The Role of Religion in Politics Today
30-10-2007The Role of Religion in Politics Today
By Baker Abu Baker
Many factors have been behind the Islamic street’s unease and concern, and its subsequent adoption of Islam as a shelter and a stronghold. Not least among these was the end of the era of secular, nationalist pan-Arabism in the Arab world, marked by the passing of President Jamal Abdul Nasser (1918-1970), without achieving the dream of Arab unity. This was followed by the collapse of leftist organizations with the downfall of the Eastern Bloc, and the incapability of western countries to build bridges with the Arab and Islamic region. Indeed, instead of reaching out in friendship, many such countries did quite the reverse, waging war against Islam and linking it to terrorism, backwardness and extremism. The biased role played by the West – and the US in particular – in favor of Israel also clearly contributed to the divide. Finally, one can point to psychological and social reasons which also motivated people to wrap themselves in Islam; as well as anyway being the foundation of their very existence, a rock and a refuge, Islam is a particular shelter from the storm of attacks and attempts to impose hegemony on them, without the least of consideration of the Islamic world’s distinguished tradition of learning, achievement and civilization.
Nationalist and Islamic trends[1]
The secular, nationalist ideology that emerged at the beginning of the 20th century led to the formation of a number of organizations and parties, including the Arab Nationalist Movement (Harakat al-Qawmiyyin al-Arab), the Ba’ath Party, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, and indeed the movement that would become known as Nasserism. This trend succeeded in becoming a major force, achieving independence and leading countries which had recently become independent. However, following a succession of reverses, including coups, power conflicts, repeated military and psychological defeats, and overall failure to meet national aspirations, coupled with external pressures, this trend retreated in favor of the Islamic movement (Al-Jami’ah Al-Islamiyyah), which after the fall of the Islamic Caliphate had seen the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 by Sheikh Hassan Al-Banna (1906-1949)[2]. However, the repeated failure of the Islamic movement to achieve power in any of the Arab countries or in most other Islamic countries led to a violent reaction, escalated by the arrest and detention of many of its leaders, which implanted the seeds of extremism in these groups. It should be noted that most extremist groups emerged in prisons from under the cloak of the Muslim Brotherhood organization. Contrary to our analysis, writer Muhammad Al-Mistiri believes that the intellectual confrontation between the Islamic project and the secular one is not a fierce one. He believes that the “identity of each of them is vague, which imposes a strange kind of overlapping between the two projects, and uncertainty on the borders of each of them. Many Islamists are not any different from secularists in coexisting with modernity, as each of them adopts reconciliation predicated on heeding customs and social outlook.” However, the termination of conflict between the secular nationalist tendency and the Islamist movement paved the way for the growth of the latter,[3] including the extremists among them.
The Islamist movements impose their vision
The Islamist movements[4] succeeded in bombarding the masses with strong and appealing arguments, “with which it was able to overwhelm previous nationalist, national, and leftist cultural structures, and to impose its own vision of what is right and wrong, what is ugly and beautiful. These movements found help in the large division among various ruling elites, the proliferation of corruption, and lack of competence in various countries. Meanwhile, the Islamic movements were not confined to missionary activities in mosques, classrooms and media. They developed a large number of institutions that attracted people who approached them instead of the state institutions for help in times of disaster and hard life. In addition to all that, the Islamic movements directly offered martyrs in confrontations against foreign aggression and political domination.” The leaders of Islamist movements[5], however, were involved in interpretations that deemed violence as a legitimate strategic option to complement the process of their moral hegemony in order to obtain power. Writer Muhammad Ghabash inquires whether that was “a kind of haste and lack of patience stemming from the historic slowness of the political transformations in the Arab societies? Or was it a wrong reading of the Soviet Union’s fall to which Islamists contributed in no minor effort? Did the Islamists take lightly the power of the West and its capability to change its security and political systems quickly to face new challenges?? Did the Qa’ida calculate the reactions when it launched its military operations against western interests?”[6] In spite of that, can we really say that the Islamic movement in general can be viewed as somehow separate from the official and social context in which it developed? Many writers would answer that this is not possible, because they are part and parcel of the history that forms the thought, culture, consciousness, and civilization of the nation. The Islamic movement in general, whether the fundamentalist, sophist or political,[7] played a remarkable role in resisting occupation and in reviving the Arabic language which, alongside Islamic values and traditions, colonialists tried to obliterate and to replace with values that contradict Islam. Muhammad Ghabash adds that “it will be a big loss for us as peoples if the Islamic movements dwindled and died just as did the anarchist unionism. There are many tasks that these movements can carry out in our modern life. Struggle against foreign occupation is not over yet, and the process of dismantling the structure of political domination is still beginning. These are tasks that Islamists, just like others, can contribute to. They are capable in particular of making a major contribution to the protection of our Arab societies from corruption, which is likely to increase greatly with the upcoming capitalist development. They can also protect the Arab societies from the nihilism and demoralization that is taking root in our societies due to the misery and humiliation which we have been subjected to for a long time.”[8] Writer Abdel Latif Minawi says that “the Islamists are part of our history, whether we like it or not”. On the other hand, Tunisian writer Muhammad Al-Mistiri[9] says that although the Islamic project is suffering a crisis of intellectual identity, still “there is no justification for democracy without respecting plurality, which is theoretically the invariant that gathers the secularists and the Islamists”. Dr. Rahel Gharaibeh writes in the London-based Arabic Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (the Middle East) newspaper, that “political practice is a legitimate right for the Islamic movements, but their opponents try to exclude them because they are the most popular”. However, it is impossible to exclude the Islamists, because they have their supporters. Indeed, there are possibilities to include them within the democratic process, although extremist trends among them reject democracy.
Old parties and new movements
Amru Hamzawi[10] says that part of what is happening today in a number of Arab countries in which new opposition movements are formed, like Egyptian Kifaya, Palestinian Kafa, Yemenite Irhaloo and others, is very similar to the state of protest in Europe late last century, although there are fundamental differences between government systems and levels of social development here and there. The formation of Kifaya and its peers clearly expresses a conscious attempt to overcome the Arab political stagnation imposed by ruling elites, and opposition parties’ marginalization by the lack of freedom of mobility and isolation from the popular base. Although most of the discourse of these Arab movements is limited to rejecting the policies of the ruling regimes and generally demanding a democratic transformation, without developing specific visions on how this can be achieved, these movements have still excelled in innovating new ways to reach citizens who have been refraining from taking part in and caring for public affairs. These movements have also excelled in fostering popular resentment which has led to the development of a spirit of opposition that rediscovers politics, and reminds the ruling elites constantly that their actions are being scrutinized by people both inside and outside their borders. In addition to the above-mentioned groups there are social movements stemming from human rights organizations, all of which contribute to establishing new voices outside the ambit of the old political parties, be they Islamist, secular or democratic.
The Shiite Model
The Iranian model is a different one, because it represents Shiite Islam[11]. Shiite Muslims make up 12-15% of the total number of Muslims in the world. This ratio includes all the Shiite sects, the most prominent of which is the Jafariyyah, Ithnay Ashariyyah, which is ruling Iran and which extends to Iraq, Lebanon and other countries. The different Shiite political role of religion stems from the fact that from birth the Shiite individual has to follow what they call ‘Muqallad’ (the imitated model). The Muqallad is an Imam, who could be a sheikh or an Ayatollah. Imamah, which is the position of Imam, is considered a basic element in the Shiite rite, just like prayers and fasting. Imamah is situated within a hierarchy that resembles the Christian clergy. This position, however, is not found in Sunni Islam. As such, the Shiite individual is linked by his religious rite to his or her Imam, whether the Islamic government was Shiite or not. Therefore the Iranian experience is considered a different one from the general pattern, and deserves study.
Extremism and Islamic terrorism
Commenting on the concept of terrorism and the depiction of Muslims as terrorists after the events of September 11, 2001, the Moroccan Islamic thinker Al-Muqri’ Al-Idrisi Abu Zeid says that “the intellectual and ideological element is not the only one that leads to terrorism and violence. Muslims fall into the trap of western discourse which considers violence as only the outcome of religious thoughtlessness that threatens modern societies. This discourse, however, ignores other factors that contributed to this phenomenon. Some of these factors are psychological, related to the extremists’ mental formation. Another factor that contributed to the rise of this phenomenon is an objective one, namely the external injustice inflicted on Muslims in many areas of the world, as a result of exploiting the concept of terrorism – to serve regional interests - against the Muslims’ faith”[12]. Abu Zeid likened the way extremist Islamic groups currently deal with the religious texts to what the Khawarej (a deviant group that were believed to have strayed from the true religion) did in Islamic history[13]. “This group maintained extremist positions that exceeded the proper bounds, were hasty in considering others as atheists (takfir), legitimizing killing and confronting them, and focused on finding a way out without heeding results or objectives. This thought is nourishing on a wrong and imbalanced reading of religious texts, especially those texts relating to fighting and Jihad.” We think that the crisis of the extreme Islamic organizations is not the result of a weak faith or an excessive knowledge of the ancestors’ books, but rather it stems from a superficial reading of the Quranic texts which does not benefit from the noble prophetic tradition (the Hadith). The fault of these organizations is their excessive immoderation in all matters. They are incapable of seeing the relativity of things, and that has made it easier for their thinking to be impetuous. They deem this intellectual deviation of theirs as righteousness and virtue, while ultimately it is criminality because it leads to killing people in the streets under the pretext of Jihad (struggle) in the way of Allah, as Abu Zeid says. This is because their reading of the religious texts is not thorough, and therefore they resort to probable interpretations, and select the one that permits killing[14]. The extremist Egyptian Al-Jihad group condemned the incidents at Sharm El-Sheikh in July 2005. In an important statement, Al-Jihad said that “killing and bombing cannot be a source of pride; beasts in the wilderness kill and tear each other. These random explosions are not any legitimate jihad, rather they are an unjust fight that humiliates Muslims and does not strengthen them. It makes the countries of the Muslims an open arena for the greediness of their enemies, tendentious and malevolent people”. The statement indicated that such incidents “do not promote Muslims’ affairs but rather lower them, and make all Muslims intimidated, scared and living in fear, and lead to killing them in the worst manner whereby their heads fly in all directions, and their members are scattered everywhere, and this is not Jihad that was instructed by Allah.” This statement was an indication that the concept of extremism and terrorism is rejected by Muslims now and in the past. It is also rejected by moderate Islamic movements, as well as by some extremist groups like Al-Jihad[15], which makes it possible to conduct dialogue and open channels with them.
Islamic and democratic movements
Many writers and analysts have doubts about the relationship between democracy and Islamic movements. There are movements which believe that democracy represents an outlet for them, and therefore want to engage with it, despite abundant opinions that the concept of democracy is in contradiction with Islam. There are writers who raise doubts about Islamists and their real willingness to practice democracy. Writer Dr. Jamal Abdel Jawad[16] says “upon evaluating the transformation of the Islamic movements’ approaches towards democracy, the source of concern for non-Muslims is not whether the transformations of these Islamists towards democracy are real, honest, and final or not, but the concern stems from the state of imbalance between the influence of the Islamic movement on the one hand, and other movements on the other, which allows the Islamists if they wanted, to break their promises for democracy without any deterrent.” In other words, the credibility of Islamic movements’ transformation towards democracy is questioned, and developments in Algeria stand as an example for that. We believe that the ‘Islamist’ fundamentalist movements that dominated Arab societies for the last quarter of a century and achieved large popular success are now in a stage of decline. What could be the reason for that? We agree with the analysis that the alliance that existed between the following social groups is now over:1. Religious bourgeois in the cities (dignitaries, capitalists etc).2. Young people stricken with poverty and misery, as well as the classes that fill the slums in the suburbs of major Arab and Islamic cities.3. Fundamentalist university students. These three groups were the ones that guaranteed sweeping popularity in the eighties and nineties of the fundamentalist movements[17], and were the ones that sometimes brought these movements almost to the doors of authority, as happened in Egypt immediately following the murder of Sadat, in Algeria after the success of the Jabhat Al-Inqath (salvation front) in the elections of 1991-1992, and in Palestine in the elections of 2006. Resorting to terrorist acts, assassinations and bombings by extremist elements from among the youth crushed by poverty made religious dignitaries scared of them, and gradually detached them from them. In this way, the fundamentalist movement split into two parts, one of which is extremist, violent, and practices terrorism in order to gain power by any means, or achieve its Islamic dream of reviving the Caliphate[18] and the religious state. The other part is a moderate one that has economic interests and enjoys a relatively comfortable life, so does not want to endanger it by gambling on results of which are no guaranteed. This division, according to French writer Gilles Kepel,[19] is what led to the failure of fundamentalist movements in achieving their objectives and reaching power.
The West and Islamic movements
The role of the West in encouraging the extremism of Islamist groups and movements cannot be denied. The Western charge of Islam as a religion of terrorism, extremism or backwardness has had its impact on Muslims in general and on the extremists among them in particular, serving as a recruiting tool by increasing the levels of involvement by average Muslims and motivating Islamist groups to seek alliances between themselves despite intellectual or religious differences, as is the case between the Shiite and the Sunni or the Salafiyyon and the Muslim Brotherhood. This alliance-building and polarization increases due to the Western pressure on Muslims, and the failure to open channels of communication with the moderate among them, as well as the support of US and Europe to corrupt Arab regimes, liberal and dictator alike. The Turkish experience can be referred to as representing a success for moderate Islamists, who agree on the alternation of power and on democratic activity within the framework of secularism, and this is a problem for Islamist thought. “The secularism which Erdoğan, Gül, and their colleagues believed in was the secularism of separating religion from the state, and not the enmity of the state against religion. And the nationalism they understand is one that mixes security interests with NATO, and the market with the European Community. All of this, however, is protected by an identity that is not fanatic, and that opens the doors for coming closer to other religions, states, peoples, and nations that share with Turkey the same historic moment of balance”[20]. This exceptional experience, however, may either be a source of pride for some Islamists or may also be utterly rejected by some groups among them.
Conclusion
“The political community can only function within a national state which organizes its affairs through a democratic regime that guarantees the alternation of power and the rule of majority, but also guarantees certain balances in dealing with public and personal freedoms in which religion and religious groups play the moral disciplinary and conscientious role; this gives the temporal law sufficient respect to protect man from himself, which is constantly urging for evil, fascism and extremes.”[21] Islamist movements need to be persuaded that the world today enjoys a plurality of ethnicities, religions and rites, and that these movements should represent not just a certain Islamic rite or opinion, but should represent commendable morals and intentions. They should serve the people with an open mind, without intimidation or subjugation. As Dr. Abdel Mun’im Saied said, taking Christian parties in Europe as an example, “the Christian democratic parties have sufficient religion to preserve traditions and public morals, and have enough politics to understand that decisions ultimately belong to the free people who know the possibilities of interests and limits of morals.” In brief, the division within the Islamic (or Islamist) movements into moderates and extreme radicals weakened them and weakened their influence in the daily political process of the Arab and Islamic countries. Moderate movements among them, however, enjoy popular acceptance bolstered by hatred against outside interference in Muslim countries, and it is safe to say that regarding democratic practice, these movements still lean on the values of faith, and desire for reform and to access power. This indicates that there should be a distinction between the boundaries of extremism and terrorism on the one hand, and the those of flexibility and moderation – which can accept certain secular aspects – on the other hand. It also indicates that dialogue should be initiated with these movements by the West, including the US and Europe, as well as by Arab and Muslim countries and rulers. It is also important to support rising social movements, and the voice that says there are no parties in Islam, and no sanctity for persons and movements. The role of old parties with nationalist, leftist and liberal approaches should be activated and civil movements should be supported. “Islam and the West are not doomed to confrontation. The diversity of points of view within both Islam and the West provides prospects for reconciliation as well as conflict. The ‘sword’ verses in the Quran are usually cited by Islamists, as well as their critics in the West, as evidence for the inevitability of conflict between the two sides. I, however, believe that for all those on both sides who want peaceful coexistence there is a stronger argument to be found in the ‘peace’ verses of the Quran, which call for reconciliation with the ‘People of the Book”.[22] (Alen Kesoiter) Finally, I would venture to say that it is not Islam itself which has a problem with others; on the contrary, it is others who have a problem with Islam.
End Translated from Al-Ayyam Newspaper – Wednesday 12/9/2007
[1] Moroccan writers use the term ‘Islamist’ about groups, movements, or parties to indicate that they have an Islamic vision through which they want to restore past glories. Islamist also refers to political Islam, while the term Islamic is a description of Muslims in general.
[2] The position of general mentor of the Muslim Brotherhood Group was already occupied by six people, namely Hassan Al-Banna the founder (1928), Hasan Al-Hidhaibi (1951), Omar Al-Talmasani (1974), Muhammad Hamed Abu Al-Nasr (1986), Mustafa Mashhoor (1996), Mamoun Al-Hidaibi (2002). See www.ikhwanonline.com.
[3] Writer Rasheed Khayoun writing in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Newspaper, says that Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari (d. 324 H) was the first to use the term Islamists, in reference to the groups which were organized in movements, parties, or teams within Islam, to distinguish them from other Muslims.
[4] Writer Tareq Al-Qaziri wrote in Al-Manara that the era of Islamist confrontation with Nasserism was the stage that separated the Islamists from simple Muslims. This implies that dictatorship is the main producer of the Islamist phenomenon. This separation stage should be used to strip the Islamists of the sanctity they try to depict themselves with, and to bring them back from the heavens to the earth. Almanara.org.
[5] We use here Islamic and sometimes Islamist. Although we mix the two terms, the latter has become more common indicating parties that consider their opinions holy and absolutely right. The ‘Islamic’ movement is one that is opposed to separating religion from political and social activity in general.
[6] Muhammad Obeid Ghabash, quoted from the London-based Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, April 26, 2005.
[7] This is another classification of these groups, based on how distant a group is from political affairs. Sophism is a religious trend that cares for disciplining the soul and is not involved in politics. Fundamentalism is concerned with ideologies in general and their value, like the Salafist movement in the Arab Gulf countries, and does not care much for politics; it supports the ruler, whom it respects as the person in charge. The third - the political Islamic movement - represents those who formed parties and worked in politics, like Hizb al-Tahreer (Liberation party), the Muslim Brotherhood, and other local, less important organizations.
[8] Muhammad Obeid Ghabash, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, April 26, 2005.
[9] Muhammad Al-Mistiri, Editor in Chief of “Ru’a” magazine and Director of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Paris.
[10] Amru Hamzawi, an Egyptian researcher at Carnegie institution of Washington, July 18, 2005.
[11] http://www.shia.org
[12] An opposition Islamist member of Parliament from the Islamic Justice and Development Party in Morocco, from a lecture in Rabat, July 2004.
[13] Al-Khawarej group was formed following a dispute between Imam Ali Ben Abi Taleb, the fourth Commander of the Faithful, and Mu’awiya Ben Abi Sufyan. This is a group that believed in a caliphate for all Muslims, as an alternative for the supporters of Ali and the supporters of Mu’awiya at the time.
[14] Deputies Yunis al-Astal, Marwan Abu Ras, Khalil Hayyeh from among the Hamas Muftis.
[15] An extremist Islamist group that seeks to realize Islamic rule in Egypt by force, and targets any secular institution. It became prominent in the 1970s, and killing President Anwar Sadat was among their most prominent operations. Ayman Al-Thawahiri is considered now among their most prominent leaders. www/aljazeera.net.
[16] Dr. Jamal Abdel Jawad, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, November 17, 2003.
[17] The term fundamentalist is of Protestant Christian origin, and refers to dealing with absolute certainties.
[18] Al-Tahreer (Liberation)Party, which was founded in 1952 under the leadership of Taqi Al-Deen al-Nabahani, is the one that calls for re-establishing the Islamic Caliphate. The party gives this task priority and rejects violent jihadist acts.
[19] Gilles Kepel, War in the Heart of Islam, 2004.
[20] Abdel Mun’im Saied, in London-based Al-Sharq Al- Awsat, September 12, 2007.
[21] Abdel Mun’im Saied. Op.cit.