Read on Twitter
A common narrative of the 1920 Revolution - amongst Iraqis & some historians - is that it would not have been possible without Grand Ayatollah Shirazi (chief marjaa at the time) In my research, I argue that G.A. Shirazi’s behavior wasn’t revolutionary but quite typical...(1) https://twitter.com/hamzehkarkhi/status/1277996251498323969
G.A. Shirazi’s predecessor, G.A. Yazdi, was seen as being anti-revolutionary and one of the reasons the Najafi Revolt of 1917 failed. Prominent revolutionary clerics - like Khalisi - thought that Yazdi’s lack of support would of derailed 1920. He died before it started. (2)
But was Yazdi’s lack of support to protestors/rebels in 1917 extraordinary & willfully pro-British? And was Shirazi’s behavior in 1920 extraordinary & willfully anti-British? (3)
Focusing on ideological proclivities & clerical relationship w/ the govt obstructs the fact that elite clerics had other incentives: protecting Najaf against reprisals, ensuring the well-being of the community (who are a source of legitimacy), protecting the Hawza (4)
Certainly, clerics had ideological oppositions to colonialism. Iraqi Sunni & Shia clerics alike have a history of issuing anti-colonial fatwas regarding colonization of the rest of the MENA. In fact, GA Muhsin al-Hakim fought against the British in his youth (5)
G.A. Yazdi received & sent a lot of letters to British authorities in an attempt to mediate to restore peace. He also stopped some of his students from taking up arms in 1917. But he wasn’t the only cleric attempting to mediate in Najaf! (6)
His main incentives (I think) was that Najaf was under seige & he (& others) knew the revolt wasn’t going to be successful (nor was it representative of the whole of Najafi society). His behavior was “mediation” (7)
G.A. Shirazi’s role in 1920 needs to be seen in light of the difference in scope of the events. Despite it being bigger & more successful, GA Shirazi’s interventions were much more limited than people think - he was cautious about “observing law and order” (8)
In fact, one can argue that his move to Kerbala from Samara and his close ties with Baghdadi revolutionaries were a result of his son’s connections (his son was later arrested by the British) (9)
He gave the Revolution a seal of clerical legitimacy - but that actually came after the British defeat at Raranjiya (10)
There were ofc many other lower-ranking clerics involved in both 1917 & 1920. Some were leading revolutionaries while others cautiously followed the lead of elites ... the divergence can be explained by the degree to which they were immersed in Hawza’s “organizational ethos” (11)
If there’s a constant with elite Hawza clerics in history, I’d argue it would be avoiding “الفوضى" (chaos) in many forms (12)
Finding data on these two events was hard & as many people have pointed out riddled with historical biases & inaccuracies. There are so many resources in Iraq I wish I had the time to dig into more, but I look forward to the work of future Iraqi historians on this (13)
