Comments on: Is RAND in Bed with Extreme Takfiris?

By: Joas Wagemakers

Joas Wagemakers — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:35:18 +0000

OSINT235: there are indeed many ghulat al-takfir who are in favour of jihad and some have actually gone off to Iraq or somewhere else to take up arms and fight “the enemies of Islam”. In some cases, the victims of these men are people who are so remotely involved with the “apostate” regime that they would not be considered enemies by most radical scholars.
There are also, as you say, scholars who believe in applying takfir on a wider scale but may not favour jihad for reasons such as the one you mention. It depends on the context whether these armchair takfiris are taken seriously or not.
Chris: that’s correct. I do believe, however, that the fear of getting it wrong and being labelled a kafir oneself is more a personal inhibition to applying takfir than the one I mention, which is more concerned with preserving the peace in Muslim communities. Since scholars will obviously study and analyse a case before going so far as to apply takfir, they may be less worried about being called a kafir themselves than about the consequences it may have for the stability of a community or country.
Retired: there are indeed scholarly studies about the counter-terrorism efforts of particularly Saudi scholars. Roel Meijer has written several excellent articles about this, taking an in-depth look at the counter-terrorism discourse of Saudi scholars, although he doesn’t analyse whether this discourse is actually sound or correctly takes on the jihadis’ arguments. I have also written a paper in a forthcoming book about the (undesirable) labels of “Khawarij” and “Murji’a” that radical and quietist Salafis apply to each other. I analyse the correctness of their claims and conclude that both are partly right in their accusations but that, unfortunately, the radicals actually have stronger case against their quietist opponents than vice versa.
The fact that many non-jihadi scholars are strongly affiliated with the states they live in is indeed a major impediment of their arguments since they are often more or less forced to defend the state, even in cases where there is clearly something wrong. This is particularly pertinent to Saudi Arabia.
Fernando: thanks for the compliment.

By: Fernando

Fernando — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:19:08 +0000

SuperB post. This article shows why Jihadica is one of the best blogs out there.

Thank you.

By: Retired

Retired — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:15:38 +0000

We can add “Randi” to a new list that already includes the term of derision “Randawi” used to describe the sort of “moderate Muslims” RAND’s Bernard proposes that we support.

More seriously, I wonder if anyone in our scolarly community has looked seriously at the quality, reasoning and strategy used by Muslims scholars who have taken on the challenge of countering jihadi ideology in their own countries or via the net. Do they cover all the necessary weaknesses/vulnerabilities of the jihadis, including the takfiris? Do the weaknesses of the regimes they have to live with or work for undercut or limit the arguements they can put forth? We know that the jihadis see them as a threat, but just how effective are they?

By: Chris H

Chris H — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:58:31 +0000

There is another reason must Muslims (and `ulama’ esp.) do not make takfir lightly, and it seems to be rarely described in the literature. There are consequences for the accuser that are just as serious. To paraphrase the hadith, if one calls another Muslim a kafir, and he is wrong, the accuser will be the one judged a kafir.

On the authority of Ibn `Umar: the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: Any person who calls his brother: O Unbeliever! (then the truth of this label) would return to one of them. If it is true, (then it is) as he asserted, (but if it is not true), then it returns to him (and thus the person who made the accusation is an Unbeliever). In Sahih Muslim

By: OSINT235

OSINT235 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:44:20 +0000

Excellent piece Joas ! One question that comes to my mind is whether these “Ghulat al Takfir” are in favor of waging of Jihad ? For instance, in the case of the Koeweïti shaykh Abu Maryam, there are indications he holds rather extreme positions with regard to takfir, while alledging at the same time there can not be Jihad right now, since there exists no ‘Dar al Islam’.