- The Washington Times - Thursday, May 27, 2004

President Bush’s speech Monday at the Army War College was steeped in the realistic perspective that America will need to stay the course in Iraq over the next 18 months as we work to implant a stable government in Baghdad.

“There are difficult days ahead, and the way forward may sometimes appear chaotic,” Mr. Bush warned. “Yet our coalition is strong, our efforts are focused and unrelenting, and no power of the enemy will stop Iraq’s progress.”

But as we struggle to transform this conflict from an international military confrontation into a peaceful Iraqi political contest, we need to be as realistic in assessing the political obstacles confronting our efforts to leave Iraq with a benign regime as we are in assessing the military obstacles.

One of those political obstacles is the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, Iraq’s leading Shi’ite cleric.

Policymakers ought to carefully examine the similarities and differences between Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Khomeini, the late Shi’ite cleric who sparked the Islamic revolution in Iran.

One difference between them is that Ayatollah Khomeini would actually meet with Westerners, including female Western reporters. Ayatollah Sistani won’t even meet with Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.

This may be explained by an entry on Ayatollah Sistani’s English language Web site. Discussing things that are “najis,” which he defines in a glossary as “impure,” and things that are “pak,” which he defines as “clean,” Ayatollah Sistani says: “As regards people of the Book [i.e. the Jews and the Christians] … they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak. However it is better to avoid them.”

Another difference between Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Sistani is that when Khomeini communicated with the West in the days before the Iranian revolution, he made soothing noises about free elections, political pluralism and women’s rights. When Ayatollah Sistani communicates with the West today, he speaks about free elections (which would empower his own Iraqi Shi’ite base, 65 percent of Iraq’s population), but he doesn’t tout pluralism or women’s rights. Indeed, he won’t endorse Iraq’s draft constitution because it gives Iraqi Kurds a chance to veto Shi’ite political domination and doesn’t guarantee Islamic law will be the basis of Iraqi government.

Last November, Sistani ally Abdul Aziz al Hakim explained the ayatollah’s objection to a U.S. plan to hold caucuses to pick an interim government. “There should have been a stipulation which prevents legislating anything that contradicts Islam in the new Iraq,” he said.

In April, The New York Times reported: “Ayatollah Sistani’s supporters want Islam to govern such matters as family law, divorce and women’s rights.”

Where does Ayatollah Sistani stand on these issues? Postings on his Web site include prescriptions for temporary marriage (“In a fixed-time marriage, the period of matrimony is fixed, for example, matrimonial relation is contracted with a woman for an hour, or a day, or a month, or a year, or more.”); keeping wives indoors (“It is forbidden for the wife of a permanent marriage to go out without her husband’s permission.”); and multiple marriages and divorces (“A man is not permitted to marry more than four women by way of permanent marriage. He also has the right to divorce his wives.”)

Khomeini may have shared Ayatollah Sistani’s values here, but his pre-revolutionary propaganda was better packaged for the West. In November 1978, for example, Dorothy Gilliam of The Washington Post’s Style section interviewed Khomeini, who was then living in exile in France. While noting Khomeini’s aides “order Western women journalists to cover their heads and shoulders” before meeting him, she dutifully recorded that the ayatollah himself said: “In Islamic society, women will be free to choose their own destiny and activity. God created us equally.”

That same month, The Washington Post’s correspondent Ronald Koven also interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini and some of his aides. “The aides say he rejects the authoritarian models of Islamic republicanism in much of the Arab world. Iran is not an Arab country,” wrote Mr. Koven. “The aide quoted Khomeini as saying, ‘In the history of Islam, those who denied God were free to express themselves.’ This, said the aide, is Khomeini’s way of saying all political parties would be legal in his vision of an Islamic republic to be established in a national referendum.”

Why did the man who installed a theocracy in Iran in 1979 say these things in France in 1978? Perhaps he was practicing “taqiyya,” the Shi’ite doctrine that Grand Ayatollah Sistani blandly defines on his Web site as: “Dissimulation about one’s beliefs in order to protect oneself, family, or property from harm.” Ayatollah Sistani has written an unpublished treatise on this doctrine. Is it wise to assume he is not practicing it today in his dealings with a U.S. occupational force?

Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute, a strong advocate of installing democracy in Iraq, wrote in the Weekly Standard last month that Ayatollah Sistani “virtually has a de facto veto over American actions” there. If so, it’s the wrong veto in the wrong hands.

If we want to leave an Iraq that is at peace with itself and the world, we will need to find a way to give Iraqis who oppose the ayatollah’s theocratic vision a veto over him.

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor of Human Events and is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide