Thanks Sharon for this!!!
Wed, 14/11/2012 - 17:05
views:
Salafis might accept procedural democracy — that is
to say the vote and the ballot box — as a means that allows them to
attain power. But do they accept the core values of democracy? Do they
respect personal freedom, diversity, coexistence and mutual
understanding? In this debate with a Salafi friend, Amr Ezzat pinpoints
12 contentious issues that attempt to shed light on conservative
Islamist thinking.
1-He told me that the Islamists remained in Tahrir until
Mubarak was brought down, but that they did not voice demands for
implementing Islamic Sharia or emphasizing the Islamic identity since
those demands ran the risk of dividing the protesters and jeopardizing
the achievement of the common goal. I told him that we now need to
garner a consensus to produce a constitution that expresses the demands
of all Egyptians, but that Islamists now insist on incorporating what
they declined to declare in the past. “How come you now accuse the
others of dividing people?” I asked.
2-He told me that the situation is different now, since we
are set to build the nation. And building the nation requires doing what
is “right” rather than what receives a consensus. It is right to
implement Sharia, which is a necessity for the Muslim majority, he said.
I told him that I am counted among this Muslim majority he is speaking
about and most of the members and supporters of the political powers are
also counted among it, and all of us oppose what he calls for.
3-He told me that a Muslim who does not want Sharia
implemented would be an atheist or in need of reviewing his or her
beliefs. When I told him to deduct “the atheists” from that majority, he
told me that those he calls atheists were only a minority. I called his
attention to the result of the presidential election and asked him if
he thought those who gave their votes to presidential candidate Ahmed
Shafiq wanted Sharia implemented, even though the focus of Shafiq’s
campaign was evoking horror of the Islamists state, or whether he
thought non-Muslims in Egypt were nearing half the population.
4-He told me that in Islam the majority does not
necessarily possess the truth because truth is what God sent to his
Prophet as understood by the righteous predecessors. He added that
democracy contradicts with Islam since it could lead to results that
violate this truth. He explained that Islamists accepted democracy
because they thought it would bring them to power since the majority of
people, they thought, supported the implementation of Sharia. “If the
majority does not want Sharia, what would be the case?” I asked. He said
that in that event democracy would be an ineffective way to implement
Sharia.
5-He told me that democracy is also in contradiction with
Islam because it makes “the truth,” which is the basis for making laws,
something relative and dependent on lawmakers' discussions and votes.
“Thank God those MPs were Muslims!” he said. “But what if they weren't?”
I asked. He said in that case democracy would be an ineffective way to
implement Sharia. “And in that case what can we do?” I asked. “We will
have to look for another way or go back to our mosques,” he said.
6- He then told me that I was manipulating the conversation
to evade the truth that the majority wants Sharia. "Is that democracy?"
he asked. I told him that he said that in democracies laws are prepared
in parliaments following debates and voting, and so MPs could propose
whatever bills based on any frame of reference. Attempting to restrict
this process in the name of Sharia is a suppression of democracy.
7-He told me that I therefore do not mind the
implementation of a law derived from Sharia. I said yes, provided that
it safeguards freedom and equality, which forms the basis for collective
life in a democratic republic. Also, that law should be discussed to
ensure it observes people's interests as they express them. He told me
that, like him, I too reject democracy when it goes against my views. I
told him that an illustrative example of my point is when some people
gather in some place and decide that they are all equal owners of it and
that everybody has a right to be different and that collective issues
would be decided on through discussion and then a majority vote. When a
certain individual proposes that we vote over expelling one of the group
who does something that neither benefits nor harms the others, but
which they just do not like, would that be right?
8-He thought about it for a while then asked, “what if they
expelled him or her?” I said that is why there is a constitution or a
preliminary agreement that restricts lesser agreements by safeguarding
freedom and equality between people. He asked: "what if they reject to
write the constitution this way because they have the intention to kick
him out and because they believe there is an absolute truth that rises
above the right to freedom and equality?" I told him there is no
guarantee for democracy other than the people's agreement, otherwise the
more powerful will crush the weaker and violate their freedom and right
to equality.
9-He said that I am restricting the wish of a large sector
of people who want to be governed by Sharia and what they think is
right. I told him that with reference to the first part of our
conversation, he had every right to be governed by Sharia and to use it
to elicit ideas for politics, administration and the law, but that I
reject to have my freedom restricted and to be deprived of a freedom
that does not harm him in a direct way just because it violates what he
thinks is right. He said that religion calls for such restriction and
that by asking for that freedom I would be restricting his adherence to
religion. I said "are you saying that I am suppressing your freedom to
control my actions in conformance with what you think is right?" He
said, "Yes."
10-He asked why I opposed Sharia. I said that to think that
your ideas are the words of God and that they constitute the truth is
something that has nothing to do with me, for I could contest how far
your ideas are expressive of religion or I could have no faith in your
religion at all. We both agree that the freedom of creed is absolute and
should be safeguarded and that exercising that right does not violate
democracy since we are all in search of legislation that achieves the
people's interests and ensures their basic rights are protected.
11-He said that those guarantees that pepper my speech
would make me, like him, reject democracy if it does not have freedom
and equality as a basis for it and that he rejects democracy if it will
not be a method to implement Sharia and so we would never agree. I said
that he was right since I insist on my freedom and right to equality
while he insists on restricting that.
12- He said that conflict was the solution since the power
is sometimes needed to establish the truth.
He added that Egyptians
would have not been Muslims if it weren’t for the Islamic conquest of
Egypt. I told him that Egypt has since taken strides to become a
democratic republic and that Egypt was entering a new stage where
political legitimacy emanates from the masses which did not raise the
implementation of Sharia as a demand. He said that they did not want
conflict at the beginning. I told him that he wants to use force to
establish what he thinks is the truth, away from democratic
participation. He said that this was legitimate. I said “do not ask me
then why I do not want your understanding of Sharia implemented!”
Translated by Dina Zafer
This is a translation of an article published on Al-Masry al-Youm Arabic website.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment