Islamists and Democracy

Lee Smith, who some of you may recall from what I found to be a very interesting exchange about Tariq Ramadan, has a piece in Slate today about Islamists and democracy. As in his hardline rejection of Ramadan's moderate credentials, Smith sees little evidence of Islamist understanding of or enthusiasm for democracy. He admits that many Islamists have favored elections, but judges this to be motivated solely by their pragmatic calculation that they would win such elections. Beyond that pragmatism, "However, it's not at all clear that the Islamists have any interest in the broad array of liberties—like freedom of speech and equal rights—that most people, certainly most citizens of liberal democracies, associate with democracy."

Oddly, however, Smith does not actually address the arguments of any moderate Islamists. One would think that to explore the question of how Islamists think about democracy, it would be necessary to engage with those influential Islamist thinkers who have written and spoken about the subject. And Azzam Tamimi does not count, sorry (nor does an anonymous guy he met in Dubai, who said something about an anonymous Iranian intellectual. That's not evidence, it's hearsay). What have Islamists such as Yusuf al Qaradawi, Mohammed al Awa, Tariq al Bishri, Fahmi Huwaydi, Kamal Abd al Magd, Tariq Ramadan, Abdelkarim Soroush, and so on said about it? We've already rehearsed our disagreements about Tariq Ramadan. Let's look at Yusuf al Qaradawi.

Qaradawi is probably the single most influential Islamist thinker today. Many Americans just dismiss him out of hand because he has expressed support for the Palestinians. This is beyond silly, a bit intellectually embarrassing.. but all too common in an American discourse which defines moderation in terms of political positions (specifically, whether or not the person supports particular American foreign policy goals) rather than in terms of approaches to politics (do they endorse violence, do they respect the views of others, do they accept the rights of minorities). Qaradawi - an al Jazeera regular who recently turned down the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood because he felt he could be more influential as an independent thinker - has spent the last thirty years presenting a sustained and coherent argument for a moderate approach to Islamism. He has routinely and consistently denounced terrorism and intellectual extremism. He declared it permissible for American Muslims to participate in the Afghan campaign, and he routinely denounces terrorist attacks. And he argues very clearly that Islam not only is compatible with democracy, it requires it.

In his book "Islam Without Fear," (which Smith referenced in our last exchange, so he presumably has read) Raymond Baker discusses a 1993 series of fatwas issued by Qaradawi on the question of democracy (p.173, for those keeping score). In those fatwas, Qaradawi "unambiguously embraced political pluralism, including the competition of political parties.... Qaradawi explained that Islam has no trouble tolerating diversity in sharia, recognizing four major schools as authoritative despite important differences among them. ... Qaradawi took as a starting point the idea that the Islamic notion of shura [consultation] with the ruler provided a secure conceptual anchor for contemporary efforts to build democracy... Qaradawi unequivocally pronounced that shura was obligatory and not voluntary."

Qaradawi is not obscure. He has written dozens of books, given hundreds of lectures, on this topic. He is the most prominent Islamist intellectual today. If one reads Arabic, one could review this record on Qaradawi's home page. If one does not read Arabic, perhaps one should refrain from blanket judgements about what Islamists think.

What about Fahmi Huwaydi, another very prominent Islamist moderate who writes regular columns for al Ahram and al Sharq al Awsat? Again, I'll quote Baker, since it's in English and easily referenced. Huwaydi's conception of democracy "specified the seven critical characteristics that New Islamist theorists agree a political system must have to meet the exacting Islamic standards of justice achieved through democracy. The first specifies that legitimate authority rests with the people, who choose the ruler and have the right to remove him from power. The second notes that society has responsibilities and duties that it exercises independently of any call by the authorities or permission by the government. The third, fourth, and fifth provide, respectively, for freedom as a right for all, equality fo all citizens, and the explicit recognition of the rightful place of the 'other', that is, the non-Muslim, as a full partner with Muslims in the just Islamic state. The sixth... makes any injustice haram [religiously forbidden]... the seventh recognizes sharia as the source of legislation to which rulers as well as people must yield." Elaborating on the last point, both Huwaydi and Qaradawi defend a highly pluralistic and contestable approach to sharia.

The point of all this is not to prove that these Islamists are "liberals." They aren't, in the American sense of the word. They take religion seriously, and want to expand its place in public life. But they are democrats, and they are a powerful force in contemporary Islamic politics, even if critics like Smith choose to ignore them because they do not fit their thesis.

Comments

[Martin Kramer]

I've seen Qaradawi perform twice in Qatar, and to say he "has routinely and consistently denounced terrorism" is stretching it. See my account of his performance at a US-Islamic meet in Qatar in 2002, at http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2002_11_13.htm (I saw his routine this year too, but didn't write it up.) And see the following, about his support for use of females in suicide bombings (scroll past Obeid): http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2004_01_30.htm These are some of the reasons the U.S. won't give Qaradawi a visa. He feeds into a culture of violence, which can't be confined to the Palestinian arena, and which spills over into terrorism writ large. This is much more significant, in an immediate way, than his strictly theoretical philosophizing on democracy (although I could say something about that too). Lee Smith is on the mark.

[the aardvark]

Martin,

I'm shocked - shocked! - that you agree with Smith on the subject of Islamists and democracy!

Seroiusly, though, on Qaradawi: That he has not regularly denounced terrorism is just not true - he has denounced terrorist attacks in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, and in a lot of other cases. I'm writing from home so don't have my Qaradawi file handy, but he has a long record. From his arguments against the Sadat assassination to now he has been consistent. The only area that he hasn't been is, of course, in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, where he has not (to my knowledge) spoken out. That shouldn't be minimized, but it shouldn't be overstated either. He has taken courageous positions against terrorism against the grain of wider public opinion on many occasions, and he has pointedly rejected the "culture of violence" - both in terms of the use of violence and in intellectual terms (his approach to jurisprudence).

We could, and should, talk about Qaradawi's theorizing, but I suspect that it will come down to the basic and familiar disagreements about how to interpret Islamist moderates. If you begin with the assumption that there aren't any, then literally nothing Qaradawi or anyone else says will convince you otherwise. But if you read what he actually writes, or listen to him talk - in his sermons or on al Jazeera, where he has a huge audience, so you can't say that this is just for a small, elite audience - then I would like to see where his conception of democracy doesn't hold up. It isn't "liberal democracy," as I pointedly noted, but it goes far beyond a pragmatic "let us vote because we will win."

Qaradawi isn't perfect - who is? - but is it responsible to ignore the fact that the most influential public Islamist intellectual today clearly endorses democracy and rejects extremism? Or to write about "Islamists and democracy" without once mentioning such a public figure, or any of his many like minded thinkers?

[Martin Kramer]

Abu Aardvark,

Qaradawi is a mixed bag, and his supposed virtues are heavily diluted. Unfortunately, unlike Abou Fadl or even Tariq Ramadan, he isn't a work in progress either. He is finished goods, and what you see is what you get.

Qaradawi is vintage Muslim Brotherhood, old school, and the Brotherhood has never distinguished itself by a great attachment to democracy. (When Egypt had a bit of it, they did a splendid job undermining it.) Qaradawi wants a system tolerant enough so that the Brotherhood can flourish within it--so that people like himself won't have to move away from the Nile and out to the sand flats of Qatar. But I don't think it goes further--or deeper--than that.

In Doha in January, Richard Haass did a very good job of showing up Qaradawi as a part-timer when it comes to democracy. Now that democratization has finally gotten closer to the top of the U.S. agenda, even vis-a-vis Egypt, Qaradawi has lined up with the nay-sayers, calling it an imperialist plot. I think he's an obstacle to really deep thinking on democracy and pluralism. (Poor Abou Fadl, who has been on his receiving end, would certainly agree.) Yes, Qaradawi's immensely popular, but (God strike me for writing this), you cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear--or a champion of democracy from a classic Muslim Brother. He's not as good as it gets. I think it could get better.

Finally, it is a bit of a problem that he gives all these interviews to Hamas media, telling everybody--men and women--to go out and kill Israelis indiscriminately. In some circles, this is just shrugged off as "cycle of violence," but it's really a very dramatic escalation, and Qaradawi has contributed his share and then some. To look the other way over that facet of his activism is somehow to legitimize it. That's why he lost his multi-entry visa to America the Golden--and he ain't gonna get it back anytime soon.