The Islamic Republic Trapped in the 'Political Hajj' Trap

The rituals of Hajj are one of the obligations that every Muslim must perform at least once in their lifetime during the month of Dhu al-Hijjah, and it is recommended at other times throughout the year. Hajj is considered a religious ritual (worship), similar to other religions that have similar rituals. However, in addition to its religious nature, with the gradual formation of the tourism industry, today this obligation is also viewed as a type of 'religious tourism industry.' Since the tourism industry is considered a lucrative industry, a concept known as 'Hajj economy' has gradually emerged, which has generated significant profitability and entrepreneurship for both the host government (Saudi Arabia) and service companies (in both the host and guest countries). According to announced statistics, the number of Iranian pilgrims in 1394 (2015) was 61,500, of which 2,500 were executive personnel, including spiritual caravan leaders, staff, doctors, and support forces. Considering a minimum cost of 7 million tomans per person, the total cost for the country amounts to approximately 430,500,000,000 tomans, excluding the currency that each pilgrim can take and spend in Saudi Arabia. Political Hajj has been said to have inherently possessed three characteristics since the beginning of Islam over the centuries: • Hajj as a religious ritual • Hajj as religious tourism • Hajj as a productive economy (especially for the host government). However, what is particularly noteworthy is that with the Islamic Revolution and solely within the Islamic Republic, a fourth characteristic was added to Hajj: 'Political Hajj.' Hajj, in the sense of a 'Congress of the Islamic World' for the consultation of Muslims with one another, although stemming from 'political Islam' theorized first by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has only manifested itself at the level of Muslim governments in the Islamic Republic. For example, among a vast array of Muslim leaders worldwide, only the leader of the Islamic Republic has sent a message for the Hajj Congress every year. In line with this understanding of political Hajj, the leader of the Islamic Republic has not limited himself to sending a Hajj message and insists on holding the annual 'demonstration of disavowal of polytheists' in Mecca. Just as the Islamic Republic has politicized Friday prayers, Eid al-Fitr prayers, Eid al-Adha prayers, mosques, and seminaries, it has also politicized Hajj. The Islamic Republic claims that Hajj is a congress of Muslims and organizes the demonstration of disavowal of polytheists in Mecca every year, but it cannot tolerate Shiites from around the world holding demonstrations, for example, in Mashhad. Everything about Hajj is sacrificed on the altar of the attack on the Saudi embassy. As mentioned, if Hajj is important for every Muslim merely as a religious and ritual duty, it is considered important for the Islamic Republic as a political tool. It is evident that from the perspective of a conservative government like Saudi Arabia, the political Hajj, where the leader of the Islamic Republic expresses himself every year in the heart of Mecca, is a deadly poison that has even led to the killing of people in 1987 to stop it. However, it is a ridiculous story that makes the dead laugh when we consider that the Islamic Republic, after nearly four decades of investment in political Hajj and knowing that Hajj is a religious obligation for millions of Iranian Muslims and that thousands of Hajj officials make a living in this industry, has squandered all its investments and the religious duties of its people and even its desired political Hajj with a foolish attack on the Saudi embassy in just one day, thus falling into the trap of political Hajj while Saudi Arabia escapes from this trap. The attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran on Saturday, January 1, 2016, was a fateful day. From that day on, not only did relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia deteriorate, but the relationship between Iran and the Arab world entered a new phase of tension. On that day, the Saudi embassy in Tehran and its consulate in Mashhad were attacked and set on fire. Within 24 hours, Saudi Arabia evacuated its diplomats, severed diplomatic relations with Tehran, and expelled the Iranian diplomatic staff from its country. Riyadh did not stop there. Starting with the Gulf Cooperation Council and then in the Arab League and subsequently in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, it condemned the Islamic Republic for attacking diplomatic premises. In addition to these three organizations, the United Nations and global forums also reprimanded the Islamic Republic. Following Riyadh's lead, countries such as Bahrain, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, Comoros, and recently the Maldives severed relations with Tehran, while several other Arab countries downgraded their political relations from ambassador to chargé d'affaires. All this protest reaction against the Islamic Republic was not difficult due to the 'brilliant record' of the Islamic Republic in protecting diplomatic premises. The attacks on the diplomatic missions of Britain, Denmark, and the United States were among the other pages of this 'brilliant record!' Almost every nine years during the lifetime of this regime, an embassy has been attacked. According to photos and images, on that day, the security police did not intervene effectively. The ugliness of the attack on diplomatic premises, the severing of relations by several countries with Iran, the condemnation of the Islamic Republic even in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the deprivation of hundreds of thousands from performing their obligatory duty, all of these aside, what happened was that the Islamic Republic deprived itself of political Hajj and relieved Saudi Arabia of political Hajj. All this cost was in protest against the execution of a Shia cleric in Saudi Arabia (Sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr), for which the Islamic Republic did not need to attack diplomatic premises to condemn his execution. The desire for renewed presence in Hajj. The regional disputes between Tehran and Riyadh in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were not few, especially after the tragic incident of the death of hundreds of Iranian pilgrims in Mina last year. This painful incident occurred while normal relations between Tehran and Riyadh were established. Iranian officials declared that the incident was due to Saudi mismanagement. However, Riyadh even refrained from expressing regret. Worse still, some Arab countries in the region (for example, Kuwait) congratulated Riyadh on the successful holding of last year's Hajj. All these tense relations with Riyadh aside, one should not forget the statements of Ali Khamenei (the one who sends messages for the Hajj Congress every year) describing the Al Saud in the harshest terms. He went so far as to say that the Al Saud are worse than the infidels of Quraysh and Israel. He stated that: 'The Saudi government in Yemen commits crimes similar to those of the Zionists in Gaza... Today, there is nothing uglier and worse than [the infidels of] Mecca... those who, in the month of Rajab [a sacred month], bring families in Yemen to mourning... the noses of the Saudis will be rubbed in the dirt.' It is obvious that such fuel would add to the fire of people's anger, leading to the burning of the Saudi embassy. But it is surprising that if the Al Saud are worse than the infidels of Quraysh and Israel, and if Saudi Arabia mismanages Hajj, and if Riyadh refrains from expressing regret for the deaths of hundreds of Iranians, and if Saudi Arabia executes a Shia cleric (Sheikh Nimr) and if 'spontaneous people!' are so enraged by the hostile behavior of Saudi Arabia that they set fire to Saudi diplomatic premises, and if Iran refrains from prosecuting the attackers, and if Riyadh has launched an oil war against Iran to break Iran's economy, and if Riyadh has severed relations with Tehran and if Riyadh has caused other countries to sever relations with Iran, and if, if, if... why the desire for renewed presence in Hajj? Why should Riyadh return the precious gift that the Islamic Republic has given on a golden platter to stop political Hajj? Why should Riyadh open the way for Iranian pilgrims to create trouble for itself? Isn't it better for Riyadh, in its propaganda war against Iran, to claim that the Islamic Republic is preventing the performance of the obligatory duty of Iranian Muslims by evading the rules of Hajj that apply to all countries? On the day when the leader of the Islamic Republic (the police in Iran is under the command of the leader, not the president) did not intervene effectively in the attack on the Saudi embassy or did not punish the attackers afterward, was he not aware of the obligatory Hajj for millions of Iranian Muslims that would be disrupted? Ali Khamenei, who said that foreign policy should be 'dignified,' has he heard the words of the Minister of Culture, Ali Jannati, who said that in negotiations with the Saudis for Hajj 95, they spoke to us in a 'domineering' tone? Is this the dignified policy of the Islamic Republic? On the day when Boustan Street (the street where the Saudi embassy was located) was renamed to 'Martyr Ayatollah Nimr Baqr al-Nimr,' was there no thought of the 'Global Hajj Congress'? Moreover, even if Saudi Arabia allowed the dispatch of Iranian pilgrims, the Islamic Republic, which claimed Saudi incompetence in last year's Hajj, with what guarantee would it put the lives and honor of Iranians at risk of a similar incident? Last year, when political relations were established and all Iranian institutions participated in the Hajj ceremony, that bloody incident occurred. What guarantee is there that this year, with political relations severed, a similar incident will not happen again? Conclusion. The author strongly believes that the closure of Hajj is a temporary issue. As explained, it is not Saudi Arabia but the Islamic Republic that has caused the suspension of Hajj. The Islamic Republic cannot tolerate the closure of Hajj, which is an obligation for every Muslim; if it does, it has questioned its own Muslim identity. On the other hand, for the Islamic Republic, overcoming the incident of the victims of Mina and the execution of Sheikh Nimr is not harder than overcoming the bloody Hajj incident where the Saudis killed hundreds of Iranians with direct gunfire in Mecca. After that incident, Ayatollah Khomeini said that if we forgive Saddam Hussein, we will not forgive the Al Saud. But they did forgive. Saudi Arabia also never wants to appear inflexible in front of mediators who are trying to mend relations between Riyadh and Tehran. Moreover, they do not overlook the substantial income that Iranian pilgrims bring with them. However, Riyadh will show this flexibility when there is no trace of Martyr Ayatollah Baqr al-Nimr Street and when Iran does not intervene in the execution of figures like Sheikh Nimr and when the annual demonstrations of disavowal of polytheists are held. This means that political Hajj is completely suspended. This prediction holds no improbability when we consider that Tehran considers Saudi Arabia incompetent and believes the Al Saud are worse than the infidels of Quraysh and Israel, and believes that Saudi Arabia has launched an oil war against Iran and executed a cleric, yet still seeks to send pilgrims. It is evident that a day will come when the Islamic Republic will abandon political Hajj to open the way for ritual Hajj. If last time, after the bloody Hajj, the resumption of relations between Tehran and Riyadh occurred when Riyadh dictated to the Islamic Republic not to hold the disavowal of polytheists in the streets of Mecca and the Islamic Republic held it formally in the deserts of Mecca, this time the way for Hajj will not be opened unless 'political Hajj' is completely suspended. If the Islamic Republic does not suspend political Hajj, the way to Mecca will remain closed, and if the way to Mecca remains closed, the Islamic Republic will be deprived of participating in political Hajj. In short, the Islamic Republic is trapped in the political Hajj trap.