Muslim Heretics Conference

January 27, 2009

Neocons Won’t Quit While They’re Behind

Posted by Christopher Manion at January 27, 2009 10:10 AM

Kristol is canned, but Dennis Prager persists, insisting that …. well, let him say it:

“I could largely assent to the proposition that terror is the new communism. Communism was an enslaving and murderous threat in its time and the Jihadism is such a threat in our lifetime.”

Well, sometimes smart people do give the impression duty requires them to condescend to the intellectual level of the dumb public, but Prager just never seems capable of rising above it.

Lenin (Note to Prager: a communist) said that “the purpose of terror is to terrorize.” It is a tactic. It can serve the lust for power or get you a radio show or clear a bar full of hoods. Terror can serve the ideologue, but it is not the ideology. The communist ideology is a roadmap for the acquisition, maintaining, and maximizing of power, pure and simple. Terror plays only a part. Just ask George Orwell.

Saddam used terror to rule Iraq. He did not threaten the United States. Osama does not want to occupy the United States. He wants to ruin us so we can no longer afford to occupy the Middle East. He designed 9-11 to bankrupt us. He spent $500,000. We spent trillions, and we are bankrupt.

Prager’s problem is fear — his own: he and his neocon allies don’t have the courage to say that Islam or Arabs or Persians or Pashtuns are the enemy of the West. Those assertions can be discussed, debated, and, very possibly, refuted. No, it’s “Jihadism,” or “Islamicism,” or “Islamofascism,” or (GWB) simply “extremism.”

This vocabulary is inadequate. It is always undefined, because it is undefinable. The label is intentionally left empty, so the propagandist can fill it up with whatever fear tactic (yes, that door swings both ways) will work today. It is the neocon’s version of Lenin’s dialectic. But to what end do they wield it?

The neocons want “terror” to be the “new communism” because, fifty years ago, America, including both major political parties, was by and large united behind the battle against the menace of “godless communism.” Since 2001, neocons have longed for that unity (and for power over it, of course) so they can rule. Instead, they have left our country in ruins and they are sitting by the side of the road. They have brought not Islam, or Arabs, or Persians, or Pashtuns, but America to its knees.

Heckuva job, Pragie!

Here are the relevant cites:

For us there do not, and cannot, exist the old systems of morality and ‘humanity’ invented by the bourgeoisie for the purpose of exploiting and oppressing the ‘lower classes’. Our morality is new, for it rests on the bright idea of destroying all oppression and coercion. To us, everything is permitted, for we are the first in the world to raise the sword in the name of freeing everybody from bondage. Blood? Let there be blood if it alone will save us from the return of the old jackals.

(From an article by Lenin in The Red Sword, a weekly magazine of the Cheka (secret police), 1919)

“It means neither more nor less than unlimited power, resting directly on force, not limited by anything. Nothing else but that.”

(From “A Contribution to the History of the Question of the Dictatorship”)

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power….Power is not a means, it is an end.

(O’Brien, in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love: George Orwell, 1984, Book III, Chapter 3)

LewRockwell.com Blog: Neocons Won’t Quit While They’re Behind

Anne Barrowclough in Sydney

Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called on a Muslim cleric to apologise for comments in which he condoned marital rape and advised men to ’shape up’ their wives by beating them.

In a lecture on marriage, Samir Abu Hamza told his male audience that they were allowed to force their wives into sex and hit them if they were disobedient, as long as they didn’t draw blood.

Mr Hamza, a self styled cleric with no formal training in Islam also ridiculed the law that prohibits rape within marriage.

“Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?” he asked.

His comments were made during a lecture in Sydney in 2003 but emerged today after they appeared in a video posted on the internet. In his lecture, entitled “The Keys to a Successful Marriage”, Mr Samir argued that Islamic law allowed men to use force to punish a disobedient wife, as long as they did not cause bruising or bleeding.

He added that if a husband demanded sex, his wife must respond immediately, even if she was in the middle of chores.

“If the husband was to ask her for a sexual relationship and she is preparing the bread on the stove she must leave it and come and respond to her husband,” he says in the sermon.

“In this country if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to and she hasn’t got a sickness or whatever, there is nothing wrong with her she just does not feel like it, and he ends up sleeping with her by force . . . it is known to be as rape,” he adds. “Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?”

Telling his listeners that Islam allows them to hit their wives, he says: “After you have advised them for a long, long time, then you smack them, you beat them and - please brothers, calm down - the beating that the Muhammad showed is like the toothbrush that you use to brush your teeth.

“You are not allowed to bruise them; you are not allowed to make them bleed. You don’t go and grab a broomstick and say that is what Allah has said.”

He adds: “This is just to shape them up, shape up women - that is about it.”

Mr Rudd condemned Mr Hamza’s comments today, saying violence against women was permissible “under no circumstances.”

“Australia will not tolerate these sort of remarks,” the Prime Minister told reporters. “They don’t belong in modern Australia, and he should stand up, repudiate them, and apologize.”

His call for an apology was echoed by Muslim leaders in Australia, who expressed their concern that impressionable young male Moslems would watch Mr Hamza’s video and be influenced by it.

Sherene Hassan, the vice president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, told The Times; “I am surprised he has not already appologised. He should repudiate those comments. The ICV unequivocally denounces violence against women and the moslems I have spoken to are mortified by what he has said.”

However, she said that research showed some imams in Australia shared Mr Hamza’s views. “That is the message some imams are giving in their sermons,” she said, adding that the council was holding workshops aimed at changing those views. “What is of most concern now is how many young male Moslems are watching that video and are learning from it?” she said.

Tasneem Chopra, the chairperson of the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria said she was disappointed but not surprised by the comments. “Violence within our community is an issue, ” she said. “Most imams here believe that violence is not acceptable but it’s not always a narrative that comes through in their sermons. We are now engaging in dialogue with community leaders to dismantle the issue. It is a mindset that we have to change.”

Mr Hamza, who works with troubled Moslem youths at the Islamic Information and Services Network of Australasia in Melbourne, could not be contacted for comment on his lecture. But he told the Herald Sun newspaper that he stood by his comments.

He said if a Muslim wife disobeyed her husband, she could be subjected to moderate physical punishment.

Mr Hamza also reiterated his belief that women should submit to sex when husbands required it and added that both women and men should be able to demand and receive sex.

There are only around 400,000 Muslims living in Australia, making up just 2 percent of the population, but tensions between them and the wider Australian community have occasionally exploded into violence.

In 2005 what started as an argument over bikini clad girls between Moslem and local youths in Cronulla, an ocean suburb in Sydney escalated into days of riots. In 2006 Australia’s former mufti, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, created a furore which split the Islamic community when he compared women who do not wear head scarves to “uncovered meat” and said immodestly dressed women invited rape.

However Riaz Hassan, professor of sociology at Flinders Univesity in Adelaide and the author of the book ‘Inside Moslem Minds’ was optimistic that Mr Hamza’s comments would not ignite tensions within the community.

“My view is that the community at large is too intelligent to take these comments as anything other than a regrettable statement,” he told The Times.

Tensions between the communities were more to do with social divisions than religious differences, he said. While there was a higher proportion of university graduates among the Moslem community than the wider Australian population, unemployment among Muslims stood at 26%, twice the national average.

“As long as those differences in equality remain we will have tension,” he said. “but I don’t believe that religion itself is a source of tension.”

Kevin Rudd condemns Muslim cleric for ‘beat your wife’ advice - Times Online

The Advocate

By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin

Published: Thursday, January 22, 2009

The United States, Britain, and much of the West is slowly surrendering its right to freedom of speech in the face of threats of violence from Islam and in the face of a systematic campaign to demonize and even criminalize any criticism of Islam, Islamofascism, Islam Jihadism and all the rest.
This process is well along the way, and that’s why it has been so well described in Robert Spencer’s book Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs. Here’s one good example. You remember the violence set off by the publication of those Danish cartoons that some Muslims found objectionable. What happened when newspapers were called upon to reprint them, so the public could understand what was going on and why people were being killed by the Muslims rioting in protest? Here is a perfect test of speech, but nearly all papers refused to republish them, and that includes newspapers in the U.S. and Britain. Freedom of speech means nothing if people are afraid to exercise their rights.
Mr. Spencer says this proves violence works. But it also is just one of many examples of how we have started surrendering our right to free speech to the Muslim extremists. When we surrender our most basic and important right, you can be sure we are well on the path of total surrender. We better understand what’s going on, and do something to reverse our course toward Dhimmihood, what the Muslims call the status of infidels in their midst forced to live as second-class citizens.
This column will take a more systematic look at the campaign to destroy free speech waged by various Muslim groups. It is based on Mr. Spencer’s important volume Stealth Jihad. He starts with a description of the attempts made before international bodies to criminalize critical discussions of Islam.

This criminalization of criticism of Islam was part of an international agenda agreed upon at a March 2008 meeting in Senegal convened by the world’s most powerful Islamic organization, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). At that conference, the plan to defend Islam had nothing to do with putting down the terrorists, who as we are told, have tried to “hijack” the religion. Instead, the OIC agreed to craft a legal instrument to fight against the threat to Islam claimed to be coming from “political cartoonists and bigots.” In other words, the OIC wants freedom of speech to have one exception: It should not apply to criticism of Islam.
The OIC adopted a strategy to criminalize criticism of Islam. They used euphemisms to perfume their intent to restrict freedom of speech.  The chairman of the OIC put it this way, “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”
The OIC campaign to destroy free speech started when a short film by Dutch MP Gert Wilders, titled “Fitna,” appeared on the Internet. It connected incidents of Muslim violence to violent passages in the Quran.
The OIC immediately condemned the film in the strongest possible terms claiming it was  “a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims” and was intended to “provoke unrest and intolerance.” Iran, Pakistan, and other Muslim states condemned the film, and the OIC filed a formal complaint with the European Union (EU) and with the Dutch Ambassador to Islamabad.
Even non-Muslim leaders condemned the film, many from the United Nations, the corrupt international body that favors nations violating human rights, rather than those nations standing for human rights. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the film “offensively anti-Islamic” and regurgitated OIC arguments: “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.”
The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, came down squarely in favor of restricting free speech. She urged the U.N. to “offer strong protective measures to all forms of freedom of expression, while at the same time enacting appropriate restrictions, as necessary, to protect the rights of others.” Translated, the “rights of others” mean the rights of Muslims not to be offended.
If that’s not enough, the U.N. soon began enforcing speech restrictions in some of its deliberations. The first victory for the destroyers of free speech came before the U.N. Human Rights Council. The Council President Doru-Romulus Costas found that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense …. This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.”
This decision is more shocking when put into context. Mr. Spencer writes, “The ban came after a heated session in which David G. Littman, speaking for several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), denounced the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), execution by stoning, and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law.”
Mr. Littman was immediately interrupted over a dozen times by representatives of Egypt, Pakistan and Iran, finally forcing the session to be suspended. When the session was resumed, after much discussion the ruling held. Criticism of Islam was banned, and that’s criticism of every kind — valid or invalid.
That, of course, wasn’t good enough. The next step came when the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, called on all governments to outlaw “defamation of religion,” which is a euphemism for outlawing blasphemy of Islam. Mr. Spencer says this campaign is picking up speed, which means religion will be off limits for discussion as will be any investigation of Islamic violence and the jihadist agenda.
Mr. Spencer sees this trend as ending with the destruction of both the right to free speech and the right of religious freedom. He writes,
“One would have never thought that Westerners would give up free speech of their own accord, but we are now in the process of carving out a major exception for Islam. Yet the freedom to criticize religion, of course, is the very cornerstone of the right to free expression. Once we surrender that right, can the surrender of freedom of religion be far behind.”
To further their campaign to kill free speech, none of these Muslim countries threaten violence. That’s in part because they don’t have to. They know if anything is published that offends Muslims you can expect international riots, violence, protests, and even murder. The publication of the Danish cartoons started this campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam.
You can see some of the diseased thinking of the Muslim free-speech killers by the way the protest over the Danish cartoons unfolded.  Mr. Spencer illustrates with a recent suicide attack against the Danish Embassy in Pakistan that killed six people. After the attack, Pakistan’s ambassador to Denmark spoke to the Danish people:
“It isn’t just the people of Pakistan that feel they have been harassed by what your newspaper has begun. I’d like to know if your newspaper is satisfied with what it has done and what it has unleashed. Danes know that they have insulted people around the world by printing and reprinting the Mohammed cartoons, which were done in poor taste.”
Consider the nature of the diseased thinking. Jihadist terrorists and thugs from Pakistan murder six people at the Danish embassy. But the Pakistan ambassador doesn’t blame the murderers. No he blames the Danish people because they allow their citizens free speech, in good taste or bad taste.
Some more of that diseased thinking was on display when a representative of the Pakistani Embassy, Asma Fatima, came to Washington to push for anti-blasphemy laws. She said, “The ideal of freedom of speech is precious to you, but it’s not value-neutral. You don’t have to hurt people’s sentiments and bring them to the point where they have to react in strange ways.”
Notice Ms. Fatima says, “they have to react in strange ways.” In other words, the murderers, terrorists and thugs have no choice in the matter, “they have to react in strange ways,” and go into the mode of riots and murder.
One terrorism expert explained that as long as Denmark fails to condemn the cartoons and the people responsible for them, Denmark would be under the threat of the violence of militant Muslims. Mr. Spencer reasons that’s the way Muslim leaders want it as it coalesces neatly with the Islamic supremacist agenda. Mr. Spencer writes,
“The underlying assumption is that Muslims may do whatever they wish; it is up to Western non-Muslims to adjust and adapt however they must, in order to placate them. And that includes everything up to and including abandoning freedom of speech in favor of the chastened silence prescribed for dhimmis [second-class citizens] in Islamic law.”
Mr. Spencer develops another marvelous example. A Dutch politician Geert Wilders made a film called “Fitna” linking passages from the Quran with incidents of Muslim violence. The Muslims objected to the films linking Islam with violence. Proving the validity of the film, it sparked protests in Muslim nations during which demonstrators demanded that Mr. Wilders be killed. Mr. Spencer shows how Wilders made an ironclad case linking passages of the Quran with specific incidents of Muslim violence. But that is immaterial to offended Muslims. True or false, valid or invalid, reasonable or unreasonable, criticism of Islam must be forbidden in their eyes.
Mr. Wilders has avoided being executed for his valid criticism of Islam. But others weren’t as lucky. Another Dutchman, Theo von Gogh, made a film criticizing Islam’s mistreatment of women. For that he was murdered on the street in Amsterdam. Many others have received serious death threats including the artists that drew the Danish cartoons and Salman Rushdie.
What is even more shocking is that the diseased thinking is not limited to some of the Muslim spokesman seeking to ban freedom of speech. It has infected American journalists, such as those at CNN. When a Swedish artist, Lars Vilks, drew Muhammad as a dog, as a gesture in defense of artistic freedom, al- Qaida put a $100,000 bounty on his head. CNN’s Paula Newton blamed Mr. Vilks, saying he should know better after what happened after the Danish cartoon incident. CNN and its reporter, Paula Newton, did not condemn the author of the death threats, but the author of the drawing, who was doing nothing more than exercising his rights of free speech and free expression. When a news outlet such as CNN doesn’t have enough sense to condemn those who outlaw free speech, you have a good example of how far journalism has fallen into the journalistic cesspool.
Even without U.N. legislation and national legislation, the Muslims are silencing criticism. The fear of violence and death threats alone is taking its toll on free speech. Listen to the views of MSNBC’s senior political analyst, Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr. He once launched an emotional attack on Joseph Smith, a leader of Mormon Church, and Mormonism. He was asked if he would say the same thing about Muhammad. He replied, “Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the … that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.”
As you might expect, the same diseased thinking found in the mainstream media is found in our universities. John Voll, associate director of the prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, in Mr. Spencer’s words, “seemed quite ready to condemn those who insulted Muslims — while raising no complaints against Muslims who engaged in violent threats and intimidation.” So like our media (e.g., CNN) our academics lack the sense to defend free speech.
Mr. Spencer finds, after reviewing such cases, that critics of Islam have already largely been silenced, as they fear criticism of Islam will lead to charges of bigotry against them or even death threats and execution.
Not content with silencing critics with intimidation, violence and murder, the Muslims are campaigning for hate crime legislation to outlaw criticism of Islam. The great journalist Oriani Fallaci who long ago wrote a book on how Europe was being colonized by Muslims, was prosecuted in Switzerland, France and Italy for her views and finally had to flee to the U.S. where she died in 2006.
The prosecution of critics of Islam has spread to North America. For example, the great writer, Mark Steyn, author of America Alone, was prosecuted in Canada for his criticism of Islam. As I’ve said his book, America Alone, is one of the most valuable and important of recent years and is right on target. He was targeted by three different commissions, and is still fighting that battle.
Our own U.S. government is already bowing down and scraping to Islam. U.S. officials have been instructed not to refer to Islamic terrorists as jihadists. The British government has gone to even more outrageous extremes. In Britain, several government agencies have been instructed to refer to Islamic terrorism as anti-Islamic activity, on the theory that Islam is a religion of peace and any such terrorism is therefore anti-Islamic. This is certainly Orwellian and 1984 in the extreme.
The Islamists have adopted one more approach. They sue their critics and put them through the expense of legal defense and the possibility of bankrupting judgments. The most celebrated case involves Rachel Ehrenfeld who wrote a book called Funding Evil on those who finance terrorism. She was sued for libel by billionaire Saudi financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, who she accused of financing terrorism. He sued her in Britain where the laws do not provide the same constitutional protection for free speech as they do in the U.S. He won. The judgment hasn’t been collected, but now Ms. Ehrenfeld can’t travel to Britain and her work is banned there.
Mr. Spencer has the perfect concluding idea on this subject: “Islam is a religion of peace, we are told. And anyone who argues otherwise better watch out.” And I’d add, when Islamists are cutting the heart out of our Constitution, the first amendment and freedom of speech and expression, it is long past time for America to wake up.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and  consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

The Bulletin > Philadelphia’s Family Newspaper > Herb Denenberg > Examining The Islamic Campaign To Destroy Free Speech

Rushda Majeed

• Last Updated: January 17. 2009 9:30AM UAE / January 17. 2009 5:30AM GMT

The differences have never been more pronounced. A cycle of violence in a number of conflicts around the globe, most recently in Gaza, coupled with few effective leaders in these areas, has revealed a genuine crisis in visionary stewardship.
While in the US, Americans are hopeful that the election of Barack Obama as president will inaugurate a new era of change, the new resident of the White House alone cannot fill our global leadership deficit. For this very reason, nearly 300 young Muslims from approximately 75 countries are convening in Doha this weekend to mobilise a movement for change within their communities. This movement is the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow.

Seven years ago, in the aftermath of September 11, the American Society for Muslim Advancement, along with its sister organisation, Cordoba Initiative, launched the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow (MLT) programme in New York City. At its founding, the MLT brought together dynamic and progressive young Muslims from across the US to channel prevailing feelings of discouragement and alienation into focused action. The initiative was founded to engage the American public on issues central to Muslims.

After its first American forum, the MLT programme expanded in 2006 with its next conference in Copenhagen, which brought together young Muslims from 16 west-European countries. Held on the anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings, and following the publication of the Danish cartoons, the MLT once again focused on generating solutions and honest debate in a charged environment, including a dialogue session with Flemming Rose, the original publisher of the Prophet Mohammed cartoons.

What is the significance of the MLT programme in the face of the enormous challenges we currently face as a global community? Between multiple ongoing conflicts, wars and a devastated global economy, perhaps the most that we can hope for is that our existing leaders finally move beyond self-interest and act quickly to handle these crises. But government leadership on its own is fundamentally insufficient. Any true visionary political leader will concede that we cannot continue to look to them alone to resolve our most intractable problems.

This is especially relevant in parts of the Arab world, where the past has shown us that while charismatic leaders can inspire at first, the lack of a commensurate grassroots effort can often lead to disappointment. This is where the MLT programme can step in.
MLT focuses on achieving positive, sustainable change through partnerships across sectors and borders; a bottom-up approach. The programme fosters networking at all levels. Rather than relegating the mantle of change to political leaders, these young leaders actively involve diverse sectors and groups in advancing our societies. Leadership should emerge from a multitude of spheres: business and philanthropy, the arts and culture, academia and religion, civil society and, of course, government.

This weekend’s conference in Doha is a prime example of this type of engagement. Sponsored by the Doha International Center for Interfaith Dialogue (DICID), it will be the first global forum of its kind bringing together dynamic young Muslim leaders from Muslim-minority communities and Muslim-majority countries.
Participants will arrive in Doha from countries as diverse as Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Egypt, Turkey, Ghana, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Britain. Although attendees represent a broad spectrum of backgrounds, they are similar in at least one respect: they lead pioneering projects within their communities, whether as activists or academics, artists or religious leaders, bloggers or policy-makers.

Together, these young leaders are forming constructive, mutually enriching partnerships where they are most needed – across sectors and genders. Participants will debate and propose solutions to the most pressing issues facing Muslim communities around the globe: the crisis of religious authority, extremism, competing values and more effective media engagement.
In addition to these important plenary discussions, the conference will highlight what Muslims are doing on the ground. They will discuss different projects that they are involved with, including madrasa reform in Pakistan; changing the course of US foreign policy towards the Muslim world; a new comic book series with Islamic themes; and a Canadian sitcom about just another average Muslim family.

The Muslim leaders of the future will need skills to deal with the media. They need to learn how to shape perceptions in the Arab world.
Visionary leadership in this region should be armed with expertise – how to lobby the US Congress, speak to the media, blog and use other types of online social networking sites.
This weekend’s conference will end with a highly anticipated “Open letter to the world leaders of today from the Muslim leaders of tomorrow”, an urgent appeal that they take proactive measures to enable this leadership group to more effectively carry out work of positive social change.

Specifically, this letter includes a request for more opportunities for intellectual and cultural advancement, a demand for greater youth participation in government and civil society and an explicit call that today’s leaders pursue dialogue and diplomacy to resolve longstanding conflicts.
As we start this new year, the sincere attempts of a few hundred young Muslims to find new answers to tough problems – within the fold of Islam – may indeed offer an encouraging way forward. After all, the magnitude of our challenges necessitates that we tap the charisma, optimism and ingenuity of our young people.

Initiatives of this nature need to be supported because they connect people who are too often separated by geography, ideology or socio-economic status, to jointly meet on-the-ground needs. Moreover, they do so in a way that more traditional avenues for engagement cannot. They represent the potential of civil society from within a religion and in a global community in which its crucial role will only grow in the coming years.

The Doha summit promises much, but these promises will not materialise without adequate support.
For now, we eagerly await what this weekend will offer.
Rushda Majeed is programme director at the American Society for Muslim Advancement

A new era in Muslim leadership - The National Newspaper

The Evolution of Islamic Democracy in the New Iraq

Enrique Portaluppi

January 19, 2009

Part I. Overview of Islam and Democracy
Objective: This essay will attempt to demonstrate that Islam and Democracy can work in juxtaposition and simultaneously within the same system of governance. This essay will use Iraq as the main case study to establish how civil law and Islamic law can work side by side with each other and how this combination of ideology and theology can successfully evolve into a legitimate Islamic Democracy.
Section 1. Introduction to Islamic Democracy
The term Islamic Democracy has been a controversial and systematically debated phrase in this era of contemporary Islamic revivalism. Within the Judeo – Christian West, the concept of separation of church and state has laid the groundwork for the modern democratic principles that makeup the governments of the West. (In this paper, the term “West” stands for the modern democratic societies of Western Europe and the United States) Nevertheless, with the revivalism of Islamic movements throughout the world, the expression din wa dawla, which when translated means, “religion and state” takes on an important relevance when describing modern Islamic governments. 1 Unfortunately, the West´s inability to see democracy and religion working within the same system of governance clouds the correlation between Islam and modern democratic ideals, making it an unidentifiable idiom.
Western style democracy was born from the ashes of the European religious wars, subsequently leading to the Westphalian Peace accords that recognized individual state sovereignty within the European political system. These ideals led to a new system of governance that became the secular governments of the European order that eventually evolved into the modern Western democracies that are seen today as the model for democratic expansionism throughout the globe. 2
The case for an Islamic Democracy has had many critics within the Western community. Can Muslim society imitate the style of democracy that is practiced by the West? In order to put democracy and Islam into proper perspective with each other, the correct question that ought to be asked is; should Muslim society imitate Western style secular democracy at the expense of Islam? Aside from the unique case of Turkey, could a Muslim society accept and function without Islam as being an integral part of their social, economic and political system? This is what makes Turkey unique from the rest of its Muslim brethren. Turkey accepted democracy at the time of great Islamic upheaval as the final great Islamic Dynasty, the Ottomans collapsed under the pressure of Western Imperialism. Rather than being left behind within the hierarchy of the international order, Turkey accepted Westernization as a means of competing with the Western powers. The alternative could have been the indignity of colonization, a fate that occurred too many of the states within the Middle East.
This type of acquiescence could not take place within the Muslim societies of today as a new Islamic revivalism has reintroduced a sense of renewed pride and dignity back into the world of Islam. As a means of reclaiming their former greatness, Islamic societies have been attempting to purge themselves of Western influence. Therefore, in an authentic Islamic society, the separation of religion from that of politics and economics is incomprehensible as all facets of life are to be guided by the Quran, the Hadith (collection of eyewitness accounts, narratives and sayings of the Prophet) and the Sunnah (normative practice or exemplary behavior of the Prophet) in conjunction with Islamic law set forth by the Sharia. 3
Many Muslim religious leaders, the most outspoken being the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, have stated that democracy is an alien concept to Islam and that Islamic governance and political participation is embedded within its own tradition. 4 Moreover, as a general rule, the overwhelming majority of Islamic fundamentalists and traditionalists reject democracy and the attributes that accompany it, such as modernization and Westernization, stating that these properties are unIslamic and have no value in an authentic Islamic society. 5
Section 2. Islamic Governments Throughout History
Throughout the history of Islamic politics, Muslim societies have seen many different types of governance. Early Muslim society witnessed the rise of great Islamic empires such as the Umayyads; the Abbasids; and later the Ottomans. The Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties of early Muslim history were ruled by the Caliphate, in which the Caliph is identified as the “Rightly Guided One” following in the footsteps of the Prophet. 6 The end of the Caliphate era was followed by another great Islamic dynasty, the Ottomans, where rulers named Sultans viewed themselves as the caretakers and defenders of Islam. Regrettably for the Muslims, the defeat of Germany and its allies in WWI marked the end of the great Islamic dynasties as the Ottoman Empire was eventually partitioned and colonized by the victorious Western Powers. Post WWII saw the end of the imperialism era in the Middle East region, but concurrently led to the rise of several new autocratic monarchies such as the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran and the ibn –Saud Monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Both regimes attained power primarily through the support of the West and in particular Washington.
The mid - twentieth century also saw the rise of Islamic military regimes such as General Zia ul – Haq of Pakistan, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi of Libya and Gamal Nasser of Egypt. These strongmen overthrew their previous regimes by forcefully wresting control of their governments by invoking the assimilation of a more traditional brand of Islam that gave them the appearance of a legitimate Islamic society. Unfortunately, a return to Islamic ideals was only a temporary measure in order to gain the support of the populace as all three regimes reverted to a more authoritative brand of governance, and in the process silenced all political and religious opposition.
The end of the Cold War and the Soviets humiliating defeat in Afghanistan witnessed the rise of a new brand of extreme fundamentalism akin to that of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia; that being the Taliban of Afghanistan. The Taliban´s strict brand of Islam was viewed by Washington as a threat to national security as the Taliban formed an alliance and harbored the radical Islamic organization, al – Qaeda, which was responsible for numerous attacks against U.S. interests worldwide. All of these systems of Muslim governance have one thing in common in that they are all deficient in emulating any sort of egalitarian system of governance as political power is monopolized by the oligarchy.
Section 3. Definition of Democracy and Legitimate Opposition
In order to properly identify if Islam and democracy can coexist with each other, it is vital to define the term democracy and its characteristics. The definition of a democracy by Western standards used as the model in the global democratization process is stated as a system of governance “by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” This system of governance requires the following characteristics; sovereignty of the people; government based upon consent of the governed; majority rule; minority rights; guarantee of basic human rights; free and fair elections; equality before the law; due process of law; and constitutional limits on government, social, economic, and political pluralism. 7 To expand this definition a step further, a democratic republic is all of the aforementioned characteristics of a democracy but also includes a head of state that is usually a president or a prime minister, however not a monarch.
This definition has for all intensive purposes become the basis of the form of democracy that the West is trying to promote throughout this new global environment where economic and security interdependence is the pillar to autonomous sovereignty. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this research essay there is one key element that has been inconspicuously left out of the preceding definition and better clarifies the definition of democracy; that being the fundamental characteristic of legitimate political opposition in a society and its necessity in a democratic polity. Without legitimate oppositional organizations, the political structure becomes a uni-partisan construction incapable of making any significant change within the political configuration. A bi-partisan or multi-partisan political structure is required to ensure that the governed society is given the option to make political change if so desired. The key word in the previous statements regarding oppositional organizations is legitimate, since not all organizations are considered legal or politically constructive within the systems they wish to represent. 8
Within many past Muslim governments, oppositional organizations have been branded as revolutionary and thus declared illegal and banned from political participation and assembly. Initially, many of these organizations such as Egypt´s Muslim Brotherhood and the Jamaat –I-Islam of Pakistan have started as legitimate and legal voices of opposition within their respective systems, but shortly thereafter found themselves declared as radical revolutionaries, subsequently leading to many of their organizers and most outspoken voices to be exiled, imprisoned, or in the worst case scenario executed. 9 This type of counter-reformist behavior has delegitimized any discourse of reform that these states were trying to achieve.
Section 4. Islamic Modernist View of Democracy
Unlike Islamic Fundamentalists and Traditionalist, Modernists have a more progressive attitude towards the West. According to Modernists, the only way to combat the West was not to reject but to embrace the source of their strength; that being science and technology. Many Islamic scholars have attributed Islam´s decline during the nineteenth and early twentieth century to the Fundamentalist and Traditionalist´s strict observance of dogmatic canon that leaves absolutely no room for interpretation (Taqlid). Modernists argue that rigid adherence of Sunni fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) has inhibited independent, creative and critical thought and stunted the development of Islamic progression. In Modernist´s views, this was the major contributing factor in Islam´s loss of power and backwardness as it was unable to fend off European Imperialism. 10
The main proponents of Islamic Modernism were Jamal al – din al – Afghani and his disciples, Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida. Jamal al – Afghani (1838 – 1897), known as the father of Islamic Modernism, pressed for reform through the reinterpretation of Islam (Ijtihad) in order to adapt it to modern situations and problems arising within the Muslim world. Al – Afghani was extremely critical of the ulama (scholars of Islamic theology and jurisprudence) that have allowed Islam to stagnate and to be surpassed by the West. In his view, Islam was a dynamic progressive religion that requires constant reinterpretation in order to accommodate modern concerns. A staunch opponent of secularism, al – Afghani was however an advocate of constitutionalism and parliamentary government in the form of an Islamic Democracy; which he states can only be attained through the practice of ijtihad. 11
Muhammad Abduh (1849 – 1905) was al – Afghani´s prize pupil. He became one of Egypt´s leading ulama and mufti (Chief Judge of the Sharia court) and was also an ardent proponent of ijtihad. He blamed Islam´s subservience to the West on the ulama´s teachings of taqlid. He believed that Muslims could successfully incorporate many Western ideals as long as they were not contrary to the laws of Islam. 12
Rashid Rida (1865 – 1935) was the protégé of Abduh and traveled extensively with him spreading the ideals of Islamic reform. Rida´s contribution to Modernism came in the form of redefining the implementation of Islamic law. Rida stated that Islamic law required an Islamic government and that the interpretation of the law was to go through a process of consultation (Shura). He also advocated the return of the Caliphate in order to unite the Ummah (Muslim community). Similar to his previous mentors, Rida believed that the greatest threat to Islam was Western Imperialism. Nevertheless, he insisted that Islam could learn from the West by incorporating many of their strengths and adapting them to fit into Muslim culture. 13
Muhammad Iqbal (1875 – 1938) represented the next generation of Islamic Modernists. Educated in the West and also in Islamic learning, his ideals of modern realities was not in line with that of the ulama of India. Iqbal urged that the right of ijtihad and ijma (authoritative consensus) should be transferred from the ulama to a national assembly or the legislature of that society. 14
There have been many ensuing Islamic Modernists that agree that Islamic reform cannot be attained without the components of ijtihad (reinterpretation), shura (consultation) and ijma (consensus). Neo - Modernists also agree that these three components are the main ingredients in formulating an Islamic Democracy. In fact, these three words demonstrate very similar tendencies to the type of discourse represented in the style of language expressed in a democracy. They (Modernists) may not all agree on the form or characteristics required in an Islamic Democracy, however they are all in agreement that these are the three main components that are necessary to validate and legitimize such a system. Without these components, any other form of Islamic government would be an archaic and outdated system that would be doomed to eventual failure within this era of Islamic revivalism.
Therefore, in light of the preceding definitions of democracy in conjunction with Islamic Modernists theories of the reinterpretation, consultation and consensus of Islamic jurisprudence, it can be reasonably deduced that an Islamic Democracy is a very viable and achievable alternative to the past and current systems of Muslim governance. By manipulating the ideologies of Western Democracy and incorporating it into the theological foundations of Islam, the resulting system would yield a government that respects the rights of Muslims on both the civil and religious level while also allowing for political participation.
Section 5. Brief Examination of Alternative Modern Forms of Islamic Government
Currently, there are several Islamic governments that possess the title of Islamic Republic, that being the Islamic Republics of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. All of these governments proclaim to be republics by the strict definition of the term where Islam and Sharia law have been incorporated within their governing systems as a means of gaining legitimacy throughout their respective societies and in the Muslim world.
Pakistan and Afghanistan´s systems have achieved a significant amount of popular participation and representation in government affairs and in the decision - making process as both states have recently held elections with great success. Additionally, both governments have provisions within their constitutions that uphold the ideals of Islamic jurisprudence as well as maintaining a functioning executive, legislative and judicial branch of government. According to the characterizations specified in the previous two sections, Pakistan and Afghanistan´s systems fit nicely within the description of Islamic Democracy. The verification of Pakistan and Afghanistan´s system as an Islamic Democracy however, is not under investigation within the scope of this essay. Instead, Part II of this essay will demonstrate through a closer examination of Iraq´s more recently established system (similar to that of Afghanistan and Pakistan), that Islamic Democracy is in fact becoming a viable preference for Muslim society.
Iran´s Republic also benefits from a limited amount of participation as its government contains an executive, legislative and judicial branch of government, but inevitably yields ultimate political power to the theocratic Fiqih (supreme legal expert and religious authority). Iran´s system of governance permits a lesser amount of pluralism than do the previous cases in which application of a stricter version of Islamic jurisprudence has curtailed freedom of expression as individuals, private organizations and political parties must operate within the strict structure of Iran´s revolutionary Islamic identity. 15 Even though Iran has enjoyed a greater degree of democratization than it has ever experienced, and has been seen as the model for revolutionary Islamic governance that stands against Western ideals; Iran´s brand of Islamic politics has not been able to spread throughout other Muslim states. It is apparent that the global desire to achieve a greater measure of political participation is becoming highly desirable as the people of varying societies seek greater empowerment in the affairs of their respective governments, which has curtailed further expansion of Iran´s theological system.
As the idea of greater political participation along with the renewed sense of religious ideals begins to spread globally, the concept of an Islamic Democracy might not be as farfetched as many Westerners believe it to be. Many Western scholars or political analyst might make the case that the Republic of Turkey is the contemporary model of Islamic Democracy. With its successful parliamentary polity that has lasted for over seventy five years, there is no doubt that Turkey has become one of the most successful and internationally recognized Muslim governments of the modern era. 16 Albeit all of its successes, the modern Turkish system of governance is a secular democratic system that does not take into account religious jurisprudence and therefore cannot be identified as an Islamic Democracy.
Other Muslim states that demonstrate modern Islamic democratic traits are the governments of Jordan and Lebanon. Jordan has been identified as a constitutional monarchy that holds popular representative elections and contains numerous political parties that impact the political process to varying degrees. 17 Nevertheless, Jordan´s monarchy holds the preponderant executive power in the government, which has been used on a number of occasions by the late King Hussein and his heir King Abdullah II for the purpose of consolidating their power. 18 Moreover, the succession of executive power is not determined by the electoral process but by the heir apparent who holds the office for life; thus eliminating Jordan as a legitimate democracy.
Lebanon is an interesting case study for the success of democratic ideals. It is a state that has a wide ethnic population of Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and a host of other religious ethnicities and cultures. Lebanon has been categorized as a republic with an executive, legislative and judicial branch of government that holds regular popular elections. The system of governance named Confessionalism, developed in 1943 by the ruling French constituency, ensured that sectarian conflict and rivalry would be kept to a minimum and that the many religious groups within the polity were represented. This meant that a sectarian government was to be identified in accordance with the major religious communities; thus the President was to be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of the Chamber was to be a Shiite Muslim. The other religious communities were to be represented by and to hold a number of other key positions within the polity. Even though Lebanon is a model of legal and fair oppositional representation within the political system; the fact that Christians and Muslims hold key offices within the system and that Islamic law is not adhered to disqualifies Lebanon as a legitimate Islamic democracy. 19
The basis of democratic ideals lie within the Quran itself as democratic principles have been imbedded within its very verses, meanwhile professing the concepts of social justice throughout it´s very the text. The Quran is much more than just a collection of religious writings and revelations handed down by the Prophet; but a blueprint for Muslims on how to best conduct themselves in an exemplary manner within the communal social order in which they live in. Moreover, the Quran teaches the ultimate unity and equality of all believers and visualizes a society based on this unity and equality. 20 By adhering to the theological examples within the Quran, Muslim governance can achieve a profusion of individual and social justice that in many ways emulate Western democratic ideals while still falling within the boundaries of Islamic governance. 21
Section 6. Globalization and 9/11
Globalization has caused an increase of interdependence within the global international system as states now rely on each other for reciprocal cooperation to attain a greater degree of economic and sovereign security. During the decade of the 1990´s, Washington attempted to propagate the spread of democracy in order to attain a greater degree of mutual cooperation as globalization rapidly expanded. This strategy of democraticizing the globe falls in line with the Democratic Peace Theory, which asserts that democracies generally do not go to war with one another. In order for a state to succeed within this international system they are required to fall in line and play by the rules of the global world order, with the United States at the top of the hierarchy. 22
However, the brand of democracy that the United States and the remaining Western powers are attempting to impose does not fall in line with the type of principles that are found within Islamic politics. This brings about a conflict between ideology and theology as the Western ideal of democracy differs greatly from the brand that Muslim states are seeking to implement, causing Washington to employ a strategy of cautious hesitation in offering aid and support. 23 Democraticizing and globalization notwithstanding, Islamic traditionalists and fundamentalists closely scrutinize the fine line between the qualities of democratic principles and that of the traits of modernization and secularization; both seen as characteristics of modern Western society and found to be incompatible with Islamic society.
The tragedy of 9/11 has bought about a radical swing in how Washington currently disseminates democracy; no longer exercising patience in waiting for a slow democratic transformation to occur throughout the Middle East region. Washington has instead resorted to the use of its military as a means of extending its foreign policy aims and by expediting the spread of democracy to better meet its international objectives. As a result of this new shift in policy, the Middle East region has endured a forced amalgamation of ideological and theological fault lines as the notion of Islamic Democracy is beginning to assert itself within Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, the force feeding of democracy to societies that have never experienced it before has initially created many problems on the social and political level as many of these societies were not prepared for the sudden ideological shift. The resulting byproducts of Washington´s impatience that has been heaped upon these societies have been societal unrest, sectarian violence, separatist movements, occupation by foreign powers, and worst of all a new call to Jihad as foreign fighters poured into these regions.
From these multitudes of problems can a legitimate Islamic Democracy evolve into the type of governance that can be accepted by not only the ruling polity, but also very importantly to include the religious ulama? Without a theological foundation, the ideological foundation will never take root. The remainder of this essay will focus on how Iraq is attempting to resolve these issues.
Part II. Examination of Iraq as an Islamic Democracy
Section 1. Brief History of Iraq Prior to U.S. Invasion
Iraq is an interesting case study of how a multitude of ethnic cultures and religious sects have simultaneously developed over the last fourteen centuries of Islamic influence. A detailed history of Iraq is undoubtedly outside the scope of this essay, however a brief history of Shiite – Sunni rivalry is important to understand the current political environment of the new Iraq. These ethnic and sectarian differences have become an integral part of Iraq´s identity.
The sectarian differences that are witnessed in Iraq today stem from centuries of Shiite oppression at the hands of the Sunnis. Shiites identify themselves through the persecution of their Imams (Divine and righteous leader of the Shiites), beginning with the rejection of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Ali – first Shiite Imam, cousin and son and law of the Prophet) as the first Caliph of the Muslim community following the death of the Prophet. The followers of Ali (Alids), who later became Shiites, felt that only the decedents of the Prophet were qualified to lead the Ummah due to their divine lineage. Ali eventually became the fourth Caliph of the Sunni sect and the first Imam of the Shiite sect; however this did not alleviate the feeling of injustice instilled upon the Alids for the shunning of Ali. The defining moment in Shiite history however, came in the year 680, when the Alids convinced Hussein Ibn Ali (Son of Ali, grandson of the Prophet and third Shiite Imam) into gathering a rebellion against the oppressive Umayyad Caliphate. The treachery committed by the Umayyads led to the slaughter of Hussein and his followers at Karbala, which led to his eventual aura of martyrdom. It is these original injustices and the suffering of the Imams and its subsequent related events that have become the paradigm of oppression for the Shii community at the hands of the Sunnis. 24
The Iraqi Muslim society flourished during the commencement of the Abbasid Caliphate in the year 750, as Islam began to spread throughout the Middle East. The Abbasids, who were heavily influenced by Persian culture, moved the Caliphate capital from Damascus to Baghdad in order to more closely emulate the Persian model of governance. This period marked one of the greatest cultural and literary advances in Islamic history, but concurrently brought about the beginning of the Sunni´s dominance over their numerically superior Shiite population within Iraq. Not to be overshadowed, this period also began the rivalry between the Arab and Persian cultures, as both cultures vied for dominance within the region. 25 In 1035 the Turkic Seljuqs conquered Baghdad and reinstated the Abbasid Caliphate after a brief absence without it. Staunch followers of the Caliphate and of Sunni Islam, the Seljuqs began a period of Shiite suppression as local Shii leaders were subdued and silenced. 26 The Mongol conquest of 1258 saw a brief period of relaxation of Shiite oppression as the Mongols embraced the Twelver – Shiite form of Islam. This period of repressive relaxation lasted only until 1453, when the Ottomans gained full strength and reconquered the region under the new title of the Sultanate. From that point until the beginning of the twentieth century, the Iraqi Shiites fell under the harsh rule of the Sunni Ottoman Turks who held them in low regard and treated them as second-class citizens. 27

A small measure of hope was restored to the Iraqi Shiites during WWI, when the British expelled the Ottomans; however that soon disappeared after the liberators became the colonizers of Iraq for the purposes of exploiting their resources. The development of Iraqi independence movements in the 1930´s and 1940´s brought about a greater strengthening of Sunni social dominance and a further decline in social status for the Shiites.
In 1963, the Baath party assumed control of Iraq and brought about the lopsided oligarchy regime of the Sunnis. In 1979, Shii fortunes took an even greater turn for the worse as the successful coup of Saddam Hussein began a period of brutal repression of not only the Shiites, but the Kurds as well. Saddam´s crackdown of the Shiites and the Kurds was a result of his failure in the Iran – Iraq war and fear that his majority Shiite population would feel empathy for Iran and join the conflict against the Baathists. Saddam also feared that an exhausted military might not be able to stand up to a Shiite or Kurdish revolt. Therefore he used drastic and extremely brutal measures to put down any sort of rebellion. 28
Section 2. Post U.S. Invasion Iraq
The Republic of Iraq officially began in January 2005 as Iraqis held their first free and popular elections in decades. The official name does not contain the title of Islamic Republic, therefore is it possible to classify Iraq as an authentic Islamic Democracy that abides by both civil and theological law? Further examination of Iraq´s constitution and governing body will verify whether Iraq can be identified as an Islamic Democracy.
The constitution that was ratified in October of 2005 by the 275-seat democratically elected parliament, states that Iraq is a federal democratic representative republic that abides by the laws of Islam as its fundamental source of legislation. Section One, Article two, declares that Islam is the official religion of the State and that no law can be established that contradicts the provisions of Islam along with the principles of democracy. The constitution also guarantees the rights and religious observations of all ethnic and sectarian groups within the state. 29
Iraq´s society breaks down into many parts, ethnically, religiously and sectarianly. Arabs make up the majority of the ethnic population at 75%; Kurds at 15%; Turkomen at 5% and small percentages of Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Armenians make up the balance. Religious percentages are as follows; Muslims at 97%; Christian and other religions at 3%. Of the Muslims; 65% is Shiite while Sunnis comprise 35%. 30
It is evident that there are large differences within the ethnic and sectarian divisions that comprise the varying interest groups all trying to gain dominance within the system. For example, the Kurds make up 15% of the population; however they are mostly comprised of Sunnis. Does this make them loyal to any particular Sunni sect or do they retain tribal and ethnic loyalties that go beyond religious similarities? Another important question must be raised; are all of these diverse ethnic and religious groups represented within the new Iraqi Islamic Democracy?
Section 3. Iraq´s Political System
3A. Legislative
In order to better identify Iraq as an Islamic Democracy, it is important to understand the political structure of Iraq and how it represents the Iraqi society. The Iraqi Council of Representatives (ICR) is the legislative branch of the government. It is comprised of 275 members and represents the many religious and ethnic groups that are part of the Iraqi society. A little known fact about the ICR is that 25% of its members are required to be women, thus demonstrating that women are considered to carry an equal voice within the political system. 31
Like all political systems, there is a majority and a minority party. The 128 seat majority in the ICR is held by a coalition of many different Shii political organizations called the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA). This political coalition is made up of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (fka the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq); the Islamic Virtue party; the Islamic Dawa party and a small contingency of other small Shii parties. All told the UIA holds the majority of seats within the ICR and also holds several high government positions such as that of Nouri – al – Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister and leader of the Islamic Dawa party. The fiery Mullah Muqtada al – Sadr and his Sadrist Movement is also incorporated and represented within this organization and currently holds 30 of the 128 seats. 32
The second largest political party in the ICR holding 53 seats is the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan. They are a coalition of Kurdish political organizations that include the two main Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK); who at one point were engaged in a civil war with each other along with other smaller groups. These former enemies united for the purpose of consolidating their power in order to contest the UIA. There are several officials from this coalition that hold high ranking positions within the government such as Jalal Talabani; the secretary general of the PUK and acting President of Iraq. 33
The next largest contingent holding 44 seats in the ICR is the Iraqi Accord Front (IAF aka the al – Tawafuq Front). The IAF is a coalition of mainly Sunni Islamist Iraqi political parties that are made up mostly of Sunni-Arabs focused on protecting this community’s interests. 34
The remaining seats are spread throughout numerous political parties and represent the many different ideologies, ethnicities and religions throughout Iraq. Several of these parties include groups that are secular; nonsecular; Turkomen; Armenian; Assyrian; as well as non - aligned Shiites and Sunnis. 35 Throughout its brief history, many of these parties have experienced ethnic and sectarian partisanship, some to the point of staging temporary walkouts and boycotts of the legislative process; but ultimately have returned to engage in vigorous and dynamic debate. Moreover, past boycotts such as the one committed by the Sunni IAF in 2006 created a voting imbalance in the parliament that gave the Shii UIA party many advantages in all legislative processes, thus resulting in furthering Sunni – Shii animosity. Many of these parties have strong opposing views on how to govern their society, thereby creating long delays in any legislation process, but recently have managed to set aside many of their rivalries in order to make compromises that have benefited the society.
3B. Executive
The President of Iraq is Jalal Talabani, who is also the secretary general of the PUK. The Prime Minister is Nouri – al – Maliki, who is the leader of the Dawa Party. The President is the Head of State, protecting the Constitution and representing the sovereignty and unity of the state, while the Prime Minister is the direct executive authority and commander in chief. The President and Vice Presidents are elected by the ICR. The Prime Minister is nominated by the largest bloc in the ICR, in this case the UIA. Upon designation, the Prime Minister names the members of his cabinet, the Council of Ministers, which is then approved by the ICR. 36
3C. Judiciary
The Iraqi Judiciary branch is a system upon itself and no other entity has authority over it. It establishes a system based on European civil law coupled with Islamic law that is divided into civil and criminal courts. 37 The highest court of the land, the Iraqi Supreme Court has final authority over all agencies. The judges that make up the Supreme Court are required to be experts in Islamic jurisprudence as well as civil legal scholars. 38 This system of jurisprudence ensures that Islamic Sharia law and civil law are simultaneously adhered too as all laws must pass the strict religious and civil interpretation (or reinterpretation if so required) of the Supreme Court.
Section 4. Conclusions of the Iraqi System
The preceding examination of Iraq´s political system has revealed several important traits that identify it as a legitimate Islamic Democracy. The characterizations of a democracy, as stated from the earlier description (Part I Section 3) have all been attained: legislation enacted by majority rule; protection for the rights of minorities; protection of basic human rights and freedoms; allows for the free and fair election of political representation; protects all citizens and ensures equality before the law; and protects the right of due process of law. Moreover, the Iraqi polity is teeming with numerous political parties, all of varying ethnicities and religious sects offering a legitimate voice of opposition within the system. As previously stated (Part I Section 3), legitimate opposition is also a requirement of a functioning democracy. Without legitimate opposition, the people of the society are marred in a single party system incapable of making any significant changes within their system.
The characterizations of Islamic jurisprudence and application of Islamic law (Sharia) are also preponderant elements within the Iraqi system. The constitution assures that all legislation enacted into law must pass Islamic examination that does not contradict the laws of the Sharia. Islamic Modernists have argued that Islamic reform cannot be achieved without the three basic components of ijtihad (reinterpretation), shura (consultation) and ijma (consensus). Modernists have also urged that the path to a true Islamic Democracy is through observation of these collective practices (Part I, Section 4). In fact, their very definition predisposes a system that is administrated by the people and incorporates the foundations of impartial justice and virtue. These practices also mirror many of the basic discourses found within a functioning democracy.
The Iraqi Constitution has stated that the reinterpretation of Sharia law is one of the core functions of the Iraqi Supreme Court. Moreover, the core function of the Iraqi Council of Representatives is to enact law through the process of consultation and consensus. In many ways the Iraqi polity is similar to that of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the validity of all laws enacted. It also is called upon to reinterpret the U.S. Constitution in laws that require revising due to ever - evolving questions of legal jurisprudence. Similarly, the U.S. Congress enacts all laws through a process of litigation that is not unlike that of consultation and consensus. The main difference between the two systems is that the Iraqi polity recognizes the significance and values of Islamic law. Without observance of Islamic law, not only would the government lose its legitimacy amongst the ulama and the Muslim world, but more importantly, would also lose legitimacy within its own society that would not consent to any sort of authority without observance of Islamic law.
To further demonstrate Iraq´s desire to adhere to Sharia law, one can view the influence and importance that the Ayatollah Ali al-Hussein al-Sistani has on the Iraqi polity. As Iraq´s leading religious figure, it is vital for the government to receive tacit approval on all actions that concern anything regarding the religious platform, and although not an official member of the government, his decisions and interpretations of the law are critical aspects of Iraqi society. As recently as November of 2008, the ICR´s decision to allow the U.S. forces to remain until 2011 under the Status of Forces Treaty required the review and approval of Ayatollah al – Sistani before the ICR would proceed with their approval process. Even though the approval of this treaty was not under the Ayatollah´s jurisdiction, for the Iraqi people to accept such a treaty, the endorsement of the Ayatollah was crucial for the Iraqi people who would have rejected this treaty if consent were not received. 39
Therefore, according to the definitions and examples provided within this text, the Iraqi system of governance meets all of the standards and qualifications that make up a modern Islamic Democracy. Taking the definition one step farther; since the Iraqi system recognizes the authority of Prime Minister Nouri al – Maliki as the chief executive, the Iraqi system can be more accurately described as an Islamic Democratic Republic.
Part III. Final Thoughts and Analysis of Iraq´s Current Condition
The 2008 version of Iraq has endured many hardships since the toppling of Saddam´s regime. Following the government´s inception in January 2005, there have been many stressors that have endangered the sovereignty and legitimacy of Iraq´s government. Iraq has endured Sunni – Shiite sectarian violence that threatened to break out into a full - out civil war; the Kurdish separatist question continues to threaten to divide the state into an Arab south and a Kurdish north; intra – Shiite rivalry between Muqtada al – Sadr and Prime Minister Nouri al – Maliki threatened to expand into an intra –sectarian conflict; the occupation of Iraqi soil by U.S. forces resulting in the humiliation of Iraqi nationalism; Iranian interference in political and religious matters; and most notably the infusion of foreign fighters and insurgents attempting to ignite an already tense Sunni – Shiite situation aimed at bringing civil unrest within the society.
There have been many moments where it seemed that these stressors would succeed in bringing down the Iraqi system. The government of al – Maliki has been recently very concerned with sectarian and tribal rifts within the ICR that have caused several parties to boycott the democratic process. These secessions would have dealt his government a serious blow to its legitimacy, both domestically and internationally. Fortunately, many of these stressors have been diffused through mutual cooperation from the varying ethnicities and religious sects within Iraq. The decrease in sectarian violence has been one of the major factors bringing about increased stability and has resulted in the quelling of the centuries old Shii – Sunni rivalry, both within the general populace and the ICR. The yearning for greater political participation has brought about an elevated cooperation as the Shiite dominated ICR along with Prime Minister al – Maliki have endeavored to unite the society under the banner of a singular Iraqi nation.
Insurgent violence is also on a downward trend as the use of Iraqi nationals as security forces, weary of violence, has produced one of the most extraordinary stories out of Iraq in years. Sunni security organizations such as the Awakening and The Sons of Iraq working in full cooperation with the Shii dominated government have for all intensive purposes subdued the insurgents and foreign fighters that were the catalyst of Sunni – Shii violence. The decline of insurgent activity has significantly reduced overall violence to the point that security for the majority of the territorial provinces has now been assumed by federal Iraqi security forces, thus requiring a significantly less U.S. presence in those areas.
Many critics were also fearful that the Shiite dominated Iraqi government was on the verge of falling under the influence of Iran, making them in effect a client state. However, recent events have demonstrated that Iraq is fully capable of handling its own affairs without interference from Tehran, or even Washington for that matter. Actions such as the approval of the Status of Forces Treaty and the closing of the shared Iran/Iraq border have infuriated Tehran, while simultaneously sending a message to Washington demonstrating Bagdad´s autonomy. The Kurdish separatist movement has been somewhat quelled by allowing the Kurds to govern their own semi - autonomous region in Northern Iraq, however recent incidents demonstrate that the Kurds have been extending their sphere of influence further south into the Kirkuk region in an attempt to control its vast oil resources. Former Baathist insurgents, remnants of Saddam´s regime have abandoned their violent movement, alternatively seeking representation within the Iraqi polity. Even outspoken Mullah Muqtada al – Sadr and his Mahdi Army have resorted to less direct confrontation, preferring instead greater political involvement as the Sadr Movement prepares for the upcoming January 2009 elections.
If one were to take a snapshot of Iraq 2005 – 2007 and compare it with a snapshot of Iraq 2008, the differences would be astounding. Current Iraq has made great strides in matters of society, security and legitimacy. Even fellow Sunni Muslim states, who were once fearful of Iraq´s Shii dominated government and a possible alliance with Iran, have now accepted Iraq into many of its associations such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC); Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (ABEDA); Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD); Arab Monetary Fund (AMF); Council of Arab Economic Unity (CAEU); Arab League (AL); Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) and the United Nations. These organizations not only have accredited Iraq as a legitimate state, but also have accepted Iraq as part of the Muslim world.
In review of the earlier examinations of Pakistan and Afghanistan (Part I, Section 5), a case study performed on Pakistan and Afghanistan comparable to the one performed on Iraq would reveal for all intensive purposes the same results. All three systems are similar in its observance of Islamic and civil law; all three function under the same set of checks and balances that are required by separation of powers; all three systems of government engage in vigorous and legal oppositional debate; and all three systems observe similar adherence to the three main pillars of modern Islamic reform (reinterpretation, consultation and consensus).
For all their similarities however, there are numerous differences within each society. Iraq´s newborn system has found ways to alleviate foreign insurgency and sectarian violence while reasonably achieving stability. Pakistan and Afghanistan are still struggling with the problem of insurgency as the Taliban and other Islamic militants refuse to capitulate. Iraq´s economy is based on vast amounts of untapped energy and natural resources; Pakistan´s economy though improving, has previously had many years of decline and is based on agriculture and manufacturing, while Afghanistan´s economy continues to be agrarian based. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan struggle with a serious issue of illegal drugs and contraband along with the problems that accompany it, such as drug trafficking, terrorism and smuggling. Pakistan also must deal with the problem of violent separatists in Kashmir, a problem that has recently escalated Pakistan and India´s nuclear rivalry.
Iraq´s system is still in the development stage and is far from perfect. Even though it has dramatically decreased, Iraq still suffers from domestic terrorism from foreign fighters and quite possibly al - Qaeda. The Iraqi government must also deal with Kurdish autonomy that grows stronger every day and seeks to overcome its minority status in Iraqi society as well as in the ICR. However the greatest hindrance to Iraqi autonomy and sovereignty has been the U.S. occupation. The U.S. must step aside and allow the Iraqi´s to assume control of security for all of its provinces. Even though the process of handing over security duties from U.S. hands to Iraqi hands has begun, it must proceed at a swifter pace in order to bring a sense of relief and pride back to the populace. This in turn would aid in bringing about an end to the ongoing violence as insurgents would no longer have an excuse to continue further violence, thus classifying them as criminals not only to society but to Islam as well as their Jihad is no longer required. All of these issues need to be dealt with within the near future, thus allowing the Iraqi government to enforce the rule of civil and Islamic law on a legitimate as well as sovereign platform.
In retrospect, with all of its ongoing problems, Iraq´s system is still developing at a greater rate of acceleration on the social, economic and political level when compared with the systems of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is even quite possible that within another five years, Iraq´s Islamic Democratic Republic could be the model of Islamic governance for all other Muslim states to emulate.
In this new period of Islamic Revivalism, the desire for representation and active participation in one´s own government has never been greater. Authoritative regimes around the globe, one by one are renouncing their systems, giving way to more active participation by the people. The Islamic community is no different when it comes to the desire to be heard in one´s own government. Islamic Democracy has been the evolution of a system of governance that has lasted 1400 years. The Islamic community has not overlooked this fact, as Muslims worldwide will continue to evolve and demand more active political acknowledgement within their governments. Modernists have shown the method of evolution. Now it is up to Muslim authoritative regimes to allow their systems to evolve so that their people can benefit from the advantages of Islamic Democracy.
Notes
1. John L. Esposito and John O. Vole. Islam and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 4.
2. John L. Esposito and John O. Vole. Islam and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 14, 47.
3. Mir Zohair Husain. Global Islamic Politics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995; 27-29.
4. John L. Esposito and John O. Vole. Islam and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 193.
Mir Zohair Husain. Global Islamic Politics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995; 58.
5. Mir Zohair Husain. Global Islamic Politics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995; 76-79, 90-94.
John L. Esposito and John O. Vole. Islam and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 23.
6. John L. Esposito. Islam, The Straight Path, Third Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 40 -57.
7. State Department Info. America.gov, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm. Dec. 2, 2008.
8. John L. Esposito and John O. Vole. Islam and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 36-39.
9. John L. Esposito and John O. Vole. Islam and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 39, 46.
Mir Zohair Husain. Global Islamic Politics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995; 44-68.
10. Mir Zohair Husain. Global Islamic Politics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995; 95-96.
John L. Esposito. Islam, The Straight Path, Third Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998; 127.
11. Mir Zohair Husain. Global Islamic Politics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995; 97-98.
John L. Esposito. Islam, The Straight Path, Third Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998; 128-139.
12. Mir Zohair Husain. Global Islamic Politics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995; 100-101.
John L. Esposito. Islam, The Straight Path, Third Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998; 130-131.
13. John L. Esposito. Islam, The Straight Path, Third Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998; 132-133.
14. Ibid. 137-138.
15. Mir Zohair Husain. Global Islamic Politics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995; 237-244.
John L. Esposito and John O. Vole. Islam and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 69-75.
16. The Political Structure of Turkey. Turkish Press, http://www.byegm.gov.tr/REFERENCES/Structure.htm. Nov. 20, 2007.
17. U.S. State Department Background Note: Jordan. U.S. State Department, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3464.htm. Mar. 2008.
18. CIA – The World Factbook. Jordan. Central Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jo.html#People. Nov. 20, 2008.
19. John L. Esposito. Islam, The Straight Path, Third Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998; 186-191.
U.S. State Department Background Note: Lebanon. U.S. State Department, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35833.htm. Oct. 2008.
20. John L. Esposito. Islam, The Straight Path, Third Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998; 28-30.
21. Mir Zohair Husain. Global Islamic Politics. New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995; 28-36.
22. Globalization Security Dilemma: How Globalization will Renew Great Power Competition. Enrique Portaluppi. American Chronicle, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/72870. Sep. 2, 2008.
23. John L. Esposito and John O. Vole. Islam and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 17-21.
24. John L. Esposito. Islam, The Straight Path, Third Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998; 43-44.
25. Seyyed Hossein Nasar. Islam, Religion, History and Civilization. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003; 120-124.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid. 130-132.
28. Bruce R. Pirnie and Edward O´Connell. Counterinsurgency in Iraq. National Defense Research Institute, 2-3.
29. Iraqi Constitution. United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, UNAM I, http://www.uniraq.org/documents/iraqi_constitution.pdf. 2004-2008.
30. U.S. State Department Background Note: Iraq. U.S. State Department, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6804.htm. Feb. 2008.
31. Ibid.
32. CIA – The World Factbook. Iraq. Central Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html. Nov. 20, 2008.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. U.S. State Department Background Note: Iraq. U.S. State Department, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6804.htm. Feb. 2008.
37. Iraq in Transition. PBS, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iraq/governmentprofile.html. Dec. 20, 2006.
38. Iraqi Constitution. United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, UNAM I, http://www.uniraq.org/documents/iraqi_constitution.pdf. 2004-2008.
39. Bruce R. Pirnie and Edward O´Connell. Counterinsurgency in Iraq. National Defense Research Institute, 12.
Iraq Head, Top Cleric Back 2011 Exit by U.S. Mary Beth Sheridan. Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/15/AR2008111500679.html?wpisrc=newsletter. Nov. 16, 2008.

American Chronicle | The Evolution of Islamic Democracy in the New Iraq

A Muslim view

Islamic warfare protects noncombatants, and manipulating terrorists are violating its laws.

Annanina Joy Glover • January 16, 2009

Peace to you, dear readers. I was asked to write a reply to the letter written in the Dec. 19 Voices section (”Muslim reaction to killings sought,” by Bob W. Rush) asking for the Muslim community to respond to the terrorism/violence being perpetrated by so-called Muslim extremists.

I am an American who has embraced Islam post-Sept. 11, 2001. Islam does not teach hate, violence or exclusivity of salvation. In fact, there are rules to Islamic warfare that protect noncombatants, their property and also a cease-fire if the people pursue peaceful relations. It does not matter if the people are Muslim or non-Muslim. The point of Islamic warfare is to establish justice in a land where people are oppressed and corruption abounds or defend one’s life, home and right to practice his religion. These laws are being violated by the terrorists; their attacks harm men, women and children who offer no violence or opposition to justice. Property is stolen or destroyed, crops wiped out and no peace treaties are welcomed. So ultimately what we have are rampaging murderers and political extremists pulling the strings, manipulating the emotional state of people to convince them that they are acting to serve justice.

Killing spawns resentment

It is hard for most Americans to understand what it is that has spawned such a resentment in people, until they are offered insight into a different life that is reality on the other side of the world. To us it is articles in the newspaper, images on television and counts of how many of our people have given their lives in what we believe is a fight for freedom, justice and liberty for all. But to many ordinary people who consider themselves to be patriotic, honest, hard-working folk of Middle Eastern nations, American military action or support of certain governments results in the death of children, friends and family. We know from experience that anyone who loses a child or a beloved family member in a violent way generally becomes embittered and blames what they perceive to be the source of the problem, whether it be drunk drivers, gang-bangers or military skirmishes.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, our government ordered an investigation and the report concluded that the primary motivation was U.S. military aid to Israel. No matter how bitter people might be or what terrible things have been done to them or their loved ones, it does not justify the actions the terrorists took. It certainly did nothing to improve the conditions of the people trying to live alongside Israel.

No room for hate

When politically minded people gather emotionally wounded people together and focus those feelings into hate, they can manipulate them to do anything, and by perverting scripture they believe they serve justice. There is no room for hate in the heart of any true believer of God, be they Muslim, Christian or Jew. When there is arrogance (racial or social) or hate, love for God cannot be. I do understand that Israel is a very sensitive subject, but I ask you to think about the country not for religious affiliation or historical events. There are international laws that designate certain human rights, and if a country does not comply with them, we do not support their governments. Israel’s military actions violate human rights laws, and have continued to do so for more than 20 years. Yet the U.S. gives more aid to Israel (in weapons and so forth) than any other nation (to my understanding ).

The most horrifying to me, as a woman, is the checkpoint that refused to allow a woman in labor to cross to the waiting ambulance until after she and her twins had died. The most disturbing fact about the weaponry being used is the so-called “rubber bullets” that are metal rounds coated in plastic and end up killing many children, even entering their brains.

I am not calling an end to Israel or reviling the children of Israel. I am simply saying that there is another side to the story and that some of the bitterness and resentment is based in reality. I believe if we truly want peace, people (Muslim, Christian, Jew, or other) are going to have to recognize the humanity in the other and strive for a common goal: the right to live and believe free from persecution.

If you disagree, please feel free to contest my words with credible sources. If you want to know what all Muslims must abide by, try reading a translation of the meaning of the Quran. Look for a way to prove me wrong. I, as a Muslim - one who submits my whole self to God - believe in: God, the Messengers, the Angels, the Book, the Final Day, that Islam is my guide and inviolate law, that there is no compulsion in religion, other religions must be respectfully disagreed with but not reviled and to treat people gently. Most of all, I believe on living by example; clean and courteous. Religion must be lived in every breath, every word and every step - a way of life.

Annanina Joy Glover lives in Springfield.

A Muslim view | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader

DOUBLE TAKE
By Eric F. Mallonga
Jewish-Muslim coexistence

PEOPLE appear to believe that the Jews and the Muslims have no points of convergence for them to stop the bloodshed in Palestine’s Gaza Strip. Reader Cizar Canlas even erroneously observes that every Muslim in Gaza has been indoctrinated by the Hamas organization to view the Jewish people as enemies to be exterminated, which means that all Muslims in Gaza Strip are threats to the life, liberty and security of every Jew. Canlas thus absurdly concludes that there is no other solution to the Jewish and Muslim Conflict in the Middle East except for the withdrawal of the Hamas and Iran, which is allegedly propagating the rift among Jews and Hamas by proxy, from the conflict or the absolute extermination of the Muslims in Gaza Strip. Canlas is wrong. With his macabre and senseless proposals for the genocidal massacre of the Muslim peoples of the Gaza Strip, it appears that there is no longer any hope for peace and progress in the conflict-riven Palestinian region. More than the audacity of hopelessness posed by Canlas, the audacity of hope must prevail for world peace to be achieved. People must appreciate historical events wherein Jews lived harmoniously with Muslims in avoiding an apocalyptic world war.

Centuries before Prophet Muham­mad’s birth, Jews were actually living in the lands now known as Saudi Arabia and the other Middle East countries. One Arabian King Dhu Nuwas, in fact, was a convert to Judaism. Arabian Jews were also indistinguishable from other Arab tribes, as harsh realities of desert life recognized no distinctions among cultural communities or religious creeds. They spoke Arabic dialects and traded with the Quraysh and other leading Arab tribes. Having descended from the sons of Abraham, Jews and Arabs were familiar to one another in language, attire and culture, except for their distinct religious practices and rites. Thus, the Arabian Jews were more familiar than alien to Muhammad as explained by Arab historian Zachary Karabell in “People of the Book: The Forgotten History of Islam and the West.”

In fact, in 622, Prophet Muhammad moved from Mecca to Medina with most of his followers from the prominent Quraysh tribe in one of the defining moments of Islamic history called the Hijra. For some period, with Muham­mad’s arrival, Medina became a unified Jewish-Muslim community as it had three powerful Jewish tribes, more particularly the Banu Qaynuqa, the Bau Nadir and the Banu Qurayza. The Constitution of Medina recognized the two religions as separate and distinct from each other, and recognized that the followers of the two religions could live side by side as equals and supported each other when and where support was needed. It created a precedent for peaceful and cordial coexistence as a hybrid community of Jews and Muslims. Muhammad has seen himself as the last in a series of Jewish prophets, and even instructed his Muslim followers to face Jerusalem when they prayed, thus gaining respect even among the Jews, who saw him as a first among equals and an arbiter of disputes. Clearly, the Constitution of Medina, which Muhammad established with the non-Jewish tribes, the three Jewish tribes and the Islamic community was a model of ecumenism.

Like any prejudice as exemplified by reader Canlas’ selective memory of the history in the long-drawn Jewish-Muslim conflict, the mutual animosity between Islam and Israel is merely fueled by ignorance and intolerance. Hatred, scorn, hostilities and offensive personalities and notorious historical events should not be emphasized because its con­tinuous proposal and replay merely enflames the social prejudices of one religion against the other rather than searching for commonalities to bind together the peoples in the conflict. Islam is not a religion of jihadist violence and suicide bombings. Islam, in its literal definition is a religion of submission to the will of God. Islam is a religion of personal struggle towards divinity, of striving to be godly, within a community of believers in the same God. Islam is a community of the “People of the Book” as Muhammad had seen the Quran as some continuation, or a replication with its own unique variations, of the writings inspired by Allah, which includes the Torah, the Old Testament, and the Christian Bible.

Thus, the commonalities among different religions must be explored in binding people in peace, common understanding, and progress. The five pillars of Islam, which involve prayer, fasting, almsgiving, pilgrimage and charity, are non-violent, morally righteous activities that are also themselves observed among Christians and Jews alike.

The legacy of religious coexistence and cultural harmony must be reclaimed. Albeit there will be tension among the variations of religious philosophies, these beliefs should not constitute the basis for a bloodbath among people descended from a common ancestor. But when Israel continues its conflict against the children of Gaza Strip with excessive aggression, it will definitely fuel the already heightened tensions in the Middle East among the Muslim peoples identifying themselves with the civilians of Gaza Strip, dangerously inviting an apocalyptic war beyond its borders.

ericfmallonga@yahoo.com

The Manila Times Internet Edition | OPINION > Jewish-Muslim coexistence

CHARLESTON, SC: “God” in Christianity and Islam: Are they the same “God”?
By David W. Virtue in Charleston, SC
www.virtueonline.org
1/16/2009
Do Muslims and Christians believe in the same God?
According to Methodist theologian Dr. William Abraham, Christians and Muslims believe the same God exists, but they do not worship the same God.
The outspoken Professor of Wesley Studies at Perkins School of Theology and an Islamic scholar told a gathering of Episcopal and Anglican bishops, clergy and laity at a Mere Anglican conference meeting in St. Luke’s cathedral, that Christians and Muslims believe the same God exists. “Christians and Muslims can identify their God as the one and only creator of the universe worthy of worship and obedience and they disagree with atheists and agnostics.”
“The question revolves around the issue of sameness of identity. Is the God of Christianity the same God as the God of Islam? Is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the same God as the God of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad?
The issue is, at bottom, a pivotal philosophical one, says Abraham.
“My thesis is this: Christians and Muslims believe in the same God; they do not worship the same God. Christians and Muslims can both identify their God as the one and only Creator of the world who is all good, all powerful, and worthy of worship and obedience. Both Christians and Muslims believe that this God exists; they disagree with atheists and agnostics on this score. Both Christians and Muslims are realists with respect to truth.”
Abraham said President George Bush is in agreement with many Muslim leaders when he claims that Muslims worship the same Almighty as Christians Dr. Richard Lund took him to task saying Bush was mistaken. “We should always remember that he is commander in chief, not theologian in chief. The Bible is clear on this: The one and true God is Jehovah and his only begotten Son is Jesus Christ.”
Abraham noted, with some irony, that an Episcopal priest, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding has announced she is both a Christian and a Muslim. A priest for more than 20 years, her bishop handed her an ultimatum: resign the priesthood, deny being a Muslim, or be deposed.
“In the context of worship Christians insist on the identity of God as laid out in the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed; they speak of God as Father; they name God as ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’ The practices of the Church show that we pray to the Triune God, that we baptize in the name of ‘The Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’ and that we praise God as the Triune God.
“These are not incidental phrases; they are canonical; they are constitutive of the identity of God in the Church. All of this is resolutely, systematically, and canonically rejected by Islam.”
Abraham said that these differences cut so deep that in this context, it is natural that we do not worship the same God.
“The same line of argument applies to Christian and Muslim references to Jesus. They have different names for Jesus, ‘Jesus’ and ‘Isa’, but they both believe that the same human agent existed. They both believe that a first century prophet, born of a virgin, known to Christ as Jesus, lived. When we shift into the context of worship, Christians and Muslims clearly do not revere the same ‘Jesus.’ Muslims and Christians believe the same Jesus existed, but they do not obey and are not devoted to the same Jesus. Thus Muslims do not believe that Jesus was crucified; and they consider the Christian attitude to Jesus to be that of idolatry and blasphemy.
“Jesus is merely one of the prophets of God, and not the most important one. The differences are too radical to allow sameness of identity in this context, for Christians revere and worship Jesus as crucified Savior, risen Lord, and Unique Son of God.”
Abraham said, in the light of this thesis, the Episcopal Church is right to depose The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding if she does not either resign her priesthood or deny that she is a Muslim She is simply mistaken to claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. If this were the case, then the distinctions between Islam Christianity would be akin to the distinctions between various Christian ecclesial bodies; Christianity would be a version of Islam and Islam would be a version of Christianity.
“President Bush is mistaken when he makes the same claim.”
Abraham said that when he spoke to a group of Muslims in Kazakhstan, he assumed that they believed in the same God. “I did not try to first make them into atheists or agonistics and then seek to bring them to believe in the God of Christianity. I sought to build on our shred, initial conception of God and to persuade them that the full truth about God and his great salvation had come in Christ.”
“Muslims often identify the Trinity with God, Mary, and the Holy Spirit. When it comes to references to Jesus as the Son of God, Muslims invariably think of Sonship in terms of physical paternity. There are severe linguistic challenges in enabling Muslims to come to terms with the doctrine of the Trinity.”
Abraham rejected this as all just “philosophical nitpicking” when some Christians argue that we should concentrate on more basic issues like love of neighbor, undermining religious extremism, and building peaceable, inclusive, tolerant communities. Certainly, many mainline Christians are tempted to press this kind of challenge, he said.
“The issue of the Christian and Muslim identity of God is not mere hair-splitting; mutual understanding requires that we deal with it.”
Abraham said that the challenges of virulent atheism and secularism are here to stay. The challenges of race and gender have by no means run their course. However, the challenge of Islam adds spice to the mix; it adds whole new dimensions to the epistemological and political issues that currently preoccupy us.
“We will have to revisit the complex theological foundations of Western democracies, sort through how to deal with theologically motivated terrorism, and revisit the nature and limits of religious freedom.
“Second, we will have to overhaul our current obsession with inclusivism, political correctness, and diversity. These, when absolutized, cannot begin to do justice to the deep incompatible commitments that arise when you have real diversity and radical pluralism. Third, we will have to revisit the epistemological issues that swirl around the appeal to special revelation, to public truth, and to reasoned argument.”
Abraham said Christians could no longer take refuge in philosophically oriented conceptions of God as Absolute, Being, Ground of Being and Process.
Abraham said we now face a massive doctrinal and theological deficit at the local church level. “Western mainline Christianity is in disarray. Many of its clergy and members are ignorant and unteachable; they are totally ill-equipped to understand much less offer an intelligible response to Muslim criticism. Evangelicalism is numerically strong, but it too is fragmented; in some places it is saturated in eschatologies that are out and out heretical when measured against the faith of the church.
“Currently evangelicalism is in the throes of one more face-lift in which a new disillusioned generation is madly networking, hoping against hope that something new will emerge. As I see it, cherry-picking the past together with betting the store on a shot-gun wedding with postmodern philosophy is not a recipe that will serve us well in the long run. Certainly, eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism offer vast resources and experience; but the jury is out on whether they will face up to the stewardship of those resources.
“I see the debate about the identity of God as a welcome catalyst to awaken us from our dogmatic slumbers and replenish the theological store for future generations. It calls for a fresh engagement with the canonical faith of the Church.”
Footnote: In a panel discussion, Abraham said that Pacifism is immoral in the face of Muslim terrorism. “We are not a nation state; we have shifted into a market state.”

VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - CHARLESTON, SC: “God” in Christianity and Islam: Are they the same “God”?

Do Muslims need democracy? — Azril Mohd Amin

JAN 15 — As one of the local rulers was passing by in a parade on TV, a wonderful fanfare was playing in the background. Now, a good fanfare has all the feeling of pomp and splendour that we associate with royalty. It helps us to understand the FUNCTION of royalty. Above all, such a fanfare makes us feel very glad to HAVE a royalty.

But it may do little good to meditate upon royalty, of which there are so many examples in the world, and of so many different qualities. The qualities of royalty are very dependent upon the moral fibre or character of the royal persons themselves, and this element is highly variable.

The Iranian Shah-hin-shah who preceded the Ayatollah Khomeini was said to have been modernising some aspects of his kingdom as rapidly as possible, yet Muslims felt there was too much suffering of one sort or another in this process. The Shah’s secret police were said to be most fearful and cruel.

The Saudi secret police are also feared, yet not much is mentioned of this group in the media, since Saudi has even more oil than Iran. I asked my Saudi patron-prince why young men were dragged out of my Arab hotel every week, obviously against their will, and was told they were being arrested for various offences against the king.

Of what are they charged? Well, it doesn’t much matter. Many of them are never seen again. Families often cannot locate their members after they have been arrested. Thrown out of a helicopter in the middle of the desert is a favorite punishment. Now this was in the 1980’s, since which time there is said to have been improvement in such high-handed tactics.

Then we also have virtual kings who call themselves presidents. Suharto was one of these, as is Mubarak of Egypt and General Bachir of the Sudan. These figures always claim to have more than 90% of their so-called “popular votes”, which is a dead giveaway that they are really kings in disguise, and which usually hide widespread unpopularity among the people.

No democratic leader ever achieves such a huge percentage of the vote. Look at the Americans. Popular elections over there are always right around 50-50 to the two major party leaders, Republican and Democrat.

Malaysia’s Barisan Nasional came down from its long-standing suspicious highs in the 90 per cent bracket, to around 75 per cent recently, and then 66%. And now the upcoming Kuala Terengganu by-election will show us how valid the Malaysian democratic experiment really is.

If democracy is really preparing to “take off” in Malaysia, the Kuala Terengganu election must continue to break the previous strangle-hold that Umno’s Barisan has had on the country for fifty years. It DOES NOT MATTER who the opposition is, so long as they are reasonably competent. The important thing is that Malaysia must now evolve into a real two-party democracy. The people must feel they have a very real CHOICE with their vote.

Why does it matter? Malaysia may have been blessed with a series of Prime Ministers of real integrity and skill, but such is not always the case. Democratic processes are needed to give the people power to correct for faulty government that shows up from time to time. Barrack Obama may be considered the American democracy’s correction of some excess of the previous eight Bush years.

There is also a very important ideological point in favor of genuine two-party rule. Corruption, as a destroyer of the integrity of a people’s governance, cannot easily be controlled by means of “self-policing”. The only real control on corruption is the possibility that corrupt or even seemingly corrupt officials will be voted out, will lose their jobs to the opposition.

Now, what Malaysia has, along with the majority of Muslim nations, is a royalty. The function of royalty as the moral or cultural figurehead is a good thing, and the present Sultan of Yogyakarta in Indonesia made this point very strongly when he was inaugurated in 1988, that he was NO MORE than the repository of Javanese culture in front of the people.

Unfortunately, President Suharto did not follow this same wisdom and behaved as kings behave, issuing “presidential decrees” that became law, and passing out the perks of his position to all his children. Presidents do NOT make law in democracies, and the sharing of wealth by means of “nepotism” or “insider information” is strictly forbidden.

So Suharto was a Javanese king who only called himself a “president”. His insistence that he did no wrong toward the end only reflected his understanding that he only did what kings everywhere did. He had no idea of his responsibilities as a president, and should not have been given that title. No wonder the people were confused.

Tun Dr Mahathir of Malaysia made a most important point when he voluntarily retired a few years ago. His point was that he was a Prime Minister, and not a king in the disguise of “president for life”. Perhaps he felt he needed to make this point due to his long previous rule.

In any case, subjects of the “de facto” kings of the Muslim Middle East are reported to have been amazed that Tun actually stepped down. “Why would he do that?” they asked. No leader in that part of the Muslims world had ever done such a thing, nor ever would, it seemed to the people.

The various leaders of Muslims in Africa and the Middle East are also fascist monarchies in fact, if not in name. These leaders have absolute power. When, for example, a parliament was formed in Saudi Arabia, a full-page newspaper ad subsequently appeared, “thanking” his “beloved majesty” for “giving” his subjects a parliament.

Why is it so difficult to discover the roots of the democratic principle in Muslim history? The issue, after the demise of the Prophet (may peace be upon him), was between Abu Bakr who stated that the Prophet had passed away, and that as for those who worship the One God, Allah lives forever — and Sayyidina Umar, who was caught out in this case, having been quoted as claiming that the Prophet could never really die, and such like.

The Shi’a divergence was precisely on this point. The Shi’a insisted on a royal line, i.e., the family blood of the Prophet as a basis for further leadership. The Sunnis resorted to election, in the form of consensus gained by “shura”, or group consultation, as to who the next leader would be.

If Abu Bakr (r.a.) was that leader, then we can see that the democratic process prevailed over the call for empowering or enshrining the Prophet’s descendants as royal blood. We can see that, if the first four Caliphs really were “Rightly Guided”, then democracy has a central and vital role to play in securing the best leadership for future generations of Muslims.

In the modern world, it seems that Indonesia, and, with some modifications, Iranians are spearheading the cause of popular election among Muslims. The Indonesians have even moved beyond the previous parliamentary mode of electing their president to a fully popular mode – the popular vote prevails, as it still does not even in America.

Malaysia is poised to join this democratic “elite” among Muslim nations, if only she will move beyond the one-party de facto dictatorship of UMNO, as Indonesia has done in the case of their former “umbrella party” GOLKAR. Vice-president Yusuf Kalla is GOLKAR, as is even the Sultan of Yogyakarta, but there are other major parties that are not, and these non-GOLKAR parties have been fielding such potential leaders as Gus Dur, Megawati, Susilo Yudhoyono, Amien Rais, and others.

So UMNO need not fear extinction. She only needs clear the field for other leaders and other ideologies to emerge and compete in healthy, open democratic election. Over and over again, I hear the common people longing for a “real choice”, not necessarily to disband or dishonor Umno. And their instinct is probably a good one, because corruption IS a major danger and can very much more effectively be dealt with in a multi-party system.

Meanwhile, the principle of “blood line” that meant so much to the Shi’a Muslims is honored in the Malay monarchy, the Indonesian sultanates, and even the British royal family, as a “moral safeguard” or repository of the goodness and moral fibre of the populace.

Limitations on the precise powers and duties of royalty are defined constitutionally, and always subject to debate and adjustment, as Tun Dr Mahathir showed in his dealings with the Royal Families. Even these limitations might be removed if the electorate so wish, as has been discussed recently.

Our Middle Eastern and African allies have much to learn along these lines. The Prophet guided us about choosing leaders in one of his well-known Hadith, that we may paraphrase as, the leader who WANTS to be leader or CAMPAIGNS to be leader, or INSTALLS himself to be leader (Ghaddafi? Mubarak? the entire Saud oligarchy?) may not be best.

The best leadership would result from consensus and acclamation, where possible. Interestingly, it seems that Barrack Obama most closely meets this standard, at least as far as the western democratic mechanisms have gone, although a truly Islamic democracy would have mechanisms and procedures different from the western ones, as we Muslims have now to work out with due diligence.

Nevertheless, the principles are very similar. As Thomas Jefferson put it so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence of the first real participatory democracy in history (after the Greek city-states):

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed…

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations… evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Are there Muslims who live under such malevolent despotism in the modern day? And is it not their bounden duty to throw off such abuses of their unalienable rights? And Allah knows best.

* Azril Mohd Amin is an advocate and solicitor and also vice-president of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia. This is his personal opinion.

Do Muslims need democracy? — Azril Mohd Amin

History of Christendom-Islam clashes examined during Chancellor’s Lecture Series

David Levering Lewis

Relations between Christians and Muslims in the post-9/11 world have come full circle and are similar to the troubled ties forged centuries ago, said a Pulitzer Prize-winning author at the first Chancellor’s Lecture Series installment of 2009. 
“We are again living through experiences that are similar,” said David Levering Lewis, the Julius Silver University Professor and professor of history at New York University, on Jan. 14 in Ingram Hall at Vanderbilt’s Blair School of Music.
“For a historian, thinking about the present means thinking about the past in the present,” writes Lewis in the preface to his newest book, God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215.
The book, which Lewis calls a “counter narrative,” was called a “provocative reappraisal of the conflict between Islam and Christendom” by the California Literary Review.
“If there is a point to a book like this,” said Lewis, “it is to show that the problems perceived to be culture or religion have little to do with culture or religion and have everything to do with politics.”
The key moments in the history of these two cultures, according to Lewis, came in 711 C.E. when Muslims conquered the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula (now Spain) and in 732 C.E. when the Frankish forces stopped the Muslims from going any further north into what is now France in the Battle of Poitiers.
Lewis raised the question of what Europe might have been like had the Muslims prevailed at Poitiers, and concludes that it might have been better off compared to the Carolingian Order created by the victorious Franks.
“The Carolingian Order,” says Lewis, “was religiously intolerant, intellectually impoverished, socially calcified and economically primitive. … Abd al-Raman’s Muslim Iberia was at least four centuries more advanced than Western Christendom.”
The continual military oppression from the Carolingians led to the eventual collapse of the Muslim Iberia’s Golden Age, says Lewis, and the resulting rise of Muslim fundamentalism eventually paved the way for the Crusades and conflicts we are still experiencing today.
A video of Lewis’ lecture will be available on www.vanderbilt.edu/news.
Chancellor’s Lecture Series, which serves to bring to Vanderbilt and the wider Nashville community intellectuals who are shaping the world today. For more information about the Chancellor’s Lecture Series, visit www.vanderbilt.edu/chancellor/cls.
Contact: Missy Pankake, (615) 322-NEWS
Missy.pankake@vanderbilt.edu

Vanderbilt University: myVU