And what factors play a significant role in shaping the political traditions of Muslim countries? Scholars have offered many potential explanations to these questions, three of which are negative feelings towards the West, economic development, and authoritarian leadership. Because Muslim countries' historical experiences have been greatly impacted by the West, Muslims have developed negative feelings towards it.
Western imperialism, war, exploitation, and political interference in the Middle East led to an entrenched feeling of distrust, fear, and insecurity.
Because democracy is generally thought of as a product of the West, the countries of the Middle East have been reluctant to accept a Western democracy. As noted previously, Esposito's research found that Muslims do not want a Western imposed democracy and prefer to build their own version of a democratic system which would speak to their issues and concerns rather than to Western interests.
They also see it as seductive, and hence stress all the more the need to resist its impact on their way of life. These negative images associated with the West, somewhat exaggerated by Huntington, further impact Muslims' acceptance of a Western democratic regime that may overstep their culture or religion through certain liberal rights such as sexual orientation and abortion. Accordingly, democracy itself is accepted by Muslims, but certain Western values associated with democracy are not.
Thus, although religion does not hinder democracy in the Muslim world, certain socio-cultural elements in Muslim societies prevent them from unconditionally accepting democracy. One leading factor to the lack of democracy in the Muslim world is the presence of very powerful and hostile authoritarian regimes. In such cases, although the citizens yearn for democracy, the existing regime rejects democracy to protect its power and interests.
Therefore, some will argue that the focus of democratic study should not be on cultural preconditions, but rather on key social and political actors. This is important for the Muslim world which is haunted by authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. Iraq is one of many examples of this phenomenon.
For over 35 years, Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist and although Iraqis attempted to overthrow Saddam's regime several times, their efforts failed miserably. With the fall of the authoritarian regime in Iraq in , Iraqis embraced democracy and took pride in the change of Iraq's political system. The majority of Iraqis are Muslim but this did not impact their resent of authoritarianism and nor their preference for democracy.
This reveals that even today, many Muslims actively seek a democratic political system, but hostile dictators actively seek to silence them. Huntington and Fukuyama's claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy and modernity is false.
As a religion, Islam contains democratic concepts such as shura , and Ijtihad, while Muslims tend to strongly favor democracy over any other system. Kim's research showed that religion is not a strong determinant of democracy, while Al-Braiza revealed that religious Muslims have very positive attitudes towards democratic systems. Since Islam supports democracy, and Muslims favor it, then Huntington's claim that Islam is resistant to democracy holds no truth.
Nevertheless, there is a lack of democratic development in the Muslim world and it is caused by many factors other than religion, two of which are socio-cultural preferences and strong, hostile authoritarian regimes.
Democracy has become a need for the majority of Muslim citizens who desire political participation, liberal rights, and accountable government.
Associated Press. February 27, Shura in Islam. Qum, Iran: Al-Braizat, Fares. Collier, David. Levitsky, Steven. Huntington, Samuel P. Halliday, Fred. Islam and the Myth of Confrontation. New York: I. Adams in J. Esposito, ed. Heydon, 8 H. Sadri and A.
American and an Iranian context has 11 Ibid. Esposito and J. Voll, Islam and Demo- an equally strong suspicion of demo- cracy, New York, Oxford University Press, cracy, which was associated with law- , ch.
Lowrie, ed. The tide of democratic lawless- pp. Riesebrodt, Pious Passion: The Emer- all authority. California Press, , pp. The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Related Papers. US Foreign Policy, Proofs. By ahmad S moussalli. Democracy can be defined as government by the people; especially, rule of the majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections; the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority; the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
If we can cut through the labels and semantics, we find 7 John Voll and John Esposito. The no-nonsense guide to Islam, Verso, , pp. Islam, democracy, the state and the West: a round table with Dr. Merriam-Webster Dictionary [online]. For Muslims, the source of the constitution is the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and anything deemed relevant, effective, but not inconsistent with Islam. No authority, except the governed, has the right to put away abrogate or change such a constitution.
Thus, Islamic governance cant be an autocratic, hereditary or military rule. Such a system of governance is egalitarian in nature, and egalitarianism is one of the hallmarks of Islam.
It is also widely acknowledged that the beginning of the Islamic polity in Madinah was based on a constitutional foundation and pluralistic framework involving non-Muslims as well. From establishing the institutional structure of governance to operating it, the system is participatory. It means that the leadership and the policies will be conducted on the basis of full, gender-neutral participation of the governed through a popular electoral process.
Muslims can use their creativity using the Islamic guidelines and human experience to date to institute, and continuously refine, their processes. This participatory aspect is the Islamic process of Shura mutual consultation.
The leadership and the holders of authority are accountable to people within an Islamic framework. Islamic framework here means that all Muslims are accountable to Allah and his divine guidance. But that is more in a theological sense. The practical accountability relates to people. Thus, the Khulafa ar-Rashidoon were both Khalifatur Rasool representative of the Messenger as well as Khalifatul Muslimeen representative of the Muslims. This point needs further examination because a key and stubborn misperception of Muslims in regard to democracy is based on the notion that in Islam sovereignty belongs to God, while in democracy it belongs to people.
This is a naive and erroneous notion or interpretation. God IS the true and ultimate Sovereign, but he has bestowed a level of freedom and responsibility upon the human beings in this world. God has decided not to function as the Sovereign in this world. He has blessed humanity with revelations and his essential guidance. Muslims are to shape and conduct their lives, individually and collectively, according to that guidance.
But even though essentially this guidance is based on divine revelation, its interpretation and implementation are human. Whether people will choose the path to heaven or hell is a human decision. Whether they will choose Islam or another path, it is a human decision.
Whether people will choose to organize their lives based on Islam or not is a human decision. Whether Muslims would choose an Islamic form of governance or not is a human decision.
It can be argued that for making wrong choices in this world, Muslims might be facing negative consequences in the life hereafter. But, still it is a matter of choice; there is no room for compulsion or imposition.
What happens when the society and leadership faces a conflict? For example, if the majority of the society does not want to uphold Islam, the leadership cannot coerce the society into what it does not want. There is no compulsion or coercion in Islam. Coercion never delivers sustainable results, and the foundation of Islam cannot be based on coercion. God IS the sovereign from the viewpoint of Islamic reality, but not from practical standpoint. When our decisions are to be made based on Ijtihad and we could be wrong , where our constitution and policies would be formulated through human consultation and we can err , when our judicial system would be guided by the revealed guidance, yet, based on the evidence presented, there would be chance for an innocent to get convicted and a guilty to go free, God is not acting as a sovereign in this world.
To think like that is not to show due and full respect to the very freedom and responsibility that God has entrusted us with. Indeed, thinking like this leaves room for big abuse, as someone or some institution declares that God is the sovereign, and then they impose their own rule or whims in the name of the sovereign.
History is full of such abuses, where Shariah has been enforced or allowed for the people, but some powerful or privileged people remained above the Shariah. Even if one person remains above such Shariah, that is not true rule of law or Shariah at all. Thus, based on the above core features, it is important to recognize that Islam is incompatible with monarchy, military rule, dictatorship, or any other type of authoritarian political system.
Islam envisions a constitutional, participatory, and accountable system of governance. This is the Islamic concept of Khilafah. However, we need to be less concerned about terminology, label or semantics than substance.
In its fundamental character based on those core features, there is no conflict between democracy and Islamic political system, except that in an Islamic political system people cannot call themselves Islamic while themselves being in conflict with Islam. That is why Muslims should not shun democracy in a general sense as conflicting with Islam; rather, they should welcome it. After pointing out the shortcomings of democracy, Shaikh Qaradawi rather emphatically asserts: the tools and guaranties created by democracy are as close as can ever be to the realization of the political principles brought to this world by Islam to put a leash on the ambitions and whims of rulers.
Osman, one of the leading Muslim intellectuals of our times, remarked: democracy is the best application of Shura. As Voll and Esposito argue, democracy in the west is arguably not a model of perfection at the end of history; rather, a reconceptualization of democracy is viewed as a continuous imperative. Rather, Esposito contends, we all have something to benefit from each other in light of our human experience. The challenges ahead The Muslims who consider Islam and democracy to be incompatible need to discard their biased position based on misperceptions.
In addition, those who consider these to be compatible need to jettison their apologetic approach. If Muslims find adequate convergence between Islam and democracy, it is not because some or many scholars - Muslims or non-Muslims - think so and that they would like us to tread the path of democracy. Rather, Islamic governance - a constitutional, participatory and accountable form - is essentially based on the consent of the people or those who are governed, and thus democratic.
Moreover, in the past, some Muslim groups felt that the religious freedom in Indonesia is unfair. It is because the government did not give a special treatment for Muslims as a 6 Derek.
Davis and Barry Hankins ed. On the contrary, religions tend to find the difference based on faith. It is because since beginning, all religions have uniqueness. The uniqueness of religions must be subjugated if there is a request that religion can sustain democracy.
In short, in democracy, if a citizen or a group of citizens do not agree to a political policy because the policy is not good enough for their faith and religion, they have to give some argumentations rationally in the public space such as in mass media and parliament.
So, in this case, people whose strong religious conviction must obey to the rule of a democratic society. Since s, he has defended Confucian as a religion in Indonesia. It means that even though Muslims Indonesia is a majority but some Muslims groups still feel that as if they are a minority.
That is one of difficult problems of freedom of religion in Indonesia. State and Religion in Indonesia Indonesia declared its independence on August 17, At the time the neat union between nationalist groups and Islam factions had been shattered.
Politics and religion in Indonesia had been pluralized. Unfortunately, religious freedom was disturbed by the discussing about whether Islam becoming the state basis or not was difficult, hard, and factious. Some radical Muslims even accuse that the state is unfair in applying the religious freedom because Islam as a majority do not get a special treatment. Indeed, there is contradiction of relationship between state and Islam.
There are two kind relationships between state and religion, I mean Islam, in Indonesia. The first is the antagonistic relationship. In s, the existence of Islam as a political power once regarded as the opponent of the Indonesian nationalism or national foundation. In this era, Muslim factions had a great courage of Islam as an ideology.
There were many attempts to create synthesis between Islam and State. In this era, Islamic political themes were tending and directing to ideologies and symbols.
Muslim factions felt that they had to get a great deal of political positions because Islam is a majority religion in Indonesia. Muslim factions wanted to put Islam as a foundation of the Republic. The background of this position was for a long time, Muslims as a political force had been oppressed by the Dutch Colonial. In this era, there were strong notions of Islamic State in the all Indonesian Muslims. So, it was not surprising that some radical Muslim factions in this country in this time wanted to manifest their aspiration to found the Islamic state in Indonesia.
It must be considered that there was a strong military rebellion of the Indonesia Islamic State lead by Kartosuwirjo in s until the early of s. And, it must be noted, most of traditionalist Muslims preferred to loyal to the Republic and did not supported them. It is because there were many Islamic parties. However, Masjumi, one of big Islamic party was still consistent to voice Islam as the foundation Constituent Assembly.
This position caused the deadlock in a meeting of the Constituent Assembly when discussing of the foundation of Indonesia. They strongly supported Pancasila as the foundation.
So, it was decided by the Assembly to conduct a voting about it. The Islamic parties were lost in this voting.
The supporter of Islam as the foundation of state got votes whereas the supporter of Pancasila was votes. In other words, all attempts of Islamic political and military leaders to found Islam as an ideology and the Islamic State were failed. In short, all attempts of Islamic political leaders to found Islam as an ideology and the Islamic State was a sad story. It can be said that it is truly a story of fiasco. The impact of these political attempts is the state often suspects Islamic political factions even until now.
The existence of the ministry of Religious Affairs is the excellent proof of this relationship. There was a strong historical background of this department. The collaboration has been occurred since Islamic Mataram Kingdom in which there was a great Mosque and a small Islamic village called Kauman near the kraton or palace. It is because the nationalist groups wanted Pancasila and did not Islam as a state ideology so since they accepted the existence of this ministry.
Kiais, Islamic scholars and leaders, used this ministry to enforce their networks. They appointed most of their pupils and followers as a state employer.
0コメント