Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
>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?

In reality it would be dishonest to say that one supports the need for
a modern Caliphate and therefore not want to live under it when it
establishes itself. This on the basis of political reality is more
likely to occur in the Islamic world and according to the latest CIA
view, is meant to emerge sometime before 2020.

http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_s3.html#page82
 
  

    

Actually, in the UK you picked I think a poor example. Sky News is pretty
much straight down the middle news, since it's used to prop up his
contention that the Sky network is a serious news network primarily.

His newspapers: you think, if they chose to, they could unseat labor? If
not, what power do they have?

And how would that influence be removed from Islamic society. Do not
influential people in islam have the ability to sway people to their own
interpretations? Could not a person of wealth and resources hire
persuasive scholars to push his/her own interpretations of, say, a given
Hadith to their advantage?

How does Islam immunise the mind against being swayed by external
communication, since that's all we're talking about: In my community, which
is majority Islamic, I see no such immunity: my peers believe in what they
think is right, and are subject to all kinds of suasion in forming these
views: as, of course, are all moslems, including regarding their religion,
which is easily demonstrated by the many, many variations in what is
practiced.

Either way, it is not a rebuttal of the original point: wealth is not
inherently required or even linked to success in politics, as the country we
all three live in proves, in a democracy.
  

    
>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?

A few points

1 The issue re hadith is to do with their accuracy not in principle.
As the Quran and the life of the Prophet are clear that his statements
and acts in relation to general matters was also considered revelation

2 The bigger dispute is around whether the ahadith represent an
accurate portrayal of what he said and what he did. Now most Sunni
Muslims accept the primacy of what was collected in the 6 main books
(Bukhari, Muslim, Nisai, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Abu Dawud) as the
process was very thorough, detailed and painstaking.

3 Hadiths can be classified as sahih (very strong), hassan (good)
daeef (weak) etc. Sahih is also sub divided into mutawattir (multiple
chains and ahad (generally less than 4 chains). Now different muhadith
(scholars of hadith) however will disagree of whether a particular
hadith is binding or not depending on various factors e.g. the chain of
narrators (isnad), the meaning etc.

4 The Shia reject some of the narrators in the above six books but do
not reject the principle of hadith.

5 To resolve differences in a Caliphate would be reasonably
straightforward. After taking informed counsel from any experts, he
would adopt on an agreed criteria and this could be incorporated in his
manifesto pre an election, so that people would understand this. Once
an agreed criteria was agreed, this would drive the necessary
legislative rules on matters concerned with society. People would have
to accept this, despite their personal opinion on specific ahadith or
the subject in general. As previously mentioned the Caliph should not
dictate his personal opinion in terms of personal concepts surrounding
beliefs or rituals

6 There are precedents in western states, many people in the U.K and
the U.S. believe the pre-emptive Iraq war is illegal as it did not have
the backing of the UN Security Council. Others, including both
governments disagree, yet no one has impeached Bush or Blair. Also in
the U.K. we have an unelected upper house, which many people believe
needs to be abolished as it is undemocratic. Yet despite this
legislation emanating from this is accepted as legitimate.
  

    
Thanks for this articulate, civil discussion.    

I'm curious about the bases for future laws, having to do with emerging
trends that were not at issue historically.  New technologies breed new
laws, as we've seen with medical advances involving gene modifications, 
modern means of transport, global trading and speculation in land or
comodities, new weapons, telecommunications innovations spawning 
regulations, and of course the evolution of computer uses and crimes.   

How does traditional religious law -- specifically Islamic law, but this
might see parallels in groups who want Christian nations -- deal 
with changes in what we do and know how to do?      

Also, as a total cultural aside, did you see the Afghan film "Osama"?
What are your thoughts about the Taliban and their relatively recent 
attempt to create an Islamic Government by any means?
  

    
>His newspapers: you think, if they chose to, they could unseat
>labor? If not, what power do they have?

This was the Sun's (the highest circulation tabloid) claim in 1992.
Whether you believe it or not or whether I believe it or not would be
an interesting debate. However I don't think there would be much
dispute that Tony Blair has assiduously courted Murdoch since becoming
leader of the Labour party in 1994. He obviously believes it!

>Could not a person of wealth and resources hire persuasive scholars
>to push his/her own interpretations of, say, a given Hadith to >their
advantage? How does Islam immunise the mind against being >swayed by
external communication, since that's all we're talking about

There are a few points here

1 Of course Muslims can be manipulative, insincere or corrupt. 

2 We are not simply talking about ordinary people being swayed by
external communication. What the thread is about is the undue influence
on the executive and legislative within western democracies.

3 The main distinction I see in the Caliphate vs the current system we
see in western states is not that politicians won't do bad things in a
Caliphate (they will), but that the layers of accountability will be
more effective (but not of course perfect). These layers are

a) Politicians in the caliphate generally will be ground in values in
which they believe they will be accountable for discharging their
responsibilities not just to the people but to God. Western politicians
obviously have their values rooted in a more utilitarian tradition

b)Secondly as capitalism is not the basis of economics in a Caliphate
the pursuit of finance is only one of a number of values that will be
present in society. Spiritual, moral and humanitarian values will also
pervade the society and are considered as important. Western societies
are largely dominated by capitalism, materialism and hedonism. 

c) Finally the concentration of the media in the west means that the
primary tool of holding politicians to account for their influence with
big business is compromised, because big business also owns the media.
In the Caliphate the organs of accountability would be more diverse
and largely as a result of point b be driven by different values.

This is not to say that the Caliphate will be a utopia, but I think
these are important differences that are present and can be debated 
  

    

That's not much different, to me, than the supreme court's approach, only
with the Caliph, the standard would change with every selection, so more
power would reside in an individual: we can differ, I think, on whether or
not this is a good thing or a bad one.

And, while you do address <jmcarlin>'s questions regarding Sunni and Shia
branches and how those differences would be addressed, which is a reasonable
parallel to the house of lords/impeachment situation, you don't address, I
note, those muslims who reject all hadith completely, which is what I was
referring to in my inability to imagine any such schism in a democracy.

I am not saying it's impossible: one could certainly imagine a muslim state
wherein hadith are enforced over the objections of the minority; I am just
pointing out, given the huge variations in Islam, I am not seeing clearly
how it presents any natural advantage in the smooth mechanics of government
over Democracy, and that has appeared (though I may have misunderstood) to
have been advanced as a reason to prefer 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.<

With all due respect, the U.S. still has profound levels of
institutional inequality.  Daily and long-term life in the U.S. still
works VERY differently for/against you if you're queer, not considered
"white," if you're poor, under 18, male vs. female, what religion you
practice (or don't), etc...and all on levels which go way beyond what
is attributable to individual prejudice and/or ill intent.

>The process works very slowly, probably too slowly, but the process
works.<

Relative to plutocratic and imperial goals, it's the second most
"efficient" system yet devised.  (It was recently edged out in this
regard by global capitalism, which occasionally trumps the desires of
local/regional empires).

>As one
of your fellow Brits observed, democracy is the worst form of
government, except for all the others.<

That's long been near the top of my list of the most arrogant,
presumptive, and self-congratulatory quotes of all time.

What the hell would a rabidly elitist white supremacist pig like
Churchill know about democracy?  He worked against it, proactively, for
most if not all of his.  With Churchill just as with U.S. "leaders,"
Churchill's use of the term "democracy" was a euphemistic cover for
rationalizing imperialist and paternalist policies.

Churchill's sentiment is emblematic of a much longer and larger
tradition in "the West" of presuming that "we" actually have democracy
already and serve as the world model for it, despite obvious and fatal
contradictions (in both the U.S.and U.K., slavery and genocide and
empire being some of the more egregious ones).

This smug condescending attitude, in which "Western" people set
themselves up in any would-be narrative as exemplars of democracy,
feeds directly into all manner of prejudices against everything else. 
I see quite a lot of (perfectly reasonable and conscientious) suspicion
of would-be communities based upon Islamic law, yet at the same time
none of the objections raised are unique to Islamic law; there are
parallel hazards (such as the threat of fundamentalisms) in "secular"
government every bit as dangerous which pass without comment in the
same way that "fish don't have a word for 'water.'"
  

    

slippage.

I am afraid I am not entirely in agreement with you. Given our own situation
in the UK, the press is far from compromised, even given the media
concentration we have. For example, you have The Guardian, The Observer, The
Independant, The Times, and when it is good, The Telegraph, all holding the
government to account; the Guardian has the most visited web site of any
newspaper in the world, and it's not run for profit, but held in trust.

Ok, in fact, not entirely in agreement with you is too mild. I am in strong
disagreement.

However, I can see a good example of where your description would be the
accurate. Media consolidation in the US and the attendant meekness of the
press has gutted one of their primary defences against abuse of government.

However, again, looking at the UK, once can see that it simply isn't
systematic to democracy.

As to the SUN's claims, it also recently claimed that immigrants were
killing and eating the Queen's Swans. I take that claim about as seriously.

Certainly Blair, I think on a certain person's advice, courted Murdoch
assiduously. I also think it's become clear at this point that it was
unnecessary. Despite the press's sustained attacks on Blair and his Iraq
policy, the Cons are looking at their worst performance at a general
election in 100 years.

Given at last a few sources of balanced, objective news that are credible, I
think it's much harder for a consolidated media empire to hold much sway.
The more it bangs a drum based on something other than truth, the more the
uncorrupted media respond. it's a self-balancing system.

once *all* the media are owned by such megacorporations, then you do have
the problem you describe, and which we can see in the US.

Again, however, not in the UK, or in France, or the Netherlands, or Germany.
Not systemic to democracy at all.
  

    
>people of like mind can and
do establish some very smoothly operating communities on small
(sub-national) scales, but there seems to be a size limit and it
appears to be closely related to considerations of how large a group
one can find where most of the people are an ideological match<

Excellent point. What I would say here is that Islam offers a
practical, and largely successful model in bringing communities
together from different creeds and races irrespective of the complexity
and size of the society. The multiculturalists and those opposed to
multiculturalism in the west can also learn much from the Islamic
model, which affords citizens a great amount of autonomy in how people
live their life. 

The Islamic model makes a distinction between the public and private
life. For example in the public life alcohol cannot be consumed.
However in the private life alcohol can be consumed. That is to say
what people do in private is a matter for them and the state has no
right to intefere in the private life:

"Oh you who believe avoid much suspicion as some suspicion is a sin
and do not spy" (TMQ Al-Hujurat: 12)

However in the public life every citizen has to abide by the societal
public rules.

With respect to people who hold a belief different to Islam they are
neither tempted away from their belief meaning they have every right to
not only practise their belief but also have their own courts in
matters related to marriage and divorce, or other matters which affect
their religion. Hence non-Muslims drink alcohol and eat whatever is
permiited for them from their religion:

"that whoever is upon Judaism or Christianity then they are not
tempted/seduced from it" (Hadith)  

"There is no compulsion in the Deen" (TMQ 2:256)

While Muslims in the west struggle with their identity and living
according to Islam in the west, the western governments can ease the
pressures by giving greater autonomy to Muslims to practice their
belief. 

Unfortunately western governments like France seek to coercively
assimilate the Muslim community, while the Islamic model seeks to
cooperate with the non-Muslim community and present Islam in the best
way because the aim is to present the call of Islam to all people with
wisdom and justice.
  

    
just to slip in and say I just noticed the topic and am so glad.
by the time i catch up you may be elsewhere, but i wish to interject myh
keen respect for your magazine and all it represents.

good jumma tonight.  etc.
  

    
Email from Richard Low:

Farooq Khan writes: << What I would say here is that Islam offers a
practical, and largely successful model in bringing communities
together from different creeds and races irrespective of the complexity
and size of the society. The multiculturalists and those opposed to
multiculturalism in the west can also learn much from the Islamic
model, which affords citizens a great amount of autonomy in how people
live their life.>> 
 
I don't see it. The Ottoman empire left behind many of the most
intractable ethnic hatreds in the world: Lebanon and the Balkans are
striking in the sheer manysidedness of their mutual antagonisms. And
there are in addition the hatreds of the Greeks for the Turks, of the
Armenians (of course) of the Turks as well, and as we speak,
apparently, of even New Jersey Copts for New Jersey Muslims. It seems
that Islam does not in fact do a good job of reconciling groups on the
basis of common humanity--the distinctions between Muslim and infidel,
men and women seem absolute. 
 
Isn't a main problem the lack of real interaction among communities
under Islam? There seems to be no way for serious disscussion or
criticism of any religion, particularly Islam, to take place under
Islamic rule: blasphemy, missionary efforts (isn't leaving Islam a
capital offense?), scientific criticism--it's all pretty much outlawed.
And it isn't much of a feat to overcome racial animosities if you can
assume (against all actual history) that everyone will peacefully come
together to recognize the superiority of Islamic government. Isn't
Islamism just an ideology dedicated to the self-protection of Islam?
  

    

>  lack of real interaction among communities

That's a problem all over the world and a symptom of a deeper issue.
  

    
>How does traditional religious law -- specifically Islamic law, but
>this might see parallels in groups who want Christian nations -- >deal
with changes in what we do and know how to do?      

Through the process of Ijtihad, which is the juristic application of
Islamic texts and principles. The flexibility of ijtihad provides
Muslims with the ability to deal with all manner of issues ranging from
stem cell research, to derivatives trading to how we should view
globalisation. I will just paste below a short extract of a forthcoming
article in the second issue of New Civilisation which I will also put
as free content on the website when the 2nd issue comes out in early
February.

"Ijtihad is a legal tool employed by jurists to extract legislation
for new problems from the original Islamic texts. It is a defined
process established by Mohammed (pbuh) during his lifetime and allows
the finite body of Islamic texts to address, in detail, previously
unfamiliar events. The key aspects of ijtihad that make this possible
relate to analogy and to a process of linking the subject matter of
contemporary problems with similar occurrences in the Islamic texts and
Islamic precepts. More broadly, ijtihad consists of three general
stages: firstly, to objectively understand in detail the reality of the
problem, question or dilemma for which a solution is sought, which may
demand specific knowledge if relating to a particular area of
expertise, for example, relevant scientific competence if tackling
issues relating to stem cell research, or economic and financial
expertise if evaluating a complex financial product; secondly, to
identify the Islamic texts, concepts and law which discuss a relevant,
or similar, subject matter; thirdly, to analogise between the current
issue and the relevant texts in the original Islamic sources to
identify similarities and differences, and through a process of
weighing these similarities and differences extract a position on the
current. Each element is considerably more elaborate and requires
expertise and competence in Islamic jurisprudence, the sciences of
Islamic sources, and of Islamic legal maxims, legal principles and
specific legal definitions. The competence to apply the process of
ijtihad marks Islamic scholarship (mujtahid), but the process is not
reserved to a priestly class or a clergy. The qualification is open to
all, men and women, to gain sufficient competence in Islamic
jurisprudence to practice ijtihad and to work as a judge, advocate or a
legal expert.

The scope of ijtihad, it is important to note, does not extend to
things, including the products of scientific and technological
progress; the general principle is that they are useable without
restriction. They are only addressed when specific questions about
their use gives rise to other human problems: for example, in
developments relating to genetic engineering, the technology is not
rejected, but its use may defined in some way, for example, to prevent
human cloning due to its impact on marriage and genealogy.
  

    
>Also, as a total cultural aside, did you see the Afghan >film
"Osama"? What are your thoughts about the Taliban and their >relatively
recent attempt to create an Islamic Government by any >means?

I haven't actually seen it but did read some press reports surrounding
it. With respect to the Taliban, I found their model to be deficient
in a number of ways. Principally their approach to the primacy of the
nation state, their negative attitude to the use of modern technology,
aspects of their foreign policy as well as their attitude toawards
female eduction and role (more driven by Pashtun tradition than Islamic
tenets). However despite these differences the US led invasion of
Afghanistan was not justified
  

    
>My understanding is that every Muslim should to the best of his or
>her ability. 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?

Yes anyone with the necessary expertise both of the reality at hand
and the knowledge of the Islamic principles and text can be one of the
subject matter experts or provide a recommendation to the Caliph. As
you implicitly acknowledge Islam has no permanent clergy.
  

    
>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

More than happy to try and facilitate to build more awareness. The key
question is for Muslims worldwide is how do you build transnational
institutional mechanisms to ensure that we move forward acknowledging
that people will inevitably disagree.
  

    
'As one of your fellow Brits observed, democracy is the worst form of
government, except for all the others.'

I always found this quote interesting as it provides a largely
negative basis to support democracy. The other problem I have is
whether Churchill or the proponents of this quote (unlike you) actually
have studied other political models than simply communism or
dictatorships. There's one thing saying this after a detailed study,
there's another saying it prior to such a study. The common weakness in
both Marx's theories and this is the failure to factor the Islamic
political model with its alternative set of values.

As we're discussing Churchill and his quotations regarding democracy,
here's another less well known one

'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter'
  

    
>And, while you do address <jmcarlin>'s questions regarding Sunni >and
Shia branches and how those differences would be addressed, >which is
a reasonable parallel to the house of lords/impeachment >situation, you
don't address, I note, those muslims who reject all >hadith
completely, which is what I was referring to in my inability >to
imagine any such schism in a democracy.

My post in <128> would also take care of this. People who reject all
hadith are firstly not a large group.Secondly their views are
subdivided into categories, those who reject the principle and those
who believe there are conflicts and 'contradictions' within the hadith
collections. However as with any dispute an elected Caliph would have
advocated his understanding prior to an election. Consequently the
adoption which is then applied would have to be accepted by all.
  

    
>For example, you have The Guardian, The Observer, The
>Independant, The Times, and when it is good, The Telegraph, all
>holding the government to account; the Guardian has the most >visited
web site of any newspaper in the world, and it's not run >for profit,
but held in trust.

The Times is owned by News Corp (majority shareholder Rupert
Murdoch),the Telegraph the best selling quality is owned by the Barclay
brothers, multi billionaires based in the offshore Channel Islands. So
I believe even within the UK newspaper market, we have a concentration
problem. The combined daily circulation of the Guardian and
Independent is less than the Times (which is even lower than the
Telegraph) and only a 1/4 of the Sun.

If we ignore the concentration point, what about the reliance on
corporate advertising for newspapers and magazines which is huge. Of
course in theory editorials and coverage should not ethically be
influenced by advertisers or their owners, however as we know theory
doesn't always apply. Is it a coincidence that the Guardian supports a
large public sector and also receives the bulk of public sector
advertising. Maybe it is!

My main point is that newspapers may do a good job in accounting the
government but do they do a sufficiently robust job in accounting the
system itself, a political system which benefits their owners and
advertisers hugely at the expense of ordinary citizenry. 
  

    
>the necessary expertise both of the reality at hand
>and the knowledge of the Islamic principles

So the system would privilege those steeped in the Quran. Non-muslims
would be at a disadvantage and rarely would be recognized as having
sufficient authority to address the Caliphate.

The idea of Itjihad is interesting but essentially elitist. It's
basically a panel of authorities using the Quran as a guide to making
law and policy. This seems over-limiting and requires considerable
"reading things into" the text. (Remember linguistic theory. Texts have
no meaning in and of themselves. They're just ink on paper. They only
have meaning that people bring to them.)

A counter example would be common law. This represents a body of
wisdom that spans centuries of people working out problems. The
approach revolves around certain principles such as justice, fairness,
the public good and so on. Often, of course, something that seemed
right in 1500 doesn't seem right in 2000 so various means exist to
adapt the law -- legislative, executive and judicial.

This seems much better, more "democratic," that to rely on some panel
of experts (non-Muslims could not qualify) to interpret and implement
the Quran. I suspect the principles of justice, fairness, public good
and so on are in the Quran. These are principles non-muslims can agree
to. Why not just adhere to the principles instead of the Quran?
  

    
<139>
> However despite these differences the US led invasion of
Afghanistan was not justified<

Many Americans were opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, but far fewer
opposed the invasion of Afghanistan.  I think the broad support for it
in this country was based on the fact that the Taliban was providing a
home for Al Qaeda.  Sajjad, would you mind explaining why you think it
was unjustified?  
  

    
>Is it really offering me a window into the thinking of a significant
portion of the non-western intellectual world?<

I think it most certainly does but is by no means exclusive. You will
find Muslims who hold different views to this magazine which will is
largely consistent with secular thinking. However they are not
providing a real alternative to the west except in matters of spiritual
belief. Whereas this magazine is not only addressing people's creed
but also addressing an alternative system i.e. economic system, social
system, political system, education system and so on. Western thinkers
could engage Muslims who hold similar views to the secular liberal
ideal but this obviously is not true engagement because those who
espouse such views aren't providing an alternative. Intellectuals by
their nature are drivers for change and it is the people who are
working for real change that the west needs to be engaged with.
  

    
Imagine the ideal Islamic State exists. Could non-muslims (and by
non-muslims I mean those who reject Allah, the Quran as a miracle,
Mohammed as the prophet and the legitimacy of Islamic Law) really have
a significant place in the Caliphate?<

Yes because their relationship with the state will be based upon the
state securing their rights. I live in Britain, I reject secularism,
and the legitimacy of laws derived from the mind but I have a covenant
with the British State which means that I abide by the general laws as
long as it doesn't conflict with Islam: 

“The Muslims are bound by their conditions.” (Hadith)

>Wouldn't the system be intrinsically biased toward
Islamic beliefs, making it extremely difficult for someone who did not
accept them to assume a position of authority?<

If you mean by a position of authority, ruling, then yes it would be
difficult. This is not peculiar or exclusive to an Islamic State,
rather it is a natural consequence for any state who hold certain
principles about how soceity should be run. If Christian
fundamentalists stood for election in the US on the basis that they
were going to implement a Christian theocracy then it would be very
difficult for them to assume a position of authority because their
belief contradicts secularism, which is why liberals are fuming in
America and worried about the influence of Christian fundamentalism in
political life.
  

    
>I reject secularism, and the legitimacy of laws derived from the mind

So you want a world a little more like "Monty Python's Holy Grail"?
  

    
>How to you get from there to a Caliphate?<

>How would this play out in transforming countries in the
Middle East and Indonesia?<

The closest example would be something like the Velvet revolution when
the people came out on to the streets in Czechoslovakia in huge
numbers - it became clear that the society no longer wanted to live
under the communist system and the power of the government naturally
collapsed. This was repeated throughout the former Eastern Bloc and
Soviet Union. Once the army gave their support to the people who worked
for this change then the transition of power was natural and largely
bloodless. So the issue is one of changing public opinion which is an
intellectual and political work.