Introduction:Amir Taheri is a seminary trained Mullah and
writer on Iranian affairs,author of
1.The Spirit Of Allah:khomeini and the Islamic Revolution.
  Isbn:0 09 172668 9 published by Hutchinson Ltd.
2.The Holy Terror.


"Death is big business in Najaf, but Iraq's future depends
on who controls it".
Amir Taheri

“HEADING for Najaf”, in the argot of Tehran, means going to
die. Those who know the Iraqi city, which has dominated the
headlines for weeks, would agree. For this is a city built
on and around death. Its chief attraction is the tomb of
Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, who
was assassinated near by in Kufa 1,400 years ago. Najaf
also has the world’s largest graveyard with some 1.8
million tombs.
For the world’s 150 million Muslim Shias, Najaf is the
ideal burial place. Proximity to Ali is supposed to improve
chances of avoiding Gehenna, the abode of the fallen,
according to the Koran. Believers spend a lifetime’s
savings to have their corpses transported to Najaf for
burial close to Ali’s mausoleum. Five generations of my
family are buried there thanks to a tradition that began in
the 17th century.

Death is at the centre of life here. Tens of thousands of
grave-diggers, undertakers, masters of funeral ceremonies,
tomb watchers, givers of prayers for the dead,
intercessors, Koran reciters, mediums for communication
with the departed, and so on make up the bulk of the
workforce.
While Najaf’s chief import is corpses, its major export is
mullahs. The city hosts the most eminent of Shia seminaries
which, at the height of its theological boom in the 1950s,
boasted 124 madrassahs with 40,000 trainee mullahs. All the
grand ayatollahs of the past 150 years either studied or
taught there.

For all that, the Western media’s description of Najaf as a
“holy city” is wide of the mark. In Islam no city can be
holy because holiness is the exclusive attribute of Allah.
Instead, Najaf’s title is al-Ashraf, the Noble One.

The claim that Ali’s mausoleum is one of the ancient sites
of Islam is equally bizarre, as is the assertion that any
damage to it could provoke an explosion of the Muslim
street. Ali’s first mausoleum, built by the Safavid shahs
in the 17th century was destroyed by the Ottomans a few
decades later. It was rebuilt by the Zand dynasty in the
18th century but was razed to the ground by a Wahhabi army
from the Arabian Peninsula in 1802. The place remained a
heap of ruins for two decades. During that time some
mullahs spread a rumour that angels had taken Ali’s mortal
remains from Najaf for reburial at Balkh, in Afghanistan,
2,500 kilometres to the east. The Afghans built a new city
around the supposed tomb of Ali, calling it Mazar-e Sherif,
the Noble Tomb. The present mausoleum in Najaf was built by
the Qajars, who gave it a golden dome, in the 1840s.

It is thus not “holiness” that makes Najaf important in the
struggle for power in Iraq. Rather, the city is important
for three very worldly reasons.

The first is that with the collapse of the central state in
Baghdad, Najaf has become the centre of authority for the
Shia community, who comprise the majority of Iraq’s
population. Whoever controls Najaf and its seminary would
enjoy the moral legitimacy which, in the absence of free
elections, the interim government cannot claim.

Najaf is also big business. For centuries wealthy Shias
have left part of their fortune to the foundation that runs
Ali’s mausoleum. That foundation owns large tracts of
farmland and property in both Iran and Iraq, hostels for
pilgrims, and the freehold of hundreds of shops in two
dozen cities.

The mausoleum’s treasury of gold, jewellery and precious
carpets is believed to be worth more than $1 billion. Since
the liberation of Iraq, Najaf has attracted an estimated
7.5 million pilgrims. Once peace is fully restored, this
could quickly rise to ten million a year, making Najaf the
biggest tourist destination in the Arab world, even greater
than Mecca. Many new pilgrim hotels are planned or being
built. Since all devout Shia would be obliged to pay a 20
per cent flat tax, known as sahm-i-Imam (the Imam’s cut),
Ali’s foundation could become immensely richer in a short
time.

Saddam Hussein’s Government had seized control of the
foundation’s assets. Under Iraq’s new Constitution,
however, the foundation would regain its lost place, thus
becoming the nation’s biggest business enterprise after the
national oil company. Some Iraqis fear that Najaf could
become a state within the State, a Vatican-style religious,
political and economic powerhouse.

Najaf’s local and national importance is complemented by a
regional dimension. Once the city regains its place as the
centre of Shia scholarship it could pose a threat to the
mullahs who have ruled Iran since 1979. The brand of Shia
Islam offered in Najaf today, especially by Grand Ayatollah
Ali al-Sistani, is in sharp contrast to that peddled by the
Khomeinist mullahs of Tehran.
While Khomeinism preaches direct rule by the mullahs,
Ayatollah al-Sistani’s traditional Shia Islam distinguishes
between political and religious spaces. His prestige
reached a new height this week when he succeeded in
preventing a full-scale battle in Najaf. His intervention
showed that the cleric Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr was
nothing but a maverick with a few hundred gunmen and little
popular support. It also exposed the weakness of Iyad
Allawi’s American-backed interim government.

Ayatollah al-Sistani succeeded by deploying people’s power,
something he hopes to do in January’s election when he is
expected to endorse a list of “pious candidates”. The
emergence of Iraq as a moderate Shia power in which the
clergy act only as “consultants” for politicians could
become the biggest challenge that Tehran’s Khomeinists have
faced.

This is why it is hard to believe that we have heard the
last of the troubles in Najaf. The mullahs of Tehran are
determined to shape the new Iraq in the way that they, and
not the Americans, want. The Americans, for their part, are
equally determined not to allow the emergence of a
Khomeinist regime in Baghdad. Hojatoleslam al-Sadr remains
one wild card among the many that Tehran still holds in
Iraq. On Thursday he escaped arrest thanks to Ayatollah
al-Sistani. But he may well come back to make more trouble.
Iraq, and Najaf, are not out of the woods yet.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian author and commentator

[log in to unmask]

Source:The London Times of 28th August 2004.








   Compulsion and Religious Observances
Q. You mentioned on several occasions the verse that
rejects compulsion in religion. However, I read that this
applies to forcing people to change their religion and
accept our faith. But within the Muslim community, people
can be punished if they refuse to observe God’s law. Please
comment.

A. The Qur’anic statement is very clear, and it has a
general import. In literal translation we render it: “No
compulsion in religion.” A more expressive rendering is:
“No compulsion is admissible in matters of religion.” This
certainly applies to beliefs, as belief can only be the
result of personal conviction. Therefore, it is totally
against Islam to force anyone to accept the Islamic faith.
We invite people to accept it, but leave the decision to
them, and do not punish them in any way if they choose to
follow different faiths. This was the practice of the
Islamic state throughout history. If this applies to the
basic principle of accepting God’s oneness, it applies even
more clearly to matters of lesser importance, such as the
implementation of certain Islamic rules. People should obey
God’s law because they believe in Him and hope to receive
reward from Him.

Having said that, I hasten to add that this should not be
confused with enforcing penalties for law violations.
Islamic society is not an anarchist one. It lays down rules
that must be obeyed, but this is part of maintaining law
and order in society, which is universally accepted as
necessary. Thus, no one follows a person into private
places to check whether that person is fasting or not, but
a Muslim society may introduce penalty for eating in public
during the day in Ramadan. This penalty is not for
non-fasting, but for not observing public decency at a time
when an act of worship is observed by the whole community
through fasting. Enforcing such penalties is not compulsion
to follow Islam, but protecting the community against
anarchy and disorder.

Political, Islamic Issues

Q.1. Is it true that nationalism is forbidden in Islam?

Q.2. Some people suggest that Muslims today are in such a
miserable state because they have abandoned the caliphate
system, and that they should go back to it. Please comment.

Q.3. Opinion has been given that it is not permitted for a
Muslim to do the pilgrimage if one is treated like an enemy
by the authorities; or one is required to pay taxes that
are not used entirely for the benefit of the pilgrims.

A.1. We cannot say anything in answer, unless a proper
definition of nationalism is given first. If it is merely a
sense of belonging to a certain community, then this is
perfectly permissible. The companions of the Prophet (peace
be upon him) never abandoned their affiliation to their
tribes or communities. They certainly did not put such
affiliation ahead of their loyalty to Islam and the Muslim
community, but they did not abandon them. Therefore, if one
considers that his main allegiance is to a community or
geopolitical entity, and that it takes precedence over his
allegiance to Islam, then he is in the wrong, and must
rectify this. But if his main allegiance is to Islam and
the Muslim community then his belonging to a country or a
race is merely a statement of fact. There is nothing wrong
with this.

A.2. This idea that the re-establishment of the caliphate
should be the primary cause of all Muslims, and that
without it nothing is proper or right, is advanced by the
organization known as Hizb Al-Tahrir. It is a shallow idea
that does not rely on any clear evidence from the Sunnah.
The Prophet never advocated any form of government, or the
establishment of a political entity. It is true that he
established a state once he had the foundations for it, but
he did not establish a caliphate system. Nor did he advise
on a particular form of government. This is the reason why
the choice of the first five caliphs in Islam took five
different procedures. All of them meet the general
principle that Islamic government is consultative.

When you go into the ideas of Hizb Al-Tahrir, you find much
fault with them. You also find them very argumentative,
unwilling to look at any view or argument that differs with
them. This is not the proper Islamic attitude. Their way
does not lead to much good, although most of their members
are honest, devout and sincere. Yet their approach is
erroneous.

A.3. Whoever voiced such an opinion is ignorant. We know
that the pilgrimage is a duty ordained by God, who does not
specify any conditions for it other than that one should be
able to undertake it. The ability is physical and
financial. This means that he should be in good health to
undertake the journey, and that there are no dangers to
prevent his safe travel, and that he should have enough to
pay for his travel, living expenses and the expenses of his
dependants during his absence. To try to put other
conditions is to impose one’s views on God’s law. This is
not the proper attitude of a Muslim. Besides, no one is
treated like an enemy by the authorities. All pilgrims are
welcome in the country. The authorities do check passengers
in order to ensure public safety, which is a responsibility
of the government. As for taxes, these are small and within
the prerogative of the government. The Prophet says clearly
that a tax other than zakah may be rightfully imposed. The
other objections the reader mentions are too trivial to
merit a response. If one is given the ability to perform
the pilgrimage but he refrains from doing so under the
pretext the reader has mentioned, he will be held
accountable for his failure. Will he say to God that he did
not do the pilgrimage in order not to pay a certain tax?
How would he answer God’s question: “Had I not given you
enough money to pay it?”

Marital Problems

Q. When a certain person proposed marriage, he agreed under
pressure to a dower, or mehr, of about $20.000, which
remained unpaid. A few years after the marriage, and the
birth of a daughter, problems arose. His wife took their
daughter home and requested divorce, although she was aware
that he was in no position to pay the dower. She threatened
to apply for khula’ but she has not done so. Now he is
unable to reach her as her family do not allow him access,
even by letter. He is denied seeing his daughter. What
solution Islam provides for such a problem.

A. People often abuse the dower system which is part of
Islamic marriage intended as a gesture of honor to the
wife. Sometimes, the woman is pressurized to forfeit her
right to it. Instead, she pays a dowry to the husband, in
line with un-Islamic practices. In other situations, the
dower is set too high for the husband to pay. In such
cases, the woman’s family defers its payment indefinitely,
which means that it becomes payable if divorce takes place,
or when the man dies. But in certain cases it becomes a
source of hard feelings that linger on and on.

In this case, the problem between the couple might have
been easy to solve without the threat of a payment that is
beyond the husband’s means. He should have never accepted
such an amount to be entered as owing from him, since he
was aware that he would never be able to pay it. However,
now that the situation is thus, he should inform his wife
that she is in violation of her marital duties if she
remains away. He should ask her to see him to sort out
their problem. When they meet, or if he meets her parents,
he should tell them that he wants to sort out the problem
amicably. If they have to part company, then they should do
so without either party ruining the life of the other.
There are three options open to them: 1) a reconciliation
and resumption of the marriage; 2) divorce, in which case
they should agree to forgo a portion of the dower, so as
accept an amount that he can pay without too much hardship;
or 3) khula’, which means that the marriage is terminated
at the wife’s request and she repays the entire amount of
dower. In this third case, he will not have to pay her
anything.

In such matters, it is always advisable to consider
involving some wise people from the two families. These
should be well placed as to look into the problem seeking
an amicable solution. This is in fact required by Islam, as
the Qur’an states: “If you have reason to fear that a
breach may occur between a (married) couple, appoint an
arbiter from among his people and an arbiter from among her
people. If they both want to set things aright, God will
bring about their reconciliation.” (4: 35) It is because we
often forget to apply Islamic rules that we land ourselves
in situations that are hard to solve. This procedure of
arbitration is required as a way to prevent the break up of
marriage. The reader may consider offering it to his
in-laws, quoting this Qur’anic verse. If they are
religious, they should accept it.








___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~