For most of its history, Shi‘a Islam carried around a tension it never fully settled. The Twelfth Imam was absent, and that absence wasn’t just a theological idea—it shaped how people actually thought about power. If the only fully legitimate authority isn’t present, then anyone who is ruling is, in some sense, provisional. That assumption carried weight. It meant scholars, especially in places like Najaf, handled politics with a certain caution. They weren’t withdrawn from it, but they kept themselves in check. There was a boundary you didn’t cross. You could push back against injustice, even influence events, but you didn’t act as if you could finally set things right ahead of God.

That’s why it’s misleading to call Shi‘a Islam simply “quietist.” There were real moments of political intervention. Clerics helped drive movements like the Tobacco Protest and played visible roles in the Constitutional Revolution. They weren’t passive observers. But even in those moments, they stopped short of claiming full control. The aim wasn’t to take over and rule indefinitely. It was to limit damage, to correct abuses, to stabilize things where possible. Underneath it all, the same assumption held: justice, in its fullest sense, belonged to the Imam. Until he returned, you worked within constraints. Waiting—انتظار—was active in some ways, but it also set boundaries. It told you where action had to stop.

Khomeini only really comes into focus once you see how far he........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)