On the authenticity of the Zawahiri letter, from Juan Cole, as well as interesting musings on the Constitution. From his blog, at juancole.com:
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Zawahiri Letter
The other thing that struck me as odd about the Zawahiri letter was that at the end he raises the question of whether a non Iraqi should be leading the insurgency. This is odd for several reasons. Al Qaeda does not think in terms of natipnality but of the umma or Muslim community. It reads to me like an attempt to undermine Zarqawi. And it is an insult.
posted by Juan @ 10/15/2005 04:58:00 PM
Referendum on Constitution
The Iraqis are voting Saturday in a referendum on the new constitution. It was again endorsed by Shiite preachers and clerics on Friday. Sunni preacher were more divided.
Sunni Arabs in the west of Iraq are complaining about a lack of polling stations in their areas. Many wish to vote against the constitution today.
Guerrillas fought a firefight with American forces at Ramadi on Friday, among other instances of violence. Since the US military is now preventing most people from driving, though, there will be fewer car bombings until the driving ban is lifted.
There were other acts of violence on Friday, as Reuter reports.
This is what I said on the Lehrer News Hour on Friday:
' Trapdoors in the constitution?
RAY SUAREZ: Well, Professor Cole, you've heard three colleagues talk about how important politics working is at this juncture. What's your view?
Juan ColeJUAN COLE: Well, I think it's important that politics is working and I think it's also important toward what goal it is working. I'm a pessimist on this process, and I'm a severe critic of this constitution. Professor Dawisha was polite in the way he put it, but it's full of trapdoors.
RAY SUAREZ: The constitution?
JUAN COLE: The constitution is full of trapdoors. There will be a provision that says revenues will be shared between the provinces and the federal government. In what way will they be shared? Well, there will be a law passed by subsequent parliament that will determine that.
So in many instances the people who are voting for this constitution have no idea what exactly it is, the substance that they're voting for. The constitution allows provincial confederations which have claims on resources and perhaps on enormous resources.
It would be as though Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico could form a confederacy, and then they could tell Washington, well, you're not going to be getting as much tax money from our oil as you used to, and moreover, if you want to talk to Austin, you have to go through our confederal parliament and our prime minister.
The last time we had a confederacy in this continent it caused a lot of trouble. And I'm very concerned that these provisions in the constitution could lead to such a weak central government and to such strong provinces that there will be centrifugal forces breaking the country apart.
And then 20 percent of the population, the Sunni-Arab population, seems to be pretty diehard against this constitution; that's going to weaken its legitimacy. '
Voter participation in a democracy
RAY SUAREZ: But à propos of what's been said earlier, is Iraq better off with passing a flawed constitution rather than having to go back to the drawing board and start from the beginning at a very, very fractious time in the country's life?
JUAN COLE: Well, certainly it's better off because if 80 percent of the population were supporting this process and this constitution, and they were disappointed, then the disappointment in the democratic process might be fateful for Iraq.
Certainly it's much better that it pass than it not pass, but it is an extremely troubling document, and it should be remembered that the failure of the United States framers of the Constitution to deal with the slavery issue did hold within it ultimately the seeds of the civil war in this country, and putting off difficult issues, having open-ended compromises that don't come to a decisive end can cause future trouble. It's much better if things are settled. '
posted by Juan @ 10/15/2005 05:43:00 AM
Friday, October 14, 2005
Zawahiri Letter to Zarqawi: A Shiite Forgery?
The Arabic text of the recently released letter alleged to be by Zawahiri (al-Qaeda's number two man) to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq raises questions for me as to its authenticity.
Update A lot of Muslim and Arabist readers have written to say that my argument below (now at bottom in italics) is incorrect and that I have confused the ritual of saying blessings on the Prophet when Muhammad's name is mentioned (during which Sunnis typically do not mention the family of the Prophet) and the ritual salutation at the beginning of a letter, in which the mention of the family and companions of the Prophet by Sunnis is not unheard of.
On the other hand, a number of knowledgeable observers have agreed that it is strange for al-Zawahiri and his circle to call the Prophet's grandson, Husayn, an "Imam." There are other odd things about the letter that I will discuss on Saturday.
Later he refers to Husain, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, as al-Imam al-sibt, "the Imam, the grandson". I do not believe that a hard line Sunni such as Zawahiri would call Husain an Imam. That is Shiite terminology.
The letter then says how much Zawahiri misses meeting with Zarqawi. Zarqawi was not part of al-Qaeda when he was in Afghanistan. He had a rivalry with it. And when he went back to Jordan he did not allow the Jordanian and German chapters of his Tawhid wa Jihad group to send money to Bin Laden. If Zawahiri was going to bring up old times, he would have had to find a way to get past this troubled history, not just pretend that the two used to pal around.
My gut tells me that the letter is a forgery. Most likely it is a black psy-ops operation of the US. But it could also come from Iran, since the mistakes are those a Shiite might make when pretending to be a Sunni. Or it could come from an Iraqi Shiite group attempting to manipulate the United States. Hmmm.
The authenticity of the letter has also been questioned by al-Qaeda in Iraq.
*
[I had written but now retract: "The very first element of the letter is the blessing on the Prophet. It says:
al-salah wa al-salam `ala rasuli'llahi wa a-lihi wa sahbihi . . .
(peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of God and his family and his companions . . .)
the phrase "salla Allahu `alayhi wa alihi wa sallam" (the blessings and peace of God be upon him and his family) is a Shiite form of the salutation, because of the emphasis of the Shiites on the House or descendants of the Prophet. Because of the cultural influence of Shiism in South Asia, one does find that form of the salutation in Pakistan and India among Sunni Muslims.
But before I went to Pakistan I had never, ever heard a Sunni Muslim add "wa alihi" (and his family) to the salutation. I associated it strongly with Iran and Shiism, and was taken aback to hear Sunnis say it on Pakistani television. Certainly, I never heard that form of it all the time I lived in Egypt.
I just put "salla Allahu `alayhi wa alihi wa sallam" into google in English transliteration and *all* the sites that came up on the first page were either Shiite or Pakistani Sunni (Chishti, Barelvi, etc.) I tried adding Misr (Egypt) to the phrase and got a Shiite attack on the medieval Sunni hardline thinker, Ibn Taymiya. I tried adding Qaida and got a Shiite attack on Sunni extremism.
I do not believe that an Egyptian like al-Zawahiri would use this phraseology at all. But he certainly would not use it to open a letter to a Salafi. Sunni hardliners deeply object to what they see as Shiite idolatry of the imams or descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, for whom they made shrines such as Ali's at Najaf and Husayn's at Karbala. In fact, hard line Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia attacked and sacked Karbala in 1803.
Adding to the salutation "the peace and blessings of God be upon him [Muhammad]" the phrase "and his family" would be an insult to Zarqawi and to the hardline Sunnis in Iraq. ]
posted by Juan @ 10/14/2005 06:35:00 AM |
