Maajid Nawaz on 'Islam and Liberal Democracy: Are they Compatible?' - CIVITAS
Monday 30th June 2008
Maajid addressed a well attended, informed and engaged audience at CIVITAS, on the question of Islam and liberal democracy and their compatibility. Maajid initially explained that this is a deliberately conflated discussion by Islamists who have distorted Islam and manipulated it thereby creating a political ideology which is in complete contradistinction to the traditional Islamic faith or religion - Deen in Arabic. Islam as a traditional faith therefore did not define a specific political system, a singular interpretation of Shariah, nor did it prescribe that its "Shariah" be forcefully imposed on people who "sinned" by violating it - hence there was not an issue of conflict between Islamic faith and liberal democracy - though there maybe between Muslims and liberal democracy. Unlike Islamist assertions, there was no obligation to impose punishments upon people for contradicting the Shariah or someones interpretation of it in traditional Islamic thinking. Maajid explained in detail, how the terminology shared by all Islamists, of political sovereignty (Siyada - in Arabic), State, Constitution etc were all modern terms and had no precedent in Muslim political thinking, or in the source texts of Islam - the Quran and Sunnah (Prophetic tradition). They arose only in post colonial times after the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Islamist movements, he said, had taken on board wholly modern political ideas and attempted to give them an Islamic veneer. So the conflict was not between Islam as a faith, way of living or religion, but with Islamist ideology which asserts that Islam is a political ideology, and is alien to liberal democracy. Debates ensued about the causes of radicalisation and terrorism. Maajid asserted that we must acknowledge and understand that grievances exist, ranging from issues pertaining to foreign policy to bad law enforcement errors, and have done for many years, as has social disenfranchisement - but the move from lack of social integration and anti-establishment feeling to terrorism is a result of an ideology which looks at the world in terms of war and peace; Islamist States being places of peace and non-Islamist States (which is the whole world currently including Saudi Arabia and to extreme elements, Iran) as zones of war - Dar ul-Harb. Maajid insisted 'No community can hold a nation to hostage because it disagrees with it's foreign policy'. Maajid explained how his faith in Islam made him stand against wrong doing, whether it was against Muslims or non-Muslims and in fact perpetrated by Muslims. He concluded that the question presented the paradigm, as presented by al-Qaeda and Islamists, and most Muslims, who were true to their faith did not have religious contention with liberal democracy though many had conservative religious interpretations - which may create problems for social harmony but not terrorism which resulted from Islamist thinking manipulating legitimate concerns and grievances.
- 