The Egyptian and Iranian ulama at the threshold of modern social change: what does and what does not account for the difference?

Summary

---

The Iranian ulama gained political power from the support extended by merchants, traders and guilds, whereas the Egyptian ulama faced a strong state without adequate support from the people. A structural-historical review of ulama politics in Egypt and Iran gives an insight into the relationships between state and society. State power in Iran was weakened by the neglect of social classes such as merchants and peasants, whereas the state in Egypt looked after the interests of these social classes and so prevented them from supporting the ulama.

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

The Egyptian and Iranian ulama at the threshold of modern social change: what does and what does not account for the difference?

SINCE THE SIXTIES, AN ASTONISHING DEBATE has been in progress on the singularity of the Iranian religious experience in the course of the nineteenth century. With the outbreak of the ulama-led Iranian Revolution of 1977-79, the debate has gained added significance.(1) It is noted that the politics of the Shi'i ulama in Iran in the nineteenth century (and thereafter) displays a contrast with the politics of the Sunni ulama in other Middle Eastern countries. The Iranian ulama have enjoyed a power and influence in society unrivaled by their counterparts in other Muslim countries, played an influential role in the politics of this period, and occasionally participated in movements against the incumbent monarch. This is quite intriguing because in other areas of the Middle East, such as Egypt and the Ottoman Empire, ulama influence began to decline in the same period.

This essay attempts to explain this contrast, using the existing historical evidence. The article begins by summarizing the existing explanations of ulama politics in Iran offered by area specialists and historians. It then attempts to provide a structural-historical explanation for the difference between the Egyptian and Iranian ulama. By comparing Iran with Egypt, this study also attempts to contribute to the existing debate on the relationship between religion and politics in social history and historical sociology.

EXPLAINING ULAMA POLITICS

Although none have used comparative historical investigation, the leading scholars' explanations of ulama politics in nineteenth century Iran contain accounts of its contrast with the politics of the Sunni ulama in other Middle Eastern countries. These explanations are constructed either in terms of the difference between the political theory of Shi'ism and Sunnism or the institutional autonomy of the Shi'i ulama within the context of the state's weakness in Iran and its strength in other places. The first group argues that there is no theological basis in Shi'ism for the accommodation between the ulama and any worldly polity. This ideological precedent, which seemingly renders all temporal rulers illegitimate, is thought to be the underlying cause of the oppositional role of the Shi'i ulama, while its absence in Sunni teachings has deprived the Sunni ulama of a strong ideological basis to oppose the state.(2) Keddie, on the other hand, argues that "the ulama declined in those states, like Egypt and the Ottoman Empire, where the central government was able to strengthen itself significantly .... In Iran, there is a rise in ulama power, which is directly related to a governmental 'power vacuum'."(3) A new institutional development in Shi'ism in the late eighteenth century, the rise of the Usuli school and the decline of the Akhbari provided a strong organizational ideology for ulama political action, further enhancing their power and influence in society. The Usuli claimed for the ulama primacy in interpreting law and demanded that all believers pick a living mujtahid to follow and to abide by his judgments. The Akhbaris, in contrast, rejected the permissibility of religious scholars using their reason to enact certain judgments. Thus the Usuli doctrine, says Keddie, "gave the living mujtahids a power beyond anything claimed by the Sunni ulama, and gave to their rulings a sanction beyond anything merely decreed by the state."(4)

The theoretical and historical problems in these interpretations have been presented elsewhere.(5) As an alternative, this paper suggests a structural-historical explanation of the contrast in ulama politics in Egypt and Iran. This approach involves posing the problem of ulama political action within the broader context of the int...

See the full content of this document

---