The Problem of the Democracy
Undoubtedly, democracy enjoys a prominent status in the world arena. It takes its place on the throne of the one-pole, uncontested empire of the world and serves as the social doctrine, political guide, and cultural identity, and the approach followed by its civilization. It is the glorious message of that empire to all creation. The said empire befriends and gets close to those who accept democracy and adhere to it, and it quarrels with and fights those who reject it and opt for something else. This has made democracy, either willingly or out of fear, the beloved of politicians and thinkers. People from everywhere, except a resisting few, compete for its love. Thus democracy has become the master that orders and forbids and that controls the procession of human security and the management of its affairs. Lovers who belong to various creeds, cultures, and civilizations vie for its love and the honour for proving its kinship to their religion and culture.
Many Muslims have followed such a course. They have been claiming the honour of the kinship between democracy and the great approach of Islam. They speak of the “democracy of Islam,” and claim that Islam was the first to follow the system of democracy. They have been repeating that “There is no shortage of terminology. Islam is democracy, and democracy is Islam.” Books and essays have been written on the subject, praising democracy, its gifts, and its blessings. It is described as the faithful and sincere innovator and savior of mankind from the filth of deviation and error, and from the causes of backwardness and corruption.
This dramatic scene, in which democracy is featured under the spotlights of the world stage, reminds one of a previous dramatic scene that featured a former mistress of great beauty and charm. Intellectual, political, economic, and social circles were all fascinated by her and fell in love with her in the 1950s and 1960s. Her name was socialism. The finest poetry was composed and the most eloquent prose written to sing her charms, alluring beauty, and the elegance of her bright red dresses. All intellectual writers contributed to this: left, center, and some right. The crowd was not without some Islam advocates who fell head over heels in love with this Eastern beauty and were, probably, her most devoted and passionate lovers and the most jealous about her lineage. Some of them were quick to adopt her and claim exclusive right to her lineage. They wrote about the socialism of Islam. Even the famous Arab singer Um Kulthoom chanted, “You are the leader of socialists,” expressing pride that the Prophet and Messenger of Islam, our master Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, is the leader of all socialists on earth. Days passed, and the beauty grew old. Her figure was bent, her charm wilted, and her dresses were worn out. Then the idol fell down and the star faded. The poets and prose writers retracted what they had written and were dumbfounded.
Of course I am not recalling this case to gloat over what happened. Not at all. I am not one who gloats over the misfortunes of others, and this has never been one of my traits. In my book Islam and the World Order, I wrote that I was pained and saddened by the fall of the Soviet Union, in spite the complete difference between its thought and ideology and mine, and by the absence of an empire that had made significant contribution to the current structure of civilization. I wished that civilization would correct its course and reconsider the approach of its culture and civilization, so that it might be in harmony with human nature and its spiritual and affective elements. It collapsed, was fragmented, and lost all its energy because it ignored the individual’s inner world: his spirit and affection. This fact is expressed by the well-known former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in his famous book Perestroika, who tried in the lost time to save the staggering Soviet Union, but it was too late. He says, “Our main mission today is to enhance the individual’s morale, respect his inner world, and give him moral power. We are striving to make the intellectual abilities and all the cultural potential of society combine to create a socially-active, spiritually-rich, straightforward, conscientious individual.”
No, I am not gloating when I recall the case of the socialist mistress after her prime had faded and her lovers felt embarrassed. I mention here my sad feelings at the collapse of the Soviet Union, in spite of differences in ideology and culture, to emphasize that I have no tendency to gloat over this or anything else. I believe that in his approach, conduct, and culture, a Muslim should always be on the side of construction and of the rationalization and improvement of every act of civilization, rather than the side of destruction, ruin, and removal of others. Ultimately, a civilization remains a part of the human heritage. It remains a human interest and gain. When it strays, it should be rationalized, corrected, and developed.
I also m recall the story of socialism and its lovers in order to say to the lovers of democracy today, “Slow down, gentleman. Be moderate in loving your beloved, who may one day turn into your enemy, and be moderate in hating your enemy, who may one day turn into your beloved. I do not here equate socialism and democracy; the difference between them, without doubt, is not small. What I am saying is that as socialism, hideous as it was, was not devoid of positive points, democracy, in spite of the good that it has, is not devoid of negative and sour points.
One day, I had a conversation with His Excellency, Mr. Loren Craner , assistant to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was accompanied by a large delegation composed of:
1. His Excellency Mr. Robert Jordan, former U.S. Ambassador in Riyadh;
2. Her Excellency Mrs. Gina Abercrombie-Win Stanley, U.S. Consul General in Jeddah;
3. Her Excellency Mrs. Elizabeth Dugan, Chief Advisor for Democratic Affairs at the U.S. State Department;
4. His Excellency Mr. Michael E. Parmly, Special Advisor to the Assistant Secretary;
5. Her Excellency Mrs. Joanna Levisohn, a U.S. State Department official;
6. His Excellency Mr. Don Brown, Officer of Political Affairs, U.S. Consulate in Jeddah; and
7. Her Excellency Mrs. Sallma Wabber r, Assistant Officer of Political affairs and Protocol.
The meeting, with the whole delegation attending, was held in Jeddah 11:00 a.m. on Monday, 11 Jumada I, 1424 A.H. / 21 July, 2003 A.D. and was concluded at 1:00 p.m. After greetings and expression of courtesy, the Head of the delegation, Mr. Craner, asked me, “What is the relationship between Islam and democracy as you see it ?
I said, “There is something wrong with such a direct comparison between Islam and democracy?”
“What is wrong?” he asked.
I said, “(1) Islam, as everyone knows, is a comprehensive system that has an overall vision of the universe and life, while (2) democracy is part of liberalism, and the latter is also an all-inclusive system that has its own philosophy of the universe and life. On that basis, it is not fair to compare part of a system with another system. The concepts of a part cannot be sufficiently clear except through its position within the web of the system to which it belongs. Therefore, a comparison of this sort, which is common among many Muslim intellectuals, is wrong and harmful to items, Islam and democracy. That is what is wrong, and that is the reason to consider a direct comparison between them a common mistake.”
He said, “What do you consider to be a correct comparison?”
“The comparison would be right,” I said, “if it is made between Islam and liberalism, since both of them are comprehensive systems in their outlook and values. It would also be a correct comparison if it is made between corresponding parts of the two systems.”
He asked, “What part of Islam corresponds to democracy in the system of liberalism?”
I said, “This is a sound and objective question. But before I answer you, let me give you an outline of the way I understand liberalism. If you find it acceptable, I can then answer your important question.”
He welcomed the idea, and I said, “In my modest understanding, liberalism consists briefly of (1) its own view of the universe and life; (2) a legislative authority that is given entirely to the people; (3) a social contract, which is a contract of performance, called democracy; and (4) a system and mechanism for implementation, which is done through the parliament institution. Is this understanding correct and acceptable to you?”
“It is very acceptable,” he said. “I can even say that many liberals would probably fail to present liberalism in such a ‘skillful synopsis’.” That is the description he used.
I said, “Let me, likewise, sum up the system of Islam as I understand it.”
“That will be a pleasure,” he said. “I need to understand what the system of Islam is.”
I said, “The system of Islam, also briefly consists of (1) an integrated comprehensive view of the universe and life; (2) a legislative authority that Islam makes all its basics, with no exception, in the hands of God, the Most Sublime, and his Messenger, and next to them in the hands of legislators, who are knowledgeable and specialized people who deduce, and legislate in the various fields of life, within the basic principles and general objectives of Islamic Law; (3) a social contract, which is a contract of performance, dominated and controlled by a contract of faith with God, the Most Sublime, which is called pledged allegiance; and (4) a system and mechanisms for implementation, which is done through the Shura (advisory) institution. Is this way of explaining clear to you, or do you need further details?”
He said, “It is clear, and thank you for this concise summary.”
I started to say, “Now I can answer your question.…”
But he interrupted me, saying, “It is clear that what corresponds to democracy from your point of view is pledged allegiance.”
“Yes,” said I. “Because both pledged allegiance and democracy are social contracts. Here I can say that your and our performance contracts agree to the extent of as much as 80%
With astonishment, he asked “Is that true?”
I said, “Yes, and this is not mere Arab generosity.”
“But what is the cause of the 20% difference between the contracts?” he asked.
I replied, “It is there because of the contract of faith, which you ignore in your social contract, while we still hold to it. We firmly believe that it is the basic and most important contract in our lives. We insist on retaining it and adhering to it, because it is the foundation for rationalizing and controlling the soundness of our social and civilization-related performance. There is another reason for the difference between your and our social performance contract, and it relates to distinctive cultural characteristics.”
He said, “Then the common ground between us is great?”
I said, “Yes.”
He asked, “Why is there this flaw in our relations?”
I said:
For several reasons, and they include:
1. Deficient knowledge of the followers of the two cultures.
2. Misunderstanding or lack of understanding among a large sector of your and our cultural circles of the meaning of pledged allegiance and of democracy.
3. The failure to give a concrete form to the common ground and the shared goal of pledged allegiance and democracy.
4. Faulty performance in practicing both pledged allegiance and democracy in most of your and our communities.
5. The growth of the tendency in your culture to do without the other, because many of you believe that you have reached the pinnacle of intellectual and civilization-related creativity, so you have no need for the values and virtues the other has. Meanwhile, you believe that it is the other that needs you and your culture. Hence, the idea of the end of history developed in your culture. Of course, to many of you, you are the end of history and the ceiling of human creativity. Your approach to and model of civilization is the best possible one, you believe.
6. In juxtaposition to that, some people on our side have the tendency to reject the other and unwillingness to deal with him. This is a tendency that, I assure you, is wrong and conflicts with the origin and orientation of the Islamic approach.
7. Poor performance in international politics on your part in your capacity as the most active party in the international arena. I do not exonerate ourselves from contributing to some degree, one way or the other, to this malfunction in international politics.
A long conversation followed, and we went into very specific details, which I do not have to go into here, but I will mention the most important points.
Mr. Parmly, the Special Advisor of Mr. Wren asked, “But how is pledged allegiance implemented?”
I said, “The Islamic system does not define a formula of implementation. It is left for the nation to determine it by mutual consent according to time and place. Islam, after all, stresses principles and goals, and leaves means and mechanisms to be chosen by peoples, according to the dictations of their situations and needs, which change with the change of time and place.”
“But who has the jurisdiction to determine the nation’s choice in this matter?” M. Warren asked.
I replied, “It is the official in charge (the ruler) and influential people (experienced and specialized people).”
He asked, “But who decides who the influential people are?”
“This is an open choice for the official in charge. It can be by recommendation, election, appointment, or some other method, as the conditions and interests of the nation require.”
Mr. Warren asked, “What is meant by influential people?”
“They are,” I said, “specialized people who are qualified to investigate and decide.”
He said, “If you are asked to set a plan and a mechanism to choose specialized people according to current social conditions, what are the most prominent features and steps of such a project?”
I said:
The categories of specialization in any society today are those of various scientific and academic specializations, and those with experience and applied skills. For example, there are politicians, economists, educationists, social scientists, financial experts, businessmen, manufacturers, etc. In my opinion the features of the mechanism can be summed up as follows.
1. The proper qualification for members of each category of specialization would be specified.
2. The number required from each segment would be decided.
3. Each segment would be asked to choose the required number of its members.
4. The whole group of the chosen specialists would form the council of qualified people, or whatever else the council is called.
5. The mechanisms of the council’s performance would be determined in a way that serves public interests.
He said, “What is the name of the institution of qualified people in Islam?”
I said, “The Advisory (Shura) Council or any other council, house, or assembly. Names are not a problem in the Islamic approach. The important thing is how to achieve ends and goals.”
“Are the decisions of the Advisory Council binding for the ruler?” he asked.
I said, “The decisions in the advisory system in Islam are of two types: (1) decisions on matters related to the basic principles of Islamic Law, and these are binding for the whole nation, i.e. to the ruler and the people, and (2) decisions on emerging matters that have room for opinion. With theses, the official in charge, or the ruler, has the right to outweigh one opinion from these and other considered opinions that are available to him through other institutions and higher specialized advisory councils of the state. He also has the right of amendment and postponement in accordance with the dictates of the nation’s higher interests.”
He asked, “What do you mean by the ruler’s right to outweigh?”
“In principle,” I said, “it corresponds to the U.S. president’s right to veto some resolutions of the congress, but with some difference.”
“What is the difference?” he asked.
I said, “There are a cultural difference and a procedural difference. Culturally, I think the expression ‘to outweigh’ is more polite and more respectful of the decision maker. In procedure, the expression implies adherence to and acceptance of the submitted decision, but, in the view of the Muslim ruler, there is something more appropriate for the national interest. ‘More appropriate’ here can mean any of several things: more appropriate in timing, for the location, in performance, in phrasing, etc. While the phrase ‘to veto’ has a connotation of rejection and objection and implies a conclusive procedure. Still, we Arabs say that ‘there is no shortage of terminology.’”
Mrs. Elizabeth Dugan asked, “But why do you insist on continuing the relationship between religion and the state? Does this not obstruct your progress and stimulate non-acceptance of the other?”
I said, “I do understand the background of your question, Madam. You had a great and intricate problem with the Church’s teachings, because they conflicted with the nature of things and with the stimulation of creativity, innovation, development, and progress. This resulted in a state of conflict between your ambitions in life and the inflexible teachings of the Church. We, however, have a problem of a different kind with Islam.”
She asked anxiously, “What is it?”
I said, “Regrettably, we are behind the teachings and encouragements of Islam in this matter. The teachings of Islam repeatedly and insistently encourage learning, creativity, development, and progress in all fields of life, at the level of the earth and the level of stars and planets. The religion of Islam even makes that one of the best offerings and most venerated types of worship. In Islam, worship is of two types: spiritual worship and constructional worship, which is the maintenance of life and harnessing what the universe contains to serve human beings. God’s satisfaction is attained only through a delicate balance between the two types of worship. A Muslim is accountable for any failure in his constructional worship, the same as he is for failure in spiritual worship. This is the reason of our insistence on the continuity of the relationship and inseparability of religion and the state. Does it make any sense for an individual to keep his life separate from what stimulates, urges, and calls upon him to pursue science and scholarship, to acquire skills, to work diligently in the fields of technological creativity, and to climb up to higher positions in all fields of life?
She asked, “Where do women stand on all this?”
I said, “In Islam, man and woman are partners in responsibility on the basis of their equitable complementarity in the fields of life. Certain controls and rules govern this partnership to allow its objectives to be realized in a manner that does not disrupt the nation’s values and the nature of its approach to civilization. The family is the first social institution, in which the formula of equitable complementarity is realized and materialized in the responsibilities of man and woman. In Islam, the family is a basic institution of civic society. In fact, it is the good nucleus of a good society.”
Mr. Crener asked, “What about the reform and change movement?”
I said, “I prefer the expression of ‘restoration and development.’”
“Why?” he asked.
“Because it fits our reality and our approach better,” I said. “Restoration and development is not something new in our life, nor is it an extraordinary case of an emergent situation. It is a permanent principle of religion and approach of legislation. ‘At the beginning of every one hundred years, God sends someone who renews for Muslims the state of their religion.’ Islam is the only system that, in order to encourage research and creativity, rewards a creative researcher, even when he errs. In order to encourage him to go on and improve, the reward is doubled for him if he succeeds.”
I then asked Mr. Crener, “but what about restoration and development in your case?’”
“What do you mean?” he asked back.
I asked, “Is it not time for a reconsideration of your system and means which have been without change or development for several decades? Is it not time for a reconsideration of the philosophy of liberalism itself? Is it not time for a reconsideration of democracy, the parliamentary system, and their methods? Do they not need development, improvement, and adjustment to the new social, political, and moral factors and other new factors of civilization in general on the various regional and international levels?”
He replied, “Undoubtedly these are objective questions that we have to cope with, but do you have specific observations?”
I said jokingly, “The bill is long and needs a long period of time.”
“As for time,” he said, “you are absolutely right. We have several appointments, one after the other. I will not keep it a secret from you that we have decided to cancel some of these because of the benefit we feel we are getting from the conversation with you.”
I said, “Thank you, dear colleague. This is a testimony I am proud of, and I, in turn, am glad and pleased with your questions, which have allowed me to explain what has pleased you to hear.”
He told me, “We have half an hour more with you, so tell us briefly two examples of the observations you have about our system, so we can resume our questions.”
I said:
I have brief points to make, which are:
o You continue to ignore the dimension of religion and values in the content of your social contract, and this, I believe reflects negatively on the performance of your civilization.
o There is an exaggeration, and I can even say going beyond limits, in your principle of freedom of choice, which takes the form of influencing the voter through lengthy election campaigns and the accompanying inducements to win the voter and direct his choice to the benefit of a certain side.
o You have made the votes of voters absolutely equal on matters that are vital to the nation.
He said, “What do you mean?”
I said, “Does it make sense that the vote of your Excellency, not as a human being but rather as a man of distinguished competence and experience, is equal to the vote of an ordinary person with modest competence, and sometimes with no competence at all, in deciding the question of who is best for the nation or deciding some other vital concern of the nation.”
“Do you want us to follow the principle of qualified people?” he asked.
I said:
That is your choice. You may find something even better. The important thing is to reconsider the question.
o The final point is that I recommend a reconsideration of the social permissiveness law that you are known to have, which has flooded the American society with all kinds of crime, as stated by your former Secretary of State James Baker.
He said, “Thank you for your bold remarks, and believe me they will receive attention. What else do you suggest for further acquaintance.”
I said:
I recommend the direct and objective dialogue and exchange of points of view between us to go on, with utmost transparency, truthfulness, and respect, without any devious mediators. Direct acquaintance remains more effective and more capable of allowing people to arrive at sound mutual understanding. We should stay away from erroneous explanations and interpretations, which are most often used by mediators and by biased and mercenary information media. This type of information that is at enmity with our strategic relationship has, unfortunately, a negative role that influences the American public. In my estimation, the area of the common ground we share in regards to objectives is vast, while means and mechanisms have to remain connected to the nature of societies and their various distinctive cultural characteristics. We share together the responsibility of developing and increasing the area of the common ground we share through objective and direct dialogue.”
His Excellency welcomed this idea. We went back after that to the comparison between Islam and liberalism, and pledged allegiance and democracy, which had been interrupted by their above quoted questions. I told the delegation:
If we contemplate the components of both systems, we will easily discover the points of agreement and difference they have. On the other hand, we can discover the common ground they share. This will give us the chance to develop and reinforce the points of agreement and to understand the points of difference in a way to prevent their being a hindrance to the realization of the common interests of followers of the two systems.
After this brief introduction, anyone who wants can make a comparison between the two systems, Islam and liberalism, in general, or between corresponding parts of the two, such as making a comparison between:
· the overall outlooks of the two system towards life and the universe;
· the legislative authorities of both;
· the two systems’ social contracts: pledged allegiance and democracy;
· Shura (the advisory system) and the parliamentary system, which are the legislative and implementation/supervisory institutions of the two systems.
Thus, the comparison would be, in my view, specific and objective.
“Let us make a comparison between pledged allegiance and democracy,” said Mr. Mr. Crener.
I said:
As defined by its own people, democracy is
· the government of the majority,
· a government in which the people have supreme authority, or
· The government of the people by the people.
In light of the cited definitions of democracy, we can conclude that it is a social contract between the people and the ruler, between the people as the source of legislation and the ruler as an executive agent.
Meanwhile, pledged allegiance is the government of people according to the law of God, the Most Sublime, on the basis of the contract of faith. The ruler is empowered by the people to manage and organize the life of people and serve their interests on the basis of God’s Law and the contract between them, which is the constitution or the system of governance.
This means that pledged allegiance is a contract of faith and a social contract, which means it is a compound agreement composed of two contacts:
1. a contract of faith between God, the Most Sublime, and the nation, i.e. the ruler and the people, by which everybody is committed to God’s law, and
2. A contract of performance between the ruler and the people to serve the interests of the nation as defined in both the contract of faith and the charter of this contract between ruler and people, which is the constitution or the system of governance.
By contemplating the notions I have mentioned about democracy and pledged allegiance, it is easy to identify the points of agreement and of difference between them.
v There is no doubt that democracy, in principle, has achieved a great amount of good in the lives of societies that are sincere and serious in their attitude.
v Democracy and pledged allegiance agree on being contracts of performance (the social contract).
v Democracy implements about 80% of pledged allegiance, through the contract of performance.
v Democracy differs from pledged allegiance in that the contract of faith is lacking.
v The absence of the contract of faith in democracy creates the following differences between it and pledged allegiance.
· Democracy is the absolute rule of the people while pledged allegiance is the absolute rule of God through human performance and organization.
· The people is the source of legislation in democracy.
· The source of the principles of legislation in pledged allegiance, however, is God, the Most Glorious, and his Messenger. The nation has the right to interpret, legislate, deduce, and develop the systems and principles it needs to serve its interest as long as they do not differ from the basics of Islamic law.
· The ruler in a democracy is responsible to the people alone.
· The ruler in pledged allegiance is responsible to God, the Most Sublime, and then to the people for applying Islamic Law and implementing the charter of the performance contract. This is carried out through mutual advice and cooperation.
· The relationship between the ruler and the people in a democracy is merely an executive one.
· The relationship between the ruler and the people in pledged allegiance is that of complementarity of responsibilities on a basis of mutual consultation and advice to serve the interests of the nation on the basis of the contract of faith and in accordance with their contract of performance, i.e. the constitution.
· In a democracy, it is the majority that exclusively decides what is right and what is wrong in the nation’s life.
· In pledged allegiance, the principles of Islamic Law are the major arbiter in deciding what is right and what is wrong in the nation’s life. The majority’s opinion is taken and adhered to only in matters that are open to considered opinion on what is closer to the spirit and supreme objectives of the Law. If the majority supports an opinion that is in conflict with the principles of Islamic Law, it is not valid and cannot be accepted.
· There are other differences between democracy and pledged allegiance, but it is not the time to go into them now, since the dialogue has already been very long. I conclude, however, with the following:
v Democracy can be of greater benefit and safer if it adopts and adheres to religious and moral values.
v Therefore, I call on liberal societies to re-evaluate the question of their negligence of the contract of faith and to make an effort to reinforce democracy with divine values and religious and ethical controls. The Glorious Qur’an made this same recommendation over fourteen centuries ago to followers of other religions:
· God, the Most Sublime, says, “If they would observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to them by their Lord, they would be given abundance from above and from beneath. A group of them are on the right course, and many of them follow an evil course” (Al-Maidah V: 66).
· He also says, “Say ‘People of the Book, you achieve nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to you by your Lord’” (Al-Maidah V: 68).
v On the other hand, Muslims need badly, in the majority of their countries, to deal more seriously, sincerely, and objectively with pledged allegiance and its Islamic legal controls. They also need to develop the methods, mechanisms, and skills of the contract of faith in order to achieve greater justice, security, and prosperity for their societies.
For the record, this conversation took two hours without interruption.
By clarifying the relationship between pledged allegiance and democracy, I wanted to clear the ambiguity common to many thinkers about this question, when attempting to establish a relationship between democracy as an imported system and the originality of the Islamic nation’s identity. One person says, “Democracy is social justice.”
Another says that democracy is Islam, “for Islam is democratic.”
A third one claims that democracy is Shura, and “a Shura regime corresponds to a democratic one.”
A fourth settles the question by saying, “The Shura system is democracy.”
Others reply, “No, Islam is not democracy, nor democracy is Shura. Islam is something else. Yet, democracy has its place in Islam, so let us speak of ‘democracy in Islam.’”
A sub-group objects to the argument of their colleagues and says, “Democracy is an Islamic characteristic and objective, so it is better to speak of ‘the democracy of Islam.’”
A group of a different color joins in and says, “Why is all this fuss and all this altercation? Let us forget this controversy on terminology and turn to essence. Since democracy is a working and tried system and has brought benefits to others, let us adopt it, and thus God will spare us the argument.”
Another group answers, “You have to know if the whole package of democracy is adopted; a later step would be commitment to the standards of its cultural roots, moral behavior, and social and civilization-related philosophy. Democracy is not a system carved out of hard stone; it is an approach that belongs to a system and a self-contained philosophy with its own values and standards. A person who wants to take a part of that system and ideology is objectively and practically obliged to take the whole philosophical set. Otherwise he would be subjecting himself to a faulty cloning process that produces a fretful child who makes his parents miserable and increases their unhappiness and sense of failure.
Faced with this seething situation and confused attitude towards democracy, and after considerable reflection, I found that the question is easy to understand and conceive. If one goes to the roots of the liberal system and the cradle of its Greek birth, one can learn about the birth of democracy, as a social contract that organizes the relationship between ruler and subject in order to accomplish the objectives of liberalism and its social philosophy in general. As it is well known, and in very brief words, though I hope not to be distorting, way, liberalism is based on the idea and tendency of glorifying and sanctifying human freedom. The Roman word liber refers to the god of freedom, who is the Roman adaptation of the Greek god Dionysus, who is also the God of fertility (or sex). It seems this is the origin of the philosophy of sexual permissiveness in the liberal system.
Next came the idea of a contract between the ruler and the people to control the waywardness of absolute freedom, which is the spirit and foundation of the philosophy of liberalism. The ruler, after all, is a human being, and if his freedom and whims are not controlled, the subjects and their interests will suffer. With the development of the mechanisms and rules of the notion of absolute freedom, a nice and equitable expression surfaced in Western circles, which is: “Your freedom ends where someone else’s freedom begins.”
Meanwhile, within the framework of the social contract, the principle of the freedom of quarreling, conflict of opinion, and controversy was adopted, and an institution that organized the principle of quarreling and conflict was established and called parliament. The word is derived from the Greek and Latin root parley, which means a dialogue between two foes or enemies. This is the origin of the concept of opposition or the conflict in the parliamentary system. Disagreement, conflict, and quarreling is the origin and the distinctive characteristic of the relationship between parliament members in the proper parliamentary performance, while agreement and harmony are an indication of faulty performance or of regression of the principle of freedom, difference of opinion, and controversy.
Islam, on the other hand, has been upholding from the beginning the principle of controlled freedom and has legislated a set of ethical rules to control and organize that principle. Thus an individual freedom remains under the control of the interests of others’ freedom and of society in general. Islam regards absolute freedom as a rebellion and a violation of controls and of the other’s freedom and interests. Personally, having contemplated the principle of freedom and the mechanisms of its practice at the individual and social levels, I say that absolute freedom is an agent of absolute corruption and peril.
Because Islam is the system of the Lord – Who is all knowing about His creatures, merciful to them, and aware of their affairs – it has set up its system on rules and moral standards that makes it above such contradiction and frivolity that afflict most other systems. The Islamic system establishes foundations for an affective, faithful condition that makes the satisfaction of God, the Most Sublime, the end to which a faithful individual looks forward and a compass that guides his behavior in the fields of life. It has laid foundations to the rule of inseparability and complementarity of the interests of the individual and society. It has espoused the principle of cooperation and mutual advice between the members of society, both rulers and subjects, for the accomplishment of the public interest and the competition to improve and develop it. To achieve these noble and sublime ends, the Islamic system has espoused the principle of Shura (consultation and advice) between the nation’s various organs and groups, so that they may cooperate and compete to achieve the best for everybody. It is on the basis of mutual consultation, advice, and cooperation that the methodology and performance mechanisms of Shura are founded.
Shura and mutual consultation is in fact a process of joint reflection on and study of the opinions and conceptions submitted to the members of the Shura (Advisory) Council in order to arrive at the best way to achieve the common end. That end is the satisfaction of God, the Most Sublime, through the realization of the nation’s interests. With this spirit as the starting point, the tendency for conflict and clash, on which the philosophy of the parliamentary form of the liberal system is based, disappears.
In other, more concise words, Shura is based on mutual advice, while the parliamentary system is based on mutual butting. Shura tends towards mutual tolerance, while the parliamentary system prefers mutual scandalizing. Shura works for the complementarity of gains that serve interests. One of the meaning of the Arabic word Shura is “honey,” and mutual consultation, therefore, requires mutual usage of sweet and refined language, rather than insults and obscenities, as is, regrettably, witnessed in the parliamentary arenas of the democratic system. Probably, dear reader, you have heard what millions of other people have: a president of the United States of America saying that his dog so-and-so understands politics better than a certain person that he named.
In spite of these differences between the two systems, however, I believe that respect for distinctive religious and cultural characteristics, as well as objectivity and transparency, make it necessary for followers of the two systems or contracts of democracy and pledged allegiance to explore the horizons of common understanding and constructive cooperation. Such exploration would serve their common interests and promote the equitable and secure coexistence of societies, within a framework of mutual respect and without any violation of the political and cultural homeland sovereignty and any intervention in the distinctive characteristics of the civilization of each nation.
One last word that has to be said is the emphasis that the system of Islam is based in all its aspects on the contract principle. Making contracts is the essence and characteristic of that system. Belief in God is one king of contract.
… And called them to bear witness about themselves. “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes …” (Al-A’raaf VII: 172).
Belief in the message of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and what he has brought from his Lord has a contract basis.
Those who pledge allegiance to you, pledge allegiance to God. God’s hand is above theirs (Al-Fattah XLVIII: 10).
Marriage is a contract.
How can you take it away when each of you has been privy with the other, and they have received from you a firm pledge? (Al-Nisaa IV: 21).
Selling and buying is done through contract, and all other relationships that manage the life affairs of individuals and groups are based on contracts.
Do not be averse to writing it down, be it small or great, together with the time when it becomes due; that is more equitable in the sight of God, lends greater credence to the testimony, and is more likely to spare you any doubt. (Al-Baqarah II: 282).
Islam emphasizes that contracts and covenants should be respected and adhered to.
Believers fulfill your contract obligations (Al-Maidah V: 1).
A contract is a charter of consent by the parties involved, whether individuals, groups, communities, or countries. Acceptance, mutual consent, and concluding a contract expressing that is the pinnacle of justice and mutual respect. It is also a source of reassurance and stability, and it dispels doubt and suspicion, and safeguards against forgetfulness. It guarantees rights and it is more equitable and fair for people.
Finally, such a system – with such a method of appealing to the affection of its followers, and such approach, mechanisms, rules, behavioral patterns, and the orientation of all its objectives; which is based on mutual consent and on contracts, not as a matter of interest only, but also of religiousness, worship, and seeking God’s satisfaction; and which uses all this as a basis to organize the lives of people – is certainly worthy of being followed. It is worthy of having the human race learn about its justice and charity. A nation that believes in this system and the Lord of this system, yet gets lax when it comes to implementation of its values, principles, and controls in its life, and fails, through the way it conducts its life, to inform other people about it and to follow a wise approach of introducing it to others—such a nation undoubtedly wrongs itself and the people around it. It deprives its generations and those of the whole human race of the justice and straight course of its Lord. God, we have been gravely unjust to ourselves. God, accept our repentance, forgive us, and guide us to Your ways, the ways of uprightness.
Prof. Dr. Hamid bin Ahmad Al-Rifaie
President, International Islamic Forum For Dialogue
Assistant Secretary General, Muslim World League
From His Book (Partners … not Guardians) Part Four / Chapter Fifteen
President, International Islamic Forum For Dialogue -
Assistant Secretary General, Muslim World League
www.dialogueonline.org
Democracy in the Middle East: Why this is a frightening prospect for its rulers
It’s no secret that today the Middle East lacks the democratic political past, high literacy rates and high standards of living to claim democracy as its main political system. The political and economic reforms that occurred in Central and Eastern Europe or in East Asia and stimulated democratic change cannot be compared to the authoritarian Arab leaders in the majority of the Arab countries. Besides, the Arab nations have been persistently resistant to economic modernization and democratization, a concept that has been known as ‘Arab exceptionalism’. Also, by being fundamentally religious rather than secular states, Arab nations believe in individual choice as promoted by Islamic fundamentalism.
Many Arabs in the Middle East are dissatisfied with their autocratic leaders who had promised heaven but delivered filth and tyranny. And possibly this demonstrates that democratic governance in the eyes of lay people in the Middle East is a possibility that has nothing to do with their Arab and Islamic culture. Like their counterparts elsewhere, Arabs have strived for liberating themselves from political totalitarianism, for the most part unsuccessfully because their powerful dictators were supported by the West. Yet, the lay people in Iraq viewed the US troops as liberators from the oppressive ruling of Saddam and his autocracy.
Indeed, Islam complicates democracy. Even after its defective elections, Iran, a long-standing theocracy, demonstrates an extraordinary democratic vigor. Some of the toughest Arab elections have been held by Palestinians under Israeli ruling and by Iraqis after the US invasion. So, in a way, Islam has allowed democracy to its territories. On the other hand, Arab leaders hold on to their power through a distrustful combination of bullying and intimidation. Occasionally, they allow hollow parties organize counterfeit elections, which then return them to power. When they are given the chance to participate in genuine elections, they know what is at stake and what is going to be possibly split between Islamist movements and secular movements that are scared of Islam. Most of the cosmetic reforms that were made under the ‘freedom agenda’ of Bush administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks have been rolled back. So, in a way, Islam chooses when to prevent and when to allow democracy.
One of the most common obstacles in democratic transformation in the Middle East is religious freedom. Islam emphasizes that people are free to choose to believe or not. Muslim history documented many debates in mosques about the existence of God, particularly in the first three centuries. Besides, Qur’an emphasizes on justice and consultation (shura). According to many political analysts, in the absence of clear institutions to identify how consultation should take place in the Muslim culture, many Arabs failed to interpret the message. Hence, the interpretation of some elements of Islam as liberal is rather unfortunate.
Another element that should be taken into consideration is the fact that in many Arab countries regimes are quite permanent. Hosni Mubarak is the President of Egypt over the last 28 years; Muammar al-Gaddafi is the de facto leader of Libya since 1969; Hafez Assad was the President of Syria for 30 years. After his death, his son Bashar rose to power. After the failure of Bush administration to promote democracy, president Obama promotes respect in his talks with the Arab world. No matter what that means to the Muslims, democracy is a long shot for the Arab nations because Arab leaders won’t be able to control the masses like they do now.
For the Arab world, democracy implies education, institutions, free press and tolerance. Like in the Western countries, in the Arab nations, women are becoming educated, fertility declines, businessmen participate in the economy and the media have shifted from the state-run media to the revolution of the satellite television that forces leaders to explain and justify and explain themselves in public. All this transformation is not enough to cause a big change and it’s definitely not welcome from the rulers. However, it creates an agitation that alters the setting of corruption and totalitarianism of the old Arab governments.
In reality, it appears that the Arabs want to maintain the status quo because a free media that will awake the Arab people to the brutality of the regional governments won’t be to the best national interests of the Arab nations.
I work as a financial and investment advisor but my passion is writing, music and photography. Writing mostly about finance, business and music, being an amateur photographer and a professional dj, I am inspired from life.
Being a strong advocate of simplicity in life, I love my family, my partner and all the people that have stood by me with or without knowing. And I hope that someday, human nature will cease to be greedy and demanding realizing that the more we have the more we want and the more we satisfy our needs the more needs we create. And this is so needless after all.
Blank State – The Future of World Democracy?
A new project that aims to create a global democracy from scratch has settled on its first goal: to gather at least one member from every country in the world. Blank State, as the group is known, has been founded on a single core principle: democracy. The members collectively decide the goals and structure of the group through discussion and voting. Membership is free and open to all world citizens.
According to the founder, Duncan Rickelton, a democratic structure to represent the people of the world is long overdue: “The people of the world currently do not have a voice. The massive forces at play in today’s global economy are touching more and more lives and determining the future of the planet and the human race. It’s time the race as a whole had more of a say in how this goes.”
Only with fairly recent developments in technology has something like Blank State become possible. Over 23 percent of the world’s population now have internet access, representing an increase of 350 percent since 2000. Also, the popularisation of web 2.0 applications such as embeddable voting widgets is now making it easier than ever to collectivise the decision-making process of large organizations. Blank State is based in a social network (http://blankstate.ning.com) built on the Ning.com platform, which was itself only founded in 2005.
There are already members from eight different countries, but Blank State wants to go much further. The group recently decided to make it their first goal to get at least one member from every country in the world. “This will be our first step towards fair representation,” says Rickelton. “Once we’ve achieved that we’ll see where everyone wants to take this.”
Despite the growth in internet use, engaging a member in every country could be quite a challenge. In Myanmar, for example, still only 0.1 percent of the population has access. But the members of Blank State are undeterred. A message has already been posted in a Myanmar forum – there is still an internet audience of 40,000 people to reach.
A notable inclusion in the list of 195 target countries is the Vatican City. There is as yet no word as to whether the Pope will be invited to join, but with such an inclusive membership policy there is little doubt that he would be welcome.
For additional information about Blank State visit http://blankstate.ning.com
Might Narcissists in Powerful Positions Destroy Our Democracy Intentionally?
Today, I suspect the founding fathers of this country must be rolling in their graves. For years, we have talked about the wonderful system they put into place, especially because of all of its checks and balances.
I suppose this presented an irresistible challenge to some suffering from pathological levels of narcissism, however. Could the greatest democracy in the world withstand the tinkering of brilliant men like them?
Yes, this was probably a challenge simply too good to resist.
The honorable men who were our founding fathers undoubtedly wanted to believe that only honorable men would lead this country in future times, too. Obviously, though, they weren’t naïve about human nature, especially the nature of the narcissistic, or those men who would be Kings.
Why Are Our Companies Supporting Countries That Do Not Support Democracy?
I believe that it is time for our companies to stop making all our basic products over seas where people are being used for cheap labor to support economies that do not support democracy for all people. I think that our companies are taking advantage of cheap over seas labor to make more profit then they should off of products that should be made here at home. I believe that this practice by our companies is making our need for supplies from other countries more then it should be. I think that it is time for people to start rebuilding our own economy first. I think that buy investing in our economy here at home again for our basic needs will create more jobs for people that are not working in our country.
I believe that companies have to support democracy in our country by making our products here at home again. I believe that making so much of our countries basic products over seas is just taking money and jobs that are needed out of our country. This will just weaken our economy it will give money to countries that abuse their labor force. I believe that our country is not only weaken by this our companies are supporting countries that do not support democracy.
I think that companies that sell their products here should make their products here at home where our own people can prosper from all these sales. Why are our home based companies going to start supporting democracy for all people. I know when one child or person works for less then a fair wage democracy takes two steps backwards. Supporting unfair labor over seas will just make democracy that much harder to support. How can our country preach democracy to other countries when our home based companies abuse their labor force to line the pockets of their government and our own companies.
Globalization -The Death Of Democracy
If you truly believe in democracy, you can forget globalization. Even by definition, the two are incompatible. Globalization implies sameness; equal rules and laws concerning capital and investment right across the board. So, if a country wants to join the “global community”, they have to adopt the rules and laws of that community. And the price of not doing so is stagnation, and a slow, or not so slow, economic death. At risk is a share of a multi-trillion dollar investment capital monster roaming the world looking for short term opportunity.
Unfortunately, this investment pool is faceless, anonymous, and conscienceless, largely interested in profit and profit alone. You can forget considerations such as environmental impact, well-being of the employees, or any kind of benevolence towards man or government. There are exceptions, of course, but the little fish with big consciences are soon swallowed up by the big fish with little consciences. For the most part, the “bottom line” rules this global investment world.
Under globalization, the money migrates towards cheap labor, low taxes, and a non-interfering government bureaucracy. That’s why many of “our” factories and jobs that were once ours now exist in places like China and Mexico. This is a trend that is sure to intensify as the “globalists” gain more and more power and control; and more and more governments step into line with the globalists’ agenda.
Who are they? They may be people like you and I, who have somehow succeeded against the odds to acquire a sizeable investment portfolio. However, the small investors do not make the kind of decisions that affect whole nations or peoples. The small guys just ride whatever wave is available as a hot stock investment, and simply don’t bother to look at the small print to find out what social or environmental impact this or that company is making on the host country.
The really big money comes from a very specific source. It is virtually unlimited, and until now virtually unchallenged by government, economist, or academic.
The world money supply grows at over 7% per year. All of this new money is issued into circulation by the private banking consortium and “sold” to government or private entities as interest-bearing debt. This money is created by the banks out of thin air using the assets we release to them as security. This means that the individuals who control the banking system behind the scenes have access to an almost unlimited money tree. Each year, trillions of dollars worth of new debt is added to their coffers, trillions of dollars of old debt is paid off (effectively “laundering” this money), and trillions of dollars worth of the world’s finest assets are purchased by them. I speak here of the controlling interests in all the major multi-nationals including armaments manufacturers, the airline industry, mining, forestry, pulp and paper, medicine, pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs, transportation, energy, petro-chemical, and especially the media. And a whole lot of lesser businesses are bought up by cyber-spaced investors at prices neither you nor I can compete with.
By controlling these important industries, the purchasing owners can indirectly control government policies via investment negotiations and threats to relocate elsewhere. And in most cases, individual governments are forced to give in to the globalists’ demands. Their monetary influence even includes the institutions of education wherein significant endowments (with strings attached) are gifted to many universities and other institutions of higher learning, in order to “teach” the bankers’ own economic “truths”.
And through ownership and control of the media, they ensure that no one “blows the whistle” on their clever monopoly.
Consequently, it is easily seen that the steering wheel of globalism and the new world order (politics) is guided by the same people who control the throttle (the money supply). Globalism is the hallmark (and the trademark) of the banking conspiracy in the issue of new money.
All that remains is to define the fuel that drives this conscienceless vehicle of power and control. If we can shut off the fuel supply, perhaps we can regain our sovereignty and our freedoms.
The important question is, “Why do so many people borrow and owe so much?” If individuals did not borrow from the banks, there would be no banking power center.
In most countries, taxation of one kind or another deprives the citizenry of more than 75% of their productive energy. These taxes take many forms: sales tax, income tax, withholding tax, estate duty, stamp duty, import duty, export duty, city tax, county tax, state tax, federal tax, excise tax, liquor tax, tobacco tax, and probably a whole lot more. What is not widely known is that many of these taxes are cumulative towards the cost of finishing a product. Wage taxes and compounding interest costs, for example, are continually added on to a product cost all through the production cycle. Many items that we purchase then hold a “hidden tax” component equal to upwards of 50% of the total cost. This is in addition to the many obvious taxes we pay.
In short, once we part with 75% of our earnings through these various taxes, we are left with no choice but to borrow replacement money from the banks. In other words, the only reason we need borrow anything at all is because government has stolen an equivalent amount from us!
I have studied modern taxation for many years, and I have found that there is absolutely no link whatsoever between a government’s ability to supply services, and the amount of taxation that the given government receives. These two figures are absolutely independent of each other! In fact, the higher the general rate of taxation, the less able government is to supply core services! Taxes actually destroy government services; or force the acquisition of those services at the expense of other important national resources!
It can therefore be seen that it is taxes, and taxes alone, that are responsible for the current plunge towards globalization, one world government, the loss of national autonomy, and a continuing trend towards personal debt and wage slavery.
Should any government recognize this curse and take upon itself the creation and issue of new interest-free money by which to fund their services, a new era of prosperity, peace, and abundance would result. Inspired creativity would blossom worldwide, and friendship, mutual respect, and enlightened co-operation might easily replace the current atmosphere of fear, covetousness, and insatiable greed as manifested in the modern movement towards globalization.
International conflicts such as 9-11 and the war against “terror” pave the globalists’ road with gold. Warfare means more taxes, more debt created, more bombs manufactured, and a whole new profit/power center for those bankers driving globalization! Isn’t it time to get off the global bus?
World Democracy Now