 |
PRESENTATION BY
MUSLIM REFORMER
TAWFIK HAMID
SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 2008
I would like to state that it’s my great honor and my pleasure to be among you today to speak about this important topic. First of all, probably many people argue the title is appropriate or there might be better titles. My view is that the title, “Islam & Democracy: Are They Compatible?,” is very appropriate today. I’m speaking today not about history, but about the current reality that we live in. We have see people who follow the traditional forms of Islamic teaching flying airplanes inside big building in New York City. We have seen them exploding trains in Madrid, buses in London. Killing innocents from Jews, Christians. Killing each other in Iraq with no mercy. Butchering young kids in Algeria. Torturing and killing Buddhist monks in Thailand. We have seen this in the last few years. It is real. It is not our imagination. And if we could spend unlimited time to discuss history about other religions, but let us now face the current reality. The current reality is there is a major problem in the world that’s caused by some group of people who follow specific ideology. And the problem is not only that, the problem is also that mere absolute silence of the Muslim street. The problem is also that the deafening silence of most, if not all, Islamic scholars. We have seen Islamic scholars issuing a fatwa of apostasy against Salman Rushdie, but they never, until now at their top level (I’m talking about the top Islam scholars), they never issued a single fatwa of apostasy against bin Laden or against the person who killed Theo van Gogh in Holland.
So, we truly deal with the problem. The problem deeply ingredient in the Islamic world, with lack of human rights, lack of woman rights as well, lack of religious rights. So, the problem is real and we need to face the reality or the reality will face us.
To discuss the issue of Islam and democracy, we need probably first to define, what do we mean by Islam and what do we mean by democracy. Because the discussion can be endless unless we have this clarified. I believe that many will agree with me that we mean by “Islam,” the current or traditional form of Islamic teaching which is available in the mainstream Islamic books. So we don’t mean by Islam a rare interpretation of the religion. I have my own interpretation of Islam that could be compatible with democracy and very peaceful, but it does not carry much value to discuss my rare interpretation. What we face is the mainstream Islamic teaching and this is how we define the word “Islam.”
And then, what do we mean by “democracy”? I believe that many of us will agree that, in the West, we mean by democracy three main things. We mean in saying the word democracy, probably literally it means “people rule.” This is the traditional meaning of the word. But when we say the word democracy, we usually consider other factors like the value of human rights. We cannot imagine a form of democracy that brings barbaric values to the world. We always link them together. A democratic society is a society that respects woman rights, religious rights, laws of war with respect to prisoners, corporal punishment. These are the essence of the word democracy. In addition, peaceful co-existence among other nations is vital issue to consider here. We understand from democracy that each country now with respect to the other adjacent countries and don’t attack them unless there is a real threat from these countries. So there are, generally, there are three basic meanings for the word democracy: “people rule,” this is the literal meaning. But we understand also that democracy will bring values of human rights, and woman rights, and liberty. We understand that democracy will bring a society that can tolerate each other and this tolerance can be reflected on that peace process in the wars, can limit the number and the percentage of wars. This is how we understand a civilized democracy.
Having defined the word “Islam,” what we are talking about now, the mainstream Islamic teaching, and what do we mean when we say the word “democracy,” let us now shift to what is the current Sharia law or Islamic law. I’m not here talking about the medieval interpretation, hundreds of years ago. I’m talking about the current, mainstream Islamic teaching, that is available in the mosques, in the Islamic schools, in al-Attari University, in King Saud University in Saudi Arabia, so I’m not talking about a historical thing. I hope you can see this clearly. I’m talking about the current teaching, the Sharia law nowadays.
When it comes to “people rule” the current teaching considers a concept called al-hakkimmah. This means the rule, the one who can rule is only Allah. And this is based on a certain Koranic verse that says, [speaks in Arabic here], which means that those who do not apply the law of allah or follow the law of Allah, the Sharia law in their interpretation are, in reality, the infidels. So, by this rule, Islamic fundamentalists control the minds of many people. They convince them that if they didn’t follow this sort of Sharia rules and law, they will be infidels based on this verse. And this [is a] very famous verse and used by many jihadists, by the way.
When it comes to respect for human rights, the mainstream teachings of Islam at the moment – and I’m sure many of you are aware that there are Shia and Sunni and within Sunni we have four lines of jurisprudence – but here I’m talking about a general agreement among all of them – these general agreements include: accepting polygamy, accepting beating women (until now the Islamic scholars didn’t clearly say that beating women is absolutely wrong. They didn’t say it. They’ve said ambiguous expressions just to look OK, to look politically fine in front of the media and everyone else. But, in reality, they don’t say it clearly that it’s wrong.) When it comes to religious freedom, the law in Iran or in Saudi Arabia or in any Islamic-controlled system, they kill the apostates, like Salman Rushdie in their view, if anyone converted from Islam, he is supposed to be killed by the hand of any Muslim. And this is shared among Shia and Sunni.
I would respect probably Ayatollah Sistani if, for example, he stood clearly against such concepts. I know that he insisted on democracy, but we need to remember that Ayatollah Sistani represents a Shia majority so, in this case democracy will be in their favor. That’s why they will insist always on democracy, as long as it will bring them to power. But the problem is, when they reach power, are they ready to leave it to someone else? That is the real question.
After this, the laws of war, until now, in our current Islamic laws and teaching – and, I challenge any person to bring me an approved Islamic textbook that explains or clearly states that prisoners of war should be let free or should not be harmed, but the current law is based on certain interpretations of the Koran, their interpretation is that prisoners of war have to be enslaved and raped and that is the law. It’s a concept that the majority of Muslim – not the majority, all of them -- agreed on this concept. They never stood clearly in their ____s and said in wars you should respect women and you should not rape them and you should not accept the concept the concept of slavery. Recently, one of the two . . . scholars stated clearly that – this was one year ago or a couple of years ago – he stated clearly that slavery is an essential part of Islam. Until now, Islamic books didn’t stand clearly against the concept of slavery, so we are talking here about a very serious issue. Corporal punishment. Stoning woman to death is still applied in Iran, in Saudi Arabia and in any Islamic-controlled system. So, what, either Shia or Sunni, both of them agreed on certain concepts that I believe they are totally incompatible with what we understand by the word democracy.
The third component of democracy, which is peaceful co-existence with other nation. We have in the Islamic law, in the traditional Sharia law, but what I’m saying here doesn’t mean that it is only understanding of the Koran, what I’m talking here again about the mainstream, the traditional, the dominant one. A concept that classifies the world into two parts: the area of war and the area of peace or Islam. And according to the current Sharia law that is taught in our Islamic institutions, Muslims have to declare war on non-Muslims and give them one of the following three options: (1) to convert and subjugate to Islam, or (2) to pay a humiliating tax, or (3) to be killed. And this is based on a specific hadith. A hadith is not the Koran. It is some, like statements referred to the Prophet, I don’t know if he said them or not. I don’t believe he said them, but it is in the teaching that he said this. It’s stated clearly that: “I have been ordered to fight and kill all mankind until they say no God except Allah or convert to Islam.” So it is a war declared on all mankind to subjugate them to [these] certain belief[s]. And this was what Dr. Ayman al-Zawaheri said recently in the media when he stated clearly that “If the Americans subjugated to Islam, they would stop terrorism against them.” And this was the first words that have been said to you on the . . . just before the war on Afghanistan, there was a guy called Abdul Salaam Zaire, he was the Ambassador of the Taliban in Pakistan. He stated clearly this hadith, “I have been instructe4d and ordered by Allah to fight all mankind until they say no God but Allah or subjugate to Islam.” And, by the way, “subjugating to Islam” doesn’t mean simply saying the word. Subjugating to Islam simply means to live in a Taliban-like system. To live with no dignity for human rights. No dignity for woman rights. No dignity for religious rights. So, it is a serious issue and a serious form of teaching. It’s not affecting the others, it’s affecting us. It’s affecting the free world. So the threat is not confined to them; it is reflected upon us and we have seen it real in September the 11th and many other events.
So the concept of jihad ot spread Islam that is currently taught in our Sharia system, is totally against the peaceful co-existence among nations. So the three major principles, people rule, respect for human rights and peaceful co-existence with other nations – I don’t believe they exist at all, in fact, the current teaching is totally against them. And that is the real problem we have in the Islamic world.
Some mauy argue that there are elements of democracy in the current Islamic teaching. Yes, there are. But let us see them one-by-one. The first one is al-sura. Concept of al-sura is the leader can consult, it is mutual consultation between us, like, for example, if you are a leader here now and instead of taking decision by yourself as a dictator, if you consulted with all of us it is called al-sura. And this is based on a Koranic verse that stated that “they discuss their matters in a way of mutual consultation.” And another verse that says to Prophet Muhammad, “consult with them before making decisions.” And certainly, this is a wonderful concept, but it is not utilized well in the Islamic world now. So, the root is there.
Itjihad is a great concept that means that you interpret the religion and change your interpretation according to the situation. But itjihad is, while it is a great concept, it has a major problem which is commonly stated expression in the Islamic theology and jurisprudence that says that “you cannot do itjihad or new understanding if it is a statement or a verse or a hadith.” Just to give you an illustrative example: according to itjihad you cannot stop stoning a woman, but you can discuss and change the type of stones you are going to use.” Truly. So itjihad, you cannot change the principle, you cannot change the concept itself, but you can do some modifications in it. So, generally speaking, itjihad is a completely great concept if it can go to carve out the principles as well, but currently, it does not. And, by the way, the Shia applies itjihad to now. The Sunni even stopped it 400 years ago. So just imagine the degree of stagnation. That’s why many of the terrorist acts are coming probably from the Sunni. The flexibility of their thoughts and mind is very limited, because they even stopped the whole concept of itjihad.
The other concept is [ishma-al-ummah], which is the unanimous agreement of the ummah or Islamic nation, but theologically speaking, it doesn’t mean every person in the Islamic nation. The ummah here means “the nation of the scholars of Islam.” So if the scholars of Islam agreed on something, it’s considered a law. But, again, they cannot agree on something that is against the traditional statements in the Koran or Hadiths.
So they are a bit limited, underutilized and they give some hope, but we cannot deny the reality. The reality is that the current form of Islamic teaching does not support our values of democracy, and civil liberties, and human rights. That is the reality. And I wish to see Islam at some stage, different from this. I’m currently working on developing a new commentary on the Koran that I trust that will bring the whole religion to another era of understanding, to a way of incorporating human rights and the values of liberty to our religion.
Some may note that Turkey is a good example for democracy. Yes, that’s reasonable Islam, but it’s not very good. It’s half democracy, but it’s better than others. But we have to realize that Turkey adopted some sort of democracy when they ignore the Islamic sharia law, when Kamal Attaturk said no to Sharia law, let us have democracy. Democracy didn’t happen because they adopted Islamic law. Democracy happened when they denounced it or forgot about it, and started to follow something else. So we need to realize that the example of Turkey, we cannot take it as an example of that Islamic system can fit with democracy. Because it fit with democracy in Turkey when they abandoned the Islamic law, not when they adopted it. So that’s a huge difference here.
In conclusion, just number one: the mainstream Islam is incompatible with democracy as we understand it. The current Islamic teaching is totally against the concept that the people rule. It is Allah rule, his laws. The concept of human rights are totally, like not just there, but we have concepts in the Sharia law that are totally against our values of human rights and liberty. And also, the concept that peaceful co-existence should occur between the nations also is not there, because the concept of jihad (to spead Islam) is fundamental to our current Islamic teaching. And, until this changes, we have a problem. And trying to deny it, will not help. The best way here is to confront it and know the problem, then we can solve it. But trying to escape from confronting the problem is not very helpful in this particular situation. So the current form of Islam or teaching Islam in general is anti-democratic in the way we understand democracy. But this doesn’t mean that Islam cannot be understood in a way that is compatible with democracy. For example, there is a verse in the Koran that says clearly that “command the believers and the followers of Islam to follow the commonly accepted among human beings.” So if we took this verse – this is what I am doing in my new commentary – if we took this verse and said, “OK. The current agreement among humans are the concepts of human rights,” then we can have the Koranic justification for human rights. Because Muslims always need some sort of Koran justification of what they are doing. They cannot just change like this, they need to have support from the verses. So reinterpretation of the verses, bringing this verse in light, instead of having it not explain in this manner . . . if you bring this verse to light – [Arabic] – which means “command the believers to follow the commonly accepting things among the humans,” which is the human rights, then we can say that following the human rights is/could be part of our Islam. In this situation, Muslims will feel very satisfied because they have Koranic justification. Some people will say, how about the verses that say/allows beating women? [Arabic] By the way, stoning the woman is not in the Koran. Killing the apostate is not in the Koran. The Koran does not teach this. It is in the hadiths – stoning of woman. So some people might say how about the verses that justify these violent concepts? What can we do with it? It is relatively simple when we think in another verse of the Koran that states clearly that [Arabic], which means that “follow the better of what God has given to you.” So what God has given to us or revealed to us through what we believe in the Koran is relative, it could be better and worse, which means that, the verse is not absolute. It can be better in certain contexts and it can be worse in other contexts. So if you put this concept, which I call “the relativity of the Koran,” plus the other concept of applying the values of human rights which is called [al-ouruf], then you could have a new understanding of the religion that could be compatible with democracy. Islam could be interpreted in a way that’s compatible with democracy, but I would be lying if I said to you that the current form of Islamic teaching is compatible with democracy.
Finally, I look to democracy not as a process, because I would personally prefer to live under a benevolent dictator who gives me some values of liberty, who allows me to dance, to play music, who allows me to enjoy the values of freedom or gives freedom of woman, than to live in a democracy that will bring Taliban-like system to rule me. Democracy, if the majority are barbarians, we will be ruled by barbarians. So we should understand that democracy should not stop at the level of a process-based majority rule. Democracy has to be a multi-component system that integrates three coherent things: people rule, values of human rights and peaceful co-existence among other nations.
|
|
