iran and Iraq respect the religious figures whether being political or classical. This is the very first time I am hearing such a conflict between the two very renowned and respectful names in Shia Islam. I do not see any material motives behind both authorities as they both follow the same school of thought.
Ali Rizvi
Dubai,UAE
Posted: March 11, 2009, 12:28
I found this analysis very interesting.
Rob
Grand Rapids,USA
Posted: March 11, 2009, 12:08
