Sistani - Fatwahs Or Not?

By Cernig

Yet more on the "Quiet Fatwah" story. Mat Duss points to a report at IraqSlogger which appears rather better sourced, and a far stronger denial of the story, than Bill Roggio's stenographic efforts for MNF-I.

Sources close to prominent Shi'a clerics in Najaf have expressed "surprise" at reports in the Western media which claim that Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has issued religious opinions suggesting support of armed resistance against the foreign forces in Iraq, going so far as to dismiss the reported rulings as "false," according to a report by an online Iraqi news agency.

Al-Malaf Press writes in Arabic that "Reliable, well-placed sources in the offices of four high-ranking Shi'a clerics in Iraq denied what was reported" regarding "fatwas" (religious opinions) issued by the Shi'a ayatollah Ali al-Sistani on the matter of armed resistance in Iraq against the foreign forces in the country.

The Associated Press reported earlier on Friday that it has learned that al-Sistani has privately issued verbal opinions that support the principle of armed resistance against foreign forces.

However, sources contacted by al-Malaf Press in Najaf expressed their "surprise" at the story, the agency writes, saying that their offices would have received copies of the fatwas, if they were true, by the regular channels by which other writs issued by the high-level cleric reach their offices. Alleged religious opinions transmitted by other channels are not considered true, the sources explained.

One source in the office of Muhammad Sa'id al-Hakim contacted by al-Malaf Press threatened to hold responsible those "airing false fatwas." The source said that fatwas that do not bear Sistani's seal or signature are considered false.

The same source told al-Malaf Press that the reports of the pro-resistance Sistani fatwas were "media stunts" intended to "effect confusion" among the Shi'a community.

Al-Malaf Press writes that in its efforts to track the fatwas it first contacted the office of Sistani himself, which refused comment on the report. The agency then passed to the office of Bashir al-Najafi and Muhammad al-Hakim and Ishaq al-Fayad, but could not find information from sources in these offices that confirmed the veracity of the reported fatwas.

Salah al-'Ubaydi, the spokesman of the Sadrist offices in Najaf, did not confirm or deny the reports of anti-Occupation fatwas circulating in the Western press Friday, but the agency writes that al-'Ubaydi did allege that the reports were an attempt "to redirect attention from the crimes that the American forces are committing against the followers of the Sadrist Current for resisting the occupation."

In contrast to al-Sistani, the Sadrist Current within Iraqi Shi'a, led by the young cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has in general been open about its view that armed resistance to the foreign presence in Iraq is legitimate.

However, Juan Cole carries another report that Sistani has issued a fatwah against providing food for occupation forces:

Fars News reproduces in Persian on May 24, 2008, another anti-American fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf. It says that its correspondent in Najaf reports that an Iraqi Shiite submitted the following to Sistani:

'I sell foodstuffs. Sometimes the Occupying Powers or their associates come to my establishment. May I sell them foodstuffs?'

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani replied:

' Selling foodstuffs to the Occupying Powers is not permitted.'

Last I knew, the US military in Iraq does not buy its food from Iraqis but rather imports it, for fear that Iraqi nationalists might poison it. So the fatwa has no immediate effect. But if Sistani is laying the grounds for a Gandhi-style non-cooperation movement, he certainly could put a crimp in the American military's style in Iraq. I can't imagine US troops could function in the Shiite south or much of Baghdad without Shiite cooperation. Sistani still has a great deal of moral authority, and would be backed by less cautious clerics such as Muqtada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Jawad al-Khalisi.

And the offtimes-unreliable pro-Sunni website Roads To Iraq says that all of this is a campaign by anti-occupation Shiite groups to cast doubt upon the credibility of pro-occupation Sistani.

Some analysts are saying that the debate seems to center around whether Sistani is issuing formal fatwahs or simply private opinions, while noting that Sistani is such a power in Iraq that even his private opinions are ignored at the occupier's peril - as Paul Bremmer and others found out duing Sistanis last active phase.

By a remarkable co-incidence, Ambassador Crocker was in Najaf just yesterday, pressing flesh although he didn't meet with Sistani. Maliki was in Najaf to talk with the Grand Ayatollah just a couple of days ago. Iranian PressTV is reporting that Sistani told Maliki he will not allow a deal with the US for extended basing agreements.

Iraq's most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly objected to a 'security accord' between the US and Iraq. The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with "the US occupiers" as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said. The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.

And another PressTV report says that Abdel-Karim al-Anzy, head of Maliki's own Dawa Party in the Iraqi parliament, has also spoken out against the agreement.

"Since Iraq is still administrated under the Chapter VII of the UN Charter no Iraqi is allowed to sign any security deal with the US," Iraqi lawmaker Abdel-Karim al-Anzy told Fars News Agency on Sunday. His remarks came amid reports that the Iraqi government might sign a long-term framework agreement with the United States, under which Washington would be allowed to set up permanent military bases in the country and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution in the country. Al-Anzy stated that "the security accord would be detrimental to the country and Iraq would become a US colony under the deal". The mandate of US troops in Iraq will expire in December 2008 and al-Maliki's government is under US pressure to sign 'a mutual security agreement' which would allow the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq. The lawmaker said that Iraqi nation and political and religious figures are against the accord and Iraqi MPs will never sign such a deal.

The best lesson this flurry of stories teaches, so far, is that Nour al-Napoleon and his allies aren't the be all and end all of Iraqi power yet - and probably never will be no matter how many Basrah and Mosul offensives are conducted to consolidate the central government's current elites' political power. That message has certainly been received loud and clear by coalition commanders. Sistani is definitely back in the driving seat.