A new tone?
A leading Saudi cleric issued a plea today for Muslims not to heed calls to wage terror attacks in the name of Islam. Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Sudeis, the state-appointed preacher at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, told pilgrims in a sermon marking the feast of Eid al-Adha that scholars must preach moderation to confront militants, who were using 'misguided and void' interpretations to justify violence. His sermon, dedicated to the 2.5 million Muslims performing the hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, echoed comments made yesterday by Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al Sheik. The kingdom's grand mufti said the greatest test to the nation of Islam came from its sons who were 'lured by the devil' to carry out acts of violence. Sheikh al-Sudeis said militancy was not a valid interpretation of Islam. 'Because Muslims have strayed from moderation, we are now suffering from this dangerous phenomenon of branding people infidels and inciting Muslims to rise against their leaders to cause instability,' he said.I heartily approve of the renunciation of terror, and am very glad that a prominent Muslim Cleric is making that call. I do approve of Muslims who 'rise against their leaders and cause instability' though, although peaceful means are preferable whenever possible. The Arab world needs less stability, not more in my opinion, and not just from a position of self-interest as an American (although that is a factor) but for the Arab peoples themselves. Their stratified, top down societies are probably incapable of competing in the globalized world. A little change could go a long way there. Of course this supposes real change, not merely the exchange of one set of masters for another.
posted by Dave Justus | 1/20/2005 11:45:00 AM
4 Comments:
Dave, I too am pleased with the Sheikh's call for moderation. There's not much to disagree with...
But, I ask you, do you desire a 'free' (less stable) Arabia which is uncontrolled in it's fundamentalism to a 'closed' (stratified) society which poses a minimal threat to the rest of the world?
I can't answer that question myself...On the scale of life, is it better to justify an oppressive society against a murderous theocracy?
How do you force democracy upon tribal societies? Their very structure is incompatible with their blood feuds and inherent oppression of women.
If we succeed in Iraq, it may be a first step. We just have to be ready for a version of democracy which may be difficult for the US to stomach. But as they say 'Democracy is ugly'.
I don't think that Democracy is incompatible with any people. It has worked for slave holding frontier colonials, post-facist Germans, India with it's historically rigid caste system and post-Imperial Japan.
I also don't think you have to 'force' democracy on any society. What you have to do is prevent others from forcing totalitarianism on a society. This sometimes can simply be done by support for dissodents and the promotion of democratic ideals. Other times it requires force to destroy those who would oppress.
As to your first question, I think that the choice is not between a 'free' fundamentalist Saudi Arabia or a 'closed' safe Saudi Arabia. That is in my opinion a false dichotomy, although it may well have a deal of truth in the short term. I believe that Saudi Arabia is fundamentalist because it is closed and that it is dangerous now (not as a state perhaps, but as an influence on the world certainly). Freedom and Progress will triumph over Fundamentalism if it is given a chance is Saudi Arabia, just as it has everywhere else.
Granted though, transitions can be quite dangerous.
A few random points about democracy and Islam;
1. Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan have all made moves to become more democratic in ways that don't resemble, say, the U.S., but are undeniable progress.
2. To speak about Arab culture being "tribal" is a bit reductionist. Arab culture was urban and sophisticated during when when Western Europe was a backwards feudal society. Intellectual debate has a long tradition in the great Arab urban centers like Cairo, Beirut, Baghdad, and pre-reconquista Cordoba.
3. What's interesting is that Shi'ism may be more institutionally amenable to democracy than Sunnism. Shi'ism has always saw itself has having outsider status and so values open debate. The only Shi'a state in the world has had a parliament going back about a hundred years and even after the 1979 revolution ushered a shadow theocracy a parliament has continued to exist (with women voting and serving as members, incidentally). What the implications are for Iraq, which is of course majority Shi'a remain to be seen.
4. Democracy in Saudi Arabia will be tricky because of its status as the protector of the two most holy places in Islam. Part of the reason that Saudi Arabia has such repressive religious laws is because it seeks legitimacy from Islamic extremists to justify its rule over Mecca and Medina. Saudi Arabia has a Shi'a population as well, as the Sunni extremists think that Shi'a are idolators. What happens if Shi'a vote in free elections in Saudi Arabia? What happens if women want to participate in a Saudi democracy? I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done, but rather that it's a complicated situation.
Those are all very good points HP. I don't think that specific U.S. institutions are needed for a functioning democracy, but I do think that some of the basic principles we base our democracy are correct for all people. Those would include protection of basic rights for all (especially minorities), rule of law, and democratic representation as a foundation for a legitimate government. There are many ways to achieve these basic requirements, and certainly the U.S. has not fully perfected any of them.
You points about Saudi Arabia are very good, and I think expand on the point I was trying to make. Because the Saudi rulers have no legitimate (democratic) authority they have had to resort to a fundamentalist authority as a means of maintaining control.
While I would like to see Saudis enjoy the same rights we in America enjoy (women's sufferage for example) I don't think that they need to take all the steps at once. Our Democracy was 'legitimate', though flawed, before we had Women's sufferage and the Saudis could follow a similar developmental path (although I expect it would be a much swifter transformation to full sufferage.)
Post a Comment
<< Home