Since 9/11, much ink has been spilled on the troubles of the world of Islam. The problem was painfully obvious: There were only a few functioning democracies in the Muslim world, and simply none among the Arabs. Some even presumed a fundamental contradiction between Islam and democracy. Islam, they argued, could only produce dictatorial regimes.
But there was a serious flaw in this argument. Most of the Middle Eastern dictators — Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Bashar al-Assad of Syria — were secular, not Islamic, figures. In fact, the Islamic groups in these countries, such as the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and its various franchises, were often brutally suppressed by the secular autocrats in question.
Most Islamic opponents of these dictators, to be sure, were hardly democratically minded themselves. But in the past two decades, among the more moderate of these Islamic groups, there has been a growing discussion about democracy and a growing acceptance of it. In recent years, Turkey has even evolved into a source of inspiration for would-be Muslim democrats, as its incumbent Justice and Development Party (AKP) showed that pious Muslims can be part of the democratic game and gain from it.
That is why, since the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Islamic peoples involved did not emerge with cries of jihad and domination. Spokesmen from both the Tunisian Islamic Renaissance Party and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, rather, voiced a willingness to participate in democratic politics.
The Arab Spring is indeed an historic moment. But it will not be the end of the debate about the role of Islam in politics. As Fareed Zakaria has warned, there can easily be illiberal democracies, where the dictates of the majority oppress minorities or dissenting individuals. To protect the liberty of group and individual, you need not just democracy but also a constitution and society built on the foundation of classical liberalism — the beliefs articulated by writers such as John Locke and Adam Smith.
Ahmed al-Tayyeb, one of Egypt’s top clerics, has made a promising call for a “democratic modern state.” The challenge, however, is evident in the caveat: Al-Tayyeb insists that that Islamic law should remain “the essential source of legislation,” as is the case in post-Saddam Iraq. From the ban on apostasy to punishments for blasphemy, classical Islamic law, or shariah, has many injunctions that curtail individual freedom.
Many Westerners at this point will likely seek a solution in insisting that laws should be secular rather than Islamic. But that might be the wrong emphasis, for secularism is no guarantee of liberalism. The most secular state in the whole Muslim world, Turkey, used to have many oppressive laws, which banned the Kurdish language, criminalized “insulting Turkishness,” and limited Christian worship — all as a result of secular nationalism, not Islam.
The right emphasis is not secularism, then, but liberalism, and it should be sought in both secular and religious sources.
Despite all the assumptions to the contrary, there were proto-liberal schools of thought in classical Islam, which valued individual rights, rationality and pluralism. These schools were eclipsed by the more communalist, dogmatic and intolerant interpretations of the faith. Things got even worse in the 20th century, as European colonialism triggered an anti-colonial reaction and an anti-liberal mood throughout the Muslim world. Soon, an even more definitive curse befell the Middle East, with the vicious cycle between secular dictators and their Islamist enemies.
Today, in order to go beyond those extremes, and to rediscover Islamic liberalism, I call on my fellow Muslims to embrace three basic freedoms:
First, “freedom from the state,” or the acceptance of secular (not secularist) governments. Yes, Prophet Muhammad happened to be the head of a state, but none of us mortals are divinely guided as we believe that he was. Thus, none of us should impose our own limited understanding of Islam, via the state, as “the real Islam.”
Second, there is the need to accept “the freedom to sin.” Not because we endorse sin, but because when we try to ban it with authoritarian means, all we create is hypocrisy, not genuine piety.
Third, we Muslims should recognize “freedom from Islam.” If any of our coreligionists choose another religion, in other words, we should just respect that choice. That would be a much bigger service to our faith, rather than depicting it as a club with a free entry but no free exit.
Muslims do not need to abandon the core of their faith in order to accept these freedoms. But they certainly need to recognize them, if they wish to build truly liberating democracies.
But there was a serious flaw in this argument. Most of the Middle Eastern dictators — Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Bashar al-Assad of Syria — were secular, not Islamic, figures. In fact, the Islamic groups in these countries, such as the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and its various franchises, were often brutally suppressed by the secular autocrats in question.
Most Islamic opponents of these dictators, to be sure, were hardly democratically minded themselves. But in the past two decades, among the more moderate of these Islamic groups, there has been a growing discussion about democracy and a growing acceptance of it. In recent years, Turkey has even evolved into a source of inspiration for would-be Muslim democrats, as its incumbent Justice and Development Party (AKP) showed that pious Muslims can be part of the democratic game and gain from it.
That is why, since the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Islamic peoples involved did not emerge with cries of jihad and domination. Spokesmen from both the Tunisian Islamic Renaissance Party and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, rather, voiced a willingness to participate in democratic politics.
The Arab Spring is indeed an historic moment. But it will not be the end of the debate about the role of Islam in politics. As Fareed Zakaria has warned, there can easily be illiberal democracies, where the dictates of the majority oppress minorities or dissenting individuals. To protect the liberty of group and individual, you need not just democracy but also a constitution and society built on the foundation of classical liberalism — the beliefs articulated by writers such as John Locke and Adam Smith.
Ahmed al-Tayyeb, one of Egypt’s top clerics, has made a promising call for a “democratic modern state.” The challenge, however, is evident in the caveat: Al-Tayyeb insists that that Islamic law should remain “the essential source of legislation,” as is the case in post-Saddam Iraq. From the ban on apostasy to punishments for blasphemy, classical Islamic law, or shariah, has many injunctions that curtail individual freedom.
Many Westerners at this point will likely seek a solution in insisting that laws should be secular rather than Islamic. But that might be the wrong emphasis, for secularism is no guarantee of liberalism. The most secular state in the whole Muslim world, Turkey, used to have many oppressive laws, which banned the Kurdish language, criminalized “insulting Turkishness,” and limited Christian worship — all as a result of secular nationalism, not Islam.
The right emphasis is not secularism, then, but liberalism, and it should be sought in both secular and religious sources.
Despite all the assumptions to the contrary, there were proto-liberal schools of thought in classical Islam, which valued individual rights, rationality and pluralism. These schools were eclipsed by the more communalist, dogmatic and intolerant interpretations of the faith. Things got even worse in the 20th century, as European colonialism triggered an anti-colonial reaction and an anti-liberal mood throughout the Muslim world. Soon, an even more definitive curse befell the Middle East, with the vicious cycle between secular dictators and their Islamist enemies.
Today, in order to go beyond those extremes, and to rediscover Islamic liberalism, I call on my fellow Muslims to embrace three basic freedoms:
First, “freedom from the state,” or the acceptance of secular (not secularist) governments. Yes, Prophet Muhammad happened to be the head of a state, but none of us mortals are divinely guided as we believe that he was. Thus, none of us should impose our own limited understanding of Islam, via the state, as “the real Islam.”
Second, there is the need to accept “the freedom to sin.” Not because we endorse sin, but because when we try to ban it with authoritarian means, all we create is hypocrisy, not genuine piety.
Third, we Muslims should recognize “freedom from Islam.” If any of our coreligionists choose another religion, in other words, we should just respect that choice. That would be a much bigger service to our faith, rather than depicting it as a club with a free entry but no free exit.
Muslims do not need to abandon the core of their faith in order to accept these freedoms. But they certainly need to recognize them, if they wish to build truly liberating democracies.
