Handbook of

Islamic Sects and

Movements

Edited by

Muhammad Afzal Upal

Carole M. Cusack

LEIDEN | BOSTON
Contents

Notes on Contributors xi

Introduction: Islamic Sects and Movements 1

Carole M. Cusack and M. Afzal Upal

Part 1
Sunnī Traditions

Introduction to Part 1 23

1 Sectarianism in Sunnī Islam 25

Ronald Geaves

2 Tablīghī Jamāʿat 49
Zacharias Pieri

3 The Muslim Brotherhood 73

Rickard Lagervall

4 The Gülen Movement: Between Turkey and International Exile 86

Caroline Tee

5 The Islam Nusantara Movement in Indonesia 110

Hisanori Kato

6 Nahdlatul Ulama (NU): A Grassroots Movement Advocating Moderate

Islam 129
Faried F. Saenong

7 Women and Islamic Movements 151

Eva F. Nisa
viii Contents

Part 2
Shīʿa Traditions

Introduction to Part 2 179

8 Imāmiyya Shīʿa (The Twelvers) 181

Mohammad Fazlhashemi

9 Zaydism 203
Najam Haider

10 The Ismāʿīlīs and Their Traditions 235

Farhad Daftary

11 The Dāʾūdī Bohras (Mustaʿlī Ismāʿīlī Shīʿa)

Using Modernity to Institutionalise a Fāṭimid Tradition 255
Jonah Blank

12 The Alevīs and ʿAlawīs 279

Yvette Talhamy

13 The Heyʾati Movement

Charismatic Preachers, Politics and Youth Culture 305
David Thurfjell

Part 3
Fundamentalisms and Extremists

Introduction to Part 3 331

14 The Citadel of Salafism 333

Joas Wagemakers

15 The Taliban 348

Jon Armajani

16 Ḥamās: The Islamic Resistance Movement 379

Shaul Bartal
Contents ix

17 Hizb ut-Tahrir: Dreaming of Caliphate 402

Meerim Aitkulova

18 Ungoverned or Alternatively Governed Spaces in North-Eastern Nigeria

A Critical Exploration of Boko Haram’s Ideological Motif 421
Benson O. Igboin

19 From Identity to Militancy: The Shīʿa of Hezbollah 445

Steven Childs

20 The Faizrakhmanisty: The Islamic Sect as a Social Problem in

Russia 458
Kaarina Aitamurto

21 Theology of Violence-oriented Takfirism as a Political Theory: The Case

of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) 485
Emin Poljarevic

Part 4
Ṣūfism and Its Influences

Introduction to Part 4 515

22 Ṣūfism 517
Marta Dominguez Diaz

23 Javād Nūrbakhsh and the Niʿmatullāhī ‘Khaniqahi’ Order 543

Milad Milani

24 Subud: An Indonesian Interpretation of Ṣūfism 568

Antoon Geels

25 René Guénon and Traditionalism 589

William Rory Dickson

26 Ṣūfism and the Gurdjieff ‘Work’: A Contested Relationship 612

Carole M. Cusack
x Contents

Part 5
In Between and on the Fringes of Islam

Introduction to Part 5 635

27 The Cultural Genetics of the Aḥmadiyya Muslim Jamāʿat 637

M. Afzal Upal

28 The Nation of Islam 658

Edward E. Curtis IV

29 The Moorish Science Temple of America 673

Fathie Ali Abdat

30 The Ansaaru Allah Community 694

Susan J. Palmer

31 The Druze 724

Hussam S. Timani

32 Yezidism 743
Victoria Arakelova

33 The Bahāʾī Faith 761

Lil Osborn

Index 775
 Chapter 8

Imāmiyya Shīʿa (The Twelvers)

Mohammad Fazlhashemi

1 Introduction

Shīʿa is one of the earliest branches within Islam. Shīʿa Muslims today make up
a sizable minority among the Muslims around the world (about 15–20% of all
Muslims). They are spread throughout the Muslim world, but in most coun-
tries, they have a minority position. The exception is countries such as Iran,
Iraq and Lebanon, where Shīʿa Muslims make up a majority of the population.
Shīʿa theological traditions and institutions have developed in parallel with the
Sunnī-dominated theological tradition.
The shaping of Shīʿa within Islam goes back to a con��ict over the succession
after the death of the prophet Muḥammad. Just after he died in 633, a struggle
began between his closest followers that would prove to be of great signi��-
cance for Islam, for the future development of the Muslim realm, and for cre-
ation the tradition of Shīʿa political ideas. The power struggle concerned who
was to succeed Muḥammad as leader of the Muslim community. No one could
succeed him in his capacity as divine messenger since Muḥammad, according
to Islamic doctrine, was the last messenger: “Muḥammad is not the father of
any man among you, but a messenger of God, and the seal of the prophets; and
God is knower of all things” (Qurʾān 33:40).
One of the parties in the con��ict over Muḥammad’s successor thought
that the role should be ��lled by one of his oldest followers, in this case, Abū
Bakr, who belonged the small band of Muḥammad’s closest men. Opposition
came from a group who claimed that the leadership should remain within
Muḥammad’s family. Muḥammad had no sons, so leadership would pass to his
cousin ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalib (600–661), who was married to Muḥammad’s daugh-
ter Fāṭima (Lambton 1981: 219). According to Shīʿa historical sources, when
Muḥammad returned after his last pilgrimage to Mecca, he proclaimed to a
large group of assembled Muslims that he had appointed ʿAlī as his successor.
This claim is challenged by the Sunnī.
Those who supported ʿAlī’s candidacy were called ʿAlī’s Party, Shīʿat ʿAlī, from
which we get the name Shīʿa. The Shīʿa movement was thus motivated by rever-
ence for the prophet Muḥammad’s household, ahl al-bayt, in particular for his

© Mohammad Fazlhashemi, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004435544_010

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
182 Fazlhashemi

cousin ʿAlī, his wife, and their children. Shīʿa Muslims viewed Qurʾānic verses
as a support for their reverence for the Prophet’s household, for example:

do not display yourselves after the manner of the days of ignorance; and
establish prayer, give the poor-rate, obey God and His messenger. Verily,
verily God intends to keep o�f from you (every kind of) uncleanness O,
you the people of the House, and purify you (with) a through puri��cation.
Qurʾān 33:33

Hence, the household of the Prophet were those who were closest to him and
the most pure, providing an example for Muslims to follow and obey. The Shīʿa
imāms, leaders of the community, were considered to possess special charac-
teristics such as purity and moral and ethical infallibility, or ʿiṣma.
Shīʿa have not been a homogeneous group. During a short period in the early
history of Shīʿa, between 660 and 870, a dozen con��icting factions formed, all
of which laid claim to the correct interpretation within Shīʿa. The di�ferences
concerned, for example, the order of succession among Muḥammad’s descen-
dants and the question of which of the descendants should be regarded as the
rightful Shīʿa imāms (Aqajari 2002: 20).
One example is the Zaydīs, who believed that any descendant of the ��rst
imām ʿAlī could become imām. They claimed that Zayd ibn ʿAlī (695–740),
who was son of the fourth Shīʿa imām ʿAlī Zayn al-ʿAbedin (658–712) should be
regarded as the ��fth Shīʿa imām. This was in contrast to the majority of Shīʿa
Muslims who believed that Muḥammad al-Bāqir (676–736), an elder son of
ʿAlī Zayn al-ʿAbedin, was the ��fth imām. The Zaydīs were against the Umayyad
and ʿAbbāsid caliphates and founded the ��rst Shīʿa dynasty in northern Persia.
The Būyid dynasty who controlled a major part of ʿAbbāsid territory were also
Zaydīs. The contemporary Ḥuthi Shīʿa minority in northern Yemen are also
Zaydīs, and their ancestors founded a dynasty in Yemen in the ninth century
that lasted until the 1960s (Esposito 2011: 48–49).
Another example is the Ismāʿīlīs, who in the eighth century decided to
contest who was to succeed the Shīʿa imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. According to the
Ismāʿīlīs, his son Ismāʿīl was to succeed him. He is also the one who, accord-
ing to Ismāʿīlite belief, will return to save the world. The Twelvers, on the
other hand, believed that the imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq should be succeeded by
another one of his sons, the one the Twelvers regard as their seventh imām,
Mūsā al-Kāẓim (745–799) (Fazlhashemi 2011: 29), The Ismāʿīlīs started their
activities as a revolutionary and missionary movement who wanted to spread
their esoteric knowledge of Qurʾān to other Muslims. They were prepared to
use violence in this regard. Security forces from both the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 183

and Seljuq Sultanate hunted them, forcing them to operate in secret. Ismāʿīlīs
took power in several parts in the Muslim world, but the two most famous of
them were the Faṭimid Caliphate in Egypt (969–1171) and a group who broke
away from the Faṭimids in 1094 and had its headquarters at Mount Alamūt in
northern Persia. The most famous name from this group was Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ
(1050–1124) who ordered assassinations against ʿAbbāsid and Seljuq o���cials
(Esposito 2011: 49–51).
This chapter focuses on the largest group within Shīʿa: The Imāmiyya, or the
Twelvers. According to Imāmiyya Shīʿa the leadership of the Muslim commu-
nity after Muḥammad should start with his relative ʿAlī and the last Shīʿa imām
was Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan (b. 868), known as al-Mahdī, the ‘Hidden Imām’
(Esposito 2011: 48). They recognise twelve imāms in total who are believed to
have distinguished themselves from other people by possessing a divine light
that gave them knowledge about sacred mysteries. This light gave the Twelve
Imāms immunity from sin, and for that reason, they should be the obvious
leaders of the Muslim community. Their leadership, it is believed, would give
them the opportunity to transfer divine knowledge to the people (Lambton
1981: 220).
Perhaps the most controversial theological feature of Imāmiyya Shīʿa is the
belief in the ‘Hidden Imām’ al-Mahdī who is considered to have been in occul-
tation since the 900s. According to Imāmiyya Shīʿa, he will emerge from hiding
to defeat evil and save the world. In this mission, he is accompanied by other
prophets such as Jesus. An even more controversial view within Imāmiyya
Shīʿa’s eschatological beliefs is the notion of rajʿa, the resurrection of a num-
ber of central historical ��gures. The resurrection, includes both good and evil
people who will take part in a ��nal battle, in which forces of evil will be van-
quished once for all before the ��nal apocalypse, predicted in the Qurʾān. From
the Sunnī side, and for some Imāmiyya Shīʿa clergies, these beliefs have been
heavily criticised for lack of support from the Qurʾān and the prophetic tradi-
tion. Critics regard these beliefs as heretical and superstitious and blame the
in��ltration of Jewish sources from converts for the appearance of such “un-
Islamic” beliefs (see for example the Imāmiyya Shīʿa clergy Shari‘at Sangelaji’s
[1891–1944] book Eslam va rij‘at, published by his disciple Farid Tonkaboni).
The Shīʿas in general, and Imāmiyya Shīʿas in particular, have historically
found themselves in the minority and on the losing end of broader power
struggles in the early centuries of Islam. These struggles were the foundation
for the schism that arose between the two main branches of Islam, the Sunnī
and Shīʿas. The most important controversy concerned the foundation for the
legitimacy of secular power and leadership in the community (Kadivar 2000:
12). During the fourteen hundred years that have elapsed since then, the chasm
184 Fazlhashemi

between them has widened to include theological, legal, philosophical, cul-

tural, social, and not least political controversies (Fazlhashemi 2011: 22).
This chapter has a chronological structure and takes a largely historical
approach to present the development of Imāmiyya Shīʿa. Relevant primary
sources and scholarly works help to trace the process of the development and
formation of Shīʿa political ideas in the course of history, with a particular
focus on Persia/Iran under the Ṣafavid Dynasty (1501–1736) and in the modern
era, where Shīʿa has seen its most fervent periods of support and evolution.

2 Succession and Leadership: The Emergence of Imāmiyya Shīʿa

Shīʿa Islam emerges from the ��rst major schism within the religion founded
by the prophet Muḥammad. As Muḥammad appointed no heir before his
death, the question of succession caused quickly became one of great politi-
cal import, causing the division of the Sunnī and Shīʿa factions. It remains the
topic of debate today. Iraqi Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholar Moḥammad Baqer
al-Ṣadr (1935–1980) writes that the prophet Muḥammad had to choose among
three possibilities regarding succession before his death. One was not to bother
appointing a successor, another was to persuade his closest followers to elect
a successor after deliberation, and the third option was that he himself should
nominate his successor. Al-Ṣadr rejects the ��rst two alternatives: that the
prophet would not appoint his own successor could be interpreted to mean
that he did not care about what would happen to the young Muslim commu-
nity after his death. This is not consistent with the great concern he displayed
for the welfare of the community. Nor was the second alternative particularly
appealing to the prophet, in al-Ṣadr’s view, since the tradition of deliberative
councils was far too risky in view of the heterogeneous character of the Muslim
community. It was the prophet himself who functioned as a unifying factor for
the early Muslim community, within which there were signi��cant di�ferences.
This circumstance would increase the risk of division and would not bene��t
his community.
Al-Ṣadr believes that the prophet, from a logical point of view, ought to have
chosen the last alternative to ensure that the leadership of his community
would be in safe hands after him. Al-Ṣadr thinks that the choice of ʿAlī was not
primarily due to the close family relationship of the two men. He does not dis-
regard the fact that this would let the leadership stay within Muḥammad’s own
family, but he asserts that ʿAlī was by far the best choice. ʿAlī had very good and
close relations with Muḥammad. He had followed Muḥammad since his child-
hood and was among the ��rst to convert to Islam. Muḥammad had followed
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 185

ʿAlī’s development closely from his early years and had been a part of it. ʿAlī
had thus been brought up in Muḥammad’s “school” since he was a child, but
he was also, according to the Shīʿa view, the one who was most familiar, after
the Prophet himself, with religious knowledge. Here his close relationship to
the Prophet played a crucial part. ʿAlī’s young age also meant that, unlike many
of the older followers, he was not involved in con��icts arising from older loyal-
ties to tribes and clans or from the social, economic, and political positions,
they had before they converted to Islam. According to al-Ṣadr, then, the choice
of ʿAlī was something that guaranteed the continuity of secular and religious
leadership in the Muslim community (al-Sadr 2002: 28–88).
In the Shīʿa view, there was no doubt that following the death of the Prophet
Muhammad leadership should go to his descendants, a concept that they argue
found support in the Qurʾān and the principle of wilāya or leadership. Their
stance was that if wilāya ended up outside Muḥammad’s lineage, the leader-
ship of Muslims would be in the hands of people who lacked divine protection,
ʿiṣma. This protection, in the Shīʿa view, was reserved solely for Muḥammad’s
lineage. Without this protection, there was a risk of innovations and deviations
that con��icted with the fundamental principles of Islam.
It took over two decades before ʿAlī became the fourth caliph after
Muḥammad, although not in his capacity as a Shīʿa imām but as the person
chosen by the Muslim people to lead the community. His time in power was
very short, however, just over four years. He was murdered in a political attack
by a group of religious extremists who accused him of having broken the laws
of Islam, and in certain respects not having lived up to its ideals. Shortly after
this event, the ��rst caliphate dynasty was founded, the Umayyads (661–750),
who were then succeeded by the new caliphate dynasty of the ʿAbbāsids (750–
1258). Both dynasties belonged to the Sunnī branch of Islam (Fazlhashemi
2011: 21).
ʿAlī’s descendants never succeeded in regaining power. They were out-
maneuvered and su�fered severe losses. During the time of the Twelve Shīʿa
Imāms (633–874) the repression of the Shīʿa became harsher. A couple of these
imāms took part in armed actions against Sunnī rulers and were killed on
the battle��eld or poisoned on the orders of Umayyad leaders. The Battle of
Karbalāʾ in 680, when the third Shīʿa imām, Ḥusayn, Muḥammad’s grandson,
and his nearest circle were massacred by a superior Sunnī army, was the last
armed resistance put up by the Shīʿa imāms. After the Battle of Karbalāʾ, which
has left deep traces in Shīʿa folk memory, the Shīʿa Imāms continued their
resistance against the Umayyad and later the ʿAbbāsid caliphs without armed
actions (Fazlhashemi 2011: 21–22). The reason for the Shīʿa imāms’ refusal to
recognise the Umayyad and ʿAbbāsid rulers was that they wanted to maintain
186 Fazlhashemi

the principle of wilāya, or leadership, under their system of imāms who could
be traced back to the Prophet.
The repression of the Shīʿa Imāms was so severe during the period from the
680s to the 880s that they concentrated on developing Shīʿa theology in order
to preserve Shīʿa Islam as a religious tradition. The best known of these imāms
who helped to shape Shīʿa theology was the sixth imām, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (705–
765). The theology of the Twelve Imāms consequently bears his name and is
also called Jaʿfarite theology. Despite this, the Shīʿa Imāms did not escape per-
secution by the Sunnī rulers. Several of them died in prison or were poisoned
in their homes. The last of these imāms, Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan (born 868),
known under the name al-Mahdī, went underground as a young man to evade
the patrols of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate, and communicated with his followers by
proxy (Fazlhashemi 2011: 22).
After 940 and the Imāmiyya Shīʿas’ idea of the twelfth imām living in hid-
ing, the question arose of who would carry on this heritage. It was obvious
that no one could replace either the Prophet or the Twelve Imāms, but now
the idea was formed that legal scholars should ��ll the vacuum that had arisen
during the long absence. There was no disagreement about the need for these
jurists, but soon di�ferences of opinion were heard about their authority. This
concerned, above all, the issue of whether they should solely function as stew-
ards of the tradition or could act independently in the interpretation of the
religion’s founding documents, but also how far they could go and whether it
was permissible to use reason when interpreting religious texts and statements
by the Prophet and the Twelve Imāms (Lambton 1981: 243–63).
The division among the Shīʿa, however, was not limited to disputes about the
order of succession among Muḥammad’s descendants. Within the Imāmiyya
Shīʿa, there was soon a schism that would be of great signi��cance for the out-
look on secular power. Once again, this division concerned the relationship
between faith/revelation and reason. The group that wanted to give priority
to faith thought that the most important task was to seek guidance in revela-
tion and in the statements of Shīʿa imāms. According to this view, the revela-
tion communicated through the Prophet and his statements and through the
Shīʿa imāms’ statements are the only sources that Shīʿa Muslims need when
they seek answers to their questions. All they have to do is to navigate cor-
rectly among the countless existing statements and guidelines. This group
came to be called the Akhbarids. Against this stance were those who thought
that although the revelation and the imāms’ statements should be used, they
should simultaneously be interpreted by legal scholars on the basis of the tra-
dition of ijtihād. This group was called Uṣulids. The con��ict between these two
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 187

tendencies would develop into a struggle between faith and reason (Fazlhashemi
2011: 30).
The Twelve Imāms, their lives, theological beliefs, and political stances, have
shaped Imāmiyya Shīʿa orthodoxy and orthopraxy, its theology, and its outlook
on secular power. Along with themes of persecution and oppression, and the
important of history and remembrance, the imāmate is one of the key features
of ‘Twelver’ Shīʿa Islam.

3 Key Themes in Imāmiyya Shīʿa

3.1 The Twelve Imāms

The concept of heritage is clearly central to the development of Shīʿa, its own
schisms, and to the beliefs of Imāmiyya Shīʿa. The centrality of the role of the
twelve Shīʿa imāms in Imāmiyya Shīʿa was due to their links with the Prophet,
and their ability to authentically carry on his tradition. From the time of the
Twelve Shīʿa Imāms (633–874 CE) those who are thought to have been of the
greatest signi��cance for empowering the movement are the ��rst imām ʿAlī
ibn Abī Ṭālib (600–661 CE), his sons Ḥasan (624–669 CE) and Ḥusayn (626–
680 CE), and the last imām, Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan, al-Mahdī (Fazlhashemi
2011: 22).
A consideration of the actions of the Twelve Imāms during the period 657–
940 shows an important dividing line between the ��rst three imāms and the
others. The ��rst three imāms—ʿAlī, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn—acted as both secu-
lar and religious leaders. They did not hesitate to take part in armed con��icts
even if it meant certain death for themselves and the people closest to them.
The murder of the third imām, Ḥusayn, in 680 is an example of this. Other
imāms, however, seem to have had di�ferent priorities. They made no great
e�fort to assume secular power. They preferred to act as the foremost religious
authorities of their time. It was also during their time that Shīʿa theology took
shape. Starting with the ��fth and sixth imāms—Muḥammad al-Bāqir (676–736
CE) and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (705–765 CE)—this shift became even more obvious.
The Shīʿa imāms acted more in their capacity as prominent religious than
secular leaders. What distinguished them from other religious authorities was
their close family ties to the Prophet, since they were his direct descendants
(Modarresi Ṭabaṭaba’i 2007: 38–39). Secular and political responsibility was
transferred to a messianic ��gure who would restore order and give power back
to the Shīʿa imāms. This saviour, the Qāʾim, would come forth from the group
of Shīʿa imāms, but simultaneously several of these imāms declared that they
188 Fazlhashemi

were not the expected saviours. Among other things, the ��fth and sixth imāms
emphasised this.
The situation changed somewhat under the seventh imām, Mūsā al-Kāẓim
(745–799), who breathed new life into the belief in the coming saviour. What
was new for the seventh imām was that he introduced an extensive system
of representatives all over the Islamic realm. These were in close contact
with the imām and collected religious taxes. The newly organised network of
representatives and the economic opportunities that were opened with the
centrally collected religious taxes aroused new hope of the expected saviour
among Imāmiyya Shīʿas. Another relevant factor is that the seventh imām had
adopted a position that di�fered partly from that of his immediate predeces-
sor. He levelled open criticism at the caliphate in Baghdad, and his opposition
inspired some Shīʿa groups to revolt against the caliphate. The development
also provoked fears in the ʿAbbāsid caliphate and the then-caliph Hārūn
al-Rashīd (763–809), who feared new uprising among Imāmiyya Shīʿa follow-
ers. He imprisoned Mūsā and then had him murdered in captivity (Modarresi
Ṭabaṭaba’i 2007: 40–41).
The murder of the seventh imām once again crushed new hopes of the sav-
iour who would liberate the Shīʿa from ʿAbbāsid repression. These hopes were
revived when the new ʿAbbāsid caliph Ma’mun appointed the eighth Shīʿa
imām, ʿAlī al-Riḍā (763–818), as his crown prince. The move by the ʿAbbāsid
caliph proved to be a political manoeuvre to gain control over the troubled
situation. When things calmed down he had al-Riḍā poisoned. The belief in
the saviour lay dormant until the 870s when the twelfth and last imām began
his life in hiding. The ninth and tenth imāms were both minors when they suc-
ceeded to the o���ce, and the eleventh imām spent most of his life under virtual
house arrest where his freedom of action was limited by the ʿAbbāsid caliph.
A debate that ��ared among the Imāmiyya Shīʿa in connection with the ninth
and tenth imāms concerned whether minors—both became imāms at the age
of seven or eight because their fathers had been murdered—had su���cient
religious knowledge to take o���ce as imām or the secular leadership qualities
required to save the Shīʿa community. These circumstances meant that the
secular role of the imāms had to take a back seat to other issues (Modarresi
Ṭabaṭaba’i 2007: 42–43).
Already in the time of the Shīʿa imāms, we can see that their actions with
regard to secular power and the relationship between religious and secular
leadership was linked to prevailing social and political circumstances. While
some people could even take up arms to defend their right to secular power,
others chose solely to assert this right, without otherwise making any great
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 189

e�forts to achieve it. They gave priority to other questions, which included reli-
gious concerns and areas to do with social care.
A shared view among Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars has been that during the
absence of the twelfth imām, the secular power belongs, de jure, to the Hidden
Imām, according to Shīʿa law, but de facto, in reality, it is in the hands of others.
The Hidden Imām was in occultation, and even if power did fall to him, he was
not available to assume this rule. From this point of view, the secular rulers
were illegitimate, but there was no real substitute for them. Shīʿa legal scholars
were obliged to relate to the secular rulers who had the real power. They chose
completely di�ferent approaches, however. Some stayed at a safe distance from
secular power, maintaining a quietist stance. They refrained from any involve-
ment in secular power and indulged in utopian visions of the ideal society that
the Hidden Imām would create on his return. The most important issue for this
group was to preserve Shīʿa Islam. The Hidden Imām himself would look after
the question of secular power when he found the time ripe.
Against this passive attitude, there was an activist stance that saw it as the
task of legal scholars to try to hasten the return of the Hidden Imām. This
would be done by combating the illegitimate rulers and trying to overthrow
their regime. One example was the distinguished Imāmiyya Shīʿa scholar
Naṣir al-Din Tusi (1201–1274), who cooperated with Mongol rulers when they
attacked the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate. He saw the Mongols as a means of overthrow-
ing the hated Sunnī supremacy (Lambton 1981: 224).
Another example was the Imāmiyya Shīʿa scholar Shaykh Muḥammad al-
Mu��d (d. 1022) who believed that those who assigned to the o���ce of illegiti-
mate worldly rulers had in fact received these positions by the Hidden Imām.
They should use their o���ces to counteract o�fences and sinful acts (Bagdadi
and No’man 1995: 120–121). A further example was the distinguished scholar
Sayyid Murtada (978–1058), who was the great-grandson of the seventh Shīʿa
imām Mūsā al-Kāẓim. He made a distinction between evil and fair rulers. He
meant that the scholars should accept positions and o���ces o�fered by fair rul-
ers. Under these circumstances, participation in the political life was a prereq-
uisite for being able to enforce Shīʿa order in the worldly rule (Sayyid Murtada
1987: 96–98).
In between these opposing attitudes were those who wanted to make the
best of the situation and adopted a pragmatic and realistic stance by creating
forms for dealings between the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars and the secular
rulers. The di�fering attitudes of the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars on this issue
are based in part on the fact that they lived in di�ferent historical, economic,
social, and political conditions. It also happened that legal scholars living in
190 Fazlhashemi

the same period and in similar social and political structures adopted diamet-
rically opposite positions. One explanation for this was that they proceeded
from di�ferent theological interpretive traditions.

3.2 Persecution and Oppression

Imāmiyya Shīʿa Muslims do not regard themselves as a minority or a sect that
is in opposition to the majority within Islam in the matter of its religious foun-
dations, the Qurʾān, or the prophet’s tradition, sunna. Nor do they perceive
themselves as an ethnic or political group seeking to establish a new religious
tendency to split the Muslim community and thus break up the Muslim unity.
They also dismiss all allegations that come from some Sunnī, mostly Sala��s
and Wahhābīs, claiming that it was Jews—a Jewish man named Ibn Saba who
had converted to Islam and lived during the third caliph Othman’s era—or
Persians, more speci��cally the Shīʿa dynasties Būyids (934–1065) and Ṣafavids
(1501–1736), who were political rivals to Sunnī Caliphates and who invented
Shīʿa to harm Islam from within (Ṭabaṭaba’i 2003: 18–19).
The Imāmiyya Shīʿa Muslims prefer to view themselves as a group within the
Muslim community whose history started the same day as the Prophet’s death.
They reacted to the danger that would shut out the descendants of Prophet
from the leadership of the young Muslim community. The descendants of the
Prophet had the speci��c task of protecting Islam’s principles and Islamic laws
that had their origin in the revelation that God had sent to the Prophet. They
reacted also, against what they perceived as deviations from the Qurʾān and
the prophet’s tradition of which representatives of Sunnī Islam were guilty.
According to this view, then, Imāmiyya Shīʿa arose as a defence of Islam’s fun-
damental principles (Ṭabaṭaba’i 2003: 21–22).
Imāmiyya Shīʿa Muslims tend to highlight the development after
Muḥammad’s death, when the Muslim rulers, according to the Imāmiyya Shīʿa
view, made major deviations from Islamic laws. They also accused the Sunnī
rulers of dictatorial ways, corruption, immorality, and love of luxury. They
accused the Sunnī rulers of abandoning basic principles of Islam and conven-
tions that were founded by the Prophet during his time. One example was the
fair distribution of public funds among all Muslims. They began to favour cer-
tain groups of Muslims over others, an act that was in con��ict with egalitarian
principles of Islam and led to major class divisions between Muslims. They
also accused the Umayyad and ʿAbbāsid caliphs of having acquired Byzantine
and Persian court traditions that were not Islamic and deviated from the path
of the Prophet (Ṭabaṭaba’i 2003: 23–24, 26–27).
During the ��rst century after the Prophet Muḥammad’s death, Imāmiyya
Shīʿa was an oppositional movement opposed to the secular order. Otherwise
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 191

they did not di�fer much from other Muslims. It was only from the mid-eighth
century that Shīʿa theology and sharīʿa law began to take shape, in that this
was when Shīʿa theologians entered the debate and marked their positions in
relation to Sunnī law schools. It was under the ��fth and sixth Shīʿa imāms that
Shīʿa theology developed (Modarresi Ṭabaṭaba’i 2007: 30–31).
Sunnīs regarded the Shīʿa Muslims as rā��ḍī (rejectors/rejectionists, or apos-
tates). During certain periods in the history of Islam, this led to cruel persecu-
tion of Shīʿa. They were viewed as outlaws whose lives should not be spared
and whose property could be con��scated (Ṭabaṭaba’i 2003: 28). The harsh-
est persecutions took place during the ��rst three centuries of Islam’s history.
Sunnīs accused Shīʿa as a kind of opposition who rejected their attempts to
hold together the religious institution and the state by reconciling religious
theory and historical precedent (Lambton 1981: 223). With the formation of the
Shīʿa (but not Imāmiyaa) Fāṭimid Caliphate (909–1171) in Egypt and the Būyid
State (934–1055) in Persia, di�ferent Shīʿa groups found protection. The great
breakthrough for Imāmiyya Shīʿa came when the Ṣafavids (1501–1736) seized
power in Persia and Shīʿa became a state religion, thus enjoying its greatest
upswing in support.
Another cause of the marginalisation of the Imāmiyya Shīʿa was the dis-
missal of the rationalist exegetic tradition of Islamic theology favoured by
Shīʿa Islam. In Sunnī Islam, the Muʿtazilites had promoted this tradition but
this was e���ciently subdued by the Ashʿarites who restricted the in��uence
of rationalism (Ṭabaṭaba’i 2003: 31–33). The Imāmiyya Shīʿa theologian and
philosopher Moḥammad Ḥussein Ṭabaṭaba’i (1892–1981) blames the grow-
ing intellectual stagnation in Islamic civilisation on the exclusion of the
Imāmiyya Shīʿa. According to Ṭabaṭaba’i this eliminated critical thinking and
left room for orthodoxy, blind faith, dogmatism, and fanaticism (Ṭabaṭaba’i
2003: 35–37).
The persecutions of the Imāmiyya Shīʿa Muslims by the ʿAbbāsid caliphate
intensi��ed to such a degree that the twelfth Shīʿa imām chose to go under-
ground to be able to continue to lead the Imāmiyya Shīʿa Muslims. This period,
which began in 874 and lasted until 940, is called the ‘lesser occultation’, Ghayba
al-ṣughra. During this period the imām maintained contact with the Imāmiyya
Shīʿa Muslims through four agents he had personally appointed. This period
ended in 940, however, when the last agent died, and this marked the start of
the ‘long occultation’, Ghayba al-kubra, a time when the twelfth Shīʿa imām
continued to exercise his leadership of the Shīʿa through a life in hiding and
without any agents. He is still believed to be hiding today and will eventually
return like a messianic ��gure to deliver the world from all evil and create a just
world (Sachedina 1988: 170).
192 Fazlhashemi

3.3 History and Rememberance

A recurrent feature of Imāmiyya Shīʿa is the feedback loop within the history of
Shīʿa, bolstered by the ritual of remembering one’s history. Popular Imāmiyya
Shīʿa religiosity is based on a large and powerful community of tears. It builds
on the grief for the murdered imāms, especially the third imām Ḥusayn, on
the fear of historical persecutions, and on the hope of the redeemer al-Mahdī.
This community demands a type of engagement that cannot be ques-
tioned and that rests on a natural, original, and unconditional membership
(Fazlhashemi 2011: 33). Shīʿa history serves to preserve the hardships of the past
as well as informing the present and the future, and a cyclical e�fect is created
through the parallels that arise between historical events and the collective or
social memory.
It is always interesting to study why historical events have been constructed
and revived in the way they have. The use of history has had an important func-
tion in the construction of national identities, and religious identities as well.
The most important function has been existential in character. The existential
use of history in Shīʿa has been to provide a foundation for remembering, since
people need to remember, but also to be able to set the history of the Shīʿa
in a larger context of oppression and righteousness and to feel an a���nity to
other people who profess the same beliefs. Alongside this sense of solidarity,
there are also moral and ideological aspects which mean that history is used to
achieve completely new aims (Fazlhashemi 2011: 34).
A central concern in the history of Imāmiyya Shīʿa has been to create his-
torical “places of memory” of both physical and spiritual character. It is a
question of events, dates, battles, graves, and other things that arouse strong
emotional associations in Shīʿa Muslims. Some of the most important places
for the Imāmiyya Shīʿa are the places where the Shīʿa imāms are buried. They
are located in cities like Najaf, Karbalāʾ, Sāmarrāʾ and Al-Kāẓimayn in Iraq,
Medina in Saudi Arabia, and Mashhad in Iran. One of the most visited places
is the shrine of the third Shīʿa imām Ḥusayn who was massacred together with
seventy of his children, relatives, and followers by a huge Umayyad army in an
unequal battle in 680 in Karbalāʾ. Shīʿa Muslims who visit these places, graves,
or shrines participate in mourning ceremonies, speci��c prayers and rituals.
These places of memory belong to a context that is recognised by individuals
or a collective that has been welded together by shared Imāmiyya Shīʿa beliefs.
These places of memory awaken a sense of “restorative” nostalgia that is used to
recreate a speci��c state that either existed in the past or never had a chance to
be realised (Fazlhashemi 2011: 35). Four Shīʿa imāms who are buried in Medina
at the graveyard of Baqīʿ al-Gharqad are still not allowed to have shrines due to
the dominant Wahhābī tradition of that region, a continuing reminder of the
compromised status of Shīʿa in the wider Islamic world.
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 193

4 Imāmiyya Shīʿa in the Ṣafavid Dynasty

The thoughts of the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars about secular government
underwent a drastic change in the sixteenth century. They started to collabo-
rate with the Ṣafavids who had seized power in Persia (1501–1736). The Ṣafavids
proclaimed Imāmiyya Shīʿa as the state religion and gave the Imāmiyya Shīʿa
legal scholars a free hand to spread Imāmiyya Shīʿa in their kingdom. In return
they demanded that the scholars bless their political status and thereby grant
them religious legitimacy, which was an important ground for political legiti-
macy in pre-modern times. The collaboration of the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal
scholars with the Ṣafavid kings can be compared to a forced marriage in which
the two parties are not very fond of each other, but have to be married since
they are mutually dependent. The Ṣafavid kings relied on the blessing of the
legal scholars because this could give religious legitimacy to their kingly power.
The legal scholars were dependent on the royal house, which could help them
to consolidate their position by strengthening their institutions and extending
their jurisdiction.
But there were theological obstacles to the collaboration of the legal schol-
ars with the royal house. All power and glory, according to Imāmiyya Shīʿa the-
ology, was supposed to be in the hands of the scholars while the Shīʿa Muslims
awaited the return of the occulted imām al-Mahdī. The collaboration of the
scholars with the royal Ṣafavid house meant that they blessed kings who were
regarded by de��nition as being illegitimate in strict religious and theological
terms (Fazlhashemi 2011: 35–48).
For the legal scholars there were weighty reasons for overlooking their own
theological misgivings. This was the ��rst time a royal power of the dignity of
the Ṣafavids extended a hand of cooperation to the Imāmiyya Shīʿa scholars
and also declared themselves willing to proclaim Imāmiyya Shīʿa as the state
religion. It was thus a very tempting o�fer. The ��rst Imāmiyya Shīʿa scholars
who accepted the invitation viewed it as a golden opportunity for them to
escape from their hitherto vulnerable position as a persecuted minority. They
also saw great possibilities to use the support of the Ṣafavid kings to promote
the mission of Shīʿa Islam in a larger, cohesive kingdom. The willingness of the
Shīʿa leaders to enter this alliance, however, required new theological thinking
to open the way for a new political doctrine.

4.1 Rationalist Theology

One of those who helped to develop an exchange of favours with the Ṣafavid
kings was the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholar Karakī (1464–1534). His most impor-
tant action, apart from granting the Ṣafavids their longed-for religious legiti-
macy, was the compilation of Jami’ al-maqṣaid, a book of legal exegesis. The
194 Fazlhashemi

work served several purposes. It functioned as a source for interpreting the

law during the Ṣafavid era, thereby creating clear judicial structures. It set a
Shīʿa stamp on the judicial tradition and counteracted the arbitrary behaviour
of the autocratic kings (Fazlhashemi 2016: 134). The Ṣafavid king Ṭahmasp I
(1514–1576) declared in a letter that he regarded Karakī as the representative of
the twelfth Shīʿa imām and himself as Karakī’s representative (Khonsari 1981,
vol. 4: 362–363).
It is interesting to note that Karakī, despite his close collaboration with
the Ṣafavid kings, considered them illegitimate, even though he blessed their
power and their right to collect tax from their subjects. One may ask how he
could reconcile these two oppositional stances (Khonsari 1981, vol. 4: 76).
Karakī maintained that it was forbidden to assist evil and repressive rulers: if it
turns out that the collaboration results in an evil ruler consolidating his posi-
tion, then one is guilty of an impermissible act, in his opinion. But if one can
ensure that the cooperation makes it possible to achieve good things in society,
there is nothing to prevent cooperation with the king. According to Karakī,
through such collaboration one could ful��l the Qurʾānic principle of imposing
the admissible and prohibiting the unlawful—amr bi al-ma‘roof wa nahj ‘an
al-munkar. The only thing to be wary of was complicity in sin, oppression, and
murder (Karaki 1998: 44).
From this perspective, collaboration with illegitimate secular rulers was not
intrinsically evil. The crucial point was the purpose of the collaboration, and
a secondary consideration was the circumstances that enabled collaboration.
A legal scholar who enters an alliance with an unrightful king with the aim
of reforming and rectifying things—of doing ʾiṣlāḥ (reforming)—does so with
good intent. A legal scholar should be regarded as the representative of the
occulted Shīʿa imām, al-Mahdī, and not as the king’s man or someone obey-
ing the king’s orders. It is the occulted imām who is the lawful ruler, and it
is he who appoints the legal scholar as his agent (Karaki 1998: 489–490). The
elevation of the legal scholars to the position as representatives of the occulted
imām meant that their powers were not con��ned to the religious sphere. Like
the occulted imām’s own jurisdiction, theirs would also comprise all spheres of
society (Karaki n.d.: 142).

4.2 Religious Legitimacy

The powerful position of the Ṣafavids was due to their own military strength,
yet religious blessing was still deemed necessary for secular rulers during this
historical period. Religious legitimacy would raise the Ṣafavids to the same
level as their Ottoman rivals, a fact of which Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars were
well aware. Refusing to give the Ṣafavids the coveted religious blessing was an
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 195

option, but it would mean gambling away their historical opportunity to exert
in��uence in the corridors of power. This was the factor that made a group of
senior Shīʿa scholars choose to collaborate with the Ṣafavid kings.
To begin with, the Imāmiyya Shīʿa scholars viewed their task from an ethical
perspective. Their duty was to urge the king to reform the realm in accordance
with Islamic ethics. They cited support for their action in concepts such as
ʾiṣlāḥ, putting things right, in the Qurʾān (11:88, 7:85). Acting in accordance with
the concept of ʾiṣlāḥ proved to be something that could vary depending on pre-
vailing circumstances. In times when the king was strong and the manoeuvring
space of the legal scholars was limited, the latter interpreted ʾiṣlāḥ to mean
that they should provide the king with an ethical frame of reference. There
was no consensus among legal scholars about how to legitimise collaboration
with the Ṣafavid kings. The jurist Mollā Moḥammad Bāqer Majlesi (d. 1699)
chose to attribute the legitimacy of the Ṣafavid kings to their alleged kinship
with the Shīʿa imāms and ultimately with the Prophet himself. This basis for
legitimacy meant, according to Majlesi, that there were important obligations
for the Ṣafavid kings. They were supposed to follow in the footsteps of the Shīʿa
imāms and the Prophet, to live an orthodox life, and act righteously. Majlesi
asserted that God had chosen to give royal power to the Ṣafavid kings so that
the Shīʿa Muslim subjects could live in security in the kingdom of the Ṣafavids
(manuscript collection of the Iranian Parliamentary Library, no. 1, collection
no. 2721).
Majlesi’s legitimisation of Ṣafavid power can be regarded as a pragmatic
solution attempting to adapt the fundamental Shīʿa tradition of political ideas
to prevailing conditions. It can simultaneously be seen as a very smart solution
to the question of establishing a secular power that could win the blessing of
legal scholars during the absence of the twelfth imām. Majlesi enjoined the
king to satisfy a series of criteria based on the Shīʿa religious tradition. He did
not go so far, however, as to raise the Ṣafavid kings to the level of the Hidden
Imām or to see them as his deputies. The most important reason for this was
that the Ṣafavid kings, despite all their services to Shīʿa Islam and their alleged
kinship with the Prophet’s descendants, could not be classed as free of sin,
or maʿṣum. This was reserved solely for the Twelve Imāms. Majlesi’s support
for the Ṣafavids was however founded on his genuine religious conviction that
the era of the Ṣafavids was a preliminary stage in the return of the Hidden
Imām al-Mahdī (Majlesi 1993: 243). The Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholar Shaykh
Baha’i (1547–1621) legitimised the power of King ʿAbbās I (1571–1629) for a dif-
ferent and more practical reason: the legitimacy was valid as long as the king,
in his public actions, followed the principle of justice and continued to defend
Twelver Shīʿa Islam (Lakzai 2007: 290).
196 Fazlhashemi

Since Shaykh Bahai did not elevate the Ṣafavid kings to the level of the Shīʿa
imāms, obedience to them was not equated with obedience to God and crimes
against them could not be regarded as crimes against God. The legal scholar
Sabzevari (1599–1672) listed the properties a king must have if he is to earn reli-
gious legitimacy in a Shīʿa kingdom. These properties include probity, follow-
ing the tradition of the Hidden Imām, protecting Shīʿa Muslims from dangers
and in��dels, protecting Shīʿa, and so on (Sabzevari 2004: 64). By enumerating
the properties of a Shīʿa king and the demands made of him, the legal schol-
ars were released from the duty of dealing with this task themselves (Lakzai
1988: 146).

4.3 Institutionalisation and Changing Roles

The Ṣafavid kings knew nothing about Imāmiyya Shīʿa theology. The Imāmiyya
Shīʿa legal scholars had unrestricted jurisdiction over religious and judicial
matters. To ensure his power over the religious institutions, it was the king who
appointed the leaders of the religious institutions. These were selected with
great care from among those who were most loyal to the crown. This could in
turn create disruptive disputes between parts of the ordinary religious com-
munity and the royal house (Lambton 1981: 266–267). The Ṣafavids exercised
rigorous supervision over the Imāmiyya Shīʿa religious institutions. The king
appointed, for example, the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholar who acted as head of
all Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars. This man, who was called Molla Bashi in the
Ṣafavid era, was the highest religious authority and the link between the king
and the legal scholars. The royal house also appointed another administrative
leader designated as ṣadr. The duties of the ṣadr included appointing reli-
gious judges, those who were to take charge religious endowments, appoint-
ing prayer leaders, leaders of religious schools and mosques, and various other
religious o���ces (Lambton 1981: 268).
By leaving such religious matters to an o���cial religious leader appointed by
the Ṣafavid court, the king could a�fect development and supervise the various
religious activities (Jafarian 2000: vol. I, 196–198). The o���ce of ṣadr ��lled yet
another important function that concerned the dissemination of Imāmiyya
Shīʿa. The Ṣafavids proclaimed Imāmiyya Shīʿa as the state religion in a king-
dom where the majority were Sunnī Muslims and they thus had the duty of
ensuring that people in the realm of the Ṣafavids would convert to Imāmiyya
Shīʿa (Lambton 1981: 268). Yet another o���ce of great signi��cance in the Ṣafavid
era was Shaykh al-Islām, chief among jurists, the representative of the Hidden
Imām, whom all Shīʿa Muslims were duty-bound to obey and whose tasks
included crowning the king. At the same time, it was the king who chose the
man who would bear the title Shaykh al-Islām (Samia 1999: 3).
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 197

When the Ṣafavids fell from power in 1736, the situation of the Imāmiyya
Shīʿa legal scholars changed dramatically. It did not just mean that a Shīʿa
dynasty was overthrown and that the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars lost the
support of the crown, the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars were also subjected to
severe reprisals for having given their blessing to the Ṣafavid kingdom and for
their participation in the Ṣafavids’ policy of consolidating Imāmiyya Shīʿa in
their kingdom. The new rulers regarded the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars as a
religious and political obstacle that had to be removed. The fall of the Ṣafavids
was accompanied by political unrest, war, famine, and disease, and a share
of the Shīʿa people were taken away to be sold into slavery. The population in
the former kingdom of the Ṣafavids was reduced by about one tenth (Ravandi
1978: 436).
The Ṣafavids set their stamp on the continued development in what
remained of their kingdom. The Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars and their insti-
tutions managed to survive the fall of the Ṣafavids and would play an impor-
tant part in social and political development in following years. The most
obvious impact was their in��uence on political developments in Persia/Iran.
This intensi��ed from the second half of the nineteenth century in connection
with the constitutional revolution in Iran in 1906, and peaking with the revolu-
tion of 1979 when the legal scholars ended the previously mentioned parallel
form of government and took over secular power.

5 Modern Iran: Political Activism on the Advance

The attitude of the Imāmiyya Shīʿa scholars to political matters changed during
the nineteenth century, when more and more scriptural scholars were drawn
into the discussions about the intellectual tradition of constitutionalism and
the nascent constitutional movement that was sweeping over several Muslim
countries, especially in the Imāmiyya Shīʿa-dominated Persia. It was thus a con-
sequence of the close contacts of Imāmiyya Shīʿa scholars with European ideas
about constitutional government that scholars were increasingly involved in
the political debate and new political theories and doctrines were elaborated.
Among the issues discussed was the adoption of a constitution, the abolition
of despotism, the introduction of parliamentarism, holding general elections,
electing or becoming a representative for a constituency/guild/estate, separat-
ing executive, legislative, and judicial powers, passing laws to guarantee basic
civil rights and freedoms without regard for religious a���liation, birth, or social
status, and determining the right of citizens to control political power (Kadivar
1999: 9–12, 19–21).
198 Fazlhashemi

The reactions of legal scholars to these issues can be roughly divided into
two categories. One proceeded from a quietist attitude, advising legal schol-
ars not to intervene in secular matters; this was a sphere that also had to be
regarded as reserved for the Hidden Imām. The other attitude broke with the
traditional view and recommended a model according to which legal schol-
ars should take an active part in a transition to a constitutional form of gov-
ernment under the supervision of the highest legal Imāmiyya Shīʿa scholars.
Iranian scholar and jurist Ayatollah Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Nāʾīnī (1860–1936)
advocated this model, believing that legal scholars could sit in parliament and
ensure that the laws passed there were not in con��ict with Imāmiyya Shīʿa
(Naini 1955: 52–55).
The new role of the legal scholars has to do with the changes undergone by
Shīʿa-dominated societies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A good
example of this is the development in Iran. Contacts with European ideas had
the result that more and more people were in��uenced by constitutional ideas
demanding political and social reform. It was in the same period that the art of
printing reached the country, which meant that more and more people could
be reached by the new ideas through printed books and newspapers. The
changed situation meant that there were increasing demands on legal scholars
to pronounce verdicts on various social and political matters. An illustrative
example is the tobacco uprising in Iran in 1892. When the highest religious
leader Mirza Shirazi (1814–1896) uttered his famous words about the use of
tobacco being an act of war against the Hidden Imām, the statement had such
a huge impact among the people that the reigning king was forced to annul the
concession to the British company. The response also made the legal scholars
aware of their own power.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a growing number of
Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars were speaking about the rule by foreigners in
Shīʿa-dominated areas. This coincided with the weakening of central govern-
ment, wars enforced by European colonial powers, and the increasing in��u-
ence of Europeans over Muslim countries’ politics, economy, and social and
cultural life. This was viewed as a serious threat that had to be combated. When
the secular rulers were unable to resist the external threat, the legal scholars
saw it as their duty to use their in��uence to mobilise the public against this
external threat (al-Ṣadr 1980: 2–3).
Although the Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars had moved their positions for-
ward, it would take a long time before they began to speak about taking over
secular power themselves. Up to the start of the 1960s, they accepted the divi-
sion of power that had been founded in the era of the Ṣafavids. For a long time,
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 199

the politically active Imāmiyya Shīʿa leaders worked to preserve the status quo.
Many of them acted behind the scenes in order not to upset the division of
power. After several unsuccessful attempts to introduce a constitutional form
of government, however, and after new secular rulers disturbed the parallel
power system, voices were heard calling for the introduction of a completely
new form of government in which power would lie in the hands of the highest
religious jurists.
The reaction of the legal scholars came after a series of political decisions
which were interpreted as outright breaches of the parallel power system.
Legal scholars were purged from the judicial and educational systems in the
inter-war years. Parallel to this, the rulers in Persia/Iran started campaigns of
modernisation and secularisation aimed against Islam and the legal scholars.
A number of prominent Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars declared that the state
was in breach of the agreement about the parallel power system. The one who
went furthest was Āyatallāh Rūḥallāh Khumaynī (Ayatollah Khomeini) (1902–
1989), who thought that legal scholars were no longer bound by the agreement.
At the start of the 1960s he launched a vehement attack on the king, whom he
accused of not complying with any part of the agreement. He accused the king
of being hostile to Imāmiyya Shīʿa. He also questioned the king’s sovereignty
and blamed him for having paved the way for foreign rule by conceding to alien
powers. Ayatollah Khomeini said he wanted to introduce a new form of gov-
ernment based on Imāmiyya Shīʿa theology and jurisprudence, which in his
view included a complete plan for society, comprising everything from politi-
cal and economic to social and cultural matters (Mousavi Khomeini 1979: 23).
There was no consensus on this matter, however. Ayatollah Khomeini rep-
resented a minority view among Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars. His political
doctrine, Velayat-e faqih, the rule of the jurist (legal scholar), lacked support
among the leading grand ayatollahs in the chief seat of Imāmiyya Shīʿa insti-
tutions in Najaf (Iraq) and Qom (Iran). A number of contemporary grand
Ayatollahs in Imāmiyya Shīʿas most famous religious institutions in the Hawza
of Najaf were against this doctrine. Among his leading opponents were Grand
Ayatollahs al-Ḥakim (1889–1970), al-Khoei (1899–1992), and al-Sistani (1930).
They considered his doctrine as something that lacked basis in the Qurʾān and
Imāmiyya Shīʿa sources.
In connection with the revolution in Iran in 1979, the doctrine of rule by
legal scholars became the state-bearing ideology. The shortcomings of the doc-
trine were exposed even more after this transition. Besides the quietist critics
of the doctrine, more and more senior Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars who had
previously supported the doctrine joined in the critique. One of the foremost
200 Fazlhashemi

defenders of the doctrine, the Grand Ayatollah Montazeri (1922–2009), turned

his back on it in the mid-1980s. He drew attention to the totalitarian ele-
ments in the new form of government and demanded its replacement by a
democratic form of government in which political power and religious institu-
tions are separated (see for example his books Eslam din-e feṭrat, Ḥokumat-e
dini va ḥoquq-e ensan and his memoirs, Khâṭerat, which was published on
the internet).

6 Conclusion

The origins of Imāmiyya Shīʿa goes back to the theological and political strug-
gle within the young Muslim community that started after the death of Islam’s
prophet Muḥammad. According to the Imāmiyya Shīʿa, the descendants of
Muḥammad had the right quali��cations to lead Muslims and to defend the
fundamental principles of Islam. The Imāmiyya Shīʿa were defeated quickly.
Their theological and legal perceptions were marginalised, and they were
held outside the corridors of worldly power until the Ṣafavids took over the
power in Persia in 1501, and proclaimed Imāmiyya Shīʿa as their state religion in
their empire.
The Imāmiyya Shīʿa legal scholars perceived all worldly rulers by de��ni-
tion as illegitimate during the absence of the Hidden Imām. However, in
reality they had to relate to the new conditions when the Ṣafavid kings com-
mitted themselves to defend Shīʿa Islam. This became the start of a paral-
lel power system, according to which the legal scholars had the power over
the judiciary system, education, social welfare and the mission. All other
worldly powers were in the hands of the kings. The unique collaboration
between the worldly rulers and the religious leaders was the most important
background for the leaning of the Imāmiyya Shīʿa scholars towards politi-
cal pragmatism. This system of distribution of the power lasted until the
twentieth century.
A new political doctrine that rejected the parallel power system was pre-
sented in the mid-twentieth century, following the socio-political changes that
occurred. This doctrine put all the power in the hands of the highest Imāmiyya
Shīʿa legal scholars, but the new doctrine eventually encountered tough criti-
cism. The critics took their frame of reference from the religious context and
��rmly anchored the criticism in the soil of the Islamic/Shīʿa theological and
judicial tradition. Their reason-oriented, rationalist approached critique
emphasised that the doctrine lacked theological and judicial basis. They also
pointed out that the political regime founded on it was dysfunctional. Their
Imāmiyya Shī ʿ a 201

criticism opened the door for the will to create harmony between the inter-
preting of Imāmiyya Shīʿa theology and jurisprudence and the frames of refer-
ences provided by modern society. It can also be seen as an attempt to answer
the challenges of modernity and globalisation.
This brief survey shows that the outlook on secular power in Imāmiyya Shīʿa
and the religious legitimacy of worldly power is grounded to some extent on
theological ideas and Imāmiyya Shīʿa jurisprudence, but that it has undergone
major changes due to social, political, and historical circumstances. Imāmiyya
Shīʿa’s history of ideas is not limited to various theological, philosophical, polit-
ical ideas and ��qh, jurisprudence. Another tradition of ideas within Imāmiyya
Shīʿa is ʿirfān, which, like Ṣū��sm, seeks other paths to truth beyond the sources
of knowledge of theology, philosophy and jurisprudence.

References

’Alam al-Huda, S.M. 1987. Rasail, vol. 1, ed. S.M. Rajai. Qom: Matba’a al-Sayid al-shuhada.
Aqajari, H. 2002. “Farayand-e tahavvul va takamol-e andishe va rafter-e aleman va
faqihan-e shie-ye emami.” Aftab. 20.
Bagdadi [Shayk Mu��d] and M. Noman. 1995. Awail al-maqalat, ed. Shayk Ebrahim
Ansari. n.p.: Matba’a Mehr.
Esposito, J.L. 2011. Islam, the Straight Path, 4th ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Farid Tonkaboni, A. 1939. Eslam va raj’at. Teheran: Danesh.
Fazlhashemi, M. 2011. Tro eller förnuft i politisk islam. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Fazlhashemi, M. 2016. Islams dynamiska mellantid. Muslimsk idéhistoria mellan guldål-
dern och framväxten av politisk islam. Stockholm: Atlantis.
Jafarian, R. 2000. Safaviyye dar arse-ye din, farhang va siyasat, vol. I–III. Qom:
Pajoheshkade-ye Hawzeh va daneshgah.
Kadivar, J. 2000. Tahavvul-e gofteman-e siyasi-ye Shi‘a dar Iran. Teheran: Tarh-e No.
Kadivar, M. 1999. Nazariyeha-ye dowlat dar feqh-e shieh. Teheran: Nashre ney.
Karaki, N. 1998. Jami’ al-Maqasid, vol. 4. Qom: Al al-beit.
Karaki, N. n.d. al-Rasa’il, vol. 1, ed. Mohammad Hasson. Qom: Ketabkhane-ye ayatolla
Mar’ashi Naja��.
Khonsari, S.M.B. 1981. Rawzat al-jannat. Qom: Ketabforoshi-ye eslamiyye.
Lakzayi, N. 2007. Chaleshe siyasate dini va nazme sultani. ba ta’kid bar andisheh va
’amale siyasiye ’olamaye shi’e dar asre safaviyye. Qom: Pajoheshgahe olum va far-
hange eslami.
Lakzayi, N. 1988. “Daramadi bar andishe-ye siyasi-ye Muḥaqqeq Sabzevari.” Majalleh
Hokumate eslami. 5, 141–160.
202 Fazlhashemi

Lambton, A.K.S. 1981. State and Government in Medieval Islam: An Introduction to the
Study of Islamic Political Theory: The Jurists. Oxford: London Oriental Series.
Majlesi, M.B. 1993. Bihar al-anwar, vol. 52. Teheran: Dar al-kitab al-islamiyya.
Manuscript collection of the Iranian Parliamentary Library, no. 1, collection no. 2721.
Modarresi Ṭabaṭaba’i, S.H. 2007. Crises and Consolidation in the Formative period of
Shi‘ite Islam. Teheran: Kavir.
Montazeri, H.A. 2008. Eslam din-e fetrat, 3rd ed. Teheran: Vasef.
Montazeri, H.A. 2009. Hokumat-e dini va hoquq-e ensan, 2nd ed. Teheran: Serat.
Montazeri, H.A. N.d. Khâṭerat. At https://amontazeri.com/book/khaterat/volume-1
and https://amontazeri.com/book/khaterat/volume-2. Accessed 26/01/2009.
Mousavi Khomeini, R. 1979. Velayat-e faqih, Hokumat-e eslami. Teheran: Amir Kabir.
Naini, M.H. 1955. Tanbih al-umma wa tanzih al-milla. Teheran: Amir kabir.
Ravandi, M. 1978. Tarikhe ejtemai-ye Iran, vol. 2. Teheran: Amir kabir.
Sabzevari, M.M.B. 2004. Rawdat al-Anwar-e Abbasi, red. Ismail Changizi Ardihali.
Teheran: Miras-i maktub.
Sachedina, A.A. 1988. Islamic Messianism: The Idea of Mahdī in Twelver, Shiism. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
al-Sadr, M.B. 2002. Bar amadan-e shia va tashayyu. Qom: Daeratul maaref-e feqh-e
eslam.
Samia, M. 1999. Tazkirat al-muluk, red. Dabir Siyaqi, Seyyed Mohammad, Teheran:
Amir kabir.
Ṭabaṭaba’i, M.H. 2003. Shi‘ah: Mozakerat va mokatebate professor Henry Corbin ba alla-
meh Seyyed Mohammad Hussein Ṭabaṭaba’i. Teheran: Moassese-ye pajoheshi-ye
hekmat va falsafeh-ye Iran.