Declaring takfir on Zarqawi?

I can't seem to find anything on this anywhere, but on the  al-Saha forum today there's a long thread about a statement from "Shaykh Jami from Qom" declaring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an infidel in the eyes of god - i.e. declaring takfir on Zarqawi. 

Don't have time to look into it anymore, but thought it might be of interest to those readers who follow the ins and outs of insurgency politics.   If you want to provide the analysis on which I'm punting, the comment sections are yours!

Comments

[Nas]

As a Muslim let me say this: if you want to tell an educated sheik from an uneducated sheik one good tell is whether they declare zarqawi or his likes as infidels. Because to declare a Muslim as such you have to have a level of credibility and confidence that is overwhelming. Which is one reason even the most famous sheiks will think twice before calling even Bin Laden an infidel. They've abused Islam and killed many innocent people but to label them as kufar is not an easy thing because if they're wrong, well suffice to say God won't take it lightly and the fear of Him is the main factor here.

[raf*]

dear AA,

chances are that a shaykh from qom - the seat of religious seminars in iran - is a shi'ite. would any sunni islamist even care about what a shi'i shaykh says?

--raf*

www.aqoul.com

[Ali K]

It appears there has been a misreading of the post. This sheik is not from qom. Qom is written with two letters q-m not q-w-m which means people. Also Jami is not the name of the sheik. According to the post there is a faction/sect called the Jamiyya to which this sheik belongs. Therefore 'sheik jami' is a sheik from the Jamiyyah. The poster mentions that he got this statement from a site called Sahaab, try looking for it there.

[the aardvark]

Ali K-

Yes, you're right of course - the way I presented the source was a bit too lazy and thus confusing. Sorry, raf*, the way I wrote it made the Qom/Shia implication confusing - the Jami are lambasted at length in the post for their deviant Sunni ways.. The source of the takfir is described as such:

شيخ جامي من قوم المداخلة هيئة جمجم ومنقول من موقع سحاب

What I still don't know is how significant this source is, and the implications of the declaration for Zarqawi inside of Iraq.

Unfortunately I could not find the post on any of three different sites called Sahaab - a shame because I wanted to get much more context than I got from the thread.

[raf*]

dear AA,

silly me - i didn't look at the link, only the pic you included in your post. of course qawm is not Qom.

muchas gracias,

--raf*

www.aqoul.com

[Stacey]

I made the same mistake.

That said, in terms of Nas' comment, I'd have to differ. Takfir is used sloppily and loosely throughout the region. I have a whole chapter detailing the use of takfir by clerics and non-clerics in Yemen (and, to a much lesser and entirely reconfigured degree, in Lebanon). These are cases in which it is used to silence alternative viewpoints, and has led to spectrum of effects, from everyday acts of self (and official) censorship, to violent assassination. In a more mundane context, as I just walked past my neighborhood mosque in Cairo the day after the massive police violence here, the repetitive theme of the khutba was "those who have done this are not believers!"

One of the features that has allowed Islam to change, adapt, and respond to historical circumstance is the non-heirarchal nature of clerical authority. But this same lack of heirarchy also makes it possible for these allegations to proliferate. I would agree that "good" shaykhs would be cautious in their use of this label, but this practice is far more widespread a tool of intra-Muslim discipline than has been previously acknowledged in academic or policy circles.

[Nas]

Stacey, I agree in part with what you're saying, I've heard these calls although only a few times. What I'm saying however is that there's are many of these sheiks, and some as you know are quite bright and educated, and others not so much. Declaring people as kufar is a good indication of which is which in my opinion. Being a cleric does not come with any immunity from making mistakes and the punishment for being wrong is the same as any other Muslim. It's just that a lot of them are bold these days and such accusations get people charged up.

it's like good reality tv.

[Stacey]

One thing to think about is whether it's an issue of intelligence (do they shaykhs understand takfir as it "should" be used) or strategic calculation (that the cost to them for using takfir is lower than the gain from reeling in opponents). I obviously think its the latter.

The next question is the role of the state, though not in this particular case regarding Zarqawi. In Yemen, when the costs of takfir became too high for the Islamist party (following a terrible public killing), it was NOT to high for the ruling party, which began to publish the fatawa of one particular Islamist shaykh (a member of the party, but speaking without its formal sanction). The ruling party then was able to benefit two-fold: the takfir itself was used to reign in someone disliked by both ruling party AND Islamists, and the ruling party could further talk about how "backward" the Islamist were for using this kind of discourse (while they themselves gave such discourse a platform).

In this context, I think it's always worth asking not "are they right" but "why did they do it" and "has it served them well."

Oh, and on the question of whether they're "right" or not...members of the party also have published a series of apologia explaining the necessity of takfir as an instrument of "truthtelling" about apostasy and heresy, and why kufar must be killed. Other Islamists (outside of the party) have published compelling rejoinders explaining why death is NOT sanctioned. In any event, there's a great public debate about it, and it's not a marginal phenomenon.