Jordan: Zarqawi as a 'martyr'

Zarqawi’s death tests Jordan's tolerance

By celebrating al-Zarqawi as a 'martyr,' Jordanian Islamist lawmakers have tested the boundaries and reignited a heated debate about their role.

Commentary by P R Kumaraswamy for ISN Security Watch (09/08/06)

Ever since the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, his home country Jordan has found itself embroiled in a tense domestic crisis. Denying the request for his burial in Zarqa, Jordan vowed that al-Zarqawi, who is held responsible for a triple suicide bombing in Amman in November 2005, would never be allowed to "stain" the country's soil.

After the bombings that killed 60 people, most of them Jordanians, al-Zarqawi became the target of widespread condemnation and indignation from his fellow citizens. Responding to public anger, al-Zarqawi's family was quick to publicly renounce ties to him.

But his death at the hands of the allied forces changed that, with his family seeking to capitalize on the widespread sympathy in the Islamic world for his brutal attacks against US-led coalition forces. His brother said that al-Zarqawi “is a martyr and should be treated as such.”
As is the custom, after his death his family of organized a function where al-Zarqawi was hailed and celebrated for his “martyrdom.”

Among the attendants were four members of parliament belonging to the Islamic Action Front (IAF). Charging them with “inciting violence,” the state was quick to initiate criminal proceedings against the four lawmakers. They were arrested and tried by the military prosecutor at the State Security Court. While one was subsequently released, the remaining three were charged on 24 July with “fuelling national discord and inciting sectarianism.”

“By glorifying Zarqawi, the deputies are sending the wrong message to youth by justifying terrorism and equating terrorist acts with jihad, as well as encouraging someone like Zarqawi as their idol,” the prosecution said.

The Hashemite Kingdom remains the only country in the entire Arab world to tolerate, recognize and permit an Islamic political party and to allow them to participate in elections. With 17 seats in the 110-member parliament, the IAF is a major force in Jordan.

By hailing a mortal enemy of the state as a "martyr" and "holy warrior," the Islamists have crossed the line and renewed the debate about their own roles and activities in Jordan.

The speaker of Jordan's lower house of parliament, Abdul Hadi Majali, has demanded that the IAF “announce allegiance to Jordan and its Hashemite leadership and renounce all terrorist acts by Zarqawi and all forms of terrorism.”

On 6 August, two Islamist lawmakers were given prison terms ranging from 18 months to two years. They were also given symbolic fines. The third lawmaker was acquitted because “his action did not constitute a crime.”

The whole controversy underscores five significant trends in Jordan. On the first level, there is some sympathy inside the country for al-Zarqawi and his actions in Iraq. To an extent, the Islamists' support for the militant's family should be seen as a barometer measuring the views among sections of the Jordanian population on the US-led occupation of Iraq.

On the next level, this is not the only occasion when the IAF has been at odds with the government. In recent years, the Islamists in Jordan have been at the forefront of opposition to the normalization of relations with Israel and have organized popular protests to that effect. Similarly, since 1999, the Islamists have been trying to protect the interests of the Palestinian militant group Hamas in Jordan.

Thirdly, supporting a perpetrator of terrorism is simply unacceptable for Jordan. Any tolerance towards such actions by members of parliament not only offers sanctity to terrorism but also undermines Jordan's ability and willingness to prevent a repetition of the triple bombing. Since its confrontation with the Palestinians in September 1970, Amman has been extremely wary of internal violence that would undermine not only the country's stability but also the survival of the kingdom.

Fourthly, unlike other Islamist movements in the Middle East, the IAF has established a modus vivendi with the palace and has flourished. However, by adopting a position vis-à-vis al-Zarqawi that is at odds not only with the palace but also with the wider Jordanian public, the Islamists have clearly tested the limits of tolerance.

Finally, the sentencing of the Islamist lawmakers has altered the ground rules. It would be safe to conclude that the IAF would not accept the onslaught easily. Any expulsion of the two convicted lawmakers from parliament could force the leadership to pullout of the parliament and plunge the country into a deep political crisis. Despite the period row between the two over domestic and foreign policy issues, the political participation of Islamists in enhances the credibility of the Hashemite Kingdom.

At the same time, however, as King Abdullah warned in no uncertain terms, the Islamists “have to redefine their relationship with us. They have been working in the grey area for the past decades.”

Thus, Sunday’s verdict could well be the beginning of a new equation between the Islamists and the palace.

P R Kumaraswamy teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.