A SMOKING SCHISM?
AMIR TAHERI
NY Post
October 5, 2003 --
EVER since the liberation of Baghdad, many people had expected it: a theological duel between the two "seminary cities" of Najaf, in Iraq, and Qom, in Iran, over the leadership of the world's estimated 200 million Shi'ite Muslims.
The first moves in the duel have come from Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani in Najaf and Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi in Qom.
The issue that triggered it is neither theological nor political, but one of lifestyle: Does Islam permit the smoking of tobacco?
The question was put to the two clerics by the Iranian Students Association, a Tehran-based pro-reform movement. The answers show the two clerics to be poles apart in their understanding of theology and the role it should play in a Muslim society.
Sistani is the primus inter pares of Iraqi Shi'ite theologians. Under house arrest through much of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and thus prevented from communicating with Shi'ites outside Iraq, Sistani was unable to use his position as the senior mullah of Najaf to project his vision of Shi'ism. With Saddam gone, he is now free to pursue his goal of rebuilding Najaf's position as a center of Ijtihad (theological rulings.)
Sistani was a pupil of the late Grand Ayatollah Abol-Qassem Khoi, regarded by many as the greatest of Shi'ite theologians of the last century. Khoi preached a quietist version of Islam and emphasized personal piety as opposed to political militancy. He insisted that clerics should not seek political power, but act as arbiters between state and society.
Shirazi is one of six mullahs appointed by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei as a collective "source of emulation" (Marja'a al-Taqlid).
He first made his name in the 1970s by claiming that Shi'ite theologians did not pay enough attention to the Koran, the Muslim fundamental text, and the hadiths, or sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad. He also criticized the Shi'ites' passion for visiting "holy shrines," many of them in Iraq. Shirazi's position prompted a charge of "Wahhabism" from his critics.
The rival fatwas on smoking reveal not only two schools of Ijtihad, but two visions of the role of religion in society.
Shirazi states categorically that smoking tobacco in any form and under any circumstances and by anyone is a sin. He uses the Koranic term haram (forbidden).
For Shirazi, anyone who smokes a cigarette could be regarded as "engaged in rebellion against Allah." It would be incumbent on every believer and the authorities of the state to restrain smokers and, if they persist, punish them.
The nature of the punishment is not spelled out. But, since imprisonment does not exist in classical Islamic jurisprudence, the punishment envisaged could either be flogging in public or death.
Shirazi bases his position on verse 195 of the surah, "The Cow," in the Koran, which tells Muslims not to lead themselves to destruction. (The verse has hitherto been interpreted as urging believers not to take suicidal action in war.)
Shirazi's style of Ijtihad belongs to a school that emphasizes al-naql (dogma) as opposed to al-aql (reason). Shirazi's fatwa is long, peppered with obscure theological terms and Arabic quotations, and thus not easily accessible to a majority of Shi'ites, especially Iranians who do not understand Arabic.
Sistani's fatwa is short and to the point: It states that smoking is not forbidden as such, but anyone who knows that it is harmful to his or her health should refrain.
Sistani does not bring the Koran, the Prophet and the imams into the debate. He regards the issue of smoking as one to be settled by human reason, medical knowledge and individual choice - not theological anathema and interdict. For Sistani, in most issues concerning human existence, "reason" must prevail over dogma.
The two schools of Ijtihad could lead to two different forms of social and political organization.
Shirazi uses words such as "must" and "obligatory": This means that the clergy should exercise authority over society through edicts that leave no room for individual choice and judgment.
That position is based on the claim that a majority of the faithful are incapable of knowing right from wrong: They are the mustazafeen (the enfeebled ones), who need the intercession of the clergy to avoid the fires of hell.
Shirazi's ideal society is ultimately Platonist: the government of the learned over an ignorant populace. Its Khomeinist version is known as walayt al-faqih, which means rule by the theologian.
Sistani, by contrast, uses such words as "recommended" or "preferable." He casts the clergy into the role of "ethical counselors" of society. The ultimate decision is made by the individual on the basis of his own reason, the most precious gift from God to man.
Sistani's vision is ultimately Aristotelian. His ideal society is one in which rulers are ordinary, but pious citizens.
Because the concept of an intercessor is alien to Islam, Sistani rejects the idea that an individual could escape the consequences of his deeds simply by following the clergy.
There are other differences between the two schools. Shirazi bases his fatwa on an interpretation of the past. Sistani, however, urges attention to the present and future state of medical knowledge.
For Shirazi, every issue under the sun is theological. Sistani, however, recognizes public and private spaces in which theology intervenes by invitation only, and then as one voice among many. In his view, science, politics, literature, art and culture in general are autonomous categories, not mere branches of theology.
More importantly, Sistani rejects the concept of "infallibility" (ismah) that, though alien to Islam, is a cornerstone of the Khomeinist claim to power.
The liberation of Iraq and the re-emergence of Najaf as a center of Ijtihad is the best news that Shi'ism has had for more than half a century.
Competition between Najaf and Qom could enrich Islamic theology and benefit both centers. This is one duel that should be welcome, because it is one of ideas.
E-mail:
amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/604 http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/7269.htm