A FORUM TO EXCHANGE VIEWS AND IDEAS
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label Islamic Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic Democracy. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Unforgivable Saudi crimes
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The failures of democracy in the West offer hope for Islamic movements everywhere
Iqbal Siddiqui, Perspectives
Every four years the world watches the political soap opera of the US presidential elections with a combination of amusement, bemusement and incredulity as the world’s most powerful nation, and the supposed flag-bearer of democracy, lays open its true nature. Although the polls are not due for over a year, the formal process began months ago, with Barrack Obama having announced the start of his re-election campaign in April. The contest among potential Republican candidates is in its early stages, but already the world is laughing at the ignorance and ineptitude of some of the candidates, particularly Rick Perry and Herman Cain, who have been guilty of many more appalling gaffes than have been seen around the world. At the same time, there is a pervading sense of fear that such a candidate could actually make it to the White House, considering that George W. Bush was actually elected twice and Obama is unlikely to be allowed to be re-elected. For many, the state of American politics has long been convincing evidence for the case against democracy. The problem is that this evidence is hardly new and yet little seems to have changed, in either the US or the rest of the world.
However, a number of recent factors appear to offer more concrete prospects of Muslims finally growing out of the easy myths of democracy. One is the economic crisis of Western capitalism and the various responses to it. In the US and other western countries — long the beneficiaries of the injustices of world capitalism, even though many people in all countries were individually victims of it — the growth of the anti-capitalist sentiment partially represented by the Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements is a sign that the impact of the economic crisis on the lives of ordinary people is having a political impact. The fact that at least some of the protestors are expressing anger not only at the exploitative and profiteering policies of the capitalist elites, but also at the political classes that kow-tow to them, may well have consequences for the nature of politics in many of these countries. Some of these consequences can be foreseen, such as the efforts of the political leaders to provide populist distractions such as spectre of a threat from Iran. Others will no doubt take us all by surprise. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that some of the gloss of democratic politics will be tarnished in the process, although predicting the end of democracy would be grossly premature.
In some European countries, meanwhile, the consequences of the economic crisis on the standing of democracy and democratic politics is taking a far more direct form. In Italy, the democratically-elected government has been replaced by a government consisting entirely of technocrats — professional “experts” with no political background or electoral backing. The problem is that the expertise of these technocrats is all rooted in the same capitalist assumptions and policies that have created the present crises. The IMF and other similar international institutions have a long record of imposing strict economic policies on developing countries in spite of the interests and desires of their people. One of the justifications for this was that it was such capitalist policies that made possible the benefits of democracy and the economic strength of western countries. Few expected ever to see developed European countries seeing their democratically-elected governments replaced by unelected technocrats determined to impose hardline policies dictated by capitalist elites. In Greece, the government was pressured to accept similar prescriptions by the leaders of Europe, with considerable evidence suggesting that the Greek military was preparing to take power under a coup if civilian politicians failed to accept the necessity of such measures, a prospect that was taken very seriously indeed considering that it is less that 40 years since the overthrow of the US-backed, right-wing military dictatorship and the establishment of democratic government. There are genuine fears that similarly drastic measures may have to be taken in countries such as Spain, Portugal and even France if economic conditions in those countries fail to improve.
Such developments in western countries are bound to have an impact on people’s perceptions of the myths on which democratic polities depend, not least the idea that regular elections ensure that governments are primarily answerable to the ordinary people rather than any other interest groups.
And this is bound also to have a knock-on impact on developments in other parts of the world, for example the Arab world, currently is the midst of the so-called “Arab Spring”. This political upheaval represented in this easy catch-all phrase is taking very different forms in different countries, from the supposed democratization in Tunisia, resulting in the victory of the En-nahda Islamic movement in elections in October, to the civil war encouraged by the West in Libya, to the attempts of the political elite in Egypt to manage the process of change to ensure that their interests are not affected. All, however, have two things in common: firstly, that the powers of the West are desperately trying to manipulate events to their own purposes; and secondly, all are being presented as popular movements in support of pro-Western democratic movements, which aim to establish governments whose only ambition is to be part of the Western sphere of influence.
Current developments in Egypt suggest that ordinary people in these countries are less than happy with this prospect. As Egyptians struggle to achieve real freedom, rather than the model offered by the West, the fact that democracy is facing new challenges even in the countries that have hitherto been its supposed shining models, can only make it easier for a counter-democratic discourse to emerge, offering a genuine Islamic alternative as a model for the entire Muslim world. Of course, the problems within the West are not sufficient; numerous other factors will also be essential, not least the vision and leadership offered by Islamic leaders in Egypt and elsewhere. Nonetheless, the fact that the model of democracy is suddenly looking a lot less stable and appealing than it previously appeared can only be a step in the right direction. As so often before, political realities on the ground may be providing concrete and convincing evidence of truths that the words of intellectuals and leaders have long failed to convey.
Every four years the world watches the political soap opera of the US presidential elections with a combination of amusement, bemusement and incredulity as the world’s most powerful nation, and the supposed flag-bearer of democracy, lays open its true nature. Although the polls are not due for over a year, the formal process began months ago, with Barrack Obama having announced the start of his re-election campaign in April. The contest among potential Republican candidates is in its early stages, but already the world is laughing at the ignorance and ineptitude of some of the candidates, particularly Rick Perry and Herman Cain, who have been guilty of many more appalling gaffes than have been seen around the world. At the same time, there is a pervading sense of fear that such a candidate could actually make it to the White House, considering that George W. Bush was actually elected twice and Obama is unlikely to be allowed to be re-elected. For many, the state of American politics has long been convincing evidence for the case against democracy. The problem is that this evidence is hardly new and yet little seems to have changed, in either the US or the rest of the world.
However, a number of recent factors appear to offer more concrete prospects of Muslims finally growing out of the easy myths of democracy. One is the economic crisis of Western capitalism and the various responses to it. In the US and other western countries — long the beneficiaries of the injustices of world capitalism, even though many people in all countries were individually victims of it — the growth of the anti-capitalist sentiment partially represented by the Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements is a sign that the impact of the economic crisis on the lives of ordinary people is having a political impact. The fact that at least some of the protestors are expressing anger not only at the exploitative and profiteering policies of the capitalist elites, but also at the political classes that kow-tow to them, may well have consequences for the nature of politics in many of these countries. Some of these consequences can be foreseen, such as the efforts of the political leaders to provide populist distractions such as spectre of a threat from Iran. Others will no doubt take us all by surprise. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that some of the gloss of democratic politics will be tarnished in the process, although predicting the end of democracy would be grossly premature.
In some European countries, meanwhile, the consequences of the economic crisis on the standing of democracy and democratic politics is taking a far more direct form. In Italy, the democratically-elected government has been replaced by a government consisting entirely of technocrats — professional “experts” with no political background or electoral backing. The problem is that the expertise of these technocrats is all rooted in the same capitalist assumptions and policies that have created the present crises. The IMF and other similar international institutions have a long record of imposing strict economic policies on developing countries in spite of the interests and desires of their people. One of the justifications for this was that it was such capitalist policies that made possible the benefits of democracy and the economic strength of western countries. Few expected ever to see developed European countries seeing their democratically-elected governments replaced by unelected technocrats determined to impose hardline policies dictated by capitalist elites. In Greece, the government was pressured to accept similar prescriptions by the leaders of Europe, with considerable evidence suggesting that the Greek military was preparing to take power under a coup if civilian politicians failed to accept the necessity of such measures, a prospect that was taken very seriously indeed considering that it is less that 40 years since the overthrow of the US-backed, right-wing military dictatorship and the establishment of democratic government. There are genuine fears that similarly drastic measures may have to be taken in countries such as Spain, Portugal and even France if economic conditions in those countries fail to improve.
Such developments in western countries are bound to have an impact on people’s perceptions of the myths on which democratic polities depend, not least the idea that regular elections ensure that governments are primarily answerable to the ordinary people rather than any other interest groups.
And this is bound also to have a knock-on impact on developments in other parts of the world, for example the Arab world, currently is the midst of the so-called “Arab Spring”. This political upheaval represented in this easy catch-all phrase is taking very different forms in different countries, from the supposed democratization in Tunisia, resulting in the victory of the En-nahda Islamic movement in elections in October, to the civil war encouraged by the West in Libya, to the attempts of the political elite in Egypt to manage the process of change to ensure that their interests are not affected. All, however, have two things in common: firstly, that the powers of the West are desperately trying to manipulate events to their own purposes; and secondly, all are being presented as popular movements in support of pro-Western democratic movements, which aim to establish governments whose only ambition is to be part of the Western sphere of influence.
Current developments in Egypt suggest that ordinary people in these countries are less than happy with this prospect. As Egyptians struggle to achieve real freedom, rather than the model offered by the West, the fact that democracy is facing new challenges even in the countries that have hitherto been its supposed shining models, can only make it easier for a counter-democratic discourse to emerge, offering a genuine Islamic alternative as a model for the entire Muslim world. Of course, the problems within the West are not sufficient; numerous other factors will also be essential, not least the vision and leadership offered by Islamic leaders in Egypt and elsewhere. Nonetheless, the fact that the model of democracy is suddenly looking a lot less stable and appealing than it previously appeared can only be a step in the right direction. As so often before, political realities on the ground may be providing concrete and convincing evidence of truths that the words of intellectuals and leaders have long failed to convey.
Islamic concept of legitimacy
As mass popular movements sweep the Muslim East (aka Middle East) predatory Western powers and their local satraps are involved in desperate attempts to hijack them. They are offering the same failed systems in a new garb. Since the overwhelming majority in the region is Muslim, it is natural that they would want a social order connected to Islamic principles that represent and ennoble their unique identity. The people’s uprisings have made clear what they do not want: the old decrepit order. What they want instead and what shape the new order would take is as yet unclear.
Both in Tunisia where elections were held on October 23 and in Egypt where mass protests erupted again as Crescent went to press (before the November 28 election date), attempts are underway to keep the political process on a secularist track and Islam at bay to prevent its shaping the order in society. It is argued that Islam has no solutions to contemporary problems. We need to confront this argument and expose the forces behind such thinking but first let us understand the concept of legitimacy in Islam and how it is derived.
It is not the majority that confers legitimacy; Islamic legitimacy comes from divine commands. If the overwhelming majority in society, for instance, decides to kill the minority or to institute cannibalism would that make such acts acceptable? Based on Western notions of democracy, this would be perfectly legitimate but not in Islam. Let us go further. From the Islamic point of view, every Prophet of Allah (a) had legitimacy because he received the message from on high even if the people to whom it was delivered did not accept it. Islamic legitimacy is not contingent upon people’s acceptance or rejection but on following the commands of Allah (swt).
We must also have a clearer understanding of Islam. The Qur’an refers to it as deen, meaning a way of life. Thus, Islam encompasses more than the set of rituals that people perform as part of their religious obligation. Unlike other religions, Islam offers a complete set of principles that guides every adherent through life. It has rules for every aspect: social, political and economic. This is not mere theory; Islamic principles have been put into practice and have produced results that are far superior to any other system.
The West’s greatest claim to superiority has rested on its ability to produce vast amounts of goods to satisfy people’s needs. The financial tsunami sweeping North America and Europe and the realization among people that their ruling elites have lied to them and robbed them of their livelihood has finally exposed this myth. If Western-style democracy and capitalism have failed their own people, why should others buy into them? But that is precisely what is being offered to Muslims in the Muslim East. Not only the ruling elites, that are beneficiaries of the old corrupt order, but also some leaders of Islamic movements have fallen for this fraud. It is tragic and depressing to hear otherwise intelligent and sincere leaders of Islamic movements talk about the virtues of secularism.
When Muslims embark on creating political systems in their societies, they must be clear about what they want. For a system to be legitimate and enjoy the support of the masses, it must be based on Islamic principles of which the most fundamental is justice. Without justice, there can be no peace or security in society.
We must also understand one other point: not everyone is created equal. Some are strong, others are weak; some are tall, others are short. The same applies to wealth and health. Yet such power differentiations must not be used to exploit or oppress the weak and poor. Unlike the Western system where the rich and, therefore, the powerful use their privileges to amass great wealth and power and deprive others of their basic rights, Islam regulates the use of power.
Unfortunately, in most Muslim societies too, the rich and powerful exploit the weak and poor. Western powers prop up the corrupt elites so that they institute policies beneficial to the West even if they are detrimental to the interests of their own people. Thus, Saudi Arabia must pump excessive amounts of oil, far beyond its own needs, to satiate America’s thirst. For toeing Washington’s line, the illegitimate House of Saud is kept in power. The same holds true for the city-states on the western shores of the Persian Gulf and regimes elsewhere in the Muslim East. The way out of this mess is not to apply the failed Western model but to create a system based on the values of Islam. It is only then that Muslim societies can be truly liberated.
Without Islam, no regime in the Muslim world can claim legitimacy regardless of the number of elections it holds. If the people desire a life of dignity and honour, they must continue to agitate and resist until they have established an Islamic system of governance.
Both in Tunisia where elections were held on October 23 and in Egypt where mass protests erupted again as Crescent went to press (before the November 28 election date), attempts are underway to keep the political process on a secularist track and Islam at bay to prevent its shaping the order in society. It is argued that Islam has no solutions to contemporary problems. We need to confront this argument and expose the forces behind such thinking but first let us understand the concept of legitimacy in Islam and how it is derived.
It is not the majority that confers legitimacy; Islamic legitimacy comes from divine commands. If the overwhelming majority in society, for instance, decides to kill the minority or to institute cannibalism would that make such acts acceptable? Based on Western notions of democracy, this would be perfectly legitimate but not in Islam. Let us go further. From the Islamic point of view, every Prophet of Allah (a) had legitimacy because he received the message from on high even if the people to whom it was delivered did not accept it. Islamic legitimacy is not contingent upon people’s acceptance or rejection but on following the commands of Allah (swt).
We must also have a clearer understanding of Islam. The Qur’an refers to it as deen, meaning a way of life. Thus, Islam encompasses more than the set of rituals that people perform as part of their religious obligation. Unlike other religions, Islam offers a complete set of principles that guides every adherent through life. It has rules for every aspect: social, political and economic. This is not mere theory; Islamic principles have been put into practice and have produced results that are far superior to any other system.
The West’s greatest claim to superiority has rested on its ability to produce vast amounts of goods to satisfy people’s needs. The financial tsunami sweeping North America and Europe and the realization among people that their ruling elites have lied to them and robbed them of their livelihood has finally exposed this myth. If Western-style democracy and capitalism have failed their own people, why should others buy into them? But that is precisely what is being offered to Muslims in the Muslim East. Not only the ruling elites, that are beneficiaries of the old corrupt order, but also some leaders of Islamic movements have fallen for this fraud. It is tragic and depressing to hear otherwise intelligent and sincere leaders of Islamic movements talk about the virtues of secularism.
When Muslims embark on creating political systems in their societies, they must be clear about what they want. For a system to be legitimate and enjoy the support of the masses, it must be based on Islamic principles of which the most fundamental is justice. Without justice, there can be no peace or security in society.
We must also understand one other point: not everyone is created equal. Some are strong, others are weak; some are tall, others are short. The same applies to wealth and health. Yet such power differentiations must not be used to exploit or oppress the weak and poor. Unlike the Western system where the rich and, therefore, the powerful use their privileges to amass great wealth and power and deprive others of their basic rights, Islam regulates the use of power.
Unfortunately, in most Muslim societies too, the rich and powerful exploit the weak and poor. Western powers prop up the corrupt elites so that they institute policies beneficial to the West even if they are detrimental to the interests of their own people. Thus, Saudi Arabia must pump excessive amounts of oil, far beyond its own needs, to satiate America’s thirst. For toeing Washington’s line, the illegitimate House of Saud is kept in power. The same holds true for the city-states on the western shores of the Persian Gulf and regimes elsewhere in the Muslim East. The way out of this mess is not to apply the failed Western model but to create a system based on the values of Islam. It is only then that Muslim societies can be truly liberated.
Without Islam, no regime in the Muslim world can claim legitimacy regardless of the number of elections it holds. If the people desire a life of dignity and honour, they must continue to agitate and resist until they have established an Islamic system of governance.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Tehran conference puts people’s uprisings in proper Islamic context
By Zafar Bangash
The First International Conference on Islamic Awakening held in Tehran on September 17 and 18 was a grand affair. There were more than 700 delegates from 84 countries representing all shades of opinion and thought in the Ummah. There were leaders of almost all Islamic movements, current and former government officials — presidents, vice presidents, prime ministers and ministers — as well as academics, political activists and journalists at the conference.
Reflecting the great importance the Islamic Republic of Iran attached to the conference, the Rahbar of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei himself addressed the opening session of the conference (see pp. 27–33 for his opening address). President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Attorney General Ayatullah Sadegh Larijani, Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani and Conference Chairman, Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati (a former foreign minister) accompanied the Rahbar as he entered the hall to loud cheers and was ushered to the stage. As the Rahbar took his seat on the stage, the others walked down to the conference floor to take theirs.
In his wide-ranging address, the Rahbar touched on several important points. He paid rich tribute to the courageous people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and other places where Muslim masses are involved in struggles to regain their dignity and honour. The Rahbar urged them not to be discouraged by the undoubted challenges they will face and also warned them against the beguiling smiles of the satanic powers that had kept them in bondage by propping up corrupt dictators for so long. He urged the Muslim masses to remain on the scene until they had achieved their objectives.
Naturally not all 700 delegates could have been given the platform to speak but leaders of some of the leading movements were asked to address the conference. Other participants were accommodated and recognized by being invited to sit on the platform for each of the four daily sessions. Leading conference delegates were divided into five committees to tackle various issues and report back to the conference on the final day. Before the concluding address of President Ahmadinejad on the final day, the conference chairman, Dr. Velayati, read out the Conference declaration. Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi, also addressed the conference on the morning of the second day.
In his address, President Ahmadinejad talked about the common bonds of humanity and its quest for peace based on justice. He emphasized that all human beings are created equal but it is because of Shaytan and the imprisonment of humans by carnal desires based on the distinction of race, color or birth that they have been chained. Such people, he asserted, will never taste true freedom. Iman (faith-commitment) was in the nature of human beings and no society would achieve true happiness based on shirk. Describing freedom as the greatest gift bestowed upon humanity by Allah (Â), President Ahmadinejad asserted that no society could have peace and happiness without freedom. He also pointed out that all prophets were sent with the same message of tawhid (oneness of Allah – Â), and that their mission was one: to establish justice in society that could only come about through divine rule.
President Ahmadinejad asked whether the seven billion people in the world are happy today and if not — as they clearly are not — then what are the reasons for their unhappiness? He placed the blame squarely on the mismanagement of global governance by the predatory powers led by the US. If there were proper management of world affairs, there would be justice and peace, he insisted. There would be no mass starvation and there would not be endless wars to plunder the resources of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In referring to the current uprisings and Islamic awakening in the Muslim world, he said it was not helpful for Muslims to be quarrelling among themselves. He extended a hand of friendship to the people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and all other countries and said that Islamic Iran was willing to help them in whatever way possible. His call was greeted with resounding cries of Allahu Akbar and prolonged applause.
In addition to recognizing the contribution of speakers at the conference, the plenary sessions and committee meetings were held to address the following:
1. develop historical, conceptual and theoretical foundations of Islamic awakening;
2. recognize prominent players in the Islamic Awakening;
3. identify challenges and threats facing the Islamic Awakening;
4. identify goals and objectives of the Islamic Awakening; and
5. clarify the outlook and future prospects of Islamic awakening.
Mindful of their responsibilities as a single Ummah, the participants expressed their sympathy and solidarity with the drought-stricken people of Somalia and underlined the Islamic imperative of mobilizing humanitarian assistance to help them. The valiant struggle of the people of Palestine facing Zionist aggression was also recognized and the continued occupation of al-Quds (the Holy Land) was seen as a great affront to Islam and the worldwide Muslim Ummah. A clear distinction was made between what is referred to as “Western-style democracy” in which vested interests manipulate the system to their advantage and the representative system of Muslims backed and supported by the will of the people. Muslims have their own system of governance distinct from the West.
The conference participants resolved to establish a permanent Secretariat of the Islamic Awakening Conference in Tehran that would be headed by Dr. Velayati as its first Secretary General. The Secretariat will hold consultations with Muslim activists and welcome any input through email, letters or any other means to promote the legitimate aspirations of Muslims.
This important conference for the first time brought Muslims from divergent backgrounds and outlooks onto a single platform and urged them to work toward the common goal of achieving honor and dignity in society. It will go a long way toward making Muslim strugglers more confident, secure in the knowledge that they are not alone in their quest. The world is certainly on the threshold of major changes in which Muslims for the first time in many decades will be in the driving seat. It will certainly usher in a more just and fair world than what we have hitherto experienced.
The First International Conference on Islamic Awakening held in Tehran on September 17 and 18 was a grand affair. There were more than 700 delegates from 84 countries representing all shades of opinion and thought in the Ummah. There were leaders of almost all Islamic movements, current and former government officials — presidents, vice presidents, prime ministers and ministers — as well as academics, political activists and journalists at the conference.
Reflecting the great importance the Islamic Republic of Iran attached to the conference, the Rahbar of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei himself addressed the opening session of the conference (see pp. 27–33 for his opening address). President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Attorney General Ayatullah Sadegh Larijani, Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani and Conference Chairman, Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati (a former foreign minister) accompanied the Rahbar as he entered the hall to loud cheers and was ushered to the stage. As the Rahbar took his seat on the stage, the others walked down to the conference floor to take theirs.
In his wide-ranging address, the Rahbar touched on several important points. He paid rich tribute to the courageous people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and other places where Muslim masses are involved in struggles to regain their dignity and honour. The Rahbar urged them not to be discouraged by the undoubted challenges they will face and also warned them against the beguiling smiles of the satanic powers that had kept them in bondage by propping up corrupt dictators for so long. He urged the Muslim masses to remain on the scene until they had achieved their objectives.
Naturally not all 700 delegates could have been given the platform to speak but leaders of some of the leading movements were asked to address the conference. Other participants were accommodated and recognized by being invited to sit on the platform for each of the four daily sessions. Leading conference delegates were divided into five committees to tackle various issues and report back to the conference on the final day. Before the concluding address of President Ahmadinejad on the final day, the conference chairman, Dr. Velayati, read out the Conference declaration. Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi, also addressed the conference on the morning of the second day.
In his address, President Ahmadinejad talked about the common bonds of humanity and its quest for peace based on justice. He emphasized that all human beings are created equal but it is because of Shaytan and the imprisonment of humans by carnal desires based on the distinction of race, color or birth that they have been chained. Such people, he asserted, will never taste true freedom. Iman (faith-commitment) was in the nature of human beings and no society would achieve true happiness based on shirk. Describing freedom as the greatest gift bestowed upon humanity by Allah (Â), President Ahmadinejad asserted that no society could have peace and happiness without freedom. He also pointed out that all prophets were sent with the same message of tawhid (oneness of Allah – Â), and that their mission was one: to establish justice in society that could only come about through divine rule.
President Ahmadinejad asked whether the seven billion people in the world are happy today and if not — as they clearly are not — then what are the reasons for their unhappiness? He placed the blame squarely on the mismanagement of global governance by the predatory powers led by the US. If there were proper management of world affairs, there would be justice and peace, he insisted. There would be no mass starvation and there would not be endless wars to plunder the resources of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In referring to the current uprisings and Islamic awakening in the Muslim world, he said it was not helpful for Muslims to be quarrelling among themselves. He extended a hand of friendship to the people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and all other countries and said that Islamic Iran was willing to help them in whatever way possible. His call was greeted with resounding cries of Allahu Akbar and prolonged applause.
In addition to recognizing the contribution of speakers at the conference, the plenary sessions and committee meetings were held to address the following:
1. develop historical, conceptual and theoretical foundations of Islamic awakening;
2. recognize prominent players in the Islamic Awakening;
3. identify challenges and threats facing the Islamic Awakening;
4. identify goals and objectives of the Islamic Awakening; and
5. clarify the outlook and future prospects of Islamic awakening.
Mindful of their responsibilities as a single Ummah, the participants expressed their sympathy and solidarity with the drought-stricken people of Somalia and underlined the Islamic imperative of mobilizing humanitarian assistance to help them. The valiant struggle of the people of Palestine facing Zionist aggression was also recognized and the continued occupation of al-Quds (the Holy Land) was seen as a great affront to Islam and the worldwide Muslim Ummah. A clear distinction was made between what is referred to as “Western-style democracy” in which vested interests manipulate the system to their advantage and the representative system of Muslims backed and supported by the will of the people. Muslims have their own system of governance distinct from the West.
The conference participants resolved to establish a permanent Secretariat of the Islamic Awakening Conference in Tehran that would be headed by Dr. Velayati as its first Secretary General. The Secretariat will hold consultations with Muslim activists and welcome any input through email, letters or any other means to promote the legitimate aspirations of Muslims.
This important conference for the first time brought Muslims from divergent backgrounds and outlooks onto a single platform and urged them to work toward the common goal of achieving honor and dignity in society. It will go a long way toward making Muslim strugglers more confident, secure in the knowledge that they are not alone in their quest. The world is certainly on the threshold of major changes in which Muslims for the first time in many decades will be in the driving seat. It will certainly usher in a more just and fair world than what we have hitherto experienced.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Non-Islamic democracy is impossible in the Arab world
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many westerners are quite gloomy about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, following the historic revolutions that have taken (and are taking) place in several Arab countries. They are worried that true democracy in Arab lands might bring to power Islamic democrats who would seek to reconcile human rights, civil liberties with the Islamic rulings. In other words, they dread seeing the Islamization of democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Khalid Amayreh
Many westerners are quite gloomy about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, following the historic revolutions that have taken (and are taking) place in several Arab countries. They are worried that true democracy in Arab lands might bring to power Islamic democrats who would seek to reconcile human rights, civil liberties with the Islamic rulings. In other words, they dread seeing the Islamization of democracy.
Some of these critics are quite ignorant of the truth about the Arab world and Islam, and with a good reason. Decades of anti-Islam incitement, spearheaded by Zionist circles, more or less succeeded in tarnishing the image of Islam in many western countries, portraying it as tyrannical and anti-democratic.
Others are quite malicious. They know that the re-adoption of Islam, even the reinstitution of the Islamic political authority, is the "natural way" for Muslim people. After all, Islam has always been the soul of Arabs, and asking them to abandon Islam, in favor of imported western ideas and ideals, would be tantamount to asking them to abandon their human and cultural identity.
Many, probably most, westerners seem to lament the demise of despicable tyrants such as Hosni Mubarak, Zeinulabedin Bin Ali. Some are expressing consternation about the imminent downfall of Muammar Qaddafi, the eccentric Libyan dictator who has impoverished and murdered his people in order to appease his megalomaniac tendencies.
There is of course a clear and large amount of hypocrisy in the Western approach toward reforms in the Muslim world. The West, which is not a monolithic power, backed and shielded Arab dictators for years, fearing that true democracy in the Arab world would bring to the forefront a new breed of elected leaders who are more or less unfriendly to western, especially American interests in this part of the world.
Nonetheless, western hypocrisy goes much deeper. For while people anywhere in the world should have the natural right to choose their leaders freely, Muslims are not supposed to choose leaders who are viewed as opposed to Zionist Nazism or American imperialism.
There is also conspicuous moral and logical inconsistency in American and even European stand on Arab and Israeli democracy. According to this inherently duplicitous western view, it is perfectly fine if Jews in Israel elect Nazi-like parties such as Habayt Hayuhedi (the Jewish home), Shas, National Union, and politicians like Avigdor Liberman and Benyamin Netanyahu, that adopt clear-cut fascist formulas. On the other hand, however, Muslims must be constantly warned against Islamic parties whose political formulas are actually very much similar to those of Christian democratic parties in West.
We are not denying the fact that there are some extremist Islamic groups, such as al-Qaeda that should be fought relentlessly as long as they behave the way they do.
However, viewing a billion and a half Muslims with different cultures and ways of thinking, as carbon copies of a tiny, fanatical group is both illogical and unfair.
Yes, the west may encourage Arabs and Muslims to show genuine concern for human rights and civil liberties. This kind of interference is innocuous and harmless. But we Muslims don't like to be told to refrain from electing Islamic parties. After all, we are Muslims, and telling us to not elect Islamic parties is tantamount to telling us to give up Islam itself and adopt another religion.
It should be clear to all that Arabs, like everyone else, have the right to elect their governments and leaders freely according to their conscience. Moreover, for the sake of mutual understanding and constructive future relations between a democratic west and a democratic Arab world, the former would have to give up some of its cultural arrogance and accept the timeless truism that people may thoughtfully and sincerely hold different views and lead different ways of life.
After all, God created us different when He could have created us identical.
I said that whether the West likes it or not, Islam has always been and continues to be the zeitgeist (spirit of the times) throughout the Arab world. Hence, it is an expression of intransigence or perhaps ill will on the part of some western circles to warn Muslims in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia against electing parties with an Islamic agenda.
The Muslims of Egypt have the right to elect a Muslim democratic party just as Christians in Germany have the right to elect a Christian democratic party.
As I mentioned above, there is a heavy legacy of misunderstandings, rumors and canards about Islam in the west, some dating back to the ancient hostilities between Islam and the west while many of the recent misunderstandings have been disseminated by Zionist circles, especially through the media over which Zionist lobbies have quite an influence.
While Muslims are not obliged to imitate or copy certain western aspects of democracy, there is nothing wrong in having learning and borrowing from the rich and long western experience of democracy.
Having said that, however, it should be sufficiently clear that Muslims are under no obligation to copy or adopt anything that is incompatible with the principles of our faith.
Many westerners are quite gloomy about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, following the historic revolutions that have taken (and are taking) place in several Arab countries. They are worried that true democracy in Arab lands might bring to power Islamic democrats who would seek to reconcile human rights, civil liberties with the Islamic rulings. In other words, they dread seeing the Islamization of democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Khalid Amayreh
Many westerners are quite gloomy about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, following the historic revolutions that have taken (and are taking) place in several Arab countries. They are worried that true democracy in Arab lands might bring to power Islamic democrats who would seek to reconcile human rights, civil liberties with the Islamic rulings. In other words, they dread seeing the Islamization of democracy.
Some of these critics are quite ignorant of the truth about the Arab world and Islam, and with a good reason. Decades of anti-Islam incitement, spearheaded by Zionist circles, more or less succeeded in tarnishing the image of Islam in many western countries, portraying it as tyrannical and anti-democratic.
Others are quite malicious. They know that the re-adoption of Islam, even the reinstitution of the Islamic political authority, is the "natural way" for Muslim people. After all, Islam has always been the soul of Arabs, and asking them to abandon Islam, in favor of imported western ideas and ideals, would be tantamount to asking them to abandon their human and cultural identity.
Many, probably most, westerners seem to lament the demise of despicable tyrants such as Hosni Mubarak, Zeinulabedin Bin Ali. Some are expressing consternation about the imminent downfall of Muammar Qaddafi, the eccentric Libyan dictator who has impoverished and murdered his people in order to appease his megalomaniac tendencies.
There is of course a clear and large amount of hypocrisy in the Western approach toward reforms in the Muslim world. The West, which is not a monolithic power, backed and shielded Arab dictators for years, fearing that true democracy in the Arab world would bring to the forefront a new breed of elected leaders who are more or less unfriendly to western, especially American interests in this part of the world.
Nonetheless, western hypocrisy goes much deeper. For while people anywhere in the world should have the natural right to choose their leaders freely, Muslims are not supposed to choose leaders who are viewed as opposed to Zionist Nazism or American imperialism.
There is also conspicuous moral and logical inconsistency in American and even European stand on Arab and Israeli democracy. According to this inherently duplicitous western view, it is perfectly fine if Jews in Israel elect Nazi-like parties such as Habayt Hayuhedi (the Jewish home), Shas, National Union, and politicians like Avigdor Liberman and Benyamin Netanyahu, that adopt clear-cut fascist formulas. On the other hand, however, Muslims must be constantly warned against Islamic parties whose political formulas are actually very much similar to those of Christian democratic parties in West.
We are not denying the fact that there are some extremist Islamic groups, such as al-Qaeda that should be fought relentlessly as long as they behave the way they do.
However, viewing a billion and a half Muslims with different cultures and ways of thinking, as carbon copies of a tiny, fanatical group is both illogical and unfair.
Yes, the west may encourage Arabs and Muslims to show genuine concern for human rights and civil liberties. This kind of interference is innocuous and harmless. But we Muslims don't like to be told to refrain from electing Islamic parties. After all, we are Muslims, and telling us to not elect Islamic parties is tantamount to telling us to give up Islam itself and adopt another religion.
It should be clear to all that Arabs, like everyone else, have the right to elect their governments and leaders freely according to their conscience. Moreover, for the sake of mutual understanding and constructive future relations between a democratic west and a democratic Arab world, the former would have to give up some of its cultural arrogance and accept the timeless truism that people may thoughtfully and sincerely hold different views and lead different ways of life.
After all, God created us different when He could have created us identical.
I said that whether the West likes it or not, Islam has always been and continues to be the zeitgeist (spirit of the times) throughout the Arab world. Hence, it is an expression of intransigence or perhaps ill will on the part of some western circles to warn Muslims in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia against electing parties with an Islamic agenda.
The Muslims of Egypt have the right to elect a Muslim democratic party just as Christians in Germany have the right to elect a Christian democratic party.
As I mentioned above, there is a heavy legacy of misunderstandings, rumors and canards about Islam in the west, some dating back to the ancient hostilities between Islam and the west while many of the recent misunderstandings have been disseminated by Zionist circles, especially through the media over which Zionist lobbies have quite an influence.
While Muslims are not obliged to imitate or copy certain western aspects of democracy, there is nothing wrong in having learning and borrowing from the rich and long western experience of democracy.
Having said that, however, it should be sufficiently clear that Muslims are under no obligation to copy or adopt anything that is incompatible with the principles of our faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)