| Summary/Abstract |
As a speech act, takfir—the allegation of a Muslim’s apostasy—may insinuate violence in a way that can delimit the boundaries of political, as well as religious, community. Yet the use of takfir also incurs costs in plural political environments. Those who engage in it do not always see the dividends they may imagine. This article compares public acts of takfir at critical moments in Tunisia and Yemen to argue that the weight of this particular idiom is not universal, but is a function of the specific linguistic field in which it is employed as well as the historical juncture in which it takes place. Takfir both shapes and reflects the power relations between rival factions. As an informal discourse that occurs largely outside of formal state institutions, it nonetheless leaves a clear imprint on those institutions, particularly in moments of political transition when the contours of new constitutional arrangements are negotiated. Relying on ethnographic and interview-based field research from both Tunisia and Yemen, the context-specific arguments advanced here challenge the universalist prescriptions that underwrite policy efforts to engage in “counter-takfir” as a means of combatting excommunicative discourse.
|