Liberals and Takfir

Al-Hayat reports today that after meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah, Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayd has called for bin Laden and Zarqawi to be expelled from the Islamic community. This responds to a demand which has been circulating for years now, from the West and from some Muslim liberals.  While such a declaration is appealing on its face - a firm, non-negotiable rejection of terrorism by Muslim leaders - I think that real liberals should be profoundly uneasy about such a step.

Declaring takfir on the jihadist leaders is the rhetorical equivalent of fighting terror with terror. The practice of takfir is the hallmark of the most radical, totalitarian fringe of Islamism:  the assumption of the right to unilaterally declare a Muslim a non-Muslim and thereby condemn him or her to death (literally or figuratively).    Any vision of a liberal or moderate Islamism should reject takfir on principle.  Succumbing to the takfiri temptation betrays the very core of the liberal project.   Those who want to encourage Muslim liberalism and moderation should really avoid encouraging such a move, no matter how strategically useful it might first appear.

A minor controversy surrounding Yusuf al-Qaradawi recently illustrates this controversy rather well.  After an article in Der Spiegel had claimed that Qaradawi had declared bin Laden an infidel, Qaradawi issued a statement on his own website which denied that he had said it (translation by MEMRI, although their link to his website doesn't work):

"Question: Do the Muslim ulama condemn Osama [bin Laden] for [his] actions and say that he is not a Muslim?"

"Answer: The Muslim people condemn these actions, but do not say that he is not a Muslim or that he is an unbeliever, no. This issue is dangerous, since takfir is the basis of extremism. We do not want to be like bin Laden and his associates [in accusing others of unbelief]. But we [do] say: this action [bin Laden's action] is not permitted according to the Shari ' a, since Islam is very strict regarding the sanctity of human life, [and states that] human life is inviolable both in times of peace and [in times of] war. The Muslim ulama have not declared even the khawarij to be unbelievers, even though they allowed the killing of other Muslims."

While MEMRI presents this as a "gotcha!" moment, in fact Qaradawi isn't talking out of two mouths here - he's standing on principle, and refusing to allow himself to be harnessed into a takfiri campaign.  His rejection of the act of takfir, even when it might be politically expedient to do otherwise, should be applauded for what it is:  an important stand for moderation and against extremism. 

This isn't an easy call - the attractiveness of Muslims forcefully rejecting Zarqawi and bin Laden is undeniable, and I can understand and respect the motives of those who are calling for it.   It would certainly be a forceful rhetorical move in the escalating public arguments which are increasingly a central front in the struggle with al-Qaeda.   But liberals adopting the takfiri move strikes me as profoundly dangerous in the long run.  Takfir is a weapon to be banned and discredited and made taboo - like nuclear weapons - not one to be emulated and adopted.

[UPDATE:  see, in comments, a clarification (or at least a conflicting report) of what Shaykh Zayd said.  If he in fact carefully distinguished between stigmatizing al-Qaeda and declaring takfir, then I have no problem with his statements.  There are a number of people out there who are calling for the takfir route, but Zayd may not be one of them.]

Comments

[Robert Stevens]

Marc, the Emirates News Agency quotes Sheikh bin Zayed thusly:

“There should be a firm stand by Islamic scholars against terrorists. If they cannot declare them apostate, the least they can do is to drive them out of the faith.”

Zayed's "If they cannot declare them apostate" seems to recognize the moderate scholars' reluctance to play the takfiri card.

The question then, short of the takfir brand, how does the orthodoxy "drive them out of the faith?"

[the aardvark]

Robert - thanks for the clarification about Zayed, I feel better about that formulation. Al-Hayat must have paraphrased him in the more inflammatory way, which set off my alarm bells.

The last question is a really big one, and a good one... I'll think about it.

[Jifry]

A2,

The report in al-Hayat is very disturbing. Abdullah 2 has a special reason not to indulge bin Zayd, et. al., bad behavior here as it will undo all the good work achieved at the ‘True Islam and its Role in Modern Society' conference that Jordan hosted earlier this year.

At that conference for the first time in Islamic history leading clerics from eight major schools of Islamic jurisprudence issued a fatwa forbidding the labelling of apostasy. Please find the link to the conference declaration here:

http://www.jordanembassyus.org/new/pr/pr07062005.shtml

Article 1 of the declaration is unequivocal:

"Whosoever is an adherent of one of the four Sunni Schools of Jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i and Hanbali), the Ja‘fari (Shi‘i) School of Jurisprudence, the Zaydi School of Jurisprudence, the Ibadi School of Jurisprudence, or the Thahiri School of Jurisprudence is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate is impossible."

This was truly a revolutionary moment in Islamic thought and has not received proper coverage in the West. Even the of Saudi Arabia now agree that Shi'ites are, in fact, Muslims!

To go back on this declaration for the ploy of further lambasting violent extremists, as perhaps bin Zayd and some non-Muslims wish, undermines all hope of intellectual and political progress in the region.

It is, in fact, an easy call. Say that bin Ladin & Co. are badly behaving Muslims, yes, but don't take off the table the good, difficult work of interfaith dialog for expediency's sake. Self-described "liberals" should be ashamed for even considering it.