Hiiraan Online

by Ismail Jirde Warsame
Tuesday, August 05, 2008

There are at least two important ways to litmus test a democracy. The first one is fixed and easy to measure, but the second one is variable from one society to another hence challenging to produce a universal method to evaluate it.

1) Procedural view; looks at the procedures by which political decisions of a given society are made. This includes:

A) Universal participation/political equality (i.e. everyone has the same rights to vote).

B) Majority rule, government policies should reflect the interest of the masses instead of the view top elites in the government.

C) Government responsiveness, citizens should reserve the right to accessible elected officials through town hall meetings, public forums, press conferences, etc. None of the above contradicts with Islamic values. Any given Muslim society allowed to have those rights would surely adopt Islamic Sharia as their supreme law.

2) Substantive view; evaluates the substance of the government policies. It is generally understood that democratic governments must uphold civil rights, guarantee freedoms and promote justice. This however, is very hard to achieve, because different societies have different values, cultures, religions and customs. For example, while it is perfectly acceptable to consume dogs for food in china, it is completely outrageous to eat or serve dog meat in many parts of the world. Even if China’s governance system became democratic today, it would not change this fact, because it would still have to reflect the traditions and customs of the people. Dress code is also another area of a great disparity between different cultures. Traditional attire of certain cultures may seem inappropriate in other cultures. The bottom line is, substantive evaluation of democracy can not be done universally. It is not one size fits all. That does not mean that one particular group can not scrutinize the substances of their own democracy but all of these obstacles should be kept in mind when evaluating a democracy substantively.

Sharia law is the Islamic code of conduct. Every Muslim and Muslimah must uphold the Sharia laws. Everything from washing our bodies after we use the bathroom to financing our homes is clearly prescribed in the Sharia law. Sharia is flexible and takes the situations of the society and the individual into consideration. It does not require somebody anything beyond his/her personal capability. There are many rules within Sharia that do not pertain to everyone. For example, while Sharia requires Muslims to pay annual Zakat “charity” which equals to (2.5% of your wealth) it does not mean that every single Muslim has to pay it regardless of his/her financial situation. Poor people or individuals without annual savings are exempted from this obligation. Even some laws that seem to be harsh on criminals are designed so they deter crimes and promote peace and stability in the society.

Jihad is another misunderstood concept in Islam. Just because Jihad is prescribed in Islam doesn’t mean that, Muslims are allowed to harm every non-Muslim irrespectively. First, Jihad is majority conducted against the temptations of one’s self to do sins. Secondly Jihad is always a defense mechanism. Like all people else, Muslims are allowed to defend themselves, their countries and families. Aggressive violence against non-Muslims is prohibited in Sharia, and it is even worse when children or innocent adults are targeted. The Qur’an repeatedly underlines that Allah dislikes aggressors and oppressors. Contrary to what many westerners believe, Islamic law does not inherently undermine the pre-existing rule of law so long it guarantees Muslims the freedom to practice their religion. For example, In America, the constitution allows Muslims to practice their religion freely; hence there is no Sharia obligation on American Muslims to overthrow the US government. Imperfect, but the American democracy is much more accommodating to Muslims than probably all other government systems in the Muslim lands. On the flip side, had the constitution denied Muslims their right to worship, they would then have to either move elsewhere or struggle for their rights by any means necessary.

Early this year I had an opportunity to attend The Camden Conference, which is held in Camden, Maine annually. The conference features high profile speakers and leaders who are supposedly “experts” in their fields. The theme of the Camden conference of this year was very fascinating. It was on “Religion as a force in world affairs.” I thought it was enriching and educating in many ways. But I also felt that some of the speakers were severely biased and or under-educated in the concepts they were trying to comment on.

Ellen Laipson, the president and the CEO of the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington D.C., was a good example. I had great expectations from a woman with such a high profile resume. The most shocking comments she made were that she was against the idea that US diplomats who are dealing with Muslims to be made aware and sensitive to Islamic beliefs. In this regard she wrote her book entitled (Relating to the Muslim world, may be less is more). She is typical for people in her category who study very shallowly about the Muslim world and think they know it all. As a Muslim myself, I have suddenly recognized the distortions both deliberate and unconscious mistakes she was making. Some of them were outright ethnocentric but mostly, she exploited the limited knowledge of the audience regarding Islam. I thought it was very shameful to hold such a reputable conference, focus on religion, talk about Islam in almost every aspect of it, and not bring a knowledgeable mainstream practicing Muslim Scholar. But people like Mrs. Laipson perfectly understand this trend of scholarship bias against Islam that is real in the western world, and exploit it to their advantage.

The point I am making is Laipson was repeatedly using the two words Islamist and Sharia, whereas she associated negative connotations with both of them. I then asked her at the end of her presentation to explain what she really meant when she used the word Islamist and who was she referring to? She didn’t give me a clear answer; instead she asked me how I’d explain the concept of being an Islamist. Like any other Muslim, who does not subscribe to the foreign imposed vocabulary, I had confessed that I did not fully understand it either. But I also had to mention to her that the invention and the usage of these labels are viewed by Muslims as derogatory and some type of McCarthyism stigma. I don’t think she welcomed my concerns but at least the audience gave me favorable feedbacks. It turns out that Mrs. Laipson “the expert” did not understand herself what she meant. The word Islamist does not have an Arabic base; and fairly new in the Islamic world. It was fabricated in the west from the word “Islam” which also shares the same root with the word “Salaam”, peace. The common root for both words is “Salama”, being protected/ submitted. Now, Islam simply means a full submission to the will of GOD. When the word “Islam” is used an adjective; it becomes “Muslim”, which means a “Muslim” is one who submits to the will of GOD. When westerners use the word “Islamist” they are attempting to establish the degree of how much Islam, the submission of GOD, which a person possesses. For example, in this categorization, someone who practices Islam in his/her personal level and does not incorporate it with his/her political view is acceptable type of Muslim. The acceptable or the so called moderate Muslim is often presented in the west as peaceful, civil, educated, welcomes democracy, and can co-exist with the modern world. The second type of Muslim, also known as Islamist, is one, who seeks to incorporate Islam with every aspect of his/her life including politics and governance. This type of Muslim is often portrayed as barbaric, oppressive against women, anti democracy, extremist, fundamentalist, radical and the list continues. The Islamist is very dangerous to existence and the well being of the so called “free world” and should be confronted at any cost.

The problem is that, the overwhelming majority of Muslims identify with the later category (i.e. Islamists, without the negative connotations). They view these connotations as instruments to demonize Muslims and subjugate them. It is time for us Muslims in the western world to re-evaluate our knowledge and understanding of the nature of our religion. We shouldn’t shy away from our it. We should be proud adherents to the world’s fastest growing religion; a religious group that already makes up one fifth of the world’s population. It is up to us Muslims in the west whether or not we want to adopt the same world view as Mrs. Laipson and call each other phrases such as Islamist, moderate, extremist, fundamentalists or Jihadist to drive a wedge between us. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him left us with only one version of Islam. And he warned us against conflicts and inventing things in our religion.