LOS ANGELES: The war in Iraq has produced an unintended consequence — a formidable Shia Muslim geographical bloc that will dominate politics in the Middle East for many years. This development is also creating political and spiritual leaders of unparalleled international influence.
It is easy to see the Shia lineup. Iran and Iraq have a Shia majority, and so does Bahrain. In Lebanon, Shias are a significant plurality. In Syria, although they are a minority, they are the dominant power in government. They are the majority in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia and have a significant presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
The United States is used to thinking of the world in terms of individual nation-states. But the Shias are a transnational force. The United States has unwittingly supplied the key linkage for this bloc by destroying the secular government of Saddam Hussein. That brought that country’s Shia majority to the fore, creating a solid line of Shia-dominated nations from the Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea.
This force is magnified because devout Shia followers have a primary loyalty to spiritual leaders rather than secular officials. Shia leaders are organized, well-funded and set up to provide charitable aid, health care and social welfare, a notable weakness in the organization of US occupation forces thus far.
On May 19, more than 1,000 Shia protesters marched in Baghdad to protest the American presence in Iraq. The crowd cried “No, no for America! Yes, yes for Al Hawza!” The Hawza is the influential council of religious leaders, in the city of Najaf.
The strength of the Shia community lies in its independent and dynamic leadership. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, 112 million of whom are Shias.
The Imam Ali Foundation, run by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, perhaps the most revered Shia religious leader, provided the following explanation on the role of the spiritual leader: “You do what the (leader’s) expert opinion says you should do, and refrain from what his expert opinion says you should refrain from, without any research on your part. It is as though you have placed the responsibility of your deeds squarely on his shoulders.”
A spiritual leader is also well-financed by his followers. Most ayatollahs run extensive charitable organizations. The combination of financial resources and untrammeled influence over their followers makes the religious scholars very powerful men.
Fortunately, most spiritual leaders are responsible to a fault because misuse of their authority is tantamount to blasphemy. The Hawza assembly called for by the Baghdad protesters is needed because ayatollahs are in competition for authority and influence. The council helps provide a unified voice for the community of believers.
This does not entirely prevent rivalry, especially in Iraq, where a number of ayatollahs are returning from decades of exile. The latest is Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, who has a military group, the Badr Brigade, at his beck and call. A rival to Hakim is Muqtader Sadr, whose father, Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq Sadr, was assassinated by Saddam Hussein in 1999. Muqtader Sadr is charismatic and is set to inherit his father’s mantle eventually. There is also Mohammed Fartusi, who runs Muqtader Sadr’s operations in Baghdad. Fartusi was probably the organizer of the May 19 protest.
Sistani, as the most revered leader, has enormous influence. He seems to favor the politics of balance, giving him effective control over the Hawza.
A few savvy officials in the Bush administration hope that Ayatollah Sistani will serve as a stabilizing force in the reconstruction period. However, they should not be too sanguine about this.
Sistani is committed to Shia rule in Iraq and has indicated that he is losing patience with American occupation. The loyalty of his followers could make him one of the most powerful spiritual and political figures in the world.
The Bush administration, as well as the US Congress, has become nervous about the obvious power demonstrated by the Shias in Iraq in the last few weeks.
The administration cannot seem to wean itself from the idea that states have primacy of power. Therefore it continually makes the conceptual error that if the Shias become strong in Iraq they will be “controlled” by the established government in Iran.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Iranian government is not benefited in any special way if the Iraqi Shias come to power. In fact, the Iranian religious figures are disadvantaged by the rise of the influence of Najaf.
Most ayatollahs disagree profoundly with the philosophy of rule by religious figures promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. They all opposed him when he came to power and will have no qualms about continuing their opposition to this philosophy from Iraqi territory.
In fact, the Shia community will become a threat to the United States only if Washington tries to disenfranchise it and deny it the right to elect leaders for Iraq. At that point the Shias would resist the United States fiercely. They have no intrinsic hostility to the United States, only to American interference in their community affairs, which seems to occur with alarming regularity. (Beeman teaches anthropology and is director of Middle East studies at Brown University) —Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) Los Angeles Times