The three Fatwas surrounding the security agreement
The problem with such articles like this one FP “Tenuous Agreement on Maintaining U.S. Troops in Iraq” is that they all forget one crucial point. This point is summarized by Iraqi writer Jawad Bashara in his last paragraph of his article published today called “Who is going to impose the de facto in Iraq?“:
The last factor which could turn the whole thing upside down is the position of [Shiite] religious-authority in Najaf from this agreement, if they are going to bless or curse the one who signs it.
Described by Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Watan as “The three Fatwas surrounding the security agreement”, the article views the different religious positions form SOFA. The writer “Shaboot” classifies the religious opinion into three categories:
1- Permission:
This position is represented by Supreme-cleric Ali Al-Sistani, who authorized the parliament to approve or reject the agreement.
Although Sistani’s office never issued a formal statement, but politicians [Maliki] said that the Supreme-cleric spoke about four conditions to pass a security agreement:
1) The preservation of the Iraqi national sovereignty. 2) Transparency. 3) Parliament approval. 4) Public consensus.
Issuing his position to approve the decision made by the Iraqi parliament, Sistani doesn’t want to be seen as the highest authority of the [Shiite] Iraqi people [this position is different from the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini]
By transferring the matter to the parliament, Sistani indirectly wants to separate religion from politics, satisfied to give general advice without it reaching “Fatwa” levels which are obliged upon the public according to custom tradition.
2- Conditional:
This is the position of the Iraqi-Lebanese Supreme-cleric Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, who is a very influential in the Islamic Dawa Party.
I already reported his points here.
A source from Fadlallah’s office confirmed that if the [Iraqi] government meets these conditions mentioned above, then it is enough to sign the agreement.
3- Absolute prohibition [Arabic=Tahreem]:
This position adopted by Al-Ha’iri the religious reference of “Muqtada Al-Sadr , who considers signing any security agreement by the Iraqi government with the United States in religiously forbidden.
Surprise for the foreign readers, Al-Ha’iri is one the moderators Shiite Supreme-clerics and this is the reason that he is staying in Hawza of Qom - Iran which is much more “open” to new religious thoughts than the Hawza in Najaf - Iraq.
5 Comments, Comment or Ping