The Premature Antibushevik

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 [from now]." But he said it would be "premature" for the cleric to do so now.

Our esteemed oracle the WGAS(e) [1] really ought not to be dabbling in other people’s ‘theology’ like that. To be sure, as founder and sole member of the Reformed Congregation of the Neo-Bahá’iyya, my proposed guideline would lead him with pretty well nobody’s theology to dabble in at all. Yet next time M. Hendawi or his equivalent calls up asking for free advice about the inscrutable duodecimal natives of Peaceful Freedumbia, Don Júan might mention the scribble I quote from and explain to the inquiring journalist what theology is and why it has little to do with the contents of fatáwae. Should the pupil show signs of profiting from that lesson, JC might toss in an account of what a bayán or a hukm has going for it that a mere lowly fatwae lacks. The Clark Kent kiddies cannot reasonably be expected to learn such things if nobody ever troubles to instruct them. [2]

Ann Arbour Faculty Club gentry are, perhaps, capable of anything, yet I doubt that Don Júan can read the mind of His Eminence of Noble Najaf so clearly and distinctly as to be able to project exactly when H.E. will finally lose patience with the invasive Crawfordite palefaces altogether. Two years ago -- three full years after V-IQ Day, 1 May 2003, and "Mission Accomplished" -- would have seemed mature enough to me. [3] The only obvious difference between now and "by a year or two" is that Don Júan anticipates, quite possibly in error, that effective management of the AEI-GOP-DOD aggression will have fallen into the hands of President B. Hussein Obáma. That woud be nice, of course, but is it really very likely that Ali Cardinal Sistani attaches the same importance to it that we denizens of the holy Homeland must?

We could do with some detailed ’adilla and istinbát from Shaykh al-Kuhl, it seems to me, in support of whatever his private-judgmental ruling about ‘maturity’ may be. I get the impression that Don Júan would have accounted it fort mauvais if Cardinal Sistani had drawn his line against the cowpoker vigilantes at any point in time before yesterday afternoon at the earliest. That is all very well, perhaps, yet who can tell for sure without any indication of Sir Oracle’s reasoning processes? Blind taqlíd may be traditional for the theological dodecaphones of Mesopotamia and Írán, but in these Western parts it is customary to give the customer some glimpse of the rationale behind each oracular deliverance. [4]

____

[1] World’s Greatest Area Student (ever).


[2] If thee insist, Mr. Bones: the fatwae is responsum iurisprudentiale, a "legal rescript."

Accordingly it is (1) about a point of law, not of abstract superstition/enthusiasm on the one hand, nor of concrete mythology or Church history either, and (2) it is directed to a particular inquirer or inquirers, not urbi et orbi after the fancy-Dan VC fashion.

In the instance at hand we are only informed vaguely that responsa from Ali Cardinal Sistani supporting the (potential?) right (or obligation?) of resistance to the AEI-GOP-DOD aggression into, and occupation of, the former Iraq exist. We do not possess the exact wording of them, and we know nothing of the individuals to whom they were worded apart from one scrap of tendentious-looking exegesis:

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 [sic] - 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 [the] "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.

Perhaps thee can tell me, Mr. Bones, why M. Hendawi should want to put quotation marks around "acts of resistance" but is content to leave "foreign occupiers" naked? The tertium quid, "wage armed resistance," is less obscure, although I should think there are better orthographic and lexicographical resources available to guarantee that the Associated Press customer perceives a heavy stress laid on the word ARMED. BGKB.

Be that as it may, the above paragraph (three paragraphettes in the original, or after the Guardian got hold of it) is hermeneutically complex. AP’s Majors Leaker, "the Shiite officials," find themselves in roughly the same position as Weigel, S. J., does when he graciously explains for the VC lay sheep Dr. Ratzinger’s notions of the Iraq aggression considered sub specie belli iusti. The authority of Ali Cardinal Sistani must be scrupulously respected, naturally, yet the Leaker twins, being loyal members of poor M. al-Maliki’s apparat, must really wish that His Eminence had not brought the distressing subject up. They cannot, I fear, be trusted to provide M. Hendawi and his corporation and his corporation’s customers with a commentary that H.E. would entirely endorse.

M. Hendawi was, I presume, on the same wavelength as the Majors Leaker when he tossed in "stern warning" on his own authority. To be sure, it is not absolutely impossible that all these glossators are accurate and that H.E. laid such stress on public utility that resistance to an Occupyin’ Party with crude physical force is excluded in all but the rarest circumstances.

At the same time, however, if the fatáwae not entered in evidence are plausibly to be summarized that way, then the whole tone and ethos of M. Hendawi’s scribble become problematical. If Cardinal Sistani revealed nothing more exciting than that, does it make much sense for there to be an AP wire story about the event at all?


[3] Mais que sais-je?


[4] Whether the Occidental customer is capable of grasping the rationale in full -- or even of grasping it at all -- is beside the point, as it seems to me. Rationale should always be offered as a courtesy, even to militant GOP geniuses and to servile wombscholars of the Big Management Party, good folks who can have no use for rationale whatsoever. We "owe it to ourselves," to our own liberality and liberalism to provide rationale, so to speak. Neither we good guys nor Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh suffer any positive damage if the bozo classes throw rationale away unexamined.