‘Uncontested’ view of Shi’i networks: a reply to Corboz

Abstract

The starting point for Corboz’s article ‘Shi’i Clerical Networks and the Transnational Contest over Sacred Authority by challenging assumptions that velayat-e faqih is an ‘uncontested’ position: Dynamics in London’s Shi’i Triangle’ is a proposal that gives emphasis to a transnational contest between maraji’ and the Iranian Supreme Leader over sacred authority. Corboz’s core argument seeks to undermine the view of the velayat-e faqih being the only relevant ‘model’ of clerical authority in today and future Shi’i worlds by exploring Shi’a networks in London. In response, I argue that the political and religious authority of velayat-e faqih cannot be contested with the religious functionality of marja’iyya in Shi’ism. Second, the notion of a ‘Shi’a Crescent’ as well as the accusation that Iran is orchestratings the Shi’a groups – via which the authoritarian regimes ensured their survival during the Arab Springs – should be rejected by accepting that even the most pro-Iranian groups do not necessarily tend to repeat the Iranian model of leadership. Finally, I emphasise that challenging the power to rule as a feature of velayat-e faqih by holding Iran’s Supreme Leader in the Islamic Republic of Iran with marja’iyya does not provide an adequate understanding of the multidimensional dynamics of Shi’ism.