Is Orthodox Islam Compatible With Liberal Democracy?
Ali Eteraz
Yes. So argues a paper by Islamic Lawyer Dr. Fadel entitled, The Theological and Ethical Roots of Public Reason in Islamic Law, summarized by Salahudin.
In other words, Muslims can affirm living within liberal democracy without sacrificing their spiritual principles or orthodox Islamic Law. Normally people think that for a Muslim to live in a liberal democracy means that he/she has to change orthodox Islam, or become "less Muslim." As Salahudin's summary says:
His article argues that the doctrine of liberalism as enshrined in the concepts of democracy and pluralism, is compatible with the basic Islamic axioms and therefore a devout Muslim can live in a society with such a framework. (emphasis added).
Remember, when reading the piece it does not provide how Muslims can change theocracies into liberal democracies; it argues how being a Muslim in a liberal democracy is compatible with orthodox Islamic sources. Ghazali, the fount of orthodox Islamic learning, and 'Ashari theology, the heart of orthodox Islam, are both revealed to have spaces within them to make them consistent with liberal democracy.
I agree with Salahudin, the best part of the paper is when Fadel goes into the old orthodox sources and subjects them to a critical analysis. By the way, Salahudin considers himself an "apostate."
Welcome developments. May they continue!
Actually I suspect this is not a development. I suspect that some Islamic Lawyers have taught thus since before the Young Turks arose towards the end of the Old Ottoman empire. You don't ditch the caliphate like Ataturk did without good theological cover.
And if I knew my history better I could probably come up with earlier examples. Some Muslim rulers had to have noticed the economic benefits of liberalism and tried to find a way to bring it to their countries, which would require good theological cover too.
What say you, Ali?
Yours,
Wince
Tom, yes and no. Like Britain, the Ottoman Empire developed in the direction of a constitutional monarchy guaranteeing equal treatment under the law (for members of all religions). (See the 1876 constitution.) This, in turn, had precedents in the Tanzimat decrees of 1839 and 1856.
For a similar precedent, see the Iranian constitution of 1906.
So, while these development did not affirm the idea of an elected head of state (and neither did British law), they certainly supported the notion that Islamic law can and should provide equal treatment under the law to Muslims and non-Muslims.
Fadel goes one step further and says that believing Muslims can honestly affirm non-Caliphal, liberal democratic political arrangements.
Do you mean that Ataturk created a constitutional liberal democracy in Turkey without good theological cover beforehand, or at least at the time?
Surely not.
Yours,
Wince
Yes. Unlike almost all earlier Muslims who strove for liberalization, whose innovations were couched in lawyerly terms of fidelity to ancient principles of the law (just as British lawyers like Blackstone and Burke justified the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688), Ataturk simply declared the Sharia void and closed down religious schools, Sufi Orders, etc. However since the reemergence of Islam after the mid-20th century liberalization of Turkey, the Turkish government has tried to cast Ataturk as some kind of savior of Islam; I just don't think he stylized himself that way at the time.
I guess it depends on if you mean, compatible like in "can we all live together?," or compatible like in, "are we getting married?"
If you mean live together then that might just possibly work out some day, but if you mean gettin married then I don't see how that could possibly lead to us all living together.
Do I gotta, and are you being serious?
Assuming you are, those are subjects that are very, very wide ranging both historically and religiously.
In brief I'd say that all three gave birth to certain elements (then again so did the Protestants) of either democracy, or liberalism, or even both, and all three suppressed such ideas as are concerned with the overall scope of modern liberal democracy.
All three are repressive as regards the very idea of democracy because all rely upon a hierarchical system, either God, or Church, or Temple and the systems involved for maintaining religious power. The Pope is no democrat by very nature, nor is he what could be commonly called a modern liberal, and yet oddly enough, he is a staunch defender of most modern democratic values.
However as so often happens in history a certain way of doing things and viewing things gave birth to the very ideas which would modify those systems and change them in dramatically different ways. In other words the papacy helped support over time, either intentionally or existentially, those very popular movements which eventually led to modern liberal democracy.
The same thing with the Jews, in their own way.
The same thing with Eastern Orthodoxy which was the least tolerant of all major Judeo-Christian movements of that time in regards to religious matters. They were strictly conservative politically and fanatically and unyieldingly conservative in religious matters, but in literature, art, technology, military matters and matters of statecraft, extremely liberal and progressive much of the time. After the fall of Constantinople I am personally convinced that many of the Byzantine refugees set the groundwork in Western Europe for multinational Renaissance movements (not to say that the Renaissance would not have occurred without them, but that they enhanced and elevated it in practically every way, acting as catalysts - so did Muslims for that matter) and probably helped lead the way to the Enlightenment. (Which was ironically enough not always so very much enlightened, but that is the common irony of history, a thing is one way, then another, then it's opposite, then kinda back to the beginning again.)
Nevertheless I am convinced that the United States of America, especially in the days of her founding, is actually the Byzantine Empire reborn (and so we remain today) but with most of, though not all, of the defects of the Empire either ameliorated or corrected. This is especially true regarding freedom of religion. Lack of any real freedom of religion was the major method by which the societal and cultural cohesion of the Empire was maintained, and yet it was also the very cause of the ultimate decline, decreption, and doom of the Empire because it became religiously fossilized and therefore eventually technologically and politically calcified. Although culture, art, statecraft, learning, and cohesion are vital to a society, no society can thrive without equal advances in technology, freedom, (what today would be called) science, military capability and defense, agriculture, and religion. It also became genetically and ethnically fossilized, always on the defensive, maintaining and defending itself instead of incorporating new peoples and ideas and resources. the empire became an old dog who would learn no new tricks. She had to die first and be reborn elsewhere, like in America.
I guess the short answer is that the Judeo Christian religions have actually both actively suppressed the ideals of liberal democracy (Classical Liberalism) and yet also assured their success and came to be their greatest political and moral supporters in the West. But that's the way most everything happens. Things change over time, becoming different than they were when they started, and sometimes even returning to where they started, only different.
I can demonstrate easily though that both impulses (pro and anti liberal democracy) were obvious and apparent from the beginning.
"Hear oh Israel..." is the Jewish anthem of ultimate and unquestioned authority.
The prophets were the counterweighted answer, "God is not interested in sacrifices..."
With Christianity a system of ultimate authority was established on earth by saying, "Upon this rock..."
And yet liberal democracy is obvious in this phrase, "In Christ there is no Jew, no gentile..."
It was always really just a matter of striking the proper balance between the needs and advantages to be derived from a central authority (which maintain Order), and the creative and growth impulses to be derived from freedom and equality (which assure New Growth). That's a conflict that is eternal I reckon, but it greases the axle so the world turns around.
If you're asking, as I suspect you might be, "does this also apply to Islam?"
I'd say there have been times of liberality in Islam and times of unquestioned authority.
Right now, and personally speaking, I'd say Islam could probably use a lot more liberal democracy and less unquestioned authority.
But you never really wanna go too far in either direction.
Too much centralized authority is often just autocratic tyranny and stupidity in disguise and too much license isn't liberty at all, it is utter irresponsibility and the tyranny (and far too often the idiocy) of the masses.
Can Islam devolve into too much tyranny? That's obvious.
Can it be liberal, maybe even democratically liberal? In certain places and times, it has been before.
How do you get there from here?
That's really a matter for the Muslims to take up, but I'd suggest studying both the failures, and successes of Judaism, Christianity, and the West to see what might be learned and properly avoided, and exploited.
Well, that's enough seriousness for one day I suspect.
Let me know what your opinions are on these matters and I'll think about em.
I was writing kinda quick.
You may find THIS useful, as a brief overview.
" ...the First Amendment contains two clauses relating to religion, not one. The first bars Congress from "mak[-ing] a law respecting an establishment of religion," while the second bars it from "mak[-ing] a law ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Common sense says that whatever the establishment clause means, it must do something that the free exercise clause alone would not do. To take an obvious example, a purely symbolic law declaring Lutheranism as the official religion of the United States would not impact anyone's right to freely worship or not worship as he sees fit, but it would clearly violate the establishment clause."
If one compares re: the Afghanistan Constitution, we find this:
"Afghanistan's constitution, signed into law in January 2004, includes in the preamble adherence to "the holy religion of Islam" as well as respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article two states that Islam is the official religion, but "followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rights."
Article three, however, states that "no law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam."
A serious question might be:
Is Orthodox Islam Compatible with Liberty ?
Please understand, that not only the does the Torah not require non-Jewish societies to function according to the 613 commandments, their infinite offshoots, and the Rabbinic additions, it most emphatically does NOT want them to. Their can and their should be only one nation of priests.
That said, the seven prohibitions that the Torah does command the nations of the world are not negotiable. So I guess, according to Torah one would have to build his liberal democracy on top of them. America, by the way, has in many respects managed to do so.
Thanks for the thoughts, though.
If you're really married, you're supposed to be living together, but if you're just living together you don't necessarily have to be married.
That used to be a moral question, nowadays I suspect it has a lot to do with a person's politics.
I'm not really sure that's an answer, but just think about it a'while.
By the way, never ask me a serious question. I might think you're just kidding and write a lot more than you really wanna hear.
Lator Gator.
McKiernan -- to answer your question, "Is Orthodox Islam Compatible with Liberty?" I think the answer is "yes." For example, the 1876 Ottoman Constitution I referenced above (which was promoted by sincerly religious Young Ottoman reformers like Namik Kemal) contained the following provisions: "Every Ottoman enjoys personal liberty on condition of non interfering with the liberty of others" and "Personal liberty is wholly inviolable. No one can suffer punishment, under any pretext whatsoever, except in cases determined by law, and according to the forms prescribed by it." Also: "Islam is the state religion. But, while maintainig this principle, the state will protect the free exercise of faiths professed in the Empire, and uphold the religious privileges granted to various bodies, on condition of public order and morality not being interfered with." and "The press is free, within limits imposed by law."
Naftali -- yes I think you raise a very interesting point. Are fixed laws incompatible with liberal democracy? No, I would answer, if those fixed laws are actually necessary elements of a liberal democracy (though I am not claiming to have established that each of the 7 Noahide laws specifically are in fact necessary for democracy). In that case, changing those laws might subvert a democracy, even if decided upon by a majority.
Come on, please, you're much brighter than to quote a defunct Ottoman Constitution to defend:
"Every Ottoman enjoys personal liberty on condition of non interfering with the liberty of others" and "Personal liberty is wholly inviolable. No one can suffer punishment, under any pretext whatsoever, except in cases determined by law, and according to the forms prescribed by it."
And:
"Islam is the state religion. But, while maintaining this principle, the state will protect the free exercise of faiths professed in the Empire, and uphold the religious privileges granted to various bodies, on condition of public order and morality not being interfered with."
You can't be that dumb.
I must be since I don't see the problem.
"the state will protect the free exercise of faiths professed in the Empire, and uphold the religious privileges granted to various bodies, on condition of public order and morality not being interfered with."
Mighten you be looking a wee bit harder lad ?
and also
as well as
So truly I wonder what is so odd about the Ottoman Constitution besides the fact that it contains a number of principles, such as protections of property and the free practice of religion, that could just as easily come from the English common law as from traditional Shariah. In fact such coincidences of principles makes me wont to agree with Burke that, while the outward forms of it may vary, the spirit and nature of the law is truly one and universal.
"Christianity is part of the laws of England".
"that, while the outward forms of it may vary, the spirit and nature of the law is truly one and universal."
All I can say, Daniel, is fu*k you, and your fu*kin State religions.
Or as it says to the Deluded peoples who were my ancestors:
"It was not that there were no schools in Ireland open to Roman Catholic children that led to the Hedge Schools. The English government sponsored schools but the majority of the Catholic population refused to use them. The government schools were clearly intended to proselytize and to Anglicize Ireland. As late as 1825, the Protestant hierarchy petitioned the King, saying "amongst the ways to convert and civilise the Deluded People, the most necessary have always been thought to be that a sufficient number of English Protestant Schools be erected, wherein the Children of the Irish Natives should be instructed in the English Tongue and in the Fundamental Principles of the True Religion."
Slainte
Blackstone, after all, was the legal reference in post-Revolutionary America.
Tell this tradition to go f&*^ itself -- that's certainly your choice -- but it seems to me you'd chop the roots off a beautifully flowering tree.
Well, you got it exactly right and George W did chop down the beautiful flowering cherry tree.
What we need to do NOW is chop down your dumbass STATE religion theory.
Perhaps I have not paid close enough attention, but I have not heard that England or Sweden, for example, are famed for their religious persecutions.
Liberal democracies with state religions are very, very common. Great Britain has a state religion today. The key to how much liberty the people have is how the particular state "protect[s] the free exercise of faiths professed in the Empire, and uphold[s] the religious privileges granted to various bodies, on condition of public order and morality not being interfered with."
Right now in Great Britain the persons whose liberty is most constrained by the state religion are the members of the royal family.
Yours,
Wince
No time for other stuff. Suffice to say I have an aversion regarding the religious police running governments.
It just goes to show you, never tie a thing you really want to prosper to the State.
It's kinda like hitching your prize heifer to the corpse of a dead bull who died of cowpox.
It ain't an absolute guarantee of disaster, but it hardly seems worth the trouble if you really think on it awhile.
Jack, you certainly have a point there. On a similar note, Egyptian state control of al-Azhar hasn't exactly made it the new font of creative Islamic thought.
Do please, let us know when you find a First Amendment or any amendment in any national Constitution that equals or is superior to
the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
I have no desire to replace or improve on our Constitution or any of its Amendments. I just don't see the reason in telling people from other countries whose constitutions contain the words "state" and "religion" together in one sentence without any form of the word "no" that they'd be better off using that document as toilet paper. I am also of the opinion that just as flowers grow (and even thrive) under quite different conditions across the globe, so liberty can flourish in different countries with a variety of constitutional arrangements.
Mohammed Atta, didn't have any problems living in a
liberal democracy.
As our absentee, drive-by poster, Ali, argues:
...the doctrine of liberalism as enshrined in the concepts of democracy and pluralism, is compatible with the basic Islamic axioms and therefore a devout Muslim can live in a society with such a framework.
So one can only guess that Ali's point was Orthodox Islam can live in a liberal democracy, and Mohammed Atta clearly demonstrated that point.
Okay, Daniel, point them out to us, please.
Did you read the article Ali quoted? It is not about "living" in a country, but believing the political structure is good, positively affirming it, and committing to it, you know, in that good citizenshipy kinda way. M. Atta? Yougaddabekiddinme.
Well, as I mentioned before, England and Sweden (among others), both of which have established churches. As I also probably mentioned before, I think most Muslim countries lag behind the "West" in terms of liberty (for a number of reasons). For instance, when Ali Gomaa mentioned that some kinds of apostasy could be punishable as sedition, I found that very reminiscent to limits placed on speech in 18th-19th century Britain and America. But as long as countries are moving in the right direction, I am probably going to be fairly pleased -- perfect reform doesn't happen overnight after all.
I'd like to express my appreciation for your patience and good humor towards McKiernan.
Yours,
Wince
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.