I am often invited by religious authorities in the Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia to attend meetings that are held to urge people to follow Islamic faith and law, while avoiding any debate connected to politics or political rights. Political rights, my hosts insist, are maintained by the ruling regimes themselves, and these follow the teachings of the Koran.
But recently an invitation came from the Faisal Center for Islamic Research and Studies, which actually wanted me to talk about democracy, or "good governance," as the participants called it.
Until recently, this topic was taboo in Saudi Arabia, where the regime doesn't allow any margin for debate and commands people to listen, obey and leave matters of government to their rulers.
It was obvious that the organizers' goal was to revive religious and political speech in order to find a middle ground between Islamic faith and democracy. I argued that, as many Islamic scholars have recognized, Islamic jurisprudence is compatible with democratic values. Every country that has chosen democracy has come closer to achieving Islam's goals of equality and social justice.
Democracy suffers in the Islamic world due to skepticism about everything that comes from the West, especially the US. Thus, some leaders view democratization efforts as a new form of colonialism or imperialism in disguise.
But the region's hesitancy to embrace democracy goes beyond mere fear of Western hegemony. There is a deep philosophical dispute about the nature of democracy. Some Islamic thinkers point to an inevitable contradiction between Islamic and democratic values. They argue that Islam requires submission to the will of God, while democracy implies submission to the will of people. This notion was clear in the writings of Said Kotb, who saw parliaments as preventing people from submitting to the rule of God.
Yet Kotb's understanding contradicts the established practices of the Prophet Mohammed, who created the first real state in the Arabian peninsula by declaring the Constitution of Medina, which stated: "Mohammed and the Jews of Bani-Aof [who were citizens of Medina at that time] are one nation." Thus, social relations were to be based on equality and justice, not religious beliefs.
Indeed, the Prophet Mohammed's most important political truce, the Hodibiah Agreement between his rising nation and the leaders of Quraish (the dominant tribe in Mecca at that time), stated clearly that "everybody is free to join the league of Mohammed or the league of Quraish."
Many non-Muslim tribes, like the Christians of Nagran, the Jews of Fadk and the pagans of Khoza'a, joined Mohammed's league and became part of the Islamic state.
All Muslim and non-Muslim tribes had equal rights and freedoms and enjoyed the protection of the state. Most importantly, Mecca was later opened to protect the pagan people of Khoza'a against the attacks of Quraish.
So it was not Mohammed's intent to build a theocratic or religious state under the rule of mullahs. He was establishing a democratic civil state where people were equal in rights and obligations.
Reconciling the true understanding of Islam and democracy will, I believe, lead to a full realization of the richness of the Islamic experiment. It could also add great vitality to the democratic experiment by bringing it closer to the Muslim street. But the Islamic mainstream must first realize the importance of democratic reform, which is possible only by clearly understanding the Prophet's message, which promises genuine solutions for every time and place.
Although the creation of centers to debate the concept of Islamic democracy reflect the natural evolution of Islamic thinking, it will not go unopposed. Indeed, during one session I attended, Sheik Ahmad Rageh of Al-Imam University responded angrily to the Tunisian researcher Salah Edeen Al-Jorashi.
"How do you expect us to accept the freedom of faith in Islam? It is something that exists only in your illusions. We believe in a religion that doesn't bargain with right, or hesitate in creed. We believe in a religion that orders us to kill the converts. There is no place in our nation for a malevolent or a renegade," Sheik Rageh said.
I find it hard to understand how he can miss (or ignore) the clear verses in the Koran, which order us to do the very opposite:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion," "Thou art not one to manage their affairs," "We have not sent thee to be disposer of their affairs for them" and "Say, `The truth is from your Lord,' let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject."
There are many other verses in the Koran that bear a message of tolerance and freedom. The mine of Islamic jurisprudence is very rich, but the problem is in the way its treasures are used.
As the ancient Arabs used to say: "A man's choice is a piece of his mind." The struggle in the Islamic world nowadays is a struggle for a piece of the Muslim mind.
Muhammad Habash, a member of the Syrian parliament, is director of the Islamic Studies Center in Damascus.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS