The Najaf Conference

By Ali al-Wardi

Volume I: Chapter V (Pt.II)



Once in Najaf Nader Shah decided to organise a conference in order to build a bridge of understanding between the opposing Shia and Sunni scholars. It was the first, and maybe last, conference of its kind in Islamic history. Nader Shah gathered seventy Shia scholars from Iran, seven scholars from Turkestan and seven scholars from Afghanistan. He then invited Sayyid Nasrallah al-Hairi from Kerbala, who has the leader of Iraq’s Shia at the time, and also sent word to Ahmad Pasha asking him to provide a scholar from Baghdad to represent the Sunnis of Iraq. Ahmad Pasha sent Sheikh Abdullah al-Soweidi.

Soweidi writes in his memoir that he was at first reluctant to go but was persuaded by Ahmad Pasha to debate the Shia scholars. On December 11th 1743 he started his journey to Najaf pondering on the arguments that prove his faith and searching for answers to the possible counter-arguments the Shia would use. He walked in on Nader Shah who welcomed him and explained to him that the reason for holding this conference was to put an end to Muslims accusing each other of apostasy.

Soweidi then went to the tent of Sheikh Ali Akbar who was the leading Iranian scholar and debated him. Ali Akbar mentioned three proofs for Imam Ali being the rightful Caliph after Prophet Mohammed. The first proof was the incident of Mubahala (when the Prophet invoked the curse of God on the lying party as he debated Christians from Najran). The second proof was a verse from the Quran about giving charity whilst bowing down in worship [Quran 5:55]. The third proof was Hadith al-Manzila (when the Prophet told Ali: ‘You are to me as Aaron was to Moses’). Soweidi then tried to refute these proofs one by one.

After lengthy debates the scholars from both sides reached some common ground and signed an agreement which included five points.

I: The Iranians have reverted from their previous beliefs and have stopped cursing the first three Caliphs and have accepted the ‘Jafari’ school that is a correct school of thought to follow and should be acknowledged by judges, scholars and bureaucrats.

II: There are four corners of the Ka’ba which are assigned to the four (Sunni) schools of thought. The Jafari School will share one of these corners, the ‘Levantine’ corner, and will pray in the Jafari way after the assigned Imam has finished his prayers.

III: Every year an Emir is to be assigned from Iran to cater for the Iranian Hajj pilgrims and this Emir shall be accorded a higher status in the Ottoman Empire than the Egyptian or Levantine Emir.

IV: To free the prisoners on both sides and prevent their humiliation.

V: To appoint two representatives in the two states that shall work together to address any issues that give an appearance of there being differences in the Islamic nation.

Also in added to the agreement were the conditions that the new Jafari school would accept the Caliphate as it was after Prophet Mohammed’s death. As Jafar al-Sadiq was accepted by everyone to be a descendant of the Prophet and worthy of praise no animosity towards him would be tolerated. The new Jafari sect was to be accepted and anyone showing hostility towards them will have left Islam. The followers of the two sects in Islam are brothers in religion and it will be forbidden to kill, steal from or imprison each other (Mahbuba 1958, v.1, p.225).

After the agreement was signed by both sides triumphant celebrations took place unlike any other and Nader Shah distributed sweets on silver platters along with an incest burner made from solid gold adorned with priceless gemstones.

An important question to ask is how did Najaf Conference become so successful? In order to understand the importance of this question it is vital that one remembers the delegates of the conference used ancient logic in their debates and arguments. This does not bear fruitful outcomes no matter how long the debate lasts and we can see this from the previous dialectical debates between people from ancient times till now. It is rare to see people who can be convinced using this method and usually the longer the debate lasts the wider the gap gets.

The nature of this debate is that every proposition that is given can be contradicted with another proof. The outcome of the debate would rely more on the ability of a strong debater than on the substance of his argument.

The success of the conference was due to Nader Shah’s will and motivation and he seems to have told the Mulla Bashi and Shia scholars not to argue with Soweidi too much. Nader Shah had many eyes present in the conference who reported back to him and the Shia scholars were afraid to incur the wrath of Nader Shah and they did not know who among them were sent by him to keep watch.

Soweidi claims he won the debate with the Shia scholars but the Shia themselves say that the Mulla Bashi only kept silent because those were the wishes of Nader Shah (Ameen 1958, v.41, p.5).

Nader Shah was overjoyed by the result but in his haste forgot that the strife between the two sects had lasted for ten centuries and could not suddenly disappear simply because of an agreement was signed.

The Shah invited Soweidi to the Friday prayers in Kufa to listen to the lecture given by Iraq’s highest ranking Shia scholar, Nasrallah al-Hairi, and to hear for himself how the Caliphs are now praised by the Shia. Hairi stood on the pulpit and began praising the Caliphs, the Ahlul Bayt, and even the Ottoman Sultan but when he reached the name of Omar, the second Caliph, Hairi made a linguistic error when pronouncing his name. He added a ‘breaking’ motion to the last letter of ‘Omar’ and Soweidi was offended and angered at this mistake, which he believed was deliberate (Soweidi 1906, p.26-27).

The reconciliatory efforts were simply superficial and did not run deep into their hearts and it was clear that both sides were still suspicious of each other. Soweidi, before leaving Najaf, even tried to convince the Mulla Bashi that the Shia were not actually followers of Jafar al-Sadiq.

When the Hajj season arrived Nader Shah sent Hairi to Mecca with a copy of the agreement that had been signed in Najaf and sent a letter to the Emir of Mecca, Sharif Mas’oud, explaining that Hairi was there to execute the acts of the agreement. Hairi was allowed to pray at the Levantine corner of the Ka’ba and also gave a speech. We do not know what exactly he said but there was outrage at his speech and the Emir of Mecca sent a letter to the Ottoman Sultan explaining what had happened.

The term levantine is French in origin - levantin - and implies a geographic reference to the sun rising - soleil levant - in the east, or levant.

The Sultan ordered Hairi to be arrested and handed over to the Levantine Emir As’ad Pasha so that he could imprison him at the Citadel of Damascus. He was then sent to Istanbul (Azzawi, v.5, p.270).

In Istanbul he was brought before the Sultan and was later martyred (Khunsari 1949, p.727). Hairi was then given an official funeral. Dr Murtadha Nasrallah, a descendant of Hairi, says it has been known amongst his family that his grandfather was poisoned.

In 1745 the fighting between Nader Shah and the Ottoman Empire resumed near the Armenian border. Nader Shah lost thousands of his men but in August of that year he managed to inflict a heavy defeat on the Ottomans. When the Ottomans tried to regroup and counter-attack Nader Shah sent the Sultan a letter condemning the fighting and asking for peace and the Sultan replied agreeing that there should be an end to the sectarian warfare. On 21st March 1747 an official peace treaty was signed between the two states (Kirkukli, p.67-89).

Nader Shah enjoyed the peace for only three months as he was assassinated on June 20th 1747. According to Browne, Nader Shah had plotted to execute all the Iranians in his army leaving only the Turkmen and Uzbeks, but some Iranian officers had realised what he was about to do and so had him killed (Browne 1958, v.4, p.137).

When the officers entered his tent at night he woke up and managed to kill two of the assassins before he himself was killed (Sykes 1958, v.2, p.273). Nader Shah had a death that suited him well. He lived fighting and died fighting.

When news of his death spread chaos ensued, his tent was looted and the Shia and Sunnis within his own army began fighting each other. Ahmad Khan Durrani, who headed the Afghan and Uzbek contingent of the army, tried to avenge Nader Shah’s death but failed and so retreated to Afghanistan and founded his own empire there.

Iran fell into anarchy after the death of Nader Shah. The new kings who ruled were soon overthrown by others who took their places and what was strange is that each king when overthrowing the other would have the previous king blinded.

I - After Nader Shah died his nephew Adil Shah ruled for a year and was overthrown by his brother Ibrahim. Adil Shah was then blinded.

II - Ibrahim also ruled for a year and was overthrown by supporters of Shah Rokh, who was the son of Reza Qoli, who was blinded by his father Nader Shah.

III - Shah Rokh ruled only for a short while and then Mirza Mohammed overthrew him and had Shah Rokh blinded.

IV - Yousif Ali, one of Shah Rokh’s generals, rebelled against Mirza Mohammed and blinded him and his children, and then killed them all.

V - Mir Alam Khan and Jafar Khan overthrew Yousif Ali and blinded him.

VI - Mir Alam Khan then fought Jafar Khan and blinded him.

VII - After a short period Ahmad Khan Durrani, the Afghan Emperor, invaded and killed Mir Alam Khan – but he did not blind him.

VIII - Durrani wanted a buffer state between Afghanistan and Iran and so created a small state in Khurasan and placed ‘the blind son of the blind’ Shah Rokh in power. Shah Rokh's reign lasted for 50 years while the rest of Iran was in a state of anarchy.

In 1796 the Qajar family came to power in Iran and they followed in the footsteps of the Saffavids as they reintroduced the cursing of the Caliphs and mourning ceremonies to Iran. The sectarian fighting continued between the Iranians and Ottomans but instead of swords the war was fought with pens. When lithography was introduced to Iran in 1833 many sectarian works were printed and the sectarian feud was reignited.

When conventional wars were fought there would always be a clear winner and loser but the ‘pen wars’ were endless as neither side would admit defeat. The Iraqi people became accustomed to the continuous debates which created a barrier between them and the reality of life.



----------------

Volume I: Chapter V (Pt.I)

Nader Qoli and the Fifth School

Nader Qoli’s efforts in bridging the sectarian gap during the end of his rule also shed some light on Iraq’s social history. He was victorious against the Ottomans and Russians around Azerbaijan and restored his reputation after capturing Tbilisi, Ganja, Baku, Gilan, Darband and Rasht. On Newroz day (21st March) 1736 he held a grand meeting on the Moghan Plains in Ardabil and invited the leading Iranian officials to a feast. He announced the death of the young Saffavid Shah and asked to be proclaimed the new King of Iran.

His conditions would be to immediately stop the cursing of the first three Caliphs and also ban those mourning ceremonies that the Saffavids had introduced in order to bring the Shia and Sunnis closer together. After the sudden death of one of the leading scholars who had opposed Qoli’s terms the rest of the officials unanimously agreed and Nader Qoli became Nader Shah.

Two reasons for setting these conditions could be that he wanted the Iranian people to forget the Saffavids, who introduced the cursing of the Caliphs and mourning ceremonies to Iran, or because he wanted to replace the Ottoman Empire with his own great Islamic state which accommodates both the Shia and Sunnis. A third reason could be because Nader Shah himself was not sectarian. He grew up in a Sunni environment, the Afshar Turkmen tribe, but led a mainly Shia army to war. He could also have been trying to imitate the Mughal King of India, Akbar Shah, who tried to unite India under a new religious sect (Browne 1958, v.4, p.137).

His plan was to create a new sect in Islam out of Shi’ism that could be added to the four Sunni schools. He named this sect the ‘Ja’fari’ school after the 6th Shia Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq. It seems Nader Shah was not the first to conjure up this sort of plan. The author of the book ‘Rowdhat al-Jannat’ writes that the Abbasid Caliph al-Qadir had agreed with Sharif al-Murtadha to add a new sect to the existing Sunni schools in exchange for 100,000 Dinars. This would give the Shia the opportunity to openly follow this new sect instead of having to hide their true faith (Khunsari 1949, p.378).

Murtadha may have suppressed this plan, assuming there was one, because the differences between the Shia and Sunnis are not just jurisprudential but run much deeper as the two sects differ on the very pillars of Islam. The Sunnis have three Principles of Religion – Unity of God, Prophethood and Day of Judgment where as the Shia have five – the three aforementioned pillars in addition to the Justice of God and Imamate.


Nader Shah named his new sect after Jafar al-Sadiq because he had lived during the time of Malik and Abu Hanifa, the two great Sunni scholars, and because he was a descendant of both Ali, through his father, and Abu Bakr, through his mother. He was known to have announced to the people ‘Abu Bakr gave life to me twice’ in order to deter the Ghullat (Shia extremists) from cursing Abu Bakr and Omar.

Nader Shah pushed towards the East with his army and conquered Kandahar, Ghazni and Kabul. He then turned towards India where Mohammed Shah was ruling. Mohammed Shah was the antithesis of Nader Shah. Nader Shah never rested and was always marching or fighting while Mohammed Shah was lazy and busy enjoying worldly pleasures. This is the difference, according to Ibn Khaldun, of one who builds his might himself and one who inherits it from his father.

In 1738 Nader Shah defeated and captured Mohammed Shah near Delhi. Nader Shah pardoned his captive who then offered Nader Shah many invaluable gifts; including the ‘Peacock Throne’ that is still in Tehran and the ‘Mountain of Light’ diamond which now adorns the British Crown. After the murder of a few of his soldiers in Delhi Nader Shah ordered a wide scale massacre of the population. For seven hours Nader Shah’s army butchered over 100,000 residents while he sat on the roof of a mosque watching. Till today the term 'a Nader Shah' in the markets of Delhi means ‘slaughter’ (Sykes 1958, v.2, p.262).

On his return from India Nader Shah ordered people to refer to him as 'Shahensha' – King of Kings – and this term is still used in Iran today (Soweidi 1906, p.4). He then began to address the sectarian issues that were a cause for tension within his own army as it consisted of not just Iranians but Afghan, Uzbek and Turkmen soldiers.

He endowed the shrines of Abu Hanifa and the Shia Imams with valuable gifts, especially Imam Ali’s shrine in Najaf. Some of the gifts, possibly those taken from India, remain in the shrines’ safe. Nader Shah then offered his friendship to the Ottomans and sent them 11 elephants and 3,000 slaves. Marching with the caravan were 1,500 of his troops and when they reached Baghdad an elephant mounted with gifts was given to Ahmad Pasha (Azzawi 1953, v.5, p.262-263).

In 1724 he began to build a golden dome for Imam Ali’s shrine and spent vast amounts of money to finish it. Nader Shah spent 50,000 Toman to pay the skilled workers and the phrase 'Nader wasting in Najaf' was coined to refer to extravagant spenders (Mahbuba 1958, v.1, p.64). The social and psychological impacts of the golden dome should not be underestimated for it was the first of its kind in Iraq, and the second in the Islamic world, after Imam Ridha’s shrine in Mashhad. As the city of Najaf is on elevated ground the suns reflection causes the dome to be seen from extreme distances. This was all part of Nader Shah’s religious reforms as Imam Ali is respected by both Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Nader Shah then pushed towards Daghestan to fight the Lezgin tribes but he was swiftly defeated forcing him to retreat. The Lezgin tribes had a reputation for being persistent and fierce warriors that no army could defeat. Their reputation was well known in Iraq and the word ‘Lezgi’ is still used today to refer to people who are stubborn and dogged. On his way back two Afghans tried to assassinate him but he was only wounded. Nader Shah accused his son Reza Qoli of being behind the assassination and had him blinded – an act he immediately regretted and so he ordered the execution of all those who witnessed the procedure on the pretence that they should have sacrificed themselves for the Prince.

Nader Shah then had to deal with three rebellions. The first in Azerbaijan led by a man who claimed to be the son of the Saffavid Shah Hosein and he was assisted by the Lezgin tribes as well as the Ottomans. Nader shah crushed this rebellion and when the instigator was brought before him he ordered his men to take out one of his eyes. The second rebellion was led by Taqi Khan the ruler of the Fars province. Nader Shah also defeated him and as before ordered his men to take out an eye and he executed his entire family. The third rebellion was led by Mohammed Hussein Qajari, and this time after defeating the rebels Nader Shah ordered two pyramids to be built using their skulls (Sykes 1958, v.2, p.266-277).

It seems Nader Shah wanted to follow in the footsteps of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane by building pyramids of skulls and imitating their cruelty. In 1743 Nader Shah declared war on the Ottoman Empire because they refused to acknowledge the Ja’fari sect and declared the Shia to be outside the realm of Islam which meant they could be killed and imprisoned under Sharia law. As Nader Shah marched with his army and crossed the Iraqi border he did not head for Baghdad and it appears there was a secret pact made between him and Ahmad Pasha, who allowed the Iranian army passage across Iraq.

Nader shah attacked Kirkuk and Erbil and then surrounded Mousil. He had 100 cannons raining down bombs on the city day and night. His cannons darkened the skies during the day and lit it up at night (Longrigg 1962, p.148).

The siege lasted for 42 days, in which Nader Shah fired more than 40,000 bombs and attacked the city five times. The people of Mousil bravely fended off the attacks and swore to kill their own women if Nader Shah entered Mousil lest they fall into the hands of the enemy (Mousili 1932, v.1, p.278).

Nader Shah then negotiated with the officials of Mousil and the siege was called off and the two parties exchanged gifts. He then marched towards Baghdad and informed Ahmad Pasha that he wanted peace with the Ottoman Empire. He then visited the shrines of the Shia Imam’s in Kadhimiya and Najaf, wanting to see the golden dome that he had ordered to be built (Soweidi 1906, p.5).

Bibliography

Azzawi, Abbas 1953. Tareekh al-Iraq Baynal Ihtilalayn, Baghdad.

Browne, Edward 1958. A Literary History of Persia, Cambridge.

Khunsari, Mohammed Baqir 1949. Rowdhat al-Jannat fe Ahwal al Uluma’ wal Sadat, Tehran.

Longrigg, Stephen Hemsley 1962. Arba’at Quroon min Tareekh Iraq al-Hadeeth, Translated by Jafar Khayyad, Baghdad.

Mahbuba, Jafar 1958. Madhi al-Najaf wa Hadhiroha, Najaf.

Mousili, Suleiman Dha’igh 1932. Tareekh al-Mousil, Cairo.

Soweidi, Abdullah 1906. Al-Hojaj al-Qad’iya li Ittifaq al-Firaq al-Islamiya, Cairo.

Sykes, Percy 1958. A History of Persia, London.

--------------------


Bibliography

Ameen, Mohsen 1958. A’yan al-Shi’a, Beirut.

Azzawi, Abbas 1953. Tareekh al-Iraq Baynal Ihtilalayn, Baghdad.

Browne, Edward 1958. A Literary History of Persia, Cambridge.

Khunsari, Mohammed Baqir 1949. Rowdhat al-Jannat fe Ahwal al Uluma’ wal Sadat, Tehran.

Kirkukli, Rasool. Dowhat al-Wozara’, translated by Musa Kadhim, Beirut.

Mahbuba, Jafar 1958. Madhi al-Najaf wa Hadhiroha, Najaf.

Soweidi, Abdullah 1906. Al-Hojaj al-Qad’iya li Ittifaq al-Firaq al-Islamiya, Cairo.

Sykes, Percy 1958. A History of Persia, London.

Labels: Ali al-Wardi