383)An interesting off-topic diversion, an article on "Islamism and Democracy" by Joshua Muravchik; quotes of Aga Khan IV.

Excerpts from this artcicle:

"Further we must ask if Shari'ah is compatible with empiricism,which is the essential quality of democracy. Empiricism rests on recognition of the imperfection of human knowledge. This means that our conclusions are always susceptible to change based upon new information. If Shari'ah is taken as the rule of God, and if its content is regarded as revealed and fixed, then there is little room for empiricism."

"Among the issues that need to be addressed to help move the Muslim world toward greater freedom and democracy are the rights of women and of minorities, including non-Muslims; the acceptance of diversity and the acknowledgement of the provisional nature of knowledge; the increase of learning made possible by a free flow of ideas and information. Islamism seems the least likely path to such goals."


Islamism and Democracy

By Joshua Muravchik

What do Islamists want? What is their point?

Much of their presentation revolves around their opposition to existing dictatorial, corrupt, unresponsive regimes. Well, fine. Most of the regimes of the Middle East fit that damning description, and opposition to those regimes is much to be desired.

But what does that have to with Islamism? Why, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood? Why not the Anti-Corruption Brotherhood? Why not the Responsive Government Brotherhood? Why not the Democratic Brotherhood (and Sisterhood)? Does Islamism imply greater freedom and democracy?

It is natural for groups that are excluded from office to call for elections. This was the constant demand of Lenin’s Bolsheviks. But as soon as they seized power they canceled the results of the one free election that Russia had held, and they never permitted another, instead imposing a dictatorship that made the preceding, czarist autocracy seem like a gentle idyll.

Islamist groups constitute the largest opposition force in most Middle Eastern countries, which makes it tempting for liberal oppositionists to ally with them. But before they do that, the liberals would be wise to assess the sincerity of Islamist claims to be fighting for democracy. How should we do that?

We might begin by considering the places where Islamists have already taken power. The examples begin with the Islamic Republic of Iran and include the Taliban in Afghanistan, the al-Bashir regime in Sudan, and Hamas in Gaza. Each of these regimes has been anything but democratic. Moreover, foreign Islamists were not notably outspoken in criticism of the dictatorial practices of these regimes. Although it is not in power, Hizbullah in Lebanon has also shown its contempt for democracy, using its arms to force political results.

It may be argued that, in contrast, Turkey’s AKP has governed democratically. But there are questions about the extent to which the AKP, despite its strong Islamist roots, is still to be considered Islamist. And even if it is, the AKP, won power in an established democratic context, guaranteed by the military, making it doubtful that the party has any choice but to preserve democracy.

If the practices of Islamists in power offer little encouragement about their democratic intentions, we might also examine their theory. The most common expression of Islamist goals is fidelity to Shari’ah. But this already exists in the law of many Middle Eastern states. The Egyptian constitution, for instance, makes Shari’ah “the main source” of law. Is that insufficient? If so, there is the Saudi Arabia where Shari’ah is the law. Whatever one may say of the virtues of the Saudi political system, it would be hard to argue that it constitutes a model of democracy. Indeed, although many dictatorships have claimed falsely to be democracies, the Saudi monarchy makes no such claim. As for freedom, there are few regimes on earth where individual autonomy is less respected or more constrained than in Saudi Arabia.

The broader question is whether Shari’ah is in any sense compatible with democracy. Shari’ah, we are told, is God’s law, and if Shari’ah is advanced as a political program, then it means that the state should rest on the sovereignty of God. But the essence of democracy is the sovereignty of the people. The two cannot easily be reconciled. Since Shari’ah does not set down answers to all questions, perhaps it would be possible to construct a political system in which Shari’ah is supreme, while the citizens may decide any issues not addressed fully in Shari’ah. Such hybrid sovereignty would constitute a highly attenuated democracy.

Further we must ask if Shari’ah is compatible with empiricism, which is the essential quality of democracy. Empiricism rests on recognition of the imperfection of human knowledge. This means that our conclusions are always susceptible to change based upon new information. If Shari’ah is taken as the rule of God, and if its content is regarded as revealed and fixed, then there is little room for empiricism.

Perhaps Islamism means something different. Perhaps its essence is to call Muslims back to a deeper, more faithful observance of Islam. This may be admirable as a project of private evangelization. But as a political program entailing state action, it is surely the enemy of freedom, and probably of democracy, too. (One wonders, in any event, why individuals would appoint themselves to enforce God’s law upon others. Is He so weak that He needs their help?)

The Muslim world lags behind all others in the progress of democracy. Among countries with Muslim majorities, fewer than twenty percent are ruled by freely elected governments, as compared to more than 75 percent of the non-Muslim countries. Among the issues that need to be addressed to help move the Muslim world toward greater freedom and democracy are the rights of women and of minorities, including non-Muslims; the acceptance of diversity and the acknowledgement of the provisional nature of knowledge; the increase of learning made possible by a free flow of ideas and information. Islamism seems the least likely path to such goals.

Finally, there is the question of peace. Peace provides by far a more conducive environment for freedom and democracy than war or intense conflict. Even the most free and democratic societies have infringed these during times of war. The United States imprisoned dissenters in World War One, interned Japanese Americans in World War Two, and has in some respects curtailed the rule of law in the war against terrorism. In the Muslim world, the sense of being locked in battle with enemies has been used often by dictatorial regimes to justify repressive measures. Friendly relations with the outside world are perhaps a prerequisite for the movement of the Islamic countries to greater freedom and democracy. Yet the very essence of Islamist ideology is the notion of conflict between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. On this score, too, Islamism seems the ideology least conducive to the growth of freedom and democracy in the Muslim world.

Paper delivered to the annual conference of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, Washington, DC, May 14, 2008.

Fast forward to the future: related:
http://gonashgo.blogspot.com/2009/04/469another-off-topic-gem-unholy.html



Mowlana Hazar Imam's, His Highness the Aga Khan's, thoughts on pluralism, diversity, theocratic and secular states, empiricism and the two types of knowledge available to human beings:

"The inability of human society to recognize pluralism as a fundamental value constitutes a real handicap for its development and a serious danger for our future…. Recognize the fact that human society is essentially pluralist, and that peace and development require that we seek, by every means possible, to invest in and enhance, that pluralism."(Extract from the speech by His Highness the Aga Khan at the Prince Claus Fund's Conference on Culture and Development, Amsterdam, Holland, September 7, 2002)

"But I think the more over-riding issue is the issue of theocracy versus secular state, and I think that at this point in time, the vast majority of countries within the Muslim world have recognized the difficulty of a theocratic state, and these difficulties are due to many different forces in these countries. But also, the pluralism within Islam. Because if you create a theocratic state, automatically you are saying there must be an interpretation which is the state interpretation of the faith…..What we are talking about are states that want to have modern forms of government but where the ethics of Islam remain the premises on which civil society is built. And I think that's where we see this — to me very exciting —effort to maintain the ethics of Islam, but in a modern state. And I think when we're talking about the ethics of Islam, it's easier to have civil society institutions built on the ethics of the faith, than a theocratic state in the full form."(His Highness the AgaKhan, interview with The Globe and Mail, Canada, January 30, 2002)

"An institution dedicated to proceeding beyond known limits must becommitted to independent thinking. In a university scholars engage both orthodox and unorthodox ideas, seeking truth and understanding wherever they may be found. That process is often facilitated by an independent governance structure, which serves to ensure that the university adheres to its fundamental mission and is not pressured to compromise its work for short-term advantage. For a Muslim university it is appropriate to see learning and knowledge as a continuing acknowledgement of Allah's magnificence"(Aga Khan IV, Speech, 1993, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan)

"In Islamic belief, knowledge is two-fold. There is that revealed through the Holy Prophet (s.a.s.) and that which man discovers by virtue of his own intellect. Nor do these two involve any contradiction, provided man remembers that his own mind is itself the creation of God. Without this humility, no balance is possible. With it, there are no barriers"(Aga Khan IV, 16 March 1983, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan)


Easy Nash

The Qur'an itself repeatedly recommends Muslims to become better educated in order better to understand God's creation: Aga Khan IV(2007)
The Quran tells us that signs of Allah's Sovereignty are found in the contemplation of His Creation: Aga Khan IV(2007)
This notion of the capacity of the human intellect to understand and to admire the creation of Allah will bring you happiness in your everyday lives: Aga Khan IV(2007)
Islam, eminently logical, placing the greatest emphasis on knowledge, purports to understand God's creation: Aga Khan IV(2006)
The first and only thing created by God was the Intellect(Aql)(Prophet Muhammad, circa 632CE)