Daily Archives: August 20, 2004

Events, News / Announcements

VCDs of MPF Inaugural Launch and the 2 sessions with Dr. Azzam Tamimi

644 Comments

The 2 sessions with Dr. Azzam Tamimi
(Jihad – the most understood word and MPF Inaugural launch + Muslims in the midst of change) are taped on video compact discs
Vcds available at RM 15.00
Kindly include RM2.50 for postage (reg) within the Klang Valley UNLESS you would like to pick up at our distribution centres
Cheques made payable to MUSLIM PROFESSIONALS FORUM BERHAD

Distribution centres :

Ampang : Azrabanu 019-2824500 ; Asnah 012-2100577
T. Melawati : Rohana 013-3465624
TTDI : Zainuriah 017-8722968; Farah 012-6932950
Bangsar : Siti Jamilah 012-3718518; Elya 012-2122357
Bt Damansara/Sri Hartamasa : Ruhana 019-2368722
Bdr Sri Damansara : Mimi 012-3723135

Articles

The Islamic Debate over the Human Bomb

1 Comment

The Islamic Debate over the Human Bomb
by Dr. Azzam Tamimi

Martyrdom – a Question of Faith

According to Tunisian Islamic thinker Rachid Ghannouchi, one of the basic features of the Islamic faith is that it generates within the believer a passion for freedom. Algerian thinker Malik Bennabi had earlier asserted that the Islamic faith accomplishes two objectives: first, it liberates man from servitude and renders him un-slaveable; and secondly, it prohibits him from enslaving others. Many contemporary Islamic thinkers agree with him and explain that this is exactly what the concept of jihad is about.

One of the meanings of Jihad is given as the constant endeavour to struggle against all forms of political or economic tyranny. Despite its sacredness, life has no value in the shade of despotism. Islamic text, both in the Qur’an and the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) exhort Muslims to resist despotism and struggle against it by means of al-amr bilma`ruf wan-nahyu `anil-munkar (enjoining the good and forbidding the evil). On the basis of a hadith, Muslim scholars have articulated three levels of resistance or struggle. The minimum level is struggle by the heart. This is a psychological process whereby a Muslim prepares himself for the higher level up by means of boycotting evil and disliking it. The higher level of resistance entails condemning evil through the use of various means of non-violent means, such as speaking up, writing or demonstrating, or mobilising public opinion against evil. The highest level of all is resistance through the use of force. What really matters is that oppression should never be given a chance to establish itself in society. A Muslim is supposed to be a conscientious individual responding with appropriate action to whatever injustice that may be perpetrated in society provided the chosen action does not produce a greater evil that the one targeted with resistance. A Muslim is thus a force of positive change, a citizen whose faith reinforces within him a sense of responsibility.

It is in this way, according to Ghannouchi and Bennabi, that faith plays an important role in promoting civility and bolstering civil society. Not only does the Islamic faith permit a Muslim to resist despotism and rebel against it, but it makes it incumbent upon him or her to do so with whatever means available to him or her. It is understandable that a Muslim may lose his/her life struggling against oppression and for this he or she is promised a great reward in the life after death. In other words the effort made is not wasted and the sacrifice is not in vain.

The Prophet is quoted as saying: “The noblest of jihad is speaking out in defiance of an unjust ruler;” and “Hamza (Prophet’s uncle and one of the earlier martyrs in Islam) is the master of martyrs, and so is a man who stands up to an unjust ruler enjoining him and forbidding him, and gets killed for it.”

It would only be accurate to draw from this Prophetic tradition that martyrdom in the Islamic standard is not failure; a martyr is not a loser but a hopeful one who offers his life for what is much more valuable and, at the same time, eternal. For this reason martyrs are elevated to the highest of all ranks. A Muslim recites at least seventeen times a day in his salat (prayer):

Show us the straight way, the way of those on whom you have bestowed your Grace (1: 6-7)

Those on whom God has bestowed his grace belong to one of the categories listed in another Qur’anic verse which says:

All who obey Allah and the Messenger are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah, of the Prophets, the sincere (lovers of truth), the martyrs, and the righteous (who do good). How beautiful is their Company. (4: 69)

By offering his life in the Cause of God, a martyr enters into a transaction with the Lord.

Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their wealth; for theirs in return is the Garden (of Paradise): They fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. And who is more faithful to his Covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (9: 111)

O you who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Chastisement? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that you strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons: that will be best for you if you only knew. (61:10-11)

Martyrdom or Suicide?

However, martyrdom today is not as straightforward as what it used to be. In the old days Muslims went to war in a jihad wishing either for victory or for martyrdom. Today, many of those that go on a jihad are almost certain it is the latter but not the former. This is so because they strap themselves in dynamite and predetermine their fate when they press the button. Their wars are not conventional ones. They know they cannot inflict damage on their enemy without exploding in his face.

The ‘suicide-bombing’ or what Muslims call ‘martyrdom operation’ was not invented by the Muslims. However, it is today identified with them and with their religion. Precursors of these operations in the Middle East were first introduced by Arab secular leftists who seemed to import the idea from elsewhere in the world. During those days such operations did not usually involve strapping oneself with dynamite; mostly, they involved daring attacks from which the attacker had almost no chance of escaping alive. The attack by members of the Japanese Red Army in 1972 at Lod Airport in Israel is considered one of the earlier such attacks in the Middle East. However, it was at the hands of the Lebanese Hezbollah, founded in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, that this modus operandi was refined throughout the 1980s. The most daring of such attacks was the suicide bombing attack that killed 241 US marines in Beirut in 1983.

Elsewhere in the world, the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, who struggled for an independent Tamil state, began carrying out suicide bombings in 1987. It is estimated that they have since perpetrated over 200 such attacks. It was through this type of attacks that they assassinated former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 and President Premadassa of Sri Lanka in 1993. In 1999, the Tigers attempted to assassinate Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga using a female suicide bomber.

In the latter half of the nineties, it was the Palestinians organizations Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) and Islamic Jihad that captured the attention of the world for what they described as ‘martyrdom operations’. The two organizations, which did not approve of the Oslo peace accords between the PLO and Israel, were undoubtedly aware of the tactic of the human bomb resorted to by Hizbollah and the Tamil Tigers. However, they did not consider employing the tactic until after more than six years of the eruption of the first Intifada and well into the second year of the era of the Palestinian Authority. It is widely believed that what triggered a change in tactic was the massacre perpetrated on 25 February 1994 by an American-born Jewish settler. Baruch Goldstein is believed to have secured the assistance of Israeli troops to sneak into Al-Haram al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron opening fire and throwing hand grenades at worshippers as they kneeled half way through the early morning Fajr (dawn) prayers killing twenty nine of them and wounding scores more. On 6 April 1994, a Hamas bomber blew himself up near a bus in Afula, killing eight Israelis. Hamas claimed responsibility saying it carried out the attack in response to the massacre of Palestinian worshippers by Baruch Goldstein less than two months earlier.

Although Palestinians were generally appreciative of such a sacrificial mission at a time when they felt more vulnerable than ever, with no means of self-defence or deterrence, the human bomb attacks triggered a debate that is far from over. The debate, which soon crossed the borders and stretched across the Muslim world, centres on a number of themes.

– The first and most crucial theme relates to a jurisprudential problem: assessing the nature of the operation itself; is it suicide or sacrifice?

– The second relates to a practicality: the viability of the tactic in deterring the Israelis from their oppression and persecution of the Palestinians.

– The third relates to the consequences of such attacks to the Palestinians themselves since the Israelis were bound, as has always been the case, to respond; their response has invariably involved imposing collective punishment on the Palestinians whenever an attack of this kind is launched.

– The fourth relates to the impact on peace making; the attacks are an embarrassment to the Palestinian Authority which is supposed to prevent any attacks on Israel or Israelis in fulfilment of its commitments to the Oslo Accords signed with Israel in September 1993.

– The fifth relates a legal aspect: the legitimacy of a discriminate attack that may, as is the case in many instances, result in killing innocent civilians, particularly children.

As the dividends of peace turned to be bitter fruits, and as more Palestinians were becoming convinced that they had been cheated, many of these issues were resolved. It soon became obvious to the Palestinians that whether such operations existed or not the Israelis were determined to confiscate more land and build more settlements. The largest proportion of confiscation of land happened actually during days of peace making between 1993 and 1999. The peace promised turned to be nothing but a security arrangement between Israel and the PLO leadership whereby the latter takes care of the task of providing Israel with security in exchange for recognition and VIP treatment. As for the bulk of the Palestinian population their economic conditions continued to deteriorate and the six million who live as refugees or in exile were told their right to return had to be sacrificed in exchange for such a humiliating peace. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad managed to convince the majority of the Palestinians that their martyrdom operations served as the only deterrent in order to make the Israelis think twice before they attacked Palestinians villages, camps or towns. As regards the target, both organizations insisted that they never intend targeting children. They insist that they primarily target army personnel and that any attacks on civilians are either unintended or inevitable so long as Israel continues to target Palestinian civilians.

From a theological, or jurisprudential, point view, the assessing the nature of the operation had to be the most important issue to address so as to determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the ‘human bomb’. Since the Islamic religion has no one spokesperson or authority to refer to, it is not unusual in such turbulent times for politics to have a great bearing on the opinion of the religious scholars. Initially, supporters of the operations insisted they were acts of sacrifice while opponents claimed they were nothing but suicide. In the former case the perpetrator would be a martyr, a person who offers himself (or herself) for the sake of a noble cause and who will end up in the highest ranks of Paradise. From this perspective not only is the act permissible but it is highly commendable and greatly appreciated. There is no shortage of Qur’anic evidence to support this position. Take for instance Verse 111 of Chapter 9: “Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise): they fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his Covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”

Those who oppose the operations on religious grounds argue that they involve suicide, an act that is strictly forbidden in Islam. Consequently, the perpetrator is a sinner who will end up in the Fire of Hell. However, no Muslim scholars inside Palestine today subscribe to this opinion. Even the official Mufti of the Palestinian Authority Sheikh Ikrima Sabri has not only considered these operations a noble act of sacrifice for the sake of God but also harshly criticized some Egyptian and Saudi scholars for denouncing them as suicide accusing them of failing to understand the context and therefore failing to apply the appropriate text.

As far as the Palestinians under occupation are concerned the overwhelming majority support these operations; they even demand that more of them are planned. However, some continue to argue against them on the grounds that they have caused more harm to the Palestinians than good and that they, even if inadvertently, result in killing innocent civilians. The Palestinian Authority is opposed to them on the grounds of its commitment to the peace process.

The attitude of scholars and religious institutions outside Palestine has been varied. Division seems to be prompted by political considerations. Official (governmental) religious institutions or scholars have maintained that these operations are illegitimate for two reasons:

1. They are suicide, and that is a major sin in Islam. An attacker cannot decide to take his own life, and if he does he will permanently be in the Hell-Fire.

2. These operations are indiscriminate and innocent people get killed, including children, and that contravenes the Islamic code of war ethics.

However, it is widely believed that these institutions or scholars are requested by their governments to adopt that position. These governments come under enormous pressure from the United States of America in order to denounce ‘suicide operations’ and stop all support for organizations engaged in them. The most outspoken scholars against these operations have been the Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who is appointed by a Royal Decree and is opposed in his position by hundreds of Saudi scholars; and the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, who is appointed by the President of Egypt, is under obligation to tow the official line in his fatwas and is opposed in his position by the bulk of Al-Azhar scholars represented by Al-Azhar Scholars Front. Whereas the Saudi Mufti office has been consistent in its position, Sheikh Al-Azhar Sayyid Tantawi has contradicted himself repeatedly on this issue, seemingly reflecting the political mood each time. His first fatwa was one of outright prohibition. Then he came out in full support considering the attackers to be martyrs of the highest degree. Speaking at conference on terrorism last year in Kuala Lumpur her reverted to his original position of outright condemnation.

In the meantime, independent scholars or institutions have opted for the position of considering these attacks inside Palestine to be ‘martyrdom operations’ of the noblest forms of Jihad. Prominent and renowned scholars in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and many other Muslim countries have come out with their public endorsements and even encouragements. They base their arguments on the following principles:

1. These operations are not suicide by sacrifice of the highest quality

2. Israel is a military outpost and there are no civilians within it to spare apart from children. All men and women in Israel serve in the army. As long as attackers try their best to avoid children every other target is legitimate and if children are inadvertently hit it is because it is unavoidable.

3. The Palestinians have been left with no other choice since their enemy is armed to the teeth while they are deprived of the basic means of self-defence. So long as this situation continues the Palestinians cannot be blamed for engaging in these attacks.

4. If the Israelis want an end to these operations they should accept the offers of truce made to them repeatedly by Hamas and other Palestinian factions. However, to expect the Palestinians to unilaterally stop all resistance in the hope that the Israelis will stop attacking them is unfair and does not work.

However, as these types of operations started being carried out by Muslims elsewhere in the world, the debate became more intense and the divisions grew wider than ever. Few scholars provide a blanket support for any ‘martyrdom attack’ no matter where and when. Interestingly, a leading number of the scholars who support ‘martyrdom operations, in Palestine were among the first to condemn the attacks on 11 September and did also similarly condemn the bombings that were carried out later on in Bali, Riyadh, Rabat, Istnabul and Madrid. Here it is not a question of suicide or martyrdom but rather a question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the target. These scholars do not see that attacking New York or Bali or Madrid was justified from an Islamic perspective and therefore they deemed those bombings to be acts of criminality rather than acts of jihad.

There are those who maintain the odd position of considering the perpetrators of all ‘suicide bombings’ as martyrs and their actions as legitimate. However, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi leads a group of scholars that disagrees. They consider the case of Palestine a unique one and therefore only in Palestine are such operations legitimate at the present time. When asked about ‘suicide bombings’ in Iraq during his recent visit to London, Qaradawi explained that although he supported the right of the Iraqi people to resist the US led invasion of Iraq and to fight to liberate their country from foreign occupation he did not believe that the use of human bombs was justified because, in his judgment, the Iraqis have an abundance of the conventional means of resistance and have not been forced to resort to such ‘desperate’ weapon as have the Palestinians.

Human Bombs: Tactic or Desperate Act

In the case of Palestine, debate has also raged over whether these ‘human bombs’ are prompted by dire economic conditions or are simply part of a strategy aimed at achieving certain political objectives. It would be wrong to suggest that it has to be an ‘either/or’ case. Many visitors to the occupied territories have privately or publicly expressed an understanding as to why the Palestinians resort to these operations. While it is true that the majority of ‘martyrs’ do not come from poor desperate backgrounds, and that many of them are well-educated and well-positioned inside the community, the general condition of despair and frustration contributes to the motivation. However, from the organizational point of view these operations are not simply reactions, though they are occasionally presented as such, to the dire economic crisis caused by occupation. More so, they are seen as the only means of pressuring the Israelis, both state and society, to recognize the rights of the Palestinians and to agree to a cease-fire deal that would at least spare the civilians. Hamas is explicit in its objectives. In a document written upon the request of a European government that was until recently in communication with the movement, the movement states that “these operations are in principle directed against military targets.” It explains that “targeting civilians is considered an aberration from Hamas’ fundamental position of hitting only military targets; they represent an exception necessitated by the Israeli insistence on targeting Palestinian civilians and by Israel’s refusal to agree to an understanding prohibiting the killing of civilians on both sides; an understanding comparable to the one reached between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.” This is a reference to the agreement signed between Hezbollah and Israel in the aftermath of the Qana massacre in the mid-90s.

Indeed, the former leader of the movement in Gaza, Sheikh Yassin, repeatedly offered the Israelis a truce only to be rejected by the Israelis. He is quoted in this same document as saying: “Hamas does not endorse the killing of civilians, but that it is sometimes the only option it has if it is to respond to the murdering of Palestinian civilians and the cold-blooded assassination of Palestinian activists. He himself was assassinated by Israel last March.

Hamas believes that such tactic, or other new ones for that matter, will force the Israelis to negotiate an honorable and acceptable deal. Since the movement does not recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in Palestine as a matter of principle, its medium term objective is a cease-fire agreement. In exchange for a cessation of all hostilities, Israel would have to agree to the following:

the withdrawal of Israeli occupation troops from the West Bank and Gaza Strip;
the evacuation of all Jewish settlements in both the West Bank and Gaza; and
releasing all Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Groups that struggle for the liberation of Chechnya from Russian occupation or Kashmir from Indian occupation may resort to the same tactic with some political objective in mind. Similarly those that employ the same methods in Iraq would easily claim they aspire for the end of occupation. However, the same cannot be said of clandestine and indefinable groups that carry out attacks such as the ones that took place on 11 September or subsequently in Bali, Riyadh, Rabat, Istanbul and Madrid. These attacks may be an expression of anger against the United States of America and its allies. However, there are so far no specified negotiable demands let alone, in many cases, a credible claim of responsibility. It is suspected that at least some of these attacks are carried by different groups that are not linked organizationally but have in common an anti-American (or anti-Western) sentiment provoked by local, regional or international politics.

Future of ‘suicide bombings’

While there is no shortage of recruits for this type of operations, they are becoming increasingly difficult to execute. With the heightened states of emergency, enhanced international cooperation to exchange information and suspects, and the introduction of more stringent and sophisticated security measures – and in the case of Israel the construction of an eight-meter high wall to cut off completely the Palestinian territories from Israel, the human bomb may become less frequent and eventually disappear altogether. In Palestine, where ‘martyrdom operations’ have not been seen for several months now, the Palestinians are already developing new tactics. We have seen in recent days a higher frequency of the launching of Qassam missiles against Israeli targets by Hamas fighters. The missiles have clearly been developed further, have become more accurate and have been causing casualties. Another tactic developed by Hamas is the ‘long tunnel’ which renders the wall useless.

Similarly, those bent on putting up a resistance to strong and well-established powers will not fail to discover or innovate new ways and new methods. Perhaps the only way to guarantee a safer world is to sincerely and seriously seek to resolve problems fairly. Most of the groups that fight the status quo today do so because it is an unjust status quo, one that violates the basic human rights of individuals and communities alike. If only the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were respected by the strong as they are demanded by the week, the world would be a much more comfortable, even more enjoyable, place to be in. Perhaps then, less and less people will consider killing themselves or killing others.

Azzam Tamimi

Visiting Professor, Kyoto University, Japan

Director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought, London

Reviews

Islam and the Challenge of Democracy by Khaled Abou El Fadl’s (Book)

2,451 Comments

Islam and the Challenge of Democracy by Khaled Abou El Fadl’s
Princeton University Press 2004
by Dr Azzam Tamimi

On a website, named Scholar of the House and dedicated to him and his works, Khaled Abou El Fadl is introduced as “the most important and influential Islamic thinker in the modern age;” as “an accomplished Islamic jurist and scholar;” as a “high-ranking shaykh;” as “a world renowned expert in Islamic law;” and as “a prolific author and prominent public intellectual on Islamic law and Islam.” There is little more one may aspire to achieve. However, few Muslims would have heard of Abou El Fadl, let alone read him. Nevertheless, he seems to be a rising star in the United States where he has managed to persuade a good list of scholars and thinkers to take part in this project of his. So, what is interesting about the book is not so much the topic but rather the format, which is similar to his earlier book The Place of Tolerance in Islam. In both works a number of scholars respond to Abou El Fadl’s lead piece, and then Abou El Fadl responds to their responses.

As for the topic, this book, perhaps, could not have come at a worst time. Democracy in the West is in crisis; ruling liberal democratic elites in both Washington and London have violated every democratic principle in the name of democracy. They lied, lied again and continued to lie to their people and to the world until the images of inhumanity emerging out of Abu Graib left no room for doubters. The values said to be associated with liberal democracy: inalienable individual rights, a set of liberties, the rule of law and equality before the law have all been undermined with varying degrees across the liberal democratic world in under various pretexts. The Muslims in particular have been primary victims because the war on terrorism has for all intents and purposes been nothing but a war on every thing associated with the Islamic faith and the Islamic culture. Since September 11 thousands of Muslim men and women have been arrested and detained without charge in the USA, the UK and other European participants in the ‘war on terrorism’; laws have been enacted in all these places to restrict the freedoms of expression, movement and assembly; and Muslim school girls in France have been banned from entering schools with head covers. In the lands of the East, on the other hand, irreparable damage has been inflicted upon the prospects of democratization. The Americans and their allies have given a bad name to democracy that few Arabs or Muslims deem it appropriate to associate themselves with any talk about bringing democracy to the Muslim lands lest this is seen as collaborating with the foreign invading powers. Iraqis who loathed Saddam and prayed for an end to the nightmare they endured under him have regretted the end of his reign because American’s promised democracy has turned to be a worst nightmare. In light of all of this it is indeed a bold move on the part of Princeton to undertake publishing the book.

An impressive list of names is involved in producing the work. In the order of their responses to Abou El Fadl, they are: Nader A. Hashemi; Jeremy Waldron; Noah Feldman; M.A. Muqtedar Khan; A. Kevin Reinhart; Saba Mhamood; Bernard Haykel; Mohammad H. Fadel; David Novak; John L. Esposito; and William B. Quandt.

In his forty-six page treatise “Islam and the Challenge of Democracy” Abou El Fadl seeks to find room for democracy in Islam. For up to two thirds of his paper he exhibits skill in using his knowledge to prove the compatibility of Islamic values with those of democracy. Though he does not acknowledge it anywhere, he has already been surpassed to these grounds by many thinkers such as the Algerian Malik Bennabi, the Tunisian Rachid Ghannouchi and the Egyptian Tariq El-Bishri to name a few. Some of his interlocutors do make this point in passing mentioning in particular Ghannouchi, whom they mistakenly assume to be a resident of France, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the most authoritative contemporary sunni scholar and Fahmi Huwaidi, the most widely read and highly regarded Islamic journalist in the Arab world. However, in his own response Abou El Fadl seems to take offence at the suggestion that his position is shared with “other ‘Islamicists’ such as Rashid al-Ghannouchi, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, or Fahmi Huwaidi.” Clearly, the positions are not identical but not for the reasons Abu El Fald gives in his response. He charges that “Huwaidi’s and Qaradawi’s proclamations on democracy are dogmatic at best; they do not exhibit any serious understanding of the doctrinal challenges a democracy poses for traditional understandings of Islam.” It is his assessment that “both writers speak about Islam and democracy only in the most vague and general sense, without engaging the particulars of history or doctrine.” Abou El Fadl has nothing to say about Ghannouchi; one is therefore tempted to think that he probably knows not much about him and may have not read him. As for Malik Bennabi, he does not feature anywhere in the book despite the originality of his thinking and the enormity of his influence. The real difference between Abou El Fadl’s thinking and the thinking of the aforementioned ‘mainstream’ scholars and thinkers is that they emanate from within while he comes from without. Perhaps without realizing it, and he is gently alerted to this by some of his respondents, Abou El Fadl borders the ‘End of History’ discourse as he presents the case for democracy. Democracy is seen by Islamic thinkers as consisting of two components: a philosophical aspect that is incompatible with Islam and a procedural aspect that Muslims can learn and benefit from. There is no way the liberal secularist component of democracy can be espoused by the Muslims because it contradicts the essence of their faith. It is simply a case of two directly opposed world views: in the Islamic view divine revelation is the source of reference where as in the liberal tradition man is self-referential. It is therefore a futile effort to try and re-formulate Islam in order to espouse liberalism; this would simply be the end of Islam as a divine revelation. What Bennabi, Ghannouchi, Qaradawi and Huwaidi believe is that the chronic problem of despotism in the Muslim lands can be remedied in part by the adoption of some or all elements of the procedural aspect of democracy; for after all, it is these elements which are compatible with the Islamic values of vicegerency, Shura, justice and the rule of Shari’ah. It is these procedures that may help the Muslims institutionalize Shura and develop measures appropriate for their own needs and purposes in order to make government’s electable by and accountable to the people and in order to limit the abuse of power to the minimum.

Abuo El Fadl’s treatment of the question of compatibility between Islam and democracy suffers from a number of weaknesses, as rightly noted by some of his interlocutors – particularly Noah Feldman, Saba Mahmood from Mohammad H. Fadel. The first is his taking for granted and at face value what liberal democracy stands for. The second is his total silence regarding the practical impediments to democratization in the Muslim world. These impediments do not come from within Islam and are not posed by the Muslim peoples; rather, they are obstacles created and safeguarded by the world order that claims to be liberal and democratic under the leadership of the United States of America. My own research, published by Oxford University Press as Rachid Ghannouchi A Democrat Within Islamism, shows that the world order, the modern territorial state and the policy of enforced secularization are the real culprits. It is not true at all that, as claimed by M.A. Muqtedar Khan in his response, “democracy must triumph in theory before it can be realized in practice.” What and who aborted the Algerian people’s struggle for democracy and who and what provides dictators across the Muslim world with life when they are detested by their populations that aspire to say them perish. It is the United States of America, leader of the ‘liberal democratic’ world. Ironically, Khan is also critical of Abuo El Fadl but for a completely different reason; he thinks that Abuo El Fadl does not go far enough in espousing liberalism and denouncing the jurists whom Khan so bizarrely and preposterously accuses of having “colonial tendencies” that so long as they persist there will be no Islamic democracy.

Khan seems to miss the point. Abuo El Fadl does more than just that. His innovative thinking is to be found in the last few pages of his paper where he comes up with a new interpretation of Shari’ah aimed at trivializing it by relativising it. Indeed, unlike contemporary Arab and Muslim modernists (or secularists to be more precise), Abou El Fadl is keen to show respect to the classical jurists, but not contemporary one, and insists on the centrality of Shari’ah to Muslim life. However, Shari’ah for him is an unrealizable ideal. Whatever people claim to be Shari’ah is their own imperfect law-making that is nothing more than their understanding or interpretation of a divine perfection that is well beyond them. Imagining Shari’ah to be an obstacle, Abuo El Fadl set out to resolve it by declaring it impossible to implement. His gives an example as to how Shari’ah may be re-interpreted so as to conform with the values he believes to be absolute and universal. Verse number 38 of Surat Al-Ma’idah (Chapter Five) deals with the penalty for theft. The phrase faqta’u aydiyahuma (cut off their hands) is so arbitrarily interpreted meaning prevent them by stop their hands from theft, simply because Abuo El Fadl, contrary to the understanding and practice of the Prophet himself and of his companions and the scholars of Islam through the ages, believes that cutting off the hand of a thief is inhumane or unjust.

In an expression of a political stance, Abuo El Fadl does not hide his disdain and contempt for the Wahhabis and what he calls the fundamentalists. Both terms have become tools in the anti-Islamic propaganda to attack a broad spectrum of people including some of the most respectable personalities in the Muslim world. Such labeling only makes his work less likely to be appreciated by Muslim readers, though it may sound music to the ears of people on the other side of the divide.

The cause of democracy in the Muslim lands has not been served by this publication, which will only be seen by the Muslims as another attempt to undermine their religion. It is as if Muslims have to pay a price for the commodity of democracy from their own faith and culture or from their own freedom and dignity as is happening today to the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq. If democracy is not incompatible with Islam, and this is what most Muslims today believe the case to be, then Muslims need not be told they need to abandon a doctrine or a principle of their faith in order to be democratic.

Far from the assumption of this book Islam is not being challenged by democracy, it is liberal democracy that is today challenged by Islam. It is not Islam that needs to be reformed; it is democracy that needs urgent attendance so as to repair the severe damage caused to it by the liberal democratic states in America and Europe.

Azzam Tamimi

Visiting Professor, Kyoto University, Japan

Director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought, London

Reviews

The Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire by Arundhati Roy (Book)

358 Comments

The Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire by Arundhati Roy
Flamingo, London, 2004, pp 145.
by Dr Mazeni Alwi

This slim volume is a collection of Arundhati Roy’s essays and speeches, focusing on the events that cascaded from September 11 to the US led invasion of Iraq. Most people by now would have known that Arundhati Roy shot to literary fame through her first novel, “the God of small things” which won the Booker prize.

Ms. Roy puts her fame and talent in the service of things dear to her heart : poverty, the widening gap between the rich and poor, state terrorism in Kashmir and religious fanaticism, gaining celebrity status internationally when a New Delhi court convicted her of contempt of court for her part in defending villagers who lost their land in the mega dam projects in the Narmada valley. Of late, her concerns have extended beyond India. Thankfully she has put her eloquence, wit and good looks into the service of global justice and democracy, speaking for the poor and voiceless of the world against rapacious corporate globalization and the menace of imperialism by the present US administration piloted by President Bush and his cabal of neoconservatives.

Ms. Roy’s critique of corporate globalization and the imperialist tendencies of US foreign policy, articulated through her eloquent wit, clarity and gift for language adds a fresh voice to a genre of writing, which until the event of September 11, remained the province of a small group of ageing leftist american intellectuals, viz. Noam Chomsky, Edward Said (died last year), Howard Zinn… In one of the pieces in this book , she paid a tribute to Chomsky’s untiring effort in deconstructing the lies, greed and power of the US establishment, big business and the corporate media.

The book is a collection of essays and speeches published or delivered in the west (except the introductory piece, “Ahimsa”, published in Hindustan Times 2002, and “confronting empire”, an address given to the World Social Forum, Porto Allegre, Brazil 2003, the anti-globalization movement’s equivalent of the World Economic Forum, Davos).

Being a collection of essays and speeches delivered or published at different places that deal with intense issues that built up from the September 11 attacks, it cant be helped that some of the themes are repetitive, but her witty style makes this an enjoyable read. Even if by now many an educated middle class asian/muslim who previously had not the slightest interest in world affairs and global justice have become wary of George Bush’s arrogant unilateralism and taken some kind of a position, these essays will surely add depth to one’s knowledge on the subject. Beneath the relaxed and witty charm of her prose, Ms. Roy has actually done quite a lot of research to buttress her arguments, making this a compelling read even to those already familiar with the issues of corporate globalization’s pernicious victimization of the world’s poor hand in hand with the neoconservatives’ dream of US global hegemony, and the lies constructed by George Bush for going to war in Iraq (the ordinary person’s guide to empire and instant mix imperial democracy are two illustrative essays).

To illustrate the depth of her research on the subject, in “Come September”, an address given at Santa Fe, New Mexico in September 2002, she quoted sinister events in recent history that took place on September 11. On 11 September 1973, General Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in a CIA backed coup. On 11 September 1990, George Bush Sr made a speech to Congress announcing his government’s decision to go to war against Iraq. On September 11 1922, ignoring Arab outrage, the British government proclaimed a mandate in Palestine, a follow up to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, thus planting the seeds of the intractable Palestine – Israeli conflict and the destruction of Palestinian society that we see today.

My favourite piece is her last essay, “when the Saints go marching out – the strange fate of Martin, Mohandas and Mandela”, broadcast by the BBC in August 2003 on Radio 4. she wrote, “Its interesting how icons when their time has passed, are commodified and appropriated to promote the prejudice, bigotry and inequity they battled against. But then in an age when everything’s up for sale, why not icons?”. To illustrate such irony, she wrote of how Narendra Modi, widely accused of having orchestrated the anti muslim riots was voted back to office as Chief Minister of Gujarat. This same Mr. Modi invited Nelson Mandela to Gujarat to be the Chief Guest at the celebration of Ghandi’s birth anniversary. And of Mandela’s South Africa, otherwise known as “the small miracle”, “the Rainbow Nation of God”, within 2 years of taking office the ANC capitulated to the Market God, privatizing basic services, worsening the poverty and landlessness of blacks. The same government US court to rule against forcing companies to pay reparations for the role they played during apartheid (reparations i.e. justice will discourage foreign investments). Ms. Roy then examined what happened to the black american struggle for civil rights led by Martin Luther King. Among the many quotes by King was one delivered at the Riverside Church in New York City, “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettoes without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my one government”. King denounced the american invasion of Vietnam, linking the war to racism and economic exploitation, seeing that the number of blacks in the US army and those who died were disproportionately higher than in the general population.

Ms. Roy asked wether Martin Luther King would say today that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are in any way morally different from the US government’s invasion of Vietnam. Who have inherited the mantle of Martin Luther King, Malcom X, James Baldwin and Muhammd Ali, asked Ms. Roy. Colin Powell and Condoleeze Rice, she wrote, are the exact opposite of role models. “They appear to be the embodiment of Black People’s dreams of material success, but in actual fact they represent the Great Betrayal. They’re the liveried doormen guarding the portals of the glittering ballroom against the press and swirl of the darker races”.

I would recommend this book even if many of us have now become familiar with the themes of Ms. Roy’s concerns. At least here is an eminently readable and witty response by a credible spokesperson from the third world to speak on the issues of economic exploitation and global injustice on the world’s poor. She is sensible enough to offer no easy solutions to “confronting empire”, but the first step is to look it in the eye, strip it bare of its pretensions. We have to “lay siege to empire”, “to shame it”.

In her critique of the US administration, she is also careful not to confuse the american people with their government’s policies. This is essentially the mistake of the less informed and the less literate. However legitimate are their grouses against the injustice, violence and devastation that america has unleashed wittingly or otherwise, blanket hatred and indiscriminate reciprocal violence will only undermine one’s moral cause. This is the biggest mistake made by those who use terrorism as a weapon.