By Ali Abbas Inayatullah

KARACHI - After watching the hundreds of thousands of protesters in Iran, I was taken aback when these courageous ordinary Iranians were dismissed by Islamist groups and some self-styled leftists as Westernized toffs and elites who had descended from the affluent neighbourhoods of Tehran

One could not initially help wonder at the number of elites in Iran. If one is to take the Islamist critique, than Iran must be a very rich country if it has hundreds of thousands of elites who can turn up to march in the capital square.  

The protesters have been painted as city dwellers who are not the real face of Iran. The supposedly authentic Iranians, we are told, live in the rural heartland of the country, and they apparently are a true representation of Iran.

However, on closer examination, nearly 70% of Iran’s population resides in urban areas and Tehran is home to nearly a 6th of Iran’s total population of 80 million.

Travelling in Iran, one is stuck by the fact that Iranians are very particular about their culture and three decades of enforced Islamization and Arabization have done little to erode an ethos that extends back to six millennia.  From Darius to Ahura Mazda, Iranians maintain strong ties to their historical past.

It is not uncommon to find portraits that are artistic impressions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), his son-in-law Imam Ali (as) and the Prophet’s grandson Imam Hussain (as) in many Iranian houses and shops.

These are important icons for the average Iranian. Of course, one of the most important icons is the 8th Shia Imam, Imam Raza (as) whose shrine in Mashhad is the gathering place for hundreds of thousands of Iranians and non-Iranians on a daily basis.  In looking at the importance of Imam Raza to the present situation, one can draw some useful parallels.

In order to add legitimacy to his rule and seek the backing of the population, the Abbasid Caliph al-Mamun (d. 833) had come up with a ploy to make Imam Raza his successor. If the Imam accepted, he would be viewed as a sell-out to power; if he did not, the fate meted out to him would be the same as his ancestors, a swift death.

The Imam accepted but on doing so, ensured that the people and not just the court of al-Mamun Rashid accepted his mandate. In subsequent public appearances, the Imam was promptly given a warm and rousing reception by the public and that was enough for the Caliph to order the murder of his own successor.

In embracing martyrdom, Imam Raza applied the same principles Imam Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Hussain, and their progeny had upheld; i.e., political power rests with the mandate of the people and spiritual ascendancy is a deeply private and esoteric act that is between the self and a Divine entity.  

They separated the spiritual office of the Imam from the political office of the Caliph. This separation remained largely intact in classical Shiaism and survived the Safavid and Qajar dynasties.

However, in 1979 this separation between politics and Islam was dealt a glancing blow by a power hungry cleric who hijacked a people’s revolution against the monarchy to establish a theocratic dictatorship.  

To legitimize his power grab, Khomeni invoked the arcane clause of Vilayat-e-Faqih, that was narrowly passed by the Usooli Shia scholars in the 18th century and that was not even a mainstream part of Shia doctrine

Thirty years later and despite their best efforts, the hard-line Islamic regime in Iran has not been able to supplant itself in the consciousness of the average Iranian.  

The Iranians love Maula Ali, but they can barely tolerate Ali Khamenei. The Salafist efforts of the hard-line clerics to marginalize Iranian culture have met with no success. For the average Iranian, Shiaism forms a part of their identity.

However, unlike an increasing number of their neighbours in Pakistan, the Iranians have not divested themselves of their Pre-Islam identity and have amalgamated their religious beliefs and culture in a manner that allows them to function effectively in a modern world and practice their religion non-intrusively.

The dispute on the current elections results highlights a cathartic moment in Iran when an increasing number of its people are voicing their protest, not just against a stolen election but also against the rule of the Jurist itself.

In the midst of this struggle between the Iranian people and their ruling ayatollahs, the role of some on the Left is bewildering.

Contrary to its founding principles of secular humanism, much of the New Left has become overly romanticized by the Islamist Right. Their support for Ahmedinejad displays a shocking ignorance of modern Iranian culture and politics.

Advocating the cause of these despotic theocrats are mostly more-royal-

than-the-king Islamists and Leftists of South Asian origin. Peer back in history and the same phenomena took place in 1918 in India under the Caliphate “Movement.”  

In this movement, a certain section of elitist Muslims were advocating for the Caliphate in Turkey, even while the Turk nationalists under Ataturk were busy dismantling it on the populist mandate of their people. While the very institution of Caliphate was being scrapped in Turkey, South Asian and Arab Islamists clung on to it and furthered the misery of all those who fell prey to

the resultant Jamat-e-Islami and Muslim Brotherhood.

The reaction of some non-Iranian Shia in South Asia and North America has been bizarre. Instead of standing behind the people of Iran, they have either thrown their weight behind the so-called Vilayat-E-Faqih (the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei) or have postured false neutrality in a dispute between thugs and their victims. They would want democracy and secularism for themselves, but in Iran they are comfortable with the dictators.

As for the Islamist right and its spokespeople like Zafar Bangash in Toronto, the hundreds of thousands of protesters in Tehran represent a wake-up call.

Even if these current protests cannot sustain their momentum, they represent a turning point in the future of Islamism. Even if Ahmedinejad and Khamenei are able to use the Basij thugs to suppress the current protests and regain temporary control over the situation, the tide of history is clearly against them.

Like the despotic caliphs who usurped political power by misusing religion, they too are likely to be consigned to the dustbin of history, along with the

Yazids and Mamuns of the past.

The protests in Iran highlight that the collapse of the Wahhabist theocracy is eminent. The Iranians have expressed their democratic and secular aspirations. The only long-term losers are the theocratic elites based in North America and Pakistan. They will no longer have an Islamist model as a basis for their regressive narrative, as sooner rather than later, the Iranians are likely to cast aside, the politicized model of the Vilayat-e-Faqih.

This will be a boon to Muslim communities worldwide. It will free Shiaism from the clutches of power hungry mullahs and allow for it to once again concentrate on the regeneration of its mystical, esoteric, and spiritual aspects and be the basis of progressive, secular and representative politics that it was before a certain Ayatollah cabal hijacked it in 1979.