Islamic ideal of good government "justice"

[Whomp]

I've read quite a bit on the history of the Middle East. An immensely tangled web we woven over the centuries. I've tried to focus on people who are from the region or academics on the topic (from Juan Cole to Faoud Ajami). I'd like to start a discussion on why democracy can or can not work in your opinion.

I'll start the discussion by what is considered the traditional Islamic ideal of good government. It is expressed in the term "justice". This is represented by several different words in Arabic and other Islamic languages. The most usual, adl, means "justice" according to the "law" (defined as God's law, the sharia, as revealed by the Prophet Muhhamad and to the Muslim community).

Some of you may point out that regardless of theory, in reality a pattern of arbitrary, tyrannical, despotic government marks the entire Middle East. Some of you may go further, saying, "That is how Muslims are, that is how Muslims have always been, and there is nothing the West can do about it." To me, that is a misreading of history. One has to look back a little way to see how Middle Eastern government arrived at their current state. (IE Balfour Declaration, Sykes-Picot, Vichy/Soviet influence)

So to say dictatorship being the only way of doing things in the Middle East is simply untrue. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and lack of concern for the Arab future.

With that said the creation of a democratic political and social order in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East will not be easy but it is possible. At the present time there are two fears concerning the possibility of establishing a democracy in Iraq. One is the fear that it will not work, a fear expressed by many in the United States and one that is almost a dogma in Europe; the other fear, much more urgent in ruling circles in the Middle East, is that it will work. Clearly, a genuinely free society in Iraq would constitute a mortal threat to many of the governments of the region.

So what is the converse of justice?
What is a regime that does not meet the standards of justice?
According to traditional Islamic system of rules and ideas "If a ruler is to qualify as just he must meet two requirements:

• He must have acquired power rightfully
• He must exercise it rightfully

In other words, he must be neither a usurper nor a tyrant.

Thoughts?

 

[Bad Player]

I'm too tired to read your post but I have read that Christianity separates church and state somewhat (Jesus said ack I can't remember exactly but something about the kingdom of heaven not being of this world) whereas Islam doesn't separate "church" and state due to theological differences.

 

[Rik Meleet]

There is a difference between a situation where good government "justice" can happen and the geographical situation as it is today. Peoples are divided through borders of countries; while united with (parts of) other peoples inside borders. That's not a good situation to strife for good government "justice".
Kurds live in 4 countries, for example. 2 peoples live in Israel. No stability enough for this ideal.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

The problem with many Arab states, even throughout history, that the definition of rightfully acquire power, and exercising it rightfully, is different in the eyes of most people there. Rightfully acquire power may mean by inheriting a position or by succession (Or at least make it seem so). Exercising it rightly in islam means that he does what he does so as long as it does not contradict Allah's or Mohammed's teachings. The majority of the people believed so throughout history, and in my opinion this [Islam] was the single most important method of controlling the people (atleast until before Ottoman Empire).

 

[aneeshm]

I'm sorry if this seems like an old complaint , but a "just" and "rightful" Islamic ruler is , by definition , an extreme oppressor of Hindus and other people of pantheist or polytheist faiths .

 

[Rik Meleet]

I'm sorry if this seems like an old complaint , but a "just" and "rightful" Islamic ruler is , by definition , an extreme oppressor of Hindus and other people of pantheist or polytheist faiths .

Whomp just pointed out that this is untrue. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and lack of concern for the Arab future.

 

[Whomp]

I'm too tired to read your post but I have read that Christianity separates church and state somewhat (Jesus said ack I can't remember exactly but something about the kingdom of heaven not being of this world) whereas Islam doesn't separate "church" and state due to theological differences.

Depends on the area. Najaf, Iraq is very different than Qom, Iran.
Qom is more radical and highly politicized version of Shiaism. Najaf is the oldest center of Shia scholarship. In fact, Najaf is experiencing a renaissance of sorts but it's for those wishing to pursue the study of more traditional and quietist forms of Shiaism unlike in Iran. The seminaries are not controlled by the governmen and is preffered by likely the most powerful Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He has avoided matters of Iraqi goverment since his pursuits are purely religious.

OT his website is actually pretty wild. http://sistani.org

He has a feature on there where you can ask religious questions like whether you can wear gold cufflinks or (I'm not making this up) When I am unable to do Muta'h (temporary marriage), am I allowed to masturbate? Answer: Masturbation is not permissible under any circumstances."

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Whomp just pointed out that this is untrue. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and lack of concern for the Arab future.

Yeah but there is some difference between how Islam is supposed to be and what the people there believe, not that I think any of the two are just.

 

[Turner]

I'm sorry if this seems like an old complaint , but a "just" and "rightful" Islamic ruler is , by definition , an extreme oppressor of Hindus and other people of pantheist or polytheist faiths .

Too bad the thread's not about Islamic oppression of Hinduism.

Certainly you've aired that before. No need to bring it up again.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

OT his website is actually pretty wild. http://sistani.org

That website's rad

 

[Whomp]

There is a difference between a situation where good government "justice" can happen and the geographical situation as it is today. Peoples are divided through borders of countries; while united with (parts of) other peoples inside borders. That's not a good situation to strife for good government "justice".
Kurds live in 4 countries, for example. 2 peoples live in Israel. No stability enough for this ideal.

I believe that is a hurdle. I don't think Islam has ever practiced the notion of citizenship, in the sense of being a free and participating member of a civic entity so with a lack of citizenship went a lack of civic representation. However social groups did choose leaders in the past through consultation. This seems to be a natural progression for democracy.

 

[zenspiderz]

The OP reminds me of the concept of far that the persians have long subscribed to and still do. Its origins are Zorostian but it continues after persia embraced Islam. Far means something like 'divine blessing earned through moral conduct'. A ruler should possess far of the highest order. If the people believe the ruler to have lost his far through incompetence or corruption then it is considered not just the people's right to overthrow him but even stronger it is their moral obligation to God. This is not very different from the concept of democracy as we understand it in the 'West'. It is this very concept of far that was invoked to bring about the 1979 revolution in Iran that led to the current Islamic Republic of Iran.

America's crusade to spread democracy by the sword in the Middle East (better called Asia Minor or South West Asia IMHO) is the sheep's clothing that disguises the wolf of oil grabbing empire. It is a fact that many if not all of the dictators and monarchies of the middle east were created, shaped and installed by Britain out of the collapsed Ottoman empire. And later by the US after WW2 fatally weakened Britain's ability to hold sway over Asia Minor and elsewhere.

Democracy means rule of the people and thus it is not something that can be created by foreign armies it is something that the people have to want for themselves or it means nothing. The democracies of the West, weak, corrupt and subverted by oligarchy as they are, did not come into being through the diktat of foriegn empires but through the political activism of myriad of grass root political parties, trade unions, socialists, communists and libertarians.

Islam contray to what Washington sponsored spin doctors and CIA employed agent provocateurs would have you believe is not incompatible with democracy. Most of the most determined domestic opponents of dictatorships in the Middle East are Islamists. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Ayatollahs of Iran are all groups that have advocated, campaign for and particpated in democratic processes like elections and often successfully.

The high morals, reputation for lack of corruption, sense of justice and integrity that many genuine Islamic parties are known for ensures they have excellent chances in winning elections so why should they oppose it?

What does it say about the Western ruling classes commitment to democracy that they reject for example, Hamas electoral victory?

 

[aneeshm]

Whomp just pointed out that this is untrue. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and lack of concern for the Arab future.

He didn't show anything , he just said something . He provided no proof for his assertions . And I'll let the actions of Mohammed speak for themselves . I do not trust a man one of whose first actions on coming back to Mecca was be to destroy and throw out the idols of the Kaaba .

 

[Truronian]

I'm sorry if this seems like an old complaint , but a "just" and "rightful" Islamic ruler is , by definition , an extreme oppressor of Hindus and other people of pantheist or polytheist faiths .

But I thought everyone was a Hindu?

 

[Xanikk999]

I'm sorry if this seems like an old complaint , but a "just" and "rightful" Islamic ruler is , by definition , an extreme oppressor of Hindus and other people of pantheist or polytheist faiths .

Can you ever get over your incredible prejeduce against muslims.

 

[Whomp]

He didn't show anything , he just said something . He provided no proof for his assertions . And I'll let the actions of Mohammed speak for themselves . I do not trust a man one of whose first actions on coming back to Mecca was be to destroy and throw out the idols of the Kaaba .

I am learning aneeshm and appreciate your input.

From what I've understood the Islamic notion of justice is well documented and goes back to the time of the Prophet. Muhammad, as related in his biography and reflected in revelation and tradition, had two main phases.

From the verses in the Koran, and also relevant passages in the prophetic traditions and biography, came the Meccan period which carries a message of opposition, as you say, of rebellion against the existing order.

Then comes the famous migration, the hijra from Mecca to Medina, where Muhammad becomes a wielder, not a victim, of authority. Muhammad becomes a head of state and does what heads of state do--conduct government.

As zenspider has said sometimes it comes in ways we may not agree with. Hamas won on a platform of destroying their mortal enemy. There's also the question whether Iranians are happy with their current situation? It would seem that regime has become increasingly unpopular as the ruling mullahs have shown themselves to be just as corrupt and oppressive as the ruling autocracies in other countries in the region.

My question to you is whether democracy has a chance to disrupt the autocracies of the Middle East?

 

[aneeshm]

My question to you is whether democracy has a chance to disrupt the autocracies of the Middle East?

It is perfectly possible , but very difficult due to two things

a) The culture of the region , and
b) The hatred it has come to inspire , as it is seen as something imposed .

The ideal moment for democracy was the Iranian Revolution . Had democracy been the rallying point instead of the "Islamic Republic" , then Iran would be like India and China today - growing and growing and growing . But old ideas hijacked that revolution , and those old ideas derailed the country .

We have to look for other such "tipping points" and influence them in favour of democracy if we want to bring lasting change in the Middle East .

 

[zenspiderz]

It is perfectly possible , but very difficult due to two things

a) The culture of the region , and

This is meaningless. You do not say what is quality of the diverse cultures in the middle east that makes democracy difficult or say why.

b) The hatred it has come to inspire , as it is seen as something imposed .

You might have a point there. If the word democracy has come to be associated with US cluster bombs and insulting propaganda then certainly people would have no desire for it.

The ideal moment for democracy was the Iranian Revolution . Had democracy been the rallying point instead of the "Islamic Republic" , then Iran would be like India and China today - growing and growing and growing . But old ideas hijacked that revolution , and those old ideas derailed the country .

Democracy was as much a rallying point as Islam in the revolution. The resulting Theocratic Democracy may be a unique form of goverment but it not to my mind an automatically bad one. Some might say its theocratic side inhibits its democratic credentials. Well perhaps we could also say that the UK aristocratic/monarchic side inhibits Britain's democratic credentials. How about India's enduring caste system? How democratic is that I wonder? Capitalism is a very autocratic way of organising an ecomony and that clearly adversely affects the US democracy.

Iran is actually developing in a way that is comparable with India and China if one is fair. Remember Iran achieved independance from empire more recently than either India or China; India and China have had 20-30 year head start. And hot on the heels of the revolution came the Iraq(US sponsored) invasion and the resulting 8 year war. After the war finished the US has done its best to prevent Iran developing with trade sanctions. Admittedly no one but the US cares a bit about these sanctions.
It is easy to blame everything on the Islamic character of Iran's government but it is not accurate.
There are many things that they are doing which are very good.

We have to look for other such "tipping points" and influence them in favour of democracy if we want to bring lasting change in the Middle East .

Since the end of the ottomans the middle east has been going through some dark times, 'interesting times' as the chinese say, repeatedly mauled and humiliated by gangs of obnoxious foriegners, the british, the french, the americans... And at this time it is probably worse for the middle easterners than ever before... Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon... But then as is said 'It is always darkest before the dawn...'.

 

[Whomp]

You might have a point there. If the word democracy has come to be associated with US cluster bombs and insulting propaganda then certainly people would have no desire for it.

Nope but wouldn't it be nice if the insurgents who are attempting to provoke a full-scale war between the Arab Sunni minority and the Arab Shias stopped?
I congratulate the Shias for not organizing a concerted campaign of nationwide retaliation.

Democracy was as much a rallying point as Islam in the revolution. The resulting Theocratic Democracy may be a unique form of goverment but it not to my mind an automatically bad one. Some might say its theocratic side inhibits its democratic credentials.

Are the Persians all that happy with that system? A system that rewards the Bazaaris? My understanding is that a business owner often needs to borrow money from members of the merchant bazaari class instead of state run banks. Even though the cost is higher and then there's the Bonyads . The charitable organizations that give great control to the mullahs. How about the bonyad based in the holy city of Mashhad that has used donations from as many as 8 million pilgrims a year to buy up 90 percent of the arable land in the surrounding region controlled by Ayatollah Abbas Vaez-Tabazi - whose son and daughter are married to two of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's children. The foundation also owns universities and a cola factory.

These actions seems to be a critical difference between Iraqi and Iranian Shias.

Well perhaps we could also say that the UK aristocratic/monarchic side inhibits Britain's democratic credentials. How about India's enduring caste system? How democratic is that I wonder? Capitalism is a very autocratic way of organising an ecomony and that clearly adversely affects the US democracy.

All better options than the Vichy and Soviet style dictatorships they adopted during and after WWII .

 

[zenspiderz]

Nope but wouldn't it be nice if the insurgents who are attempting to provoke a full-scale war between the Arab Sunni minority and the Arab Shias stopped?

Yes it would be nice but I doubt the CIA/MI6 agent provocateurs that are dressing up as arabs and blowing up mosques are going to stop that particular game anytime soon.
Sources - here here here, here
and here

I congratulate the Shias for not organizing a concerted campaign of nationwide retaliation.

Me too.

Are the Persians all that happy with that system? A system that rewards the Bazaaris? My understanding is that a business owner often needs to borrow money from members of the merchant bazaari class instead of state run banks. Even though the cost is higher and then there's the Bonyads . The charitable organizations that give great control to the mullahs. How about the bonyad based in the holy city of Mashhad that has used donations from as many as 8 million pilgrims a year to buy up 90 percent of the arable land in the surrounding region controlled by Ayatollah Abbas Vaez-Tabazi - whose son and daughter are married to two of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's children. The foundation also owns universities and a cola factory.

Nobody but a fool is 100% happy with any political system. From my experience of Iranians in Iran just 2 years ago they were in the main quite a bit more content with the character and actions of their government than UK people are with their gov.
What you describe about the bazaari and bonyads, I am confused is this a critiscism? People don't borrow money where you come from then? Charitable institutions don't invest the donations given them where you come from? Are you from North Korea?

These actions seems to be a critical difference between Iraqi and Iranian Shias.

Eh? What are you saying? Iraqi Shia are from North Korea?

All better options than the Vichy and Soviet style dictatorships they adopted during and after WWII .

Who adopted? the Iranians? Are you talking about the 1st Pahlavi Shah? The British were using and abusing the increasingly Qajar dynasty to the point where the Iranian people were about to overthrow the Qajars. The British cared nothing for the Qajars except if they did not control their successors they would lose thier lucrative concessions they had conned out of the Qajars. So the British found an ambitious persian military officer to organise a coup d' etat and make himself shah in place of the Qajars. He became known as Pahlavi shah after his place of birth. Thus fooling the Iranian people for a time that the perfidious brits would be put in their place. Not so of course and so the Iranian people started rumbling discontent. Pahlavi got scared and ran away leaving the his son to take over. In the end the same happened to him in 1979. This time there was no one to replace him as a British stooge and the Islamic Republic came into being. Actually the Majilis (parliment) of Iran has a longer history than you might think. It started in the early 20th century but never had any power primarily because of the efforts of the British until 1952 when the majilis led by Mossedegh managed to gain some government posts. They lost it almost immediately due to a CIA organised coup d' etat.