You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Powerful Iraqi cleric flirting with Shiite militant message
2008-05-23
BAGHDAD - Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

But — unlike al-Sadr's anti-American broadsides — the Iranian-born al-Sistani has displayed extreme caution with anything that could imperil the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The two met Thursday at the elderly cleric's base in the city of Najaf south of Baghdad.

So far, al-Sistani's fatwas have been limited to a handful of people. They also were issued verbally and in private — rather than a blanket proclamation to the general Shiite population — according to three prominent Shiite officials in regular contact with al-Sistani as well as two followers who received the edicts in Najaf.

All spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Al-Sistani — who is believed to be 79 or 80 — has not been seen in public since a brief appearance in August 2004, shortly after returning from London for medical treatment for an unspecified heart condition. But his mix of religious authority and political clout makes him more powerful than any of Iraq's elected leaders.

For American officials, he represents a key stabilizing force in Iraq for refusing to support a full-scale Shiite uprising against U.S.-led forces or Sunnis — especially at the height of sectarian bloodletting after an important Shiite shrine was bombed in 2006.

It is impossible to determine whether those who received the edicts acted on them. Most attacks — except some by al-Qaida in Iraq — are carried out without claims of responsibility.

It is also unknown whether al-Sistani intended the fatwas to inspire violence or simply as theological opinions on foreign occupiers. Al-Sadr — who has a much lower clerical rank than al-Sistani — recently has threatened "open war" on U.S.-led forces.

The U.S. military said it had no indications that al-Sistani was seeking to "promote violence" against U.S.-led troops. It also had no information linking the ayatollah or other top Shiite clerics to armed groups battling U.S. forces and allies.

A senior aide to the prime minister, al-Maliki, said he was not aware of the fatwas, but added that the "rejection of the occupation is a legal and religious principle" and that top Shiite clerics were free to make their own decisions. The aide also spoke on condition of anonymity.

Fatwas are theological opinions by an individual cleric and views on the same subject can vary. They gain force from consensus among experts in Islamic law and traditions.

In the past, al-Sistani has avoided answering even abstract questions on whether fighting the U.S. presence in Iraq is allowed by Islam. Such questions sent to his Web site — which he uses to respond to followers' queries — have been ignored. All visitors to his office who had asked the question received a vague response.

The subtle shift could point to his growing impatience with the continued American presence more than five years after the U.S.-led invasion.

It also underlines possible opposition to any agreement by Baghdad to allow a long-term U.S. military foothold in Iraq — part a deal that is currently under negotiation and could be signed as early as July.

Al-Sistani's distaste for the U.S. presence is no secret. In his public fatwas on his Web site, he blames Washington for many of Iraq's woes. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with a blood thirsty religious interpretation shared by many of his followers?

But a more aggressive tone from the cleric could have worrisome ripples through Iraq's Shiite majority — 65 percent of the country's estimated 27 million population — in which many followers are swayed by his every word.

A longtime official at al-Sistani's office in Najaf would not deny or confirm the edicts issued in private, but hinted that a publicized call for jihad may come later.

"(Al-Sistani) rejects the American presence," he told the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to media. "He believes they (the Americans) will at the end pay a heavy price for the damage they inflicted on Iraq."

Juan Cole, a U.S. expert on Shiites in the Middle East, speculated that "al-Sistani clearly will give a fatwa against the occupation by a year or two." But he said it would be "premature" for the cleric to do so now.

Between 10 and 15 people are believed to have received the new fatwas in recent months, the Shiite officials told the AP.

Most of those seeking al-Sistani's views are young men known for their staunch loyalty to al-Sistani who call themselves "Jund al-Marjaiyah," or "Soldiers of the Religious Authorities," according to the Shiite officials.

Al-Sistani's new edicts — which did not specifically mention Americans but refer to foreign occupiers — were in response to the question of whether it's permitted to "wage armed resistance," according to the two Shiites who received them.

Al-Sistani's affirmative response also carried a stern warning that "public interest" should not be harmed and every effort must be made to ensure that no harm comes to Iraqis or their property during "acts of resistance," they said.

"Changing the tyrannical (Saddam Hussein) regime by invasion and occupation was not what we wished for because of the many tragedies they have created," al-Sistani said in reply to a question on his Web site.

"We are extremely worried about their intentions," he wrote in response to another question on his views about the U.S. military presence.

Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army twice revolted against U.S. forces in 2004. It has since periodically attacked U.S. troops and battled them for seven weeks in Baghdad this year.

In perhaps another sign of al-Sistani's hardened position, he has opposed disarming the Mahdi Army as demanded by al-Maliki, according to Shiite officials close to the cleric.

Disarming the Mahdi Army would — in the views of many Shiites — leave them vulnerable to attacks by armed Sunni factions that are steadily gaining strength after joining the U.S. military fight against al-Qaida.

"Al-Sistani would love Muqtada (al-Sadr) to disappear but he will not break the community by openly going against a popular Shiite cleric," said Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite affairs at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. "If he orders militias disbanded and a car bomb again kills many Shiites, he will be held responsible."

Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#13  Snark of the Day? Strong stuff
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-23 19:30  

#12  IERs or Improvised Explosive Rumors. Shaped, to suit today's agenda.

purty Snarky thar!

Mr. Creling Darling of the Lichtensteiners8341!
Posted by: RD   2008-05-23 18:11  

#11  A good history of peace initiatives can be found at: http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.3002199/
There have been many peace initiatives—some by Israelis. Some by Arabs. And many efforts by the U.S. There are many complex issues that have stalled peace in the mid-east. The Taba Conference in 2001 proposed returning 97% of the land requested by the Palestinians but agreement did not occur on “right of return.” The Arabs proposed on March 28, 2002 what has been called the Arab Peace Initiative a plan that supported the 'right of return' for all Palestinian refugees and their descendents; and the creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Shimon Peres responded that no accord can come to fruition unless terror activities are ceased, a condition not mentioned in the Arab Initiative.

Couple this with the kind of climate created by Ahmadinejad in his bellicose statement about destroying Israel. The history of attacks on Israel by surrounding countries does not create much confidence that the Muslims would comply with any agreement.

Posted by: JohnQC   2008-05-23 16:46  

#10  Well, I knew he would die corrupt. Se la vie.
Posted by: newc   2008-05-23 16:31  

#9  Cole is a strong critic of Israel's foreign and military policy and its treatment of Palestinians. He criticizes the nature of America's support for Israel and the activities of the "Israel "Lobby",[58] and claims that some senior US officials such as Doug Feith have dual loyalties to America and the Israeli Likud Party.[59]


Cole's "positive" prescriptions can be summarized thus:

It wouldn't take much now to settle the Israel-Palestine thing, and the time is ripe to have Israel give back the Golan to Syria and the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon in return for a genuine peace process. The Israelis are not made more secure by crowding into the West Bank or bombing Gaza daily. South Lebanon has demonstrated the dangers of ever more sophisticated microwars over rugged territory. It is time for Israel, and for the United States, to do the right thing and rescue the Palestinians from the curse of statelessness, the slavery of the 21st century. Ending this debilitating struggle would also be the very best thing for the Israelis themselves. In one fell swoop, the US would have solved 80 percent of its problems with the Muslim world and vastly reduced the threat of terrorism.[61]
Posted by: RD   2008-05-23 15:25  

#8  He looks like he could use a truckload of Geritol...
Posted by: tu3031   2008-05-23 13:36  

#7  By HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers
......
Juan Cole, a U.S. "expert" on Shiites in the Middle East, speculated that "al-Sistani clearly will give a fatwa against the occupation by a year or two." But he said it would be "premature" for the cleric to do so now


plz use article as Shit Liner....

Juan Cole is paid for America Hater employed by the University of Michigan and Arab Slush Funds.
Posted by: RD   2008-05-23 13:15  

#6  Sistani's desired end state is no different than that of Khomenei's or any other muslim holyman. The domination of islam over over the entire world, and specifically the Shia sect. The only thing negotiable is the time line and the amount of blood spilled.

Sistani will be grudgingly supportive of our efforts only when it directly increases Shia power. Now that the Sunni have turned, accepted to be included into government and American power is no longer working to destroy them, our usefulness to Sistani has vastly diminished.
Posted by: ed   2008-05-23 12:32  

#5  Well things weren't so good under Saddam. Did the Grand Dragon issue any fatwas against Saddam. Probably not--for health reasons. These guys (religious types) don't want democracy and never will. Democracy tends to make them irrelevant. It diminishes their power. The biggest threat to the other muslim mid-east countries is to have a democratic government, a free people, and a thriving economy in iraq.
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-05-23 11:11  

#4  Lots of AP spin, methinks.

To recap, gossip of private verbal conversations for which nobody will go on record are a threat to US troops.

IERs or Improvised Explosive Rumors. Shaped, to suit today's agenda.
Posted by: Creling Darling of the Lichtensteiners8341   2008-05-23 10:17  

#3  sistani hasnt been particularly helpful since the outbreak of severe sunni-shia fighting in spring 2006. hes clearly more concerned with maintaining the Hawzas influence over the Shia than with with Sunni-shia reconciliaton and Iraqi state building.(His insistence on a united Shia slate in 2005 was also harmful, although at that point simply supporting the elections was enough to be thankful for)

Its a bit odd that NOW, when Sadrs influence seems to be waning, this comes out.

Why?

1. Hes very unhappy with the growing influence of the Sunnis and of secularists (Kurds and Allawi followers) on the Iraqi govt, and the dilution of Shia power

2. Hes very unhappy with continued American influence which hes long been suspicious of.

3. Both of the above - hes suspicious of the Americans BECAUSE he believes the US will ultimately favor the Sunnis

4. He sees Maliki and other Shia pols acting more and more like secular pols, independent of the Hawza.

5. With Maliki turning on Sadr with US backing, to not stand up for Sadr would weaken the Hawza with the most conservative elements in the Shia community. Sistani is more concerned with the Hawzas appeal there than with the political outcome, which he may not think he can control anyway.

6. He is nervous about the SOFA and about the lack of US plans for withdrawl below the immediate pre-siege level. See above
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-05-23 09:13  

#2  For all those who like to say, "the moderates are on our side, or at least neutral."

There are no moderates.

They are the other side.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2008-05-23 09:10  

#1  Heart condition, eh?
Posted by: gorb   2008-05-23 03:05  

00:00