D’Souza on Turkey and secularism
Dinesh D’Souza on the upcoming Turkish elections
Turks today are finding militant secularism to be a problem. Volkan Aytar of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation tells the New York Times, “This narrow shirt of secularism has become a little too tight and choking for Turkish society.” Why should women be barred from wearing veils in government buildings? Why should only secular values be permitted in the public square? Why can’t Turkey be modern and Muslim at the same time? Not only is Turkish secularism inconsistent with the religious values held by most people–Muslim as well as Christian–but secularism is also a threat to democracy. Every time religious parties stand to gain politically, the Turkish army warns that it is ready to subvert the democratic process through a military takeover. [More...]
Filed under: Practical Solutions
as-salaamu ‘alaikum, Sidi Tariq,
This is an interesting post here. I asks a very important question,
Br. Hakim,
Having finally realized that secularism may not be the ideal state (even for for a pluralistic society), how come we have yet to realize that same may be true for democracy? Based on your post, it seems that you are taking democracy as a necessary foundation and looking for an ‘ism’ that can best support it…why is that?
Now I’m not going to throw out an empty Khilafa slogan here (because I haven’t seen any Khilafa system that is even remotely sustainable in this day), but I do believe that Islam can provide a better alternative than the democracy that we have seen over the past few centuries. What do *you* think?
as-salaamu ‘alaikum br. Naeem,
I’m glad you asked that question, its a good one.
Well this is why I defined democracy. This is important, are you bypassing my definition for current definition across the public sphere. The reason I’m asking is take the Khalifat for example, how would one be designated at this point in time? And how would his successors be designated? Furthermore, the khalifat itself can resemble a monarchy, an autocracy or democracy, which would be implemented. There is a huge gap between our modern times and the classic period of Islam so there for there are some disconnects here. And we cannot begin from our old footing… kana wa hadha au hakadha… we can’t do that!
Br. Naeem please define democracy… I would like to know if we are talking about the same thing? Furthermore, people are sick today, the general public wouldn’t know an awliya if he were on American Idol, so how do you expect to reinstate the khilafat while Wahhabi’s (not referring selafis) still have money in the bank. Secondly, who will be able to dinstincly make that clear for all the world and not a select group of Muslims who are in the know (referring to difference between Selafi and Wahhabi)?
There are just too many questions that come to mind from your comment Br. Naeem. Too many. Thanks now I won’t be able to sleep
brnaeem:
Is it fixed in stone what type of gov’t a Muslim country can live under? Perhaps democracy will work fine in some places (Malaysia, Turkey) and not at all in others (Saudi Arabia, Iraq).
There is no blanket “no democracy in Islam” as it is very flexible what kind of gov’t Muslims can have. It mostly depends on the type of people that you have. Iraq and Saudi Arabia are kinship and tribal societies (nothing wrong with that) and you can not build democracy on that, so another system would work better for them. Malaysia is not a society that is strongly based on kinship, so some form of democracy may work for them. We can’t just take a model from another time and era and apply it to today’s times (I think we all agree on that) but instead each country has to come together to make a system based upon the cultural mores of their society that does not contradict Islamic values
AA- Br. Hakim,
You are correct that we need to agree upon a definition of democracy. I admit, I did miss your definition in my initial comment. Now that I’ve read it, I agree with your first part (government by the people..), but not with the second part of your definition (The principles of social equality..).
I understand democracy as a system in which popular vote is used to instate/remove the government and legislate/enact laws. The key is ‘popular vote’ because I think its important to differentiate between democracies and republics, the latter is based on popular consent, which can be measured in ways other than voting.
Your definition of social equality and individual rights need not be restricted to democracies. Those are principles of liberalism that can (theoretically) be found in monarchies, oligarchies, or even anarchies.
Based on my understanding, we must separate democracy from liberal values - the former is open for debate, the latter less so.
I really didn’t want to get into the whole khilafa discussion as I feel the khilafa proponents have nothing tangible to offer in this debate. If the discussion on the ideal form of Islamic governance leads to a khilafa offshoot, so be it. But I don’t believe that everything must begin and end with talk of khilafa, for reasons you already mentioned…
That being said, back to my initial question: Can Muslims come up with a model of just governance (based on Quran/Sunnah) that is not based on democracy? Or are we going to accept the West’s claim that democracies are the only just form of governance?
Hope you slept well!
It appears to me what you mean of democracy is secularism, and the two are not synonymous unless you say American-Democracy, or something like that. But to answer your question, I think so yes. The question is whose Qur’an and Sunnah. Lets face it, Muslims are doing a poor job of implementing Qur’an and Sunnah. This is why I brought up the point about awliyah. What good is Qur’an and Sunnah when anyone can say this means this or that. Right now government is financing Qur’an and Sunnah. Therefore what those Governments say is Qur’an and Sunnah IS Qur’an and Sunnah. And those who stand against those views are jailed and harassed or forced to move to America or Europe or just remain in hiding. So although its good that Muslims are increasing in numbers, it is important to have these discussions although they may irritate some.
AA- Farooq,
“Is it fixed in stone what type of gov
brnaeem,
Can you please define democracy? And then use it in context, the context that you are arguing above. That would help me greatly moving forward.
AA- Br. Hakim
I guess I wasn’t detailed enough in my understanding of democracy when I described it as “as a system in which popular vote is used to instate/remove the government and legislate/enact laws.”
I see democracy as the mechansim by which every person is given a say in who is the leadership and what laws the leadership must enforce. The whole ‘one person-one vote’ thing. That’s it. Nothing to do with the liberal principles commonly found in democracies.
I distinguish democracy from the liberal values espoused by most democractic societies because democracy can potentially lead to an illiberal society - democracy in and of itself cannot guarantee justice.
Too often democracy (the election engine that gives every person a say in the way he/she is ruled) is interchanged with liberal democracy (a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property - Wiki). The two are NOT the same and we ought to make that distinction.
Like I said before “Based on my understanding, we must separate democracy from liberal values - the former is open for debate, the latter less so.”
I find it problematic when I read about ‘democractic principles’ such as rule of law, free speech, respect for dissent, freedom of association, etc. as if those principles are only possible in a society where every person can cast a vote. Like I said, the institution of democratic voting does not ensure the above principles.
In fact, those principles should be correctly referred to as liberal principles, not democratic principles. This is an important distinction for once this separation is made, then the democratic part of a ‘liberal democracy’ becomes open for discussion - which is what I have been saying from the start…
ok, brnaeem, I did mean insult. I just wanted to be clear and we are in agreement. Although in the US there is not a 1 for 1 vote these votes are actually given a value per state capita, which is then represented by the electoral college. This presents a whole new set of problems, that are beyond the scope of this discussion.
I agree. However, in Islamic society there is one area that needs to be redressed prior to moving to Islamic solutions for socio-political problems. And that is the state funding of Islamic institutions. This is a problem, particularly in the area of legislation. When the state funds the fuqaha you have a BIG problem. So before we discuss the reformation of governing systems we must look at this.
did not mean insult…
AA- Br. Hakim, if ever you did insult me, I would simply turn my cheek!
Your point is well taken about the state funding of Islamic scholars…so in our hypothetical solution to the Islamic socio-political problems lets setup an independent waqf of sorts to allow for an independent juristic class. Fine? Now what?
Since we have come to an agreement on the definition of democracy, do you agree that we ought to be able to come up with a better solution to forming an Islamic government? Or do you think democracy is the best thing going?
WA-
Naeem
Currently, democracy is the best thing going within the mainstream political world. However, that does not mean that it is the best thing possible within the mainstream political world. As for alternatives, I have not the slightest idea where to begin, in a realistic sense. Just look at the U.S. and its position with Iran, it seems that if conditions were right and American officials who share interests with Cheney were in Power, Iran would be wiped off the map.
So, with respect to peace. I’m not sure where we could go at this point, wa allahu a’alam.
Asalaamu ‘Alaykum,
Dinesh observes a point that is lost on a lot of commentators and thinkers here in the West. That Islamic Movements in some shape or form can be engaged and should be engaged.
If I could possibly add to this discussion about Islam and governance. Heba Ezzat, the founder of IslamOnline and a poli-sci prof in Cairo has a very interesting analysis about Islamic movements and some interesting opinions about Islam and secularism in an interview she did with DemocracryNow.
brnaeem, i agree but i have been having a hard time in terms of implementation. mainly because i was using my mind and not faith for a solution… this is not acceptable. perhaps, a version of al-millah al-uthmaniyyah can be implemented now, to reinstate the al-khilafa. by the way… if i am not mistaken, isn’t there supposed to be a great division between believers and non-believers during the end times? as for democracy, the way i was referring to it was misleading, we all know what is meant by democracy despite the various dictionary meanings.
AA- Hakim,
“perhaps, a version of al-millah al-uthmaniyyah can be implemented now, to reinstate the al-khilafa”
Please elaborate.
Also, I’m a bit hesitant to use the term ‘khilafa’ due to all the negative baggage associated with it. I prefer working towards an ‘ideal system of Islamic governance’…I know its semantics, but many people get immediately turned off when they hear Khilafa.
WA-
Naeem
AA- LivingShaheed,
Can you provide a link to the interview? I did a quick search on DemocracyNow, but found nothing.
WA-
Naeem
AA,
brnaeem, I’m glad you said this,
AA-
“That is because when talking about an Islamic ruling system what are we talking about? The only Islamic ruling system is that which was sent to the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) anything else would be bid