The Middle East: Islamic Law and Peace
Summary of and Recommendations from the Roundtable
on Democractic Reform and the Role of Women in the Muslim World
Held in New York, March 29, 2004
Printable PDF Version - [Click
here to get Adobe Reader]
CONTENTS
Dear Reader:
On March 29, 2004, the National Committee on American
Foreign Policy convened its fourth closed-door and off-the-record
roundtable on the Middle East. The first roundtable of Muslim scholars,
former diplomats, and specialized journalists addressed the question
“Can Muslims Accept Israel in Their Midst?” (May 9, 2001)
; the second the issue of “Militant Islamic Fundamentalism
in the 21st Century” (January 10, 2002); the third the problem
of “Reform and Human Development in the Muslim World”
(March 20, 2003); and the fourth the question of “Democratic
Reform and the Role of Women in the Muslim World (March 29, 2004).”
This latest roundtable confirmed the conclusions reached
by the previous ones as well as the threads that run through them:
(1) The mind-set of many of the people of the region has not changed
significantly for a long period of time; (2) the underdevelopment
of the countries is largely self-inflicted; (3) women’s equal
rights should be recognized and implemented; (4) major U.S. and
other Western educational and economic efforts are needed to help
the region lift itself out of underdevelopment and become receptive
to new ways of thinking; (5) Muslim intellectuals living in the
West must be mobilized to help bring about necessary reforms; (6)
it is seemingly impossible, according to fundamentalist interpretations
of sharia (Muslim law), for Muslims to engage in strategic coexistence
with Israel or with the “infidel” Christian West; (7)
democratic reforms cannot be imposed by Western countries and should
be initiated by Muslims themselves.
The National Committee on American Foreign Policy
is especially grateful to Mutual of America, Mrs. Eugenie Fromer,
and Ms. Sheila Johnson Robbins for providing major support for the
fourth roundtable. The National Committee also acknowledges the
generous support given to us by an anonymous donor and by Kenneth
J. Bialkin, Esq., Nina Rosenwald, and the Edith C. Blum Foundation.
Sincerely,
George D. Schwab
President
INTRODUCTION
Questions concerning democratic reform and the role
of women in the Muslim world have preoccupied Muslim intellectuals
and political and religious leaders since the 19th century. In recent
years they have become more acute, pitting religious radicals against
progressive elements, as well as foreigners. In a way these issues
are at the heart of mounting terrorist activities perpetrated by
organizations such as Al Qaeda and its ilk. They have naturally
become a concern in foreign policy planning. Since the attacks against
the United States on September 11, 2001, the war against international
terrorism has highlighted the dangers of militant Islamic fundamentalism
and the necessity of defeating it everywhere in the world, including
Muslim countries. That is why the National Committee on American
Foreign Policy thought it appropriate to convene a roundtable on
“Democratic Reform and the Role of Women in the Muslim World.”
The roundtable consisted of several Muslim experts in these fields
and a number of interested participants and observers.
The purpose of this not-for-attribution summary report
is to make available to the foreign policy community the views and
suggestions that were voiced at the March 29, 2004, roundtable.
PRESENTATIONS
Islam and Democracy
Some commentators have concluded that democracy and
Islam are incompatible. They usually cite an 1879 essay by Jamal-ad-Din
Afghani titled “Despotic Government”1 written after he
traveled to Europe. The famous Muslim scholar, while praising “constitutional
governments,” wrote that Muslim countries were not ready for
such systems because of (1) their “long experience under despotism”;
(2) the “rule of superstition rather than reason”; (3)
their opposition to and ignorance of the “true sciences.”
Afghani added that the best for which Muslims could “presently
hope” was a “benevolent, enlightened paternalistic despot
(who) would introduce the new scientific and technological knowledge
of the West and a more humane form of government.” More than
a century after the publication of Afghani’s essay, Muslim
countries are still living under authoritarian if not completely
despotic governments. Even Turkey’s regime, often cited as
an example of “Islamic democracy,” violates human rights
from time to time, and its military establishment intervenes once
in a while to “safeguard” its “secularized”
constitution.
Despite Afghani’s assessment, it does not seem
that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Actually fundamentalist
interpretations of any religion (or secular ideology, for that matter)
beget intolerance and despotism. The fact is that after its relatively
tolerant first three centuries of existence, the Muslim world suddenly
closed itself, and diverse fundamentalist interpretations of the
Koran won the upper hand. Muslims rejected most of their own scientists
and philosophers as heretics, burned their books, and repudiated
all forms of innovation. While the West gradually shed the grip
of religious fundamentalism and started a steady growth in the fields
of science and technology, accompanied by the gradual development
of liberal democratic institutions, the Muslim world marked time
and never recovered the vitality of its heyday.2 When the shock
of Bonaparte’s Egyptian fray awoke it from its slumber, it
could not confront the invading forces. Large parts of its territories
were colonized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Reformist
movements sprang up almost everywhere. But the modernizing elements
were countered by clerics who fought all “deviations”
from classical interpretations of the Koran. The immobility of Muslim
societies continued despite national liberation movements after
World War II.
At the same time in the West, science and technology
underwent tremendous advances, and the pace of change accelerated,
widening the already existing deep gap with the Muslim world.
The End of Patriarchy in the West
This growing divide constitutes in itself a formidable
obstacle to democratic reforms. Indeed it concerns not only economic
and technological matters that can be addressed through UN technical
and other forms of assistance but also involves mind-sets and all
aspects of social organization. Historically all known human societies
have been more or less based on the “patriarchal” model
featuring male preeminence at every level. The introduction of diverse
forms of democracy in Europe gradually eroded this model. But patriarchial
remnants in Western countries constituted a kind of “surviving
link” with the Muslim world that had remained almost unchanged
for some centuries. There, especially in many Middle Eastern areas,
patriarchy and male dominance, often reinforced by the continuation
of tribalism, survived in full force.
In Europe and North America, things moved rapidly
in the 20th century. In the first decades of the century, women
initiated a sustained struggle for equality with men. In 1948 the
UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that
contained some revolutionary concepts even for the advanced West.
A variety of other “human rights” conventions followed.
They concerned genocide, the elimination of all forms of racism
and discrimination, the elimination of discrimination against women,
the rights of children, the interdiction of torture, and so on.
Concurrently “paternal authority” began
to be contested both at the level of society and individual families,
and the contest developed rapidly. It can be said in a way that
the “feminist” movement and the student revolt of the
1960s reflected deep structural changes that were occurring in Western
societies. The last vestiges of patriarchy melted away. Even societies
at the periphery of Western democracies followed suit. The Soviet
bloc collapsed while the United States leaped into a new era of
total democracy, intensifying globalizing forces galvanizing the
planet.
At the same time the “information revolution”
spread new ideas and innovations everywhere, including Muslim countries
where some violent reactions erupted. Indeed the “quasi-death”
of patriarchy in the West and the stated goal of the United States
to push for democratic reform endangered the “patriarchal-tribal”
structures of Muslim societies. It was not a matter of chance that
the first violent reactions against the West came from an Iranian
mullah and a Saudi clan member.3
Destabilization
The incompatibility does not reside between Islam
and democracy but between fundamentalist interpretations of the
religion and democratic principles. The so-called American Greater
Middle East Initiative, which calls for democratic reforms in that
part of the Muslim world, certainly corresponds to a long due necessity,
but it cannot be imposed from outside. Present Muslim regimes might
cooperate in the war against terrorism, but they would probably
oppose democratization directly or indirectly, which in practice
would mean the end of their grip on power.
Even when a younger generation of Arab experts and
leaders 4 are genuinely aware of the necessity of reform, they want
to introduce it gradually in order, they say, to avoid destabilization.
Indeed how can one change a social order maintained in quasi-fixity
for centuries without provoking serious disruptions? At any rate,
if the United States is sincere in its move to change the Middle
East, it should help existing Muslim reformist movements inside
and outside the Muslim world, including those aimed at political
freedom and the empowerment of women.
Gender Equity
If legal equality between men and women is far from
being implemented in the Muslim world, gender equity is progressing
in some countries. Thus in Egypt, for instance, it has developed
across almost all professions, including governmental bureaucracy.
There are women in the Egyptian National Assembly (parliament),
in political parties, in the media, in public and private offices,
and so on. But this equality is not inscribed in laws: It is more
cultural than legal. Moreover, gender equity does not mean that
women are not discriminated against in a number of cases as a result
of religious constraints and general mores and practices.
In order to expand the trend of gender equity and
increase women’s contributions to advancing society, one should
use what can be dubbed as the “cultural-educational connection”:
Indeed many opportunities for education and employment exist, especially
in the private sector. In this respect significant additional resources
should be allotted through universities and other institutions of
higher education for women’s education and professional training.
The admission of women to schools, universities, and specialized
centers should be expanded, and both the government and the private
sector should be encouraged to increase employment opportunities
in their favor.
At any rate, in promoting democratic reforms in the
Muslim world, it is preferable to adopt a “soft approach”
rather than impose measures forcefully through laws and law enforcement
agencies. In Egypt, as well as in some other parts of the Muslim
world, the cultural sector has been undervalued if not totally neglected.
Most of the developmental projects concern economic and technical
matters. They tend to ignore cultural and educational domains. The
universities of Cairo and Alexandria should be supported more vigorously
and endowed with greater financial resources.
Some experts consider that a radical change in the
curricula is necessary. That, however, does not seem to be the best
way to introduce democratic reforms. Correcting and improving the
existing curricula would constitute a preferable and less controversial
means of change.
To achieve positive results professors and journalists
should get together in workshop discussions where they could talk
among themselves about pressing issues and determine needs as well
as ways and means to realize them.
Mention was made of the Steering Committee of the
Association for Arab Women whose members are accomplished women
leaders. This organization is active and should be supported through
a network of connections with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
in the Western world.
Islam and Women
It was observed that there is “something”
in the mainstream practice of Islam, not in its ideals, that is
deeply opposed to women. The “madrassas” (Koranic schools),
for instance, spread two major messages about women. The first one
is based on the pretense that women are “inferior” to
men. The second teaches that women should not be “trusted.”
These schools do not try to advance or elaborate on any justification
of these assertions. In the same way in which they contend that
Jews and Christians are conspiring against Islam, they contend that
women cannot assume positions of leadership in any undertaking.
These antiwomen teachings result in blatant injustices
and often in terrible atrocities against women in Muslim societies.
Several recent examples were stated. Among them was highlighted
the case of a Nigerian woman who had been raped. She was treated
as though she had engaged in extramarital sex, which is considered
an offense by Islamic courts. She produced seven witnesses to the
rape but to no avail. Despite all efforts and interventions, she
was condemned to receive 180 lashes.
Another example was that of a woman accused of lesbian
relations. She was stoned to death. On a less tragic level, examples
were mentioned of blatant discrimination against women; thus in
some countries such as Saudi Arabia, women can legally possess cars
but cannot drive them.
The question was raised as to how such basic injustices
can be reconciled with articles of faith. Muslim “liberals”
affirm that those kinds of injustices have no place in “true”
Islam. It was said that in its ideals Islam is favorable to women
and that Muslims are far from being misogynists. Muhammad’s
first wife, who was fifteen years older than he, was a successful
commercially independent trader. Moreover, according to some verses
in the Koran, women can reject marriage or impose their own conditions
in the marriage contract. But Muslim “liberals” gloss
over other parts of the Koran in which it is said that “women
are your fields” to do with as you please or that men, as “providers”
for the family, stand over and control women.
In short, there is a serious imbalance between men
and women in the Muslim world. It is true that the Koran, like the
Bible, contains contradictory points. In any case, clerics and jurisprudents
tend to interpret and uphold only the verses hostile to women. Therefore,
women should highlight the passages that are favorable to them.
Mention was also made of the so-called honor killings
of women that are current in the Muslim world and happen even sometimes
among Muslim immigrants in the West. It was emphasized that such
crimes have nothing to do with Islam. They are the consequence of
Arab tribal traditions embedded in the practice of the religion.
As a result, women can be murdered with total impunity. It was said
that this tradition is now used by terrorist organizations such
as Hamas to train women who have “shamed” their families
as suicide bombers; in this way, say terrorist leaders, they atone
and obtain God’s pardon and at the same time restore the “stained”
honor of their families.
Women and their organizations should seriously question
the practice of “honor killing,” and should “reopen”
the doors of ijtihad (independent thinking) encouraged by the Koran.
The “doors” of ijtihad were “closed” by clerics
around and after the 12th century.5 Women need to democratize and
popularize independent thinking and undertake the duty of reinterpreting
the sacred texts. In this context, women should ask questions about
a larger share in communal property.
Concerning economic problems, Muslim women who have
the necessary means should help other Muslim women to open and run
small enterprises. Modest loans should be provided for that purpose.
When women have their own money, they can spend it to learn reading
and writing and to create their own businesses. In Afghanistan,
“microloans” (of about 100 dollars) have allowed more
than 600 women to operate small, prosperous enterprises. Such “microfinancing”
would help introduce and strengthen lasting democratic reforms.
If extended to other Muslim countries, particularly Iraq, this trend
might help establish democracy. Indeed Iraq needs a broad business
class, including women “capitalists,” to compel government
accountability. The United States should encourage and support in
various ways the spread of businesses owned by women.
The panel was reminded that the “Alexandria Declaration,”
adopted on March 19, 2004, recommended swift democratic reforms.
It stressed the following points among others: trade liberalization,
political accountability, women’s rights, and so on. A system
of microloans could prove instrumental in this respect.
Resistance and Progress
It was stated that a change in the status of women,
as well as the introduction of other democratic reforms, would meet
stiff resistance when imposed or even suggested from the outside
world. Therefore, reforms should be initiated by Muslim women and
men. Muslims see any move undertaken or inspired by the West as
suspect.
Moreover, Muslim countries invoke a variety of excuses
in order to postpone or slow down the pace of change. This is mainly
due to the fact that rulers as well as local tribal leaders fear
that democracy would diminish their authority and grip on power.
Some governments say that change should come very slowly, cautiously,
and, above all, gradually because haste would be used by “Islamists”
in order to expand their influence on the masses. There is also
the problem of creating insecurity and destabilization by introducing
democratic reforms in tribal societies.
Notwithstanding this resistance and these arguments,
relative progress has been achieved in some areas in implementing
human rights in general and women’s emancipation in particular.
These changes are coming not in the form of altered religious interpretations
but in the practical domains of culture and political life. Moreover,
there are deep differences from country to country. Thus in some
Asian countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, women
have achieved the highest political positions. They have been elected
to the office of prime minister and president of the nation. Women
also have achieved appreciable progress in the Persian Gulf States,
especially in the domains of health and social services.
In some countries a lot of changes took place in the
1960s and 1970s without any reform in religious interpretations.
Women are now participating in television programs even in Saudi
Arabia (where they wear the proper headdress). For the first time
an official document mentioning discrimination against women as
one of the essential causes of backwardness is being distributed
freely. Indeed the Arab Human Development Report of 2002 cites restrictions
imposed on women as one of the three “deficits” that hamper
progress in the Arab world. (The other two are the absence of political
freedom and the low level and inadequacy of education.) Moreover,
it is obvious that keeping half the population at bay does not encourage
an economic breakthrough.
Despite the level of progress achieved, many problems
remain and are even getting more acute. Resistance to change increased
in the 1980s for several reasons. The collapse of the postwar nationalist
movements opened the door to the most extremist religious elements
and to traditionalist tribal leaders on the political level. With
the rise of authoritarian if not completely despotic governments
and the absence of political freedom in almost all Muslim societies,
mosques became the only venues for political expression and activity.
Women’s condition, always the result of the general social
environment, was marked by some degree of regression. Mind-sets
were slow to change. To many activists it appeared that the problem
of women was more political than religious. It was a problem of
human rights. A flood of advice poured in from the West. But it
proved to be barely helpful. Change would have to come from inside.
Reform and the Situation of Women
No democratic reform can fructify in the Muslim world
without a change in the condition of women. It is imperative that
they achieve equal treatment. Attention was called to the existence
in Egypt and other Arab countries of women’s groups and associations
that challenge male dominance and misogyny in current interpretations
of religion. Before democratic reform can proceed, women must be
educated to achieve awareness of all their rights, including political
and religious rights, making it possible for them to participate
in and contribute to all aspects of life in their societies.
Women scholars in the Muslim world are reinterpreting
the Koran in a more equalitarian way. Throughout the Muslim world,
from North Africa and the Middle East to Southeast Asia, individual
women and members of women’s rights groups, possessing different
cultures and languages but sharing faith and goals, are creating
a momentum for reform that few would have predicted. The winds of
change are already blowing in many areas of the Muslim world.6
References were made to the Beijing conference and
other international gatherings on the subject of the status of women.
The resolutions of such meetings possess a great general value because
they draw attention to the plight of women. But practically they
have had scant effect on real change in Muslim countries.
“Surface issues” such as wearing veils or
headgear or not driving cars are secondary and should not hide the
real problems of inequality and discrimination. What women need
in practice are laws that give them choices. The true issue is employment.
In many Muslim countries women are poor and have been consigned
to their homes.
Some improvements are happening here and there. The
employees of an oil company in Saudi Arabia voted recently for the
inclusion of a woman in the steering committee of their union, and
in Saudi Arabia, as well as in some other countries, the necessity
of reform related to women is discussed in relation to the candidacy
of such countries for membership in the World Trade Organization.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that men often embrace
“liberal” positions only to apologize later to religious
traditionalist elements. Both men and women should understand that
it is not “shameful” to promote women’s rights. Liberals
and moderates must speak out. They must not leave it to bin Laden
and his ilk to represent Islam. Organizations connected with human
rights should become involved in monitoring the problem of women
in the Muslim world.
American Muslims can be very helpful. The more they
affirm that civil liberties are important, the more that affirmation
will allow Muslims around the world to understand and appreciate
the essential role played by human rights in generating reform.
Reform in the Muslim world is often thought to be threatened by
the urge of women to promote reform. This constitutes a kind of
“red line,” which does not demarcate a fight with the
West.
Reform, Politics, and Theology
In the 19th century the Western powers defeated the
Ottoman Empire in Central Europe and the Balkans, and Persia was
defeated by Russia in the Caucasus and northern Azerbaijan. The
shock of these setbacks provoked the idea of reform both among the
ruling classes and the intelligentsia. The former created Western
types of armies and bureaucracies without changing the social and
political structures of their societies. The latter tried to kindle
reform movements in order to transform their countries in depth.
By 1905 a constitutional revolution was able to impose a parliamentary
system and end the absolutism of the shah of Iran. In the early
1920s in Turkey, Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) abolished the empire, as
well as the caliphate, and replaced them with a secular constitutional
republic.
Everywhere in the Muslim world intellectuals seemed
fascinated with European political and philosophical ideas. They
read and referred to Voltaire and Montesquieu, as well as Marx and
Lenin. It was as if they had forgotten their own very rich political
and philosophical literature. They criticized religion, forgetting
that reform should not be a war against God but rather a political
fight against despotism that dominated the Muslim world. Indeed
democracy is about changing mind-sets. It is about “doubt,”
which is inconsistent with religion. The problem facing all reformers
is not making a theological issue of reform but treating it as a
political one. They should aim at creating an open space in society
for political debate.
Contrary to current opinion, there is no such thing
as a coherent “Muslim world.” There are 57 countries in
which Islam is the majority religion, and most of them are run by
undemocratic regimes.
Moreover, those countries are far from being religiously
homogeneous: They comprise multiple minorities—sects and religious
groups have proliferated since Muhammad’s death in the 7th
century. To cite only one example, there are 80 different groups
in Lebanon, the second smallest Muslim country.
One must also make a distinction between Islam as
a belief system and Islam as an “existential” reality
that is open to political and social criticism. Each Muslim country
should be considered individually. One cannot apply a single policy
to all Muslim countries.
How to Help Reformers?
Attempts at de-Islamification have been made in several
countries but to no avail. Wave after wave of liberalizing ideas
and techniques have come from the West, but local leaders have resisted
them, invoking a variety of excuses such as cultural differences
and traditional values. Very often such excuses do not withstand
scrutiny. In any case, the reformers should concentrate on developing
civil society and democratic institutions in their countries.
As to how change can be advanced in Muslim countries,
it was recalled that most countries have signed and ratified the
Charter of the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
as well as other international treaties, but have not really and
practically implemented them and apparently do not intend to put
them into effect. Actually not only do most leaders gloss over their
international obligations, but they often violate their own national
laws. The West should remain wary and use aid money not for the
security of autocratic regimes but for democratization. It should
create something like the Helsinki process that proved so effective
during the cold war in improving human rights in communist countries.
Such a system would force governments to honor their signatures
on international agreements.
It was remarked that many in the Muslim world do not
believe that the United States is committed to help democratization.
Indeed for a long time America and the West have supported corrupt
governments and continue to do so. They often disagree about the
way to deal with Muslim countries. Therefore, Western powers should
pull their act together and help reformers in Muslim countries.
Many opportunities exist in this respect. The example of Iran was
cited. It was said that “Islamism” has been almost completely
defeated there and that the old left is moribund.
The United States can help practically by creating
a framework for a dialogue and treat each Muslim country according
to the ways in which it behaves nationally and internationally.
For instance, it should not give all Muslim leaders the same red
carpet treatment when they come to Washington. It should clearly
differentiate between “friends” and “enemies.”
United States financial assistance should not be limited to providing
security. It should extend to NGOs, active elements of civil societies,
and the like.
DISCUSSIONS
Islamic Political Thought
Reference was made to the remark of one of the presenters
that everywhere in the Muslim world the intellectual elite, fascinated
with European ideas, seems to have forgotten its own heritage involving
Muslim political thinkers of the first three or four centuries of
Islam. The reason, it was suggested, was that with the triumph of
fundamentalism during and after the 12th century, the clerics and
authorities condemned most philosophers and scientists as heretics
and rejected access to their works. Books were burned or banned,
and a kind of “witch hunt” dried up thinking with very
few exceptions for almost eight centuries. Contrary to what Professor
Edward Said wrote in his polemical book titled Orientalism, the
works of Muslim philosophers of the first centuries of Islam were
rediscovered by “Orientalists” and brought to the attention
of Muslims. That was probably why Muslim intellectuals tended to
ignore their own political thinkers and rushed to Western philosophers.
The presenter agreed and added that one of his dreams
is republishing all the books of these writers in editions accessible
to Muslim masses who would then discover that they had their own
heritage of political thought. He cited the names of Farabi, Ibn
Roshd (Averroes), Ibn Battuta, Nizam-ol-Molk, Nasser Khosrow, Ibn
Khaldun, and others. Those philosophers developed a “democratic”
political thought that shows that introducing democratic reform
in the Muslim world would not be an imposition from outside. Instead,
it has solid sources in the thinking of ancient Muslim philosophers.
He also named some writers of the second half of the 19th century
whose books have disappeared: The Crimean Ismail Aga Sprinski, a
forerunner of the idea of reconsidering the status of women in Islam;
he opened the first schools for girls and said that if one had to
choose between sending a son or a daughter to school, it is better
to send the latter because she will be a mother and will teach all
her children to read and write; Mirza Ibrahimof, a Tatar, who convened
the first conference on the theme of “What Happened to the
Muslims?” in order to discuss why most Muslims were under colonial
rule; Manutchehr Mirza, who was one of the founders of the Freemason
Society in Iran and wrote about secularism and democracy; and many
others.
Names of some contemporary thinkers were also mentioned:
A. Kasravi, A. Abdel Malek, A. Laroui, A. al Fasi, M. Arkoun, A.
An Naim, and others.
This panelist concluded that Muslims have to revive
their own cultural and political traditions in order to be able
to join the universal thinking about problems that face humanity
as a whole and not remain in the opposition. These political thinkers
are in fact the precursors of reform and modernization in Islam.
Political Obstacles
One panelist remarked that the advocates of democratic
reform in Muslim countries more often than not run up against a
wall that is the political structure of most ruling regimes. As
Professor Fouad Ajami recently wrote, “There is no prospect
that the rulers of Arab lands will offer their people a decent social
contract.”7 Reformers should find ways to overcome the serious
political obstacle that autocratic regimes and leaders constitute
on the road to change. Another participant stated that Arab rulers
do not want satellite dishes that undermine their monopoly on information.
They have proliferated anyway. This participant added that many
women activists have received expressions of thanks from individual
Muslims around the world for expressing their thoughts and ideas
in public, unlike others who are silent because they fear persecution.
Even if one can forgive that kind of fear on the part of people
exposed to national repression, how can one excuse such a fear on
the part of Muslims living in North America and Europe? The latter
often use their hatred of Israel and their vitriol for the Bush
administration as excuses for not criticizing the way Islam is practiced
today.
In this respect another panelist considered that there
are two layers of political obstacles that prevent Arab people from
achieving their rights. It is true that many rulers do not want
change and resist it. But there is a new wave of younger leaders
in a number of countries such as Bahrain, Jordan, and Morocco who
back change at least to a certain extent. But they are faced with
resistance from their parliaments in many cases. In Kuwait, for
instance, governments have tried time after time to pass laws that
would grant women the right to vote and run for office, but the
tribal and conservative elements that represent a majority in parliament
have opposed such reforms.
It was added that a similar situation exists in some
countries regarding so-called honor killings. In Jordan at least
twice the government tried to push forward new laws to punish people
who perpetrate these murders. It did not succeed. It was said that
the two sets of political obstacles facing the Arab world are real.
Nevertheless, some form of change will certainly come in response
to internal and external pressures.
Several participants were of the opinion that the
problem of democratic reforms is more of a political than a religious
nature. Indeed it depends on what governments do. If they decide
to elevate the sharia as the only law of their countries, they obviously
will subject their people to a different kind of regime than democracy,
as happened in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan. A panelist
remarked that most Muslim countries have Western-style constitutions;
moreover, the sharia applies to private rather than public questions;
marriage, for instance, is not a sacred event in Islam but a contract;
in the case of inheritance also, individuals can decide as they
wish, and no government can force them to follow what the sharia
says; they can if they so wish provide privileges to their daughters
rather than to their sons. This panelist said that today’s
Muslim world is somehow “sick”: It is suffering from despotism,
which is a political ailment. This participant also affirmed that
the problem is not with clerics: Bin Laden and Mullah Omar (and
even Khomeini) are not clerics; they are politicians. Muslim reformers
should not miss the real targets—the despotic rulers—
and enter into endless theological discussions.
Most of the panelists agreed that religion was not
the main issue in democratic reform.
The Role of Religion and Democratic Reform in the
Muslim World
One participant disagreed and stated that religion
constitutes the core issue in the promotion of any reform. One cannot
get away from the fact that religion is fundamental. There have
been attempts in the Middle East to revolutionize the concept of
society. Nasser and Saddam Hussein tried to do so in their countries
to no avail. In the Western world Luther and the Reformation came
before Robespierre and the French Revolution. Even the Magna Carta
was elaborated in the context of religion. No change can take place
if religion is not brought to the center. If there is ever going
to be a reformation in the Middle East, reformers should start by
understanding religion and by respecting not antagonizing it. There
has to be a Martin Luther who can initiate reform. Change comes
when someone connected with the culture rises from the inside. One
has to start with understanding and respecting Islam and then try
to get the Muslim leadership to help highlight positive things within
Islam in order to bring change and move forward. Otherwise very
little change will take place.
Most panelists objected that there is no real leadership
in Islam. There are only different centers vying with one another.
In the post-9/11 world, these centers are not able to present a
clear condemnation of terrorism. Moreover, in the Muslim world clerics
have been co-opted by the governments. Right now there is nobody
in the Muslim world who could be considered as a Luther. The Sudanese-American
Professor Abdullahi An Naim, who published a book titled Toward
an Islamic Reformation some 10 or 15 years ago, is the closest to
the likes of Luther. But he had to leave his country where his mentor,
Muhammad Taha, was executed by the dictator Nemeiri because he suggested
the necessity of reforming the sharia.
It was also said that Luther is not the best example
for the Muslim world. Indeed his ideas and acts triggered religious
wars and massacres in the Christian world. Moreover, Islam lacks
an official clergy. It is enough to grow a beard and don a turban
to become a cleric. Militant fundamentalists such as bin Laden and
his ilk are politicians. The real problem is political: Muslims
have to get rid of their despotic leaders who have continued to
rule them in the name of nationalism, socialism, tribalism, and
Islamism. The names change, but it is always despotism. This is
not a theological confrontation. Rather it is a political one. The
message should not be the reform of Islam because the debate about
reforming the religion has been going on since the death of Muhammad
and the emergence of Sunniism and Shiism and numerous subsects and
will certainly go on almost without end. Of course Islam as an existential
reality should be subject to continuous critique, as are other aspects
of human life. But this is not a theological debate.
It was remarked that some experts, especially in the
West, tend to think that Islam is incompatible with democracy. It
is true that extremist interpretations of Islam leave scant room
for democratic reforms and for changes in the status of women. But
the religion should not be confused with its fundamentalist versions
used by the so-called Islamists whose movements are more political
than religious. There is also a cultural dimension, as, for example,
in the issue of wearing a veil. For instance, many Afghan women
consider the burka (the Islamic veil) as cultural rather than religious;
they have been used to it for centuries; it is almost a kind of
national dress that makes them feel secure. It was said also that
the question of the veil or other forms of cover has a “sexual
dimension”; indeed to justify this imposition on women, some
jurisprudents advance the argument that uncovered women “tempt”
men; this affirmation, after all, is denigrating to men because
it means that men have no control over their urges and so women
should cover up.
Economic Obstacles and the Role of Women
All the panelists agreed that economic empowerment
is really the key to a change in the situation of women in the Muslim
world. Women should be allowed to hold property and to work. In
this respect one cannot rely only on local government policies that
are often limited by a variety of internal pressures exerted by
traditionalists. Direct intervention by Western countries is often
counterproductive, for it immediately provokes adverse reactions
and gives fodder to the fundamentalists. Applying to foundations
and NGOs for resources and access to practical programs is more
useful and productive.
It was repeated that a global program of microenterprises
and loans of small amounts would greatly help in improving the participation
of women in the economic life of their countries. Such programs
have been recently introduced in Central America: Loans of 100 dollars
to small farmers and other small economic enterprises in Honduras,
El Salvador, and Guatemala have produced remarkable results in a
short period of time. At the same time women entrepreneurs should
be encouraged to pursue a larger scale of enterprise. The value
of microcapital will be great in the long run as more women develop
social skills and participate more efficiently in their communities.
Some progress has been made, though slowly. Recently
there was an economic forum in Riyad, Saudi Arabia, in which a prominent
Saudi woman spoke to her male counterparts without being completely
veiled. She provoked adverse reactions, but the idea of women’s
economic capacity was sown. It is true that in Saudi Arabia laws
still prevent women from having their own businesses unless a male
is involved in the enterprise as a senior partner. There also are
numerous constraints that limit women’s independence. Nevertheless,
more and more women play serious and significant roles in society
as architects and medical doctors and not just as social workers
and nurses, as they used to.
One of the issues that undergird the economic imbalance
of women in Muslim countries is the problem of inheritance. According
to the sharia, men inherit twice as much as women. The justification
is that men are supposed to provide subsistence for the family.
But beyond the endless religious debates on this subject, one should
recognize that there is a huge divide among women themselves: Although
some have access to education, the banking system, and travel, millions
and millions are deprived of education, property, and even the choice
of a spouse.
Signs of Change
Further reference was made to the fact that union
employees at Aramco elected a woman to the steering committee of
the company. This was considered as a benchmark of reform especially
in a society that adheres to one of the strictest interpretations
of Islam. It was also noted that Saudi women will probably be allowed
to vote in the municipal elections scheduled to be held later this
year.
In general an ever growing number of Muslim women
want to be included in the political and administrative processes
of their countries. Nevertheless, they have been discouraged from
doing so for a variety of reasons. One argument that is advanced
by people who use religion as a shield is that the Koran and the
prophet have precluded women from assuming leadership positions.
Although many female scholars have disparaged this assertion as
untrue, it remains prevalent in the Muslim world.
Nevertheless, since the United States has undertaken
to spread democracy in the Middle East, many Arab governments realize
that in order to stay around, they have to implement at least a
bare minimum of reforms. At the top are women’s rights. It
was remarked that the UNDP report on Arab Human Development 2002
shows that women in the Arab world occupy only 3.5 percent of parliamentary
seats as compared to 8.4 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa. Obviously
women still have a long way to go in the Muslim world. But one can
find movement in many countries such as Bahrain, Jordan, Lebanon,
and Morocco where a new generation of leaders has initiated some
democratic reforms. It is important to note that for the first time
the question of women’s status is considered as a legitimate
topic in a number of Muslim countries. A few years ago nobody would
have dared to discuss the problems of women. Now the issue is at
the center of almost all debates. Even in Saudi Arabia, one finds
a few though still timid openings. Thus some women experts were
invited to give advice to the Consultative Assembly created by King
Fahd a few years ago. Moreover, in the first human rights conference
held recently in Riyad, a number of women sat with men on a panel,
and a young princess submitted a paper— developments that would
not have been possible only a year ago. In Morocco a progressive
law about women’s equality with men was recently adopted. The
same text had been rejected two years before following massive “Islamist”
demonstrations against it in 22 cities. But women responded by launching
their own mass demonstrations.
Moreover, dialogues and discussions have started and
are spreading among NGOs and in academic circles on the subject
of the promotion of women’s rights. Recently a writer occupying
a high position in the strategic center of the Egyptian daily al-Ahram
(which is associated with and funded by the government) said that
for too long America and Israel have been used as an excuse for
not developing the country and holding women back. Great bravery
is needed to say this openly in the Arab world.
It was also reported during the discussions that Arabs
defending feminism receive a great number of letters from men; many
but not all these men disagree. Thus a Saudi man had an exchange
with a woman writer who had published a piece on social relations
in Saudi Arabia; she was complaining that even in the limited sphere
of women’s rights only women with “connections” were
able to enjoy these few rights; the Saudi man wrote to encourage
her to continue to write and blamed Wahhabism for the situation;
she wrote back, saying she was not a feminist and would not fight
for equality between men and women, for the two are inherently different;
this Saudi man answered that she should be proud to call herself
a feminist and that he didn’t see major differences except
for “maternity leave,” which a woman would need because
she actually physically gives birth; so there is at least one Saudi
man who wants the women of his country to benefit from the same
rights as men. It is important to note that women fighting for their
rights have potential allies even in Saudi Arabia. It was also remarked
that for the first time in contemporary history one can find genuine
democratic constituencies in many Muslim countries that are on their
way toward implementing deep change: Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Turkey,
for example; more Muslims in India (than in Arab countries) are
living in a democratic system; democratic experiments are going
on in Jordan, Bahrain, and to some extent in Kuwait and elsewhere.
A tidal wave of change is coming. All possible means should be used
to encourage it.
When compared to the situation of only a few years
ago, all these developments should be considered good signs. Of
course opportunities may close at any moment. Prodemocracy elements
in the Muslim world must keep fighting.
The Wahhabi Connection
The enemies of democracy in the Muslim world and in
Muslim communities abroad are not disarming. They are becoming more
active even in Europe and North America. Most of them spread the
Wahhabi kind of strict observance of fundamentalist Islam and intimidate
moderate elements in many communities. It was noted that mismanaged
“charities” principally funded with public or private
or a combination of public and private Saudi money have provided
financial resources for the development of political extremist Islam
and even terrorist organizations. Working from the top of their
political agenda, these paid activists militate against women’s
rights. They criticize women working outside their homes or walking
without veils or special head coverings. They distribute free fundamentalist
literature and try to control mosques not created by their colleagues.
The Complexity of the Muslim World
It was recalled that all Muslim countries are not
at the same level of development. Some are much more advanced than
others. Democratization, therefore, needs a multilayered strategy.
Reformers cannot afford to have one approach. They have to figure
out what to do in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Syria, in Iraq, and elsewhere.
Almost anything that can be said about Saudi Arabia is inapplicable
in most other Arab and Muslim countries. A strategy used for Saudi
Arabia might find a receptive terrain in some regions of Pakistan
and Afghanistan but not elsewhere, even in fundamentalist regimes.
Iran, for instance, 25 years after its Islamic Revolution, seems
to be shifting away from its strict Islamic regulations. It has
free elections, although the government sifts the candidates through
a so-called Council of Experts nominated by the unelected “supreme
leader.” The younger generations express different opinions
about the regime openly. They do not hide their preference for democracy.
They often criticize the Islamic interpretations rendered by the
official clerics associated with the regime.
The problems facing the Muslim world may resemble
those of the rest of the third world. But the cultural obstacles
to reform in Muslim areas are deeper and need to be dealt with in
different ways. Obviously different levels should be considered
when one talks about democratic reform and the role of women in
the Muslim world. It is important to involve women in mainstream
activities of society through empowerment, microloans, and other
avenues. It is also important to trigger political reform and mind-set
change.
In short, in planning for reforms in the Muslim world,
one should duly take into account the complexities of the Muslim
world and the different levels of development of each Muslim country.
Education
The panel stressed the paramount importance of education
in bringing about necessary changes in the mind-set of people. Without
education, it would be almost impossible for democratic principles
to find solid and enduring roots in the Muslim world.
The possibility of introducing democratic reforms
such as free elections, the right of people to participate in decision
making, the promotion of women’s rights, the rule of law, and
so forth would remain precarious, as would loosening rigid ways
of thinking and looking at the world that have been stalled for
centuries. Such a change in mind-sets can happen only through educational
reform both at school and university levels. Not only must the curricula
be revised, but methods of education must be changed also. Koranic
“madrassas” where students learn verses by heart and receive
no education other than presentations of the literal meaning of
the scriptures are special only to a few Muslim countries. Obviously
they are not compatible with the general education that Muslim countries
need so badly, and they would not constitute a response to what
the authors of the UNDP Report on Human Development 2002 called
a knowledge deficit in the Arab world.
The question of school books is directly linked with
educational reform. Indeed it is not only how one teaches that is
important but what is taught that is foremost. As one panelist remarked,
if you intend to teach students stupid things, it would be better
not to teach them at all; democratization doesn’t have to wait
until all people are educated; it was remarked that British democracy
began when 90 percent of the people couldn’t read and write;
now there are Arab countries such as Algeria where 80 percent can
read and write, but there is no democracy there.
It was also noted that in a limited number of Muslim
countries, textbooks are more in line with today’s needs but
that a certain number of revisions need to be made even in these
textbooks. On the whole, completely new books have to be written
and published in most countries. The teaching of science is of paramount
importance. It should be emphasized to Muslims that in America it
was within the “New England theocracy” that science began
to become a major factor and religion less so. That’s how Americans
began to progress.
Extending education to girls is important because
they in turn will educate their families, producing a multiplier
effect in effect. This is something many Muslim men know implicitly,
though they are not willing to acknowledge it publicly.
To illustrate one of the practical ways to achieve
this goal, the case of a school in a southern province of Egypt
was discussed. Girls weren’t going to that school because their
parents lacked the necessary money. Schools are free in Egypt, but
students have to buy their uniforms and textbooks. School authorities
went to the families and found that the girls were needed to help
at home during certain hours. They changed the school hours so that
the girls could attend after they finished helping their parents
in the field. They authorized the girls to wear their village costumes
to school and made village songs and other folklore a part of the
curriculum.
Revival of Ijtihad
Related to education is ijtihad, a term used
in the Koran. It literally means efforts undertaken by individuals
to understand and interpret the tenets of the faith in order to
improve themselves. Because it did not designate any authority to
interpret God’s message for the believer, the Koran was open
to every Muslim until the “jurists” (clerics) stepped
in and made it their preserve of interpretation. This turning point,
which happened toward the end of the 11th century, is known in Islam
as the “closing of the door of ijtihad.” Ijtihad
was referred to often during the discussions.
One panelist used ijtihad in order to understand
the faith in depth and to find religious grounds for reform, especially
in relation to the treatment of women in Muslim societies. This
panelist considered “reopening the doors of ijtihad”
to be of the utmost importance. This can happen now only in America
and Europe where people enjoy the right to think freely, express
opinions, challenge, and be challenged. The creation in the West
of something like a center for the revival of ijtihad would
be extremely useful, as it would allow for the funding of some progressive
Muslims who could then go out to campuses and make public statements
about the need to give Muslim countries an account of all human
rights abuses that are committed by their own authorities and push
Muslim reformers to take remedial action.
It was stated that in the United States a group of
Muslims who call themselves progressives or liberals organize private
monthly meetings across the country. They hope that this will eventually
lead to a conference of like-minded Muslims and establish a platform
of reform that can be exported to their countries of origin. They
have concluded that the West in general and United States in particular
are the best places where they can debate issues for which they
might be killed if they were caught discussing them in some parts
of the Muslim world. Many Muslim intellectuals have realized, particularly
since 9/11, that the West and America provide space for them to
discuss problems they cannot refer to elsewhere. They recognize
that the freedoms they enjoy in North America afford them a lot
of opportunities to help Muslims in other parts of the world.
According to some participants, this initiative on
the part of a number of “progressive” elements among American
Muslims looked like an “underground” movement. The real
challenge will be to transform that underground desire for change
into an above-ground phenomenon. It is imperative to link this disparate
and individualized group of progressive Muslims into some kind of
coherent and influential network.
It was recalled that for many years the National Committee
on American Foreign Policy has suggested that means be found to
mobilize Arab and Muslim intellectuals who live and work in the
United States and Europe and help them in planning and promoting
endeavors that would help to bring about reforms that would push
the Muslim world to join the 21st century.
Soft Power/Strong Power
It was remarked that the problems of the Muslim world,
namely, autocratic rule, lack of freedom, and other deprivations,
should either be treated or cured. Curing them implies the use of
what has been dubbed“ hard power.” Those who think that
the problems of the Muslim world cannot be cured but only treated
lean in favor of “soft power.”
The Europeans, for example, prefer soft power. The
use of persuasion rather than force was applied in Bosnia. The Dutch
troops who waited while the Serbs massacred Muslims had previously
helped Muslims in Srebrenica obtain medical checkups and become
well-fed and well-dressed. In the current context, it is said that
one can use soft power to open schools in the Muslim world. But
what good are schools if there is no freedom? Thus many Arab women
are very well-educated, but they are not allowed to do anything.
Soft power in such cases amounts to a waste of money. As already
indicated, education is important not because of quantity or numbers
but because of quality or content.
In the opinion of a number of participants, the use
of soft power is not only ineffective but also counterproductive
because it tends to enable despotic regimes to escape some of the
consequences of their own excesses. For instance, they can create
famine. Then, using soft power, Europe and the United States send
help that prevents the consequences of famine. The despotic regime
stays in power and creates another famine. This has been the case
in Ethiopia, which is 40 percent Muslim.
Such a misuse of soft power has also been seen in
the Sudan, which is Muslim to the extent of more than 70 percent.
There the West, using soft power, buys slaves and frees them. The
Sudanese immediately buy more slaves and sell them again. It has
become an industry.
Soft power prevents us from addressing the heart of
the problem: We live in a world that is endowed with a number of
values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
It is accepted by all the members of the United Nations. The UDHR
has been included in the domestic legislation of many, if not all,
Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, with some reservations.
Such countries that have not done so should be forced to implement
their own laws. That can be done by creating a process in which
they would be exposed, shamed, and punished or rewarded by an Islamic
Human Rights Court like the European one. A woman discriminated
against in Saudi Arabia or Yemen would be able to use that court.
But that would be reminiscent of hard power. At any rate, the reforms
should not be piecemeal. They should be made in the context of a
broad strategy that allows Muslims to have a choice in their governments.
Reference was made to the annual human rights reports
issued by the State Department. They should be on the table when
the president or other officials meet with leaders of other countries.
At the international level the same standards apply to the United
Nations. If a government wants to be a member of the international
community, it has to honor human rights, of which women’s rights
are an integral part.
In this regard a recent gang rape that occurred in
Pakistan was cited. The victim was punished in order to “wash
away” the “dishonor” caused to her family. The only
reason the president of Pakistan went to the far-flung village and
made sure that the criminals and the police officers that hid them
were put on trial was the coverage of this blatant injustice in
the international media. Reference was also made to the “stove
deaths” of women who were burned alive because their families
failed to provide dowries. The United States keeps silent because
Pakistan’s president is an ally in the war against terrorism.
These crimes are further illustrations of the inefficiency
of soft power. Indeed it was reported that members of a Danish NGO
told the survivors of stove burnings that they could go to Copenhagen
and have their burns treated free of charge. Another European NGO
invented a “machine to cut fingers” in order to replace
the practice of cutting off the hands of thieves in some Muslim
countries.
The Use of the Media
The panel discussed the impact and the role of the
media in promoting change at several levels in the fields of general
information and education. Its members also discussed the use of
the media in relation to women’s rights. It was suggested that
women’s organizations wage a media campaign in order to respond
to “Islamist’” propaganda against their rights as
well as human rights in general. They should also develop their
own media, for independent media owned and operated by women can
yield very positive results. Foundations should help by investing
in such independent TV channels. Satellite technology has shown
the way and brought Muslim women closer to their Western counterparts.
There is a significant flow of ideas. The impact is already visible.
For example, women’s magazines in the Arab world are devoting
more and more space to general problems rather than to fashion and
cosmetics. They carry interviews with businesswomen, woman teachers,
writers, intellectuals, and others. Television remains the main
instrument, for more Muslim women watch the small screen rather
than read printed matter. Their appearance on TV has transformed
a number of women into role models for girls who had never seen
women in the public eye.
It was also reported that programs run by women for
women are multiplying. For example, a very popular and successful
woman’s show is featured on Al Jazeera television. Called For
Women Only, it is being emulated by other stations. Each week a
“hot” woman’s issue is debated by women on the program.
The use of the Internet was also discussed. It may
serve to spread education through “Internet Cafes.” The
idea of “universities online” was considered. Many sites
are already functioning. One of them, called “MuslimsWakeUp.com,”
was mentioned as being very effective in supporting democratic reform
and change.
The writings of Muslim intellectuals living in North
America and Europe should be posted on the Internet. A network could
be created for the distribution in different parts of the Muslim
world of audiotapes containing such writing.
What the United States Can and Should Do
Democratic reforms cannot be imposed from outside.
Direct forms of help would be perceived as Western intervention,
a kind of neoimperialist or neocolonialist intervention. It is up
to Muslims to promote reforms. American Muslim men and women alike
can help by creating groups and associations and becoming active.
They should address the problems of fellow Muslims in the Arab and
Muslim world and make their opinions known through the media. They
should also publish articles and books. They should use the Internet
to establish dialogue with their peers in their countries of origin.
Unlike U.S. initiatives, which would raise suspicion,
action by NGOs and private foundations would be welcomed in the
Muslim world. The United States should allow these private sources
to become conduits, shaping what they have to offer to the needs
of Muslim people. The United States should indirectly help the emerging
forces of democratization inside and outside the Muslim world. Funds
should be provided for the publication and promotion of books and
articles by reform-minded Muslim intellectuals, and consideration
should be given to devising specific, better, and more intelligent
radio and television programs for the Muslim world.
Other Conclusions and Recommendations
It was observed that in many cases in the Muslim world
democratic reforms have been imposed by law. It would have been
better to develop them in a voluntary way in response to popular
demand. Human rights activism should be encouraged especially through
the creation of private groups and associations. Such groups have
sprung up in some countries but are harassed either by authorities
or by fundamentalists. They should be supported by international
human rights organizations and by democratic governments.
The “feminization” of terrorist activities
by “Islamist jihadi” organizations that use female suicide
bombers was mentioned as an example of how the adversaries of reform
turn the values of prodemocrats on their head and use them to their
own advantage. It was suggested that an information campaign be
launched to counter Islamist propaganda.
Sources of financing used by antireformist extremists
should dry up as a result of denunciations of governments, foundations,
and individuals that allow money to reach terrorist groups.
It was suggested that women’s organizations no
longer stand on the sidelines and seek permission from anybody to
attempt the empowerment of women. The experiments started in some
countries should be pursued no matter the difficulties and the opposition.
The adversaries of diversity, individuality, and pluralism should
be denounced and opposed.
Two suggestions were made about promoting women’s
rights. The first relates to encouraging a stronger role for women
in the democratic reform process. Reference was made to role modeling
achieved through extensive cultural and educational connections.
The second way relates to providing more significant support for
NGOs that deal with the issues of women. One way in which foundations,
for instance, can help in this respect is to extend support directly
throughout the Muslim world to NGOs related to the empowerment of
women at higher political levels.
The panel was reminded that most of the incipient
reforms mentioned during the discussions, especially those concerning
the status of women, had a kind of “paternalistic” touch,
for they were given as “presents” by leaders. Tactical
retreats by such leaders are always possible. The multiplication
of women’s civic associations throughout the Muslim world is
of the utmost importance. It was remarked that such associations
exist in several countries. More of them are needed in all Muslim
nations.
It was suggested that special human rights watch groups,
modeled on those that exist in other regions of the world, be created
for Muslim countries.
Notes
- Published in the weekly paper Misr on February 15, 1879;
reprinted in the quarterly Al-Minar (III), 577-582 and
600-607. I have used the English translation of Professor L. M.
Kenny in Journal of the American-Oriental Society, vol.
86, no. 1, March 15, 1966.
- A whirl of creativity and progress characterized the first
three centuries of the Muslim Empire. Then, toward the end of
the 11th century in the East and the end of the 12th century in
the West, it came to a stop. The causes are numerous, but the
common denominator is the triumph of fundamentalist interpretations
of the religion.
- The forced, rapid “modernization” in Iran put in
jeopardy the authority of the Shiite ayatollahs. It also challenged
the authority of “fathers” both at social-political
levels and in individual families. Hence Khomeini’s appeal
to the masses. Saudi Arabia, with its puritanical Wahhabi brand
of Islam, was exposed to societal change after the first Persian
Gulf War (as exemplified by a group of women who tried to drive
their own cars). The talk of reform by King Fahd, as well as the
presence of American troops on the soil of the “two sacred
mosques” (Mecca and Medina), prompted bin Laden to create
Al Qaeda.
- Arab Human Development Reports (“Creating Opportunities
for the Future,” 2002 and “Building a Knowledge Society,”
2003), published by the United Nations Program for Development
(UNDP). See also A Path to Arab Democracy by Marwan Muasher,
Jordanian foreign minister, in The New York Times, April
26, 2003.
- The Koran encourages Muslims to practice ijtihad, which
means individual study and interpretation of the tenets of the
faith. In the first centuries of the empire, the jurisprudents
used ijtihad as a principle of jurisprudence. Clerics later
“closed the doors of ijtihad.” These “doors”
remain closed.
- See Summary of the Roundtable on Reform and Human Development
in the Muslim World held on March 20, 2003, by the National
Committee on American Foreign Policy, 6-7.
- “The Moor’s Last Laugh” in The Wall
Street Journal, March 22 , 2004.
APPENDIX
Afghanistan and Iraq: Experiments in Democracy
Summary of informal remarks made at lunchtime by a panelist
who had just come back from Afghanistan and Iraq
Afghanistan and Iraq are related to the roundtable
discussions. For the first time both countries have an opportunity
to experiment with democratization. Broadly speaking, the United
States is pursuing well-thought- out strategies but implementing
them in the wrong place. Policies that would be good in Iraq are
applied in Afghanistan and vice versa. For instance, federalism
is both relevant and desirable in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Paradoxically
the United States is encouraging that system of government in Iraq,
not in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan emerged as a state in the 18th century
as a loose confederation of different ethnic groups (Pashtuns who
are about 38 percent of the population, Tajiks who are 32 percent,
Uzbeks, and several other smaller groups). Though it would be natural
to promote a federal state there, the United States is trying to
impose a very strong central government. Iraq, on the other hand,
was created by the British after World War I as a centralized government
based on an army. Because it has two important resources, water
and oil, that require central management, it was given a unified
structure. Paradoxically the United States seems favorable to establishing
a federation there.
Another problem stems from the fact that the United
States engages in a lot of military show in Iraq. Sending its troops
on daily patrols makes them an easy target. Such displays are not
necessary because the insecure areas are a very small part of the
country. In contrast, such patrols are needed in Afghanistan because
of the activities of numerous war lords. Moreover, the United States
needs to secure Iraq’s frontiers because they are used for
infiltration by Iran, Syria, and other countries.
A further mistake that the United States has made
relates to the imposition of its “friend” Karzai in Afghanistan.
Karzai has no constituency. In Iraq, the United States should have
appointed its friends as members of the transitional government.
In the same vein, the economic policies that the United
States has recommended for both countries should be reversed. Afghanistan
cannot become a welfare state because it is a very poor country
and has no resources to commit to creating social and health services.
The central government can hardly pay its civil servants. Nevertheless,
the United States has encouraged the implementation of this policy.
Iraq, on the other hand, could be one of the richest
countries in the world. It is sitting on 12 percent of the world’s
oil reserves. Moreover, it has reached the peak of the production
it achieved before the first Gulf war and can continue the tradition
of the welfare state that was created under the Baath party. Iraqis
are used to a lot of subsidies, free education, free health care,
and the like. Nevertheless, the United States is advising total
privatization and abandonment of the welfare state there.
A question that touches directly on the subject discussed
by the roundtable is how to empower women. There is much more opportunity
for gender equality in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Many Iraqi women
have acquired good educations and work experience because the country
has been at war practically since the mid-1970s. Since the males
were at the front, the women did the jobs previously done by men
in all sectors of the economy. A program of empowering women in
Iraq would be easily implemented because it would be realistic and
based on facts.
Conversely, in Afghanistan, even in the best of times,
say, under Zahir Shah, before the Communists took over, women were
kept at home if not absolutely under the veil. They were not given
educational opportunities. Now women and their supporters want to
do a lot of things for women. But there are very few women who can
perform. This situation has nothing to do with fear of the religious
establishment.
Yet another comparison of the two countries concerns
the role that Islam will be authorized to play in the future democratic
states of Afghanistan and Iraq. A majority in both countries (99
percent in Afghanistan, 95 percent in Iraq) are Muslims. Most citizens
want Islam to be identified as the religion of their state even
though they don’t want Islam to be the sole source of legislation,
a view that has been expressed in both draft constitutions.
But here again there is a big difference. Iraqi leaders
are trying to set up a committee consisting of five mullahs to decide
whether laws voted by parliament should or should not be Islamic.
This is obviously very dangerous. In Afghanistan, Islam is misperceived
as rather superficial because part of the territory was Islamized
only in the 18th century. Most of the people are illiterate and
therefore have no access to the Koran. They are vaguely Muslim:
Even the Taliban thought that Islam meant such things as going to
the bazaar or measuring the length of men’s beards. Those misperceptions
stemmed from ignorance of the religion. In Iraq, on the other hand,
there is a very well-developed tradition that has always kept clerics
out of politics. They were satisfied to have their own space. But
the opposite is happening now.
In the economic field, the United States is leaning
heavily on Iraqi politicians to adopt a free-market policy and prepare
for membership in the World Trade Organization. Iraq is not ready
for that kind of opening to the world. Indeed if state assets are
privatized in Iraq, the buyers will be the remnants of the Baath
party who are flush because they looted the treasury and emptied
the central bank. Moreover, politicians own hotels, banks, insurance
companies, and other enterprises. What is needed for democracy in
Iraq is not a separation of mosque and state; it is a separation
of business and politics.
Participants
Dr. George D. Schwab, President
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
The Honorable Fereydoun Hoveyda, Middle East Project
Director
Executive Committee, National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Professor Ahmed T. Abdelal, Provost and Senior Vice
President
Academic Affairs, Northeastern University
Mona Eltahawy, Managing Editor
Arabic Women’s News
Ms. Ghida Fakhry, News Anchor
Al-Hayat/LBC
Ms. Irshad Manji, Author
The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her
Faith
Mr. Amir Taheri, Editor
Politique Internationale
Observers
Ms. Eleanor Benador, Member
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Kenneth J. Bialkin, Esq., Executive Committee
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Dr. Susan Aurelia Gitelson, Trustee
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Dr. George E. Gruen, Board of Advisers
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Ms. Judith Hernstadt, Trustee
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Richard R. Howe, Esq., Executive Committee
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Professor Ephraim Isaac, Member
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Ms. Edwina McMahon, Associate Editor
American Foreign Policy Interests
Member, National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Ms. Rhoda Okunieff, Member
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Ms. Ann Phillips, Vice President
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Donald S. Rice, Esq., Senior Vice President
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Ms. Sheila Johnson Robbins, Member
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
Ms. Nina Rosenwald, Member
National Committee on American Foreign Policy
|
