Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Acton.  And the man knew stuff.
  

    <scribbled by farooq Wed 19 Jan 05 18:15>
  

    
And other evidences.
  

    
>Is suspicion
about democracy widespread among the Muslims you know?  Why is this?<

Its not an issue of suspicion rather its an issue of whether democracy
is part of the Islamic ruling system. As Sajjad has highlighted Islam
stipulates that leaders have to be elected. Also people are elected to
an institution called the consultative assembly in which any citizen of
the Islamic State can stand, and be elected by the people. However
this is not democracy as implemented in the west because in the
democratic system, people determine laws which is contrary to Islam.
The laws in the Islamic system are determined by the Quran and Sunnah.

However there is another point and that is whether democracy is
actually a 'practical' system, and the actual reality of democracy. It
is clear in the American election or for that matter any election,
money is at the centre of the electoral process. That is to say, to get
elected largely depends upon your campaign budget, which has led to
calls for campaign reform in both the US and Britain. This has led to
much corruption and when we examine democracy in the west much more
deeply we find that people really have little political power, which
contributes to voter apathy. It strikes me that if democracy actually
exists in the real meaning of the expression then people would be
involved in the actual decisions over legislation. With technology one
could have a referndum on each piece of legislation giving power back
to the people. People vote through the phone and the Internet for their
favouriste pop idol! Why not for legislation?

However the ruling classes would be very resistant to this as Kenneth
Clarke a British politician once said, without it has to be said a
coherent counter argument.
  

    
>Would an Islamic economy seek to trade with other nations?<

Yes it would. Practically this would mean that certain types of trade
would not be allowed such as trading in alcohol or pornography,
otherwise all other types of trade would flourish. With respect to
customs tax, citizens of an Islamic State would not pay any duty on
their exports and imports according to the following evidence:

"He who imposes custom duty would not enter paradise." (Hadith)

With respect to importers from foreign states i.e. companies who wish
to sell their products in an Islamic State, they may be charged duty
if duty is charged by their country of origin upon exports from an
Islamic State. So a computer manufacturer in the US could set up shop
in an Islamic State. However if the US taxes imports from an Islamic
State then imports from the US can also be taxed. But this is at the
discretion of the government. It is not allowed for the Caliphate to
impose higher taxes than the US because in origin the Islamic rules
seek to eradicate customs duty:

"And withhold not the things which are people's due and commit no evil
on earth with intent of being mischeivous" (TMQ Hud: 85)
 
It can only equal it as a maximum.
  

    
There are certainly many religious communities that have made their
peace with secular government and have done quite well for themselves
nevertheless.  In America, the Mormons would be a perfect example,
having great influence in Utah but little outside that state, and
subject to U.S. law.

Do you consider your current situation in Britain to be temporary?  Do
you hope to leave Britain for an Islamic state someday?  Or to form a
majority Moslem community within Britain?  Do you consider political
independence be the ultimate goal of a Moslem community?
  

    
The earlier reference to the British historian, Lord Acton, brings to
mind his famous quote, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts
absolutely."

With that in mind, Sajjad and Farooq, I have some questions about
power under the Caliphate, as you envision it.  Would there be a
separation of powers, i.e., executive, legislative, and judicial?  What
checks and balances would exist?  Would there be a standing military
and, if so, who would control it?  And, lastly, suppose that a Caliph
becomes corrupt.  Exactly what would be the mechanism for removing him
from power?
  

    
>And, lastly, suppose that a Caliph becomes corrupt.  Exactly what
>would be the mechanism for removing him from power?

Well, there's the traditional mechanism ... :-)
  

    
>Neither of those statements are true: in most of the societies
>you're describing as "capitalist", state intervention in
>redistribution is the norm, and is non-controversial.(72)

My statement was badly worded, meaning was that the degree of the role
of government in redistribution is controversial. Of course no one but
strong libertarians would want to eliminate any State involvement in
redestribution. The U.S. was cited due to the fact that the right even
in a country where there is no publicly funded health system still
largely believe Government is too big.
  

    
>I have some questions about power under the Caliphate, as you
>envision it.  Would there be a separation of powers, i.e., >executive,
legislative, and judicial?  What checks and balances >would exist? 
Would there be a standing military and, if so, who >would control it? 
And, lastly, suppose that a Caliph becomes >corrupt.  Exactly what
would be the mechanism for removing him
>from power?

First of all I want to address a premise in your question surrounding
checks and balances that they are implicitly always good. However
having too many checks and balances are counterproductive as it leads
to ineffectual and in some cases corrupt governments. The US political
system is a good example, by having the degree of checks and balances,
accountability is sometimes blurred and no one knows who is in charge.
And who benefits from say having Congressmen elected every two years,
when this inevitably drives them to ensure their financial war-chests
are filled before they have to fight the next election. No wonder
hardly any incumbents lose!

However I understand the point because of our historical experience
with infallible clergy, hereditory monarchs and brutal dictatorships.
All I am saying is have we gone to the opposite extreme and who actual
benefits from these plethora of checks and balances. Turning to the
caliphate

1 The Caliph is elected on an agreed contract/manifesto
2 He can be impeached if there is a material breach of this contract
or an act of malfeasance or serious misconduct
3 The decision to remove is that of a Court of Mathalim (unjust acts)
4 Accountability is manifested through individual citizens, media and
an elected consultative assembly
5 Legislative matters are solved via ijtihad based on Islamic texts
and principles applied to modern problems. This is the job of the
Caliph,and the subject matter experts
6 Where legislative principles require operational input e.g health
should be a state funded duty, but how do prioritise primary care vs
secondary, where should we build the hospitals, what operations will be
funded. This is the job of the consultative assembly to make
recommendations to the Caliph
7 Judges are appointed by the state but act independently
8 Caliph can be criticised freely within the society
  

    

" My statement was badly worded, meaning was that the degree of the role
 of government in redistribution is controversial."

That statement I can agree with, definately.

"And who benefits from say having Congressmen elected every two years,
 when this inevitably drives them to ensure their financial war-chests"

I believe <farooq> also touched on this subject in an earlier post. I agree
with you that the focus on fund-raising, and the subsequent favors owed to
moneyed intrests make a mockery of democracy. One dollar, one vote.

That isn't, however, a systemic problem with democracy. Countries with
strict political spending controls, and public-funded parties, simply don't
have this problem. Citing it as a criticism of *democracy* per se isn't, I
think, correct, but it is a stinging criticism of capitalism's influence on
democracy if left unchecked.

It's just that it's not that hard to check it, given the will.

I like capitalism as an economic policy. I like democracy as a form of
government. I think even in capitalist countries, the one socialized
industry should *always* be government.

As to "no one knows who is in charge.", I think, with respect, that you are
a little unclear on the concept. That's the point. No-one is in charge.

It's not a problem, it's *the goal*.
  

    
>What changes would they have to make in order to become an
example to which you could point?<

With respect to economy it would require some major structural
changes:

1) The transition from the fiat to the gold/silver standard. 
2) The restructuring of company structures from capitalist to Islamic
company structures.
3) The transfer of ownership regarding utilities to the public
property.
4) The transfer of some types of public property to private ownership
such as certain lands which can be cultivated upon.
4) The elimination of interest based banking i.e. all forms of
interest.
5) Redistribution of land ownership i.e. land which is owned and not
utilised will be given to people who are prepared to work the land
6) Restructuring of taxation system, the state's revenues are solely
derived from sources such as land taxes, public property, which is
divided into three types. The first type is those utilities which
people depend upon for survival such as water, oil, gas etc. The second
type of public property is determined by the complexity of its
management such as roads, railways etc. And the third type relates to
minerals which are rich in abundance. That is to say not all mineral
deposists will be public property. Maybe we can explore these points in
detail later.

There is no income tax in the Islamic economic system rather when
there aren't sufficient revenues for the state only then can the state
tax people and the conditions for this are very specific and stingent.
  

    
Ah, but will you restore the, what was it called, "zakaf", I think,
the special capitation on Jews and Christians?
  

    
It seems that you have a pretty complete system in mind.

How to you get from there to a Caliphate?
  

    
I like the economics processes but have two questions: wine? and the
veil? I simply don't understand the total abstinance of a medicinal
digestive, there has to be some flexibility. The second one I'll wait
on.
  

    

An additional question: I assume that wine and alcohol in general is
permitted for non-Muslims. Is that the case?
  

    
>*What do (either of you) view as a positive emerging vision (or
visions) for an Islamic society, if any, which can accommodate the
necessary level of pluralism implicit in any non-coercive and
potentially democratic setting?<

Good question. A positive vision of an Islamic society would be one in
which every citizen's basic needs are satisfied, and every person
regardless of their creed or race is viewed as a citizen first and
foremost. In an Islamic society people identify with the state's ideals
and values, which builds thoughts and emotions against racism and
injustice:

"Whoever calls for Nationalism is not one of Us." (Hadith)

People therefore identify with Islam's aims of protecting the mind,
family and property, Islam's abhorence towards racism and injustice.
This is because Islam views people in their capacity as human beings
who are all subject to the rules/solutions of Islam. The implementation
of Islam upon the people is viewed as an invitation to Islam in itself
i.e. people experience the justice of the Islamic system, so respect
for other people's beliefs and race is integral to the Islamic system.
Non-Muslims also have specific rights which Muslims do not even have.
For example non-Muslims are not obliged to pay Zakat or sadaqa, in fact
they are not obliged to pay any other tax than that which has been
stipulated such as the land tax or tax on minerals or the jizyah which
is a tax specific to non-Muslims i.e. if the state revenues were not
sufficient then only Muslims would be taxed and not non-Muslims. 
  

    
> First of all I want to address a premise in your question
surrounding
checks and balances that they are implicitly always good.

Yes, Sajjad, I see your point there.  Perhaps it's a matter of
emphasizing RELATIVELY good.  You're quite right in pointing out that
having a system of checks and balances often accounts for government
being ineffective and unable to get things done.  In the USA, more
often than not, we have political gridlock that prevents many important
issues from being addressed.

Yet, even though I count myself among my country's harshest critics, I
still hasten to defend our basic system.  Personally, I'm sure that
the absolute best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.  The
problem with that is that finding the right dictator who is truly
benevolent is a difficult task.  And once you do find such a dictator,
the other problem is that sooner or later, he will die or become
otherwise indisposed and the task of replacing him can be extremely
challenging and troublesome.  It may be that his malevolent nephew
stands to inherit his throne.  

I have no doubt that our Founding Fathers knew that they were
sacrificing some amount of efficiency in exchange for protections
against governemnt abuse.  They had already seen plenty of government
abuse in their time, and they fully understood how far out of line
government could get.  They knew that the Bill of Rights, for instance,
was a MAJOR hinderance to law enforcement.  And it certainly  is that,
even today.  But they determined that it was worth the price.  And I
believe that their conclusion was correct.  And even so, we've had a
history of abuses.  But again, I think it's about the PROCESS rather
than the STATE of being.  A system of checks and balances is a system
that enables a government to be self-regulating and self-correcting. 
It isn't perfect - far from it.  It's shameful that a nation founded on
the proposition that "all men are created equal" required almost a
century to outlaw slavery, and then required almost another century
after that to rid itself of institutional inequality.  The process
works very slowly, probably too slowly, but the process works.  As one
of your fellow Brits observed, democracy is the worst form of
government, except for all the others.
  

    

> 5 Legislative matters are solved via ijtihad based on Islamic texts
> and principles applied to modern problems. This is the job of the
> Caliph,and the subject matter experts

My understanding is that every Muslim should to the best of his or her
ability be a Mujtahid and practice ijtihad. Of course knowledge and
training will in reality limit this principle to some extent, but isn't
the limitation you've stated a contradiction to this basic principle?  If
someone does acquire the proper knowledge, how shouldn't they
automatically be part of the group that reviews questions of Islam?

Also, the web site http://www.ijtihad.org/bostonrev.htm the suggestion was
made that the Compact of Media is a better basis for organizing a state
versus traditional Islamic legal tradition.  I find this claim interesting.
I'm curious how you would respond to his point about the Compact of Medina.

On a slightly different point, I've read many opinions about what the
future of Islam should be but very little real debate.  I'd therefore be
interested in a debate between someone from Hizb ut Tahrir, Khaled Abou El
Fadl and Muqtedar Khan (from the ijtihad.org site), for example. I'm not
sure if you see your magazine as a home for such a debate, but hopefully
it can take place in some forum or other.
  

    
Yes, I assume the debate clubs at Oxford and Cambridge are dueling
with all of this. Or at least, I hope so. How about other forums?
  

    

>  Compact of Media

Freudian slip. I meant to say: Compact of Medina.
  

    
>More specifically, what do you view as some of the more positive
examples (if any) of groups or movements attempting to structure
communities on Islamic principles while recognizing ahead of time that
not all people within a given community are or will be Muslims?  (i.e.
does nearly everyone have to be an adherent to the proposed version of
Islam in order for the ideal to work?<

In answer to your question people need to adhere to the pillars and
foundations because this structure defines the society. However the
makeup of the structure with its multitude of bricks and tiles need not
all be the same!

Like any society people need to agree on some general principles if
the society is to progress. In the west people agree that the Church
and state should be seperate, however each country may differ in the
details of the idea. In France the concept of laicite shapes secular
thinking while this concept is not part of American or British versions
of secularism. Similarly in Islam people differ on certain details but
not the generalities because the generalities are the principles which
define the idea. 

So a principle in Islam is that ruling should be based upon Islam,
which no Muslim can disagree upon because its established without any
ambiguity in the legal texts. While there are certain texts which allow
room for interpretation, which is where legitimate difference of
opinion arises. In this regard non-Muslims participate in political
life by securing their rights just as Muslims participate in securing
their rights. Non-Muslims who lived under the rule of Islam studied
Islamic law and made great contributions to society because it was
their society.
  

    

What about, for example, where large differences exist. While all muslims
agree that the Koran is a legitimate source of legal authority, not all
muslims agree that the Hadith are, yet, in many muslim societies, the
majority of, or a large part of, the law is drawn from interpretation of the
hadith. How do you reconcile a situation where two muslims differ on what is
a valid source of law? if a hadith is unsupported by a verse, must it be put
aside, or must it be used despite many muslims being able to say in good
conscience that it's not the word of allah and therefore not law?

I'm trying to think of a similar problem in democracy, and I just can't.
It'd be like people simply refusing to acknowledge any bill as law if, for
example, it was written primarily in the senate - it would seem to be a
recipe for incredible confusion, and to gloss over it is very unconvincing.

What are the pillars? What is that which all muslims agree is the foundation
of the law?

I do not mean to criticise unconstructively, but I do not see any particular
way out of the dilemma. For muslims who believe that the hadith are a valid
source of law, then their conscience dictates that they must be adhered to -
if a muslim does not believe that, what right does the first muslim have to
impose those laws upon him. Whose faith is the most correct, and how is that
decided?
  

    

Even more, even in the case where Muslims agree that Hadith is to be used,
you have some pretty dramatic Shi'a/Sunni differences on some points.
Would the government allow for both to be acceptable in such cases? I'm
thinking of temporary marriage right now but there are other issues as
well.
  

    
>That isn't, however, a systemic problem with democracy. Countries
>with strict political spending controls, and public-funded parties,
>simply don't have this problem. Citing it as a criticism of
>*democracy* per se isn't, I think, correct, but it is a stinging
>criticism of capitalism's influence on democracy if left unchecked.

Yes we have strict controls in the United Kingdom on spending (however
not as yet public funding), yet the degree of influence of the rich is
still high. For example Rupert Murdoch the dominant shareholder in
News Corporation who owns Fox in the U.S. also owns three national
newspapers and a 24 hour news channel in the U.K. He therefore is one
of the most influential people in the U.K. despite his lack of
political contributions.I agree that this is a criticism of
capitalism's influence on democracy, but show me a major mature
democracy where such undue influence does not exist and I'll show you a
democracy that does not exist.