Law and Politics in Iraq and Saudi: Non-Muslim Troops on Muslim Soil
About 18 years ago, with Saddam's troops having invaded Kuwait and amassing alongside the Saudi border, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia sought a fatwa from the chief cleric of the monarchy, Abdul Aziz bin Baz, justifying the introduction of US troops onto Saudi soil. The legal issue was relatively clear; should troops from a non-Muslim nation be allowed onto the same peninsula where the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina stand, particularly to repel a Muslim army? The source material was also clear; verses from the Qur'an on the one hand that suggest that one should not take Jews and Christians as "protectors" of Muslims (more conservative readings of that verse change the word protector, Arabic is 'awliya, to friend. On the other side, you see stories of the Prophet Muhammad allying his army with non-Muslim tribes in war. You also have more progressive arguments that might be used concerning the extent to which hostility to non-Muslims is truly a necessity anyway, given the near unanimous conclusion of modern Muslim scholars that living in a non-Muslim state is permissible, but none of this would really be available to an ultraconservative like bin Baz. And there is a great deal more, but that's more or less how it lines up--are the americans prohibited protectors or strategic allies for the benefit of Islam?
Anyway, in light of the exigent circumstances, namely his country where he was chief cleric and had a pretty good thing going was about to be under attack, bin Baz sanctioned the US presence. Some criticize this decision as politically driven. Though no fan of Wahhabism, I make no such criticism. It seems to me, as in any case, a fairly good argument could be made on both sides, and he grabbed onto the one that helped preserve his place and position. If that's politics, then legal adjudication has a whole lot of it all the time.
Of course, bin Baz' problem was then not so much that his decision was politics, lots of decisions are, but that it looked like politics, meaning the alternative bases of decision making were all too clear, much as they were in Bush v. Gore. That these alternative bases also involved pleasing a king and increasing ties to non-Muslim states, something conservatives despise for ideological reasons, only increased the criticisms of politics among many, including Osama Bin Laden.
Now as we move forward a couple of decades, we have a similar dynamic almost being played out in reverse. That is, the question now is whether or not Iraq should accept a long term security arrangement with the United States; ie, should American troops be permitted on Iraqi soil. And now, the charges of politics are being levelled in precisely the opposite direction, by the United States, against Iran.
What is fundamentally happening with this agreement is that it is starting to fray rather badly for a variety of reasons, but chief among them rising protest within the Shi'i clerical class. Sistani himself sounded a warning but has largely stayed silent, after all, nobody has seen the agreement, a piece here or there has been leaked, so it's hard to say much. But still objections are mounting. Nasrallah in Lebanon spoke against it, and at Friday prayers today even Qubanji in Najaf did, though he was more tempered, saying it is not blasphemy and indeed might be okay if it specifies a withdrawal date (something the US is almost surely not going to want to include). Ahmed Jannati I am told out in Iran said something at Friday prayers too, but I don't read Farsi so who knows.
So we have a rising Shi'i shari'a conclusion, a developing outcome on a question similar to the one bin Baz pondered, but with an opposite conclusion--American troops should not be here. Their presence is an occupation of Muslim land and it is time to leave. Even Sistani is on board, though he isn't categorically opposed if Iraq's sovereignty is sufficiently respected that the Americans appear less to be in occupation and more invited guests. The Shi'a think they're ready for an American drawdown, or at least ready enough not to be willing to extend American presence indefinitely, and aren't about it give the American presence some sort of religious sanction.
And the U.S., frustrated the agreement appears to be going nowhere, searching for a reason for the religious opposition, looks east and sees Jannati, looks south and sees Qubanji, looks west from Baghdad and sees Nasrallah, and makes exactly the same charge that Osama did towards bin Baz. This isn't shari'a, they say, this is Iran. It's all politics, Iran controls the outcome. I don't think it's any more true here than it was for bin Baz--a fool would suggest that the desire to resist the US and urge it out doesn't affect outcome, or that Iran has no influence, but it's equally foolish to think that Iran can just say something and clerics will repeat it without being convinced of the argument, or at least its plausibility, themselves. No different than bin Baz really.
So what you have really is what you had in Bush v. Gore or Roe v. Wade in our context. When your side wins the argument, you smile and thank the Court. When your side starts to lose, you shout politics. You are always on the side of the law, the opponent always the political opportunist. Wouldn't it be pretty to think so.
HAH
Anyway, in light of the exigent circumstances, namely his country where he was chief cleric and had a pretty good thing going was about to be under attack, bin Baz sanctioned the US presence. Some criticize this decision as politically driven. Though no fan of Wahhabism, I make no such criticism. It seems to me, as in any case, a fairly good argument could be made on both sides, and he grabbed onto the one that helped preserve his place and position. If that's politics, then legal adjudication has a whole lot of it all the time.
Of course, bin Baz' problem was then not so much that his decision was politics, lots of decisions are, but that it looked like politics, meaning the alternative bases of decision making were all too clear, much as they were in Bush v. Gore. That these alternative bases also involved pleasing a king and increasing ties to non-Muslim states, something conservatives despise for ideological reasons, only increased the criticisms of politics among many, including Osama Bin Laden.
Now as we move forward a couple of decades, we have a similar dynamic almost being played out in reverse. That is, the question now is whether or not Iraq should accept a long term security arrangement with the United States; ie, should American troops be permitted on Iraqi soil. And now, the charges of politics are being levelled in precisely the opposite direction, by the United States, against Iran.
What is fundamentally happening with this agreement is that it is starting to fray rather badly for a variety of reasons, but chief among them rising protest within the Shi'i clerical class. Sistani himself sounded a warning but has largely stayed silent, after all, nobody has seen the agreement, a piece here or there has been leaked, so it's hard to say much. But still objections are mounting. Nasrallah in Lebanon spoke against it, and at Friday prayers today even Qubanji in Najaf did, though he was more tempered, saying it is not blasphemy and indeed might be okay if it specifies a withdrawal date (something the US is almost surely not going to want to include). Ahmed Jannati I am told out in Iran said something at Friday prayers too, but I don't read Farsi so who knows.
So we have a rising Shi'i shari'a conclusion, a developing outcome on a question similar to the one bin Baz pondered, but with an opposite conclusion--American troops should not be here. Their presence is an occupation of Muslim land and it is time to leave. Even Sistani is on board, though he isn't categorically opposed if Iraq's sovereignty is sufficiently respected that the Americans appear less to be in occupation and more invited guests. The Shi'a think they're ready for an American drawdown, or at least ready enough not to be willing to extend American presence indefinitely, and aren't about it give the American presence some sort of religious sanction.
And the U.S., frustrated the agreement appears to be going nowhere, searching for a reason for the religious opposition, looks east and sees Jannati, looks south and sees Qubanji, looks west from Baghdad and sees Nasrallah, and makes exactly the same charge that Osama did towards bin Baz. This isn't shari'a, they say, this is Iran. It's all politics, Iran controls the outcome. I don't think it's any more true here than it was for bin Baz--a fool would suggest that the desire to resist the US and urge it out doesn't affect outcome, or that Iran has no influence, but it's equally foolish to think that Iran can just say something and clerics will repeat it without being convinced of the argument, or at least its plausibility, themselves. No different than bin Baz really.
So what you have really is what you had in Bush v. Gore or Roe v. Wade in our context. When your side wins the argument, you smile and thank the Court. When your side starts to lose, you shout politics. You are always on the side of the law, the opponent always the political opportunist. Wouldn't it be pretty to think so.
HAH
I do not believe that Sistani said anything against the agreement. The only thing he asked is to show the agreement to people and let them decide. beside that, there is nothing in Shi'i sharia against the US troops staying in Iraq if there is an agreement.
On the other hand, The situation in Iraq is not similar to one in Saudi. The sharia problem in Saudi is not that the non Muslim troops can not stay at Muslim soil, the problem is that they depend on a prophet saying which says "take out the Kuffars (non-Muslims) from Jazirat Al Arab (Saudi Arabia)".
Reply to this
Thank you for your comment, brother, and one day soon doctor!, Hassan.
Actually, Sistani's deputies have said clearly that the agreement must "respect Iraqi sovereignty." I agree he has not ruled out the possibility of any agreement, but clearly there are things he wants to see in the agreement. "Respect Iraqi sovereignty" is as we both know code for, among other things, immunity for troops and contractors. Just today the Iraqi Army issued a statement indicating that such immunity was not consistent with respect for Iraqi sovereignty.
I'm not sure where you find the disagreement on the Saudi situation. I phrased the issue in the entry as (quoting) "should troops from a non-Muslim nation be allowed onto the same peninsula where the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina stand, particularly to repel a Muslim army?". That seems to be what you are saying too. To be clear, my friend, I never claimed that the legal issue was exactly the same, I said the dynamics of it were similar in that in each case the side that was frustrated by the legal position of the other tried to delegitimize it by calling it politics, when in fact that is silly because fatwas are always a combination of law and politics.
Reply to this