Contested Traditions

This morning I went to another lecture by Ali Ansari, this time on Iranian nationalism in the 20th century. He told an interesting anecdote about two ayatollahs he talked to in Iran. The background to this is the crisis in the early Islamic community in the 7th century: After Muhammad died, Abu Bakr became the first caliph in a semi-democratic process. Shi'ites believe that Ali should have followed Muhammad as leader, and that Muhammad actually indicated this during his lifetime. Ali, however, supported Abu Bakr as caliph.

With that in mind, according to Ayatollah #1, Shi'ite Islam is incompatible with democracy, because if Shi'ites wanted democracy, they would have agreed that Abu Bakr was the true caliph along with the majority of Muslims.

According to Ayatollah #2, however, Shi'ite Islam is completely in harmony with democracy because even though Ali clearly had divine right on his side, he and the other Shi'ites did not oppose the will of the majority of Muslims.

I find this a good example of why it is wrong to try an explain Muslim political behavior as an inevitable result of the past, or to argue that Islam itself discourages independent thought in favor of blind adherence to tradition.