Democracy, notes Tahan, has been denigrated and condemned in much Islamist literature in recent times. It is presented as a system wherein it is the people themselves who make their own laws, while in Islam the actual law-maker is God. Hence, several Islamist activists forcefully argue that democracy is a ‘kafir system’. Tahan seeks to critically examine this position, without, he says, attempting to ‘distort Islam’ or to promote Western thought or to project what others have called as ‘Islamic Democracy’ or ‘Islamic Liberalism’. He writes that there are only two systems of governance in the contemporary world: democracy and dictatorship. In the former, human beings and protection of their rights occupy a place of central importance, while in dictatorships there is no such consideration for the individual’s rights. In such a context, asks Tahan, what should the position of Islamist activists be?
Tahan sees democracy, insofar as it champions basic human rights, human freedom, parliamentary elections, existence of opposition parties, freedom of dissent, political participation of women, protection of and equal rights and opportunities for religious and ethnic minorities, the possibility of peaceful change of governments and peaceful coexistence between different political parties and communities, as similar in many respects to Islam. Tahan’s conception of democracy sharply contrasts with the sort of ‘democracy’ that the West has sought to impose in Muslim and other ‘third-world countries. He bitterly critiques the West for its hypocrisy on the issue of democracy and human rights, seeing these as mere slogans used to bolster Western hegemony over the rest of the world. What happened to the West’s claims to championing democracy and freedom, he asks, when it conquered lands in Asia and Africa and shed the blood of millions in the name of its ‘civilising mission’? Can the West’s protestations about democracy be at all taken seriously when it spares no efforts to bolster pro-Western dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, to crush all attempts at challenging such regimes, and to defend Israel, which has forced an entire people out of their own homeland? Where, he questions, were the Western champions of Democracy when the election results in Algeria, which brought the Islamic opposition to power with a thumping majority, were suddenly annulled by the country’s military dictators? Did not the West whole-heartedly support this, and then go on to assist the Algerian authorities to crush the Islamist movement with brutal force, resulting in the tragic death of thousands of innocent people?
Tahan sees no contradiction between his understanding of Islam and the basics of ‘true democracy’, as he defines it. He sees the confusion about the relation between the two as having much to do with the West’s apprehensions of its control over the Muslim world being increasingly challenged through political participation by Islamic groups. He writes that as Islamic political parties began participating in elections, as in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan, Turkey and Tunisia, and rapidly grew in popularity and strength, the West, fearful of its loosening stranglehold on Muslim countries, began a propaganda crusade against Islam, branding it as an enemy of democracy, and, at the same time, promoted wrong, world-renouncing interpretations of Islam that see Islam as prohibiting Muslims from participating in elections or even to ‘think about politics’. How can Islamic groups be seen as challenges to democracy in the Muslim world, asks Tahan, when almost all the governments in these countries which they are struggling against are themselves brutal anti-democratic dictatorships bolstered up by an equally anti-democratic West? Most Islamist groups, he notes, are themselves fighting for human rights and political freedoms, which are the cornerstones of democracy.
Since many Muslims want to be governed by Islam, says Tahan, democracy demands that they be allowed to do so and that Islamic political systems be established in Muslim-majority countries where the majority of the populace wants to live under an Islamic political dispensation. In the light of this, he says there is no contradiction between the Islamic movement and the majoritarian rule principle that is the foundation of democracy as it is generally defined. The concept of shura or consultation is a central one in Islam, he says, and it is a mechanism that allows for people’s participation in governance. The Quran, he notes, enjoins upon Muslims to settle their affairs through mutual consultation. The principle of shura is binding on all, including even the head of the state and the leaders of the Islamist movements. For this it is essential that political parties, including the opposition, be allowed to freely function. Tahan then discusses in detail certain basic principles of democracy and Islam to see where they differ and where they agree. Basic human rights, a cornerstone of democracy, Tahan says, are clearly spelled out in the Quran and the Hadith, the sayings of and reports about the Prophet Muhammad. Islam upholds the dignity of Man as a creature of God. The Quran repeatedly stresses that Muslims should abide by the rules of justice and piety, and refrain from evil and oppression. Every human being, irrespective of religion or ethnicity, Tahan says, is dear to God. God has granted all people the same basic faculties so that they can all play their role in the construction and development of society. Likewise, God has also given all people certain basic human rights, which are not a favour bestowed on them by any worldly ruler that can be snatched away at will. Rather, these rights are inherent to human beings and have been clearly laid down in the Islamic shariat.
Tahan here reminds his readers that Quran insists ‘There is no compulsion in religion’. This lays the foundation for religious freedom, and in this way, says Tahan, the religion and religious susceptibilities of non-Muslims are protected. ‘No Muslim has the right to mock the religious beliefs or laws of non-Muslims’, he declares, adding that ‘In Islam every person qua human being is worthy of respect’. A non-Muslim living in an ‘Islamic system’ is ‘under the protection of Islam’, and so ‘must be given equal protection’ unless he commits such a heinous crime that merits the withdrawal of such protection. As creatures of the one God and as children of the same primordial parents, Adam and Eve, all people, Tahan writes, deserve respect as human beings, whichever religion they might happen to follow. This principle of respect for life should inspires Muslims to crusade ‘against every oppression’ and to protect life, for to save one human life from wanton killing is like saving the entire, humankind. As the Quran says, the wrongful killing of just one person is tantamount to killing the whole human race. Islam calls for freedom of thought and for education for all. On the economic front it calls for the protection of the rights of the poor. In this regard, the large-scale violations of human rights in many Muslim countries, says Tahan, has nothing to do with what he sees as normative Islam. To the contrary, it owes itself to wrong interpretations of Islam or to ignoring the commandments of Islam altogether.
Human Rights and the Islamic Movement
Given the centrality of human rights in Islam, Tahan says that it is of ‘urgent importance’ that Islamist groups clearly spell out their stand on the subject and then act on those principles. Islamists, Tahan insists, must extend freedom of thought and freedom to enjoy human rights to all. No person, says Tahan, can be denied his basic human rights simply because of his beliefs or views or because he is a political opponent. Islamic groups must under no circumstances support dictatorial regimes that heap oppression on the masses and resort to slaughtering their opponents. An important question in this regard is the proper attitude of the Islamic groups vis-a-vis other forces who are also in the forefront of the struggle for the promotion of human rights. Tahan mentions in this context the instance of the. Prophet Muhammad, who instructed some of the early Muslims of Mecca to seek refuge from the persecution of the Quraish by migrating to Christian Ethiopia, because the king of Ethiopia, although not a Muslim, was a just ruler. This suggests, he notes, that Muslims can indeed cooperate with other people of goodwill in crusading against oppression.
One of the most complex issues in the human rights debate relating to Islam is the position of non-Muslims in an ‘Islamic state’. Tahan says that there are clear instructions about the issue in the Quran and in the Traditions of the Prophet. He refers here to the pact that the Prophet signed with the non-Muslims of Medina which formed an integral part of the constitution of the first ever Islamic polity. Under the terms of the pact, the non-Muslims were entitled to full protection and were assured that they would not face any harm. ‘In the light of this’, Tahan writes, in an ideal ‘Islamic state’ non-Muslims and Muslims both would ‘enjoy the same citizens’ rights’. There would be no discrimination on the basis of religion in social and political affairs. For, Tahan says, the Quran itself explicitly lays down that Muslims are to deal with justice with all, except for the oppressors and tyrants. Allah, the Quran says, ‘loves those who are just’.
Islam and freedom go together, Tahan asserts. Islam, he goes on to add, supports religious and political freedom, including freedom of thought. Religious freedom in Islam is based on the Quranic commandment, There is no compulsion in religion’. Individual and communities can only be really free, Tahan’ says, when they are free from external, military, political or economic oppression. Islam calls for a fine balance between personal freedoms and the rights of social groups. Since freedom is so central to Islam, says Tahan, no true Muslim can ever support a despot or a dictator who has no concern for human rights. Significantly, in this regard he laments the fact that some Islamist groups have actually done that. Tahan sternly warns Islamists against allying with dictators who wish to use them to bolster their own fragile legitimacy. Tahan considers the issue of people’s participation in governance to be a vital one, and one which, he says, Islamist movements must seriously examine and clarify their position on. They must, he says, make it clear that they cannot under any condition support dictatorial and repressive regimes.
Islamist groups must be concerned about the freedoms of not just Muslims alone but of all people, says Tahan. Writing at a time when apartheid was still official policy in South Africa, he appeals to the Muslims to support the struggle of the blacks there for a just society, even though, as he notes, most South African blacks are non-Muslims. Muslims, he says, must speak out and struggle against oppression irrespective of the religion or ethnicity of the victims, for that is a duty binding on them by Islam. This is why, he says, that while the Jews were for centuries persecuted in Christian Europe, they found peace and security in Muslim lands. Tahan contrasts the normative teachings of Islam on human rights and freedom with the pathetic state of affairs in much of the Muslim world today, where, he notes, the masses are, for the most part, cruelly denied many basic rights by regimes that are supported by the West. Likewise, he regrets that some Islamist groups do not believe that their opponents, too, should be able to enjoy rights and freedoms. ‘No movement can genuinely claim to be an Islamic one until it grants personal and social rights to all irrespective of colour or race’, he insists.
The Will of the People
One of the basic underlying principles of democracy is ‘live and let live’, says Tahan. This means that all citizens of the state, irrespective of religion and race, are entitled to equal treatment. Their views must all be taken into account, and all political, social, cultural and other problems must be settled through a process of dialogue. In the political sphere, this means that people subscribing to different views are freely allowed to express them and mobilise public support for them, enabling them to influence policy-making through the politics of the ballot-box. In Islam, the people have the right to choose their own ruler, who is considered to be a mere deputy (naib) of the people. Citizens can oversee and, if necessary, critique his actions. In this sense, he Tahan writes, Islam does not oppose the basics of democracy, provided the political system is based on the fundamental principles of Islam and its law, the shariat. In such a system, all human rights are fully protected, and the fundamental duty of the state is to ‘promote virtue and combat vice’.
Tahan writes that some ulema oppose such a form of rule as, they argue, it gives rise to ‘groupism’ and ‘factionalism’ and, in the process, undermines the unity of the Muslim community. Elections, they say, are based on each candidate hailing his own virtues and denigrating his opponents. Contrarily, some other ulema hold that such a system is indeed in conformity with Islam, and argue that the fact that although such a system may not have been in existence in its entirety in the past, as long as it does not entail anything that is clearly forbidden (haram) in Islam, it is permissible. This system, they believe, is a suitable way to implement the decisions of consultation (shura), keep a watch on the ruler, uphold human rights and basic freedoms, maintain the stability of the polity and clamp down on terrorism. Several advocates of this view believe that the Islamist movements must attempt to mobilise public opinion in their favour before acquiring political power. In this way, they admit to the possibility of cooperation with secular forces to attain their aims.
Separation Between Religion and Politics
In the dominant Western political discourse, religion and politics are considered to be two completely separate domains, and religion is treated as a purely personal affair, having no bearing on political life. How should Islamists relate to groups and individuals who advocate such a position? Tahan writes that an ‘Islamic state’ must, of necessity, be based on Islamic law, because Islam does not accept the division between religion and politics. The Islamic political system does not allow for laws to be passed in violation of the shariat, but it does give the people the right to choose their own ruler, someone known for his honesty, piety and wisdom, whose responsibility shall be to rule, for a fixed term, in accordance with Islam, and in consultation with members of the democratically elected consultative body. This system provides guarantees for the freedom of all non-Muslim minorities. Political differences within the parameters laid down by the shariat, says Tahan, are to be accepted as ‘natural’, and they can be sorted out through peaceful dialogue. Thus, the Islamic system accepts the existence of multiple political parties free from control by the state, provided they all accept the Islamic law as their constitution. The system allows for political competition between these parties and for the peaceful transfer of power from one party to another through free and fair elections. After all, says Tahan, historically, Islam has accepted the existence of several Muslim schools of jurisprudence and so multiple political parties may be similarly accepted.
A system that clamps down on political parties and stifles freedom, Tahan writes, ‘is an oppressive dictatorship’, which ‘must be stiffly opposed’. Many Islamist movements, he says, are veering round to the view that multiple political parties must be accepted and that differences among them as regards programmes and policies ‘may actually be a blessing for the community’. Multiplicity of political parties does not mean that Islam allows for ‘groupism’ to flourish, as the basic aim of such parties should be the service of Islam and not the pursuit of personal or parochial worldly interests. In this context, he notes, Islamist groups in some countries have entered into agreements with secular democratic parties in pursuit of common ends, principally in their struggle against oppressive regimes.
The issue of non-Muslim political parties is also one that Islamist groups must contend with. The ‘Islamic state’, says Tahan, allows for non-Muslim minorities full rights and protection, including the right to vote, to carry on with their political activities and to set up their own associations, including political parties. Tahan writes that Islam allows for Muslims to cooperate with non-Muslims for the welfare of the society at large. He adduces as an instance, in this regard, the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who headed a group, the hulf-ul fuzul along with the non-Muslims of Mecca to help the oppressed and the poor. Some ‘extremists’, Tahan notes, have condemned parliamentary elections as un-Islamic, but they represent only a fringe minority. Islam actually insists that the views of the community must be taken into account by the ruler through their elected representatives. The representatives of the people should not put themselves forward for election, however. Only such persons who are trustworthy, learned, experienced and pious Muslims with leadership qualities are fit to be elected as people’s representatives. The election process must be governed by basic Islamic morals and norms, and there should be no room for false propaganda and bribery.
Several Islamist parties have, Tahan notes, participated in, parliamentary elections, as in Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, Kuwait, Yemen Sudan, Malaysia and Pakistan. By taking part in the electoral process, Islamist parties, he writes, will be, able to keep a check on the ruling party, struggle for a peaceful transfer of power, present the Islamic message and programme to the public and strive to uphold Islamic rulings and principles inside Parliament. For this they can join hands with other, even non-Islamic, parties for common ends. Islamic parties are, he says, ‘a. democratic force’, and thus must address themselves to the general public, and one way to do so is by participating in elections. Tahan notes that several Islamist groups insist that there is no point in participating in elections held under the auspices of an ‘un-Islamic’ regime on the grounds that this would only further entrench the existing system. They point to the recent examples of Algeria and Turkey, where Islamist political parties entered the electoral fray and were poised to win impressive victories but were forcibly prevented from coming to power by Western-backed regimes. Tahan recognises a certain validity in these arguments, but says that ‘there is no other political course open to us’. Terrorism as a way out of this impasse, he says, is a ‘destructive course’, harmful for all, including the army, the people and the Muslim community as a whole.
0 comments:
Post a Comment