Why is the Shia Opposition unable to overthrow the Shia Religious Authority?
We have spoken extensively on the Ruling Religious Authority in Iran and its Shia supporters. This supporting class believe with blind certainty in the ideologies upon which the Ruling Authority was founded and is inspired. The ideologies of Wilayat al Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) and the incumbency of blindly following the Mujtahids; and that the action of the Shia who does not blindly follow the Mujtahids is false and invalid and the one who disapproves of the al Wali al Faqih (Guardian Jurist), his status is like the status of one who disapproves Allah and His Messenger. In addition to these two pillars, [all other ideologies] upon which the Ideological System of the Shia Imamiyyah rests.
All innovations—which we intend to reform—branch out from it; the Mujtahids and Wulat al Fiqh (Guardian Jurists) have exploited it to solidify their authority over the Shia and enslave them. Certainly, these innovations, collectively and individually, did and will continue playing a political role in the thinking of a large category of us, the Shia Imamiyyah.
At this point, it is necessary to state with all clarity that [only] twenty percent of the Shia of Iran believe thoughtlessly in Wilayat al Faqih and whatever branches out from it. The overwhelming majority do not believe in Wilayat al Faqih in the meaning of him [the Guardian Jurist] being the absolute master (vested with unlimited authority); however, they believe in following the Mujtahids and remaining subject to them. They are on a lower level of fanaticism for the Guardian Jurists than the first class to which we indicated. This overwhelming majority—whose beliefs are also not free from innovations—would not support the Ruling Religious Authority in the depths of their hearts.
A fight occurred between this overwhelming majority who lost their freedom at the hands of the ruling minority, who do not exceed twenty percent of the Shia. However, the majority did not have the ability to subjugate the minority who, with fire and iron, suppress public demonstrations and the desire of the majority. The danger to which I indicated more than once is concealed here. The Shia are threatened with annihilation and destruction at the hands of the Shia themselves.
In the autocratic political system, when a mass demonstration takes place and the people leave their homes to the parks and streets, the suppression forces which is a tool for the autocratic ruler, in most cases, do not open fire on the demonstrators, as they are their brothers and because they are fighting the autocratic ruler. Majority of the time, they join the demonstrators and complete the image of general national rebellion which ousts the autocratic ruler, as happened in the rebellion which ousted the Shah aforetime—when the suppressive autocratic forces comprising of the law enforcement, police, and army, all joined with the rebels, and the rebellion was universal.
However, in the current setting, the sovereign power over the cities is a religious power and there are twenty percent of the people or more who believe in it and its philosophy, and from this minority the suppressive forces are composed, who control the cities. Thus, every public demonstration will be suppressed by this minority with fire and iron and without any compassion and mercy, believing that they are killing brothers in religion and creed based on Allah’s commands, the Qur’an’s regulations, and Imam ‘Ali’s attitude. Hence, pity will not seize them, and the killing of a thousand or a hundred thousand or more in one battle will not concern them. They will be boastful and grateful to Allah that they exterminated the enemies of Din—the hypocrites, the rebels, the unjust. In this situation, the success of a public rebellion to oust the Ruling Religious Authority in Iran is tough.
I now focus on what I would like to answer. The Opposition of the Shia Imamiyyah who fought the Authority over the period of ten years have taken a wrong path in depicting the tragedies perpetrated by the Ruling Religious Authority and expounding on the violations it perpetrated, whether in its war with the neighbouring Shia or killing the Shia public in the prisons and concentration camps inside the country, as well as all their affairs which contradict the pillars of Islam.
The Shia Opposition in media, writings, and lectures accuses the Ruling Authority—at the head of who is the Guardian Jurist and the hands working with him—that their actions are contrary to Islam and its fundamentals and that the leadership perpetrates what is in polarity to Islam. The Opposition constantly concentrates strongly on this matter and endeavours intensely to establish to the Iranian Shia that the Ruling Authority does the exact opposite of all that is closely or distantly connected to Islam. Despite this, the Authority is surviving and hundreds of thousands participate in the Salat al Jumu’ah and hundreds of thousands emerge in demonstrations in absolute support of the Authority which is called Islamic; though, its actions are contrary to Islam and contrary to the Qur’an, evident like the sun at midday.
This is the mistake the Shia Opposition made in Iran and outside Iran. All Islamic forces thought that exposing the Ruling Authority of Iran negatively affects it, Islamically and religiously, in the country and before those who believe in the Authority, yet nothing of this sort happened.
The terrible mistake the Shia Opposition committed was they did not recognise the language of communicating with the Iranian Shia; whether the minority I indicated to or the majority we spoke about, because they are Shia before being Muslims. Islam in their sight is Shi’ism and the true religion for which Islam came is the Shia religion in the form woven by the scholars and Guardian Jurists after the Major Occultation, and after they distorted the reality of pure, brilliant Shi’ism, represented in the Fiqh of the Ahlul Bayt, to what it is today.
The Shia in Iran look at all Islamic measures from the angle of Shi’ism. Owing to this, we find no strangeness in majority of the Shia Jurists pronouncing Imamah one of the fundamentals of din; and if there is no belief in this, a person’s Islam is insufficient and not accepted from him. On this basis, a profound fundamental dispute occurred between the Shia and the other Islamic sects in understanding Islam.
What I am trying to articulate is that the Shia Opposition focused on exposing the Ruling Religious Authority in the eyes of the Shia, demonstrating that the Authority’s actions oppose Islam, yet they did not find a positive response or interest from the Shia to accept this proclamation; this only happened because the Spiritual Ruling Leadership gave a Shia interpretation to these actions which gel with the Shia fundamentals they necessitated upon us, the Shia Imamiyyah. That is why the proof of the Opposition fell away and their words were useless.
Had the Shia Opposition, instead of accusing the Ruling Religious Authority in Iran of their desertion and deviation from Islam, accused them of deserting Shi’ism and deviating from its fundamentals and announced that what they are perpetrating is in polarity to Shia fundamentals, in fact demolition of the same, the result would be different. Instead of addressing the Shia of Iran that the war is against Islam, it would be most appropriate to address them by declaring that the war is against Shi’ism. The execution of the opponents is actually against Shi’ism. Furthermore, stripping the Ummah, in its entirety, of its most basic right of freedom of self-determination is only against Shi’ism. The existence of the Authority in this form is only damaging to Shi’ism and the end of Shi’ism will be at its hands.
It was binding upon the Opposition to furnish proofs and cite examples supporting these claims from the actions and behaviour of Imam ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the actions, behaviour, and statements of the Imams. At that juncture, the Shia minority would stand in opposition of the Ruling Authority, with all its suppressive forces who ought to support the Authority, together with the majority which is sometimes enraged and sometimes tranquil—all becoming one mass, to eliminate the Authority which threatens the religion [Shi’ism] it associates with and carries out actions contrary to the religion and its fundamentals.
They asserted that confiscating wealth is contrary to the laws of Islam. It was highly appropriate to assert that confiscating wealth of the Shia is contrary to Shi’ism and that this war is against the Shia and Shi’ism, and so forth and so on.
The Shia Opposition have to this day not recognised the language with which to address the Shia of Iran and outside Iran. Due to this, the Opposition was not able to form a general standpoint capable of eliminating the Authority. Furthermore, in this address, it was essential not to suffice on accusing the Religious Ruling Authority of opposing Shi’ism and the Shia. Instead, it was compulsory upon the Opposition, and this is what is practically compulsory upon them, to embed firmly and decisively that the foundational core of the Shia Religious Authority is nothing but innovations, hollowness, and crookedness upon which the pillars of their kingdom was founded. As long as these innovations and hollowness are present in the Shia belief system and the naïve populace mindset, the Authority will remain and wretchedness will continue.
Certainly, genuine Shi’ism which was in the era of the Imams of the Shia totally contradicts the Shi’ism the Jurists claim. Owing to this, all the evil actions that come forth from them, even if given a Shia interpretation to gain acceptance by the general Shia, are in reality contradictory to the foundations of genuine Shi’ism and Jafari Fiqh, represented as the pure and brilliant Fiqh of Imam al Sadiq. In this case, the mistake committed by the Shia Opposition is not stimulating Shia sentiment, modified with artificial modification at the hands of the Jurists and Mujtahids, and not focusing on explaining these innovations, refuting them, and exposing their reality. Highlighting the reality leaves no scope for doubt that the beliefs of the Shia Imamiyyah in the era of the Imams were totally dissimilar and in complete conflict to the beliefs of the Shia Imamiyyah after the era of the Imams. This is exactly what we established in the two books we referred to.
On the 5th of October 1989, the Sheikh who principals the Islamic Republic of Iran appointed Molvi Ishaq Madani as advisor for Sunni affairs. Is there a more obvious proof than this for what I suggested a little while back that our clergy—may Allah forgive them—look at Islam as a matter which has no connection to the beliefs they claim affiliation to? Otherwise, what does it mean to select an advisor for the Sunni affairs of an Islamic country, the name of its Authority being Islamic Republic, who partner with its Muslims populace in their Qiblah, their Qur’an, their Hajj, their Salah, their Fast, and their pillars of worship? Is there a difference between Islam and Sunnah?
More astonishing than this is that we, the Shia Imamiyyah, believe that the Sunnah (i.e., the Sunnah to which the Ahlus Sunnah trace their origins) is the second source for the Shari’ah after the Book of Allah and the position of the Prophetic Sunnah comes before Ijma’ (Consensus) and rational proofs. This means that every Shia Jafari in Fiqh is a Sunni by rational compulsion, whether he approves or disapproves; but, not the opposite. It is possible for a Sunni to be a Shafi’i, Hanafi, or Maliki without being a Jafari. But a Jafari has to be a Sunni since the Sunnah is the path to understanding the fiqhi verdicts and legal regulations according to him.