Post-Islamists in the Arab world (or, Islamists mugged by reality)

[Panda]

Early excitement induced by the arrival of the Arab spring has recently been dampened by the emergence of Islamist parties as key beneficiaries. With Ennahda taking the lion's share of the votes in Tunisia and the Muslim Brotherhood expected to do the same in Egypt, many are beginning to ask questions about the direction in which the region is heading.

However, success for traditional and well organised Islamist parties does not necessarily translate into success for Islamism. What we are really witnessing is the emergence of post-Islamism in the Arab world. Post-Islamism is the position that an increasing number of the more moderate Islamist parties are arriving at after being exposed to the reality of politics.

The AKP in Turkey paved the way for this by demonstrating, in practice, how parties rooted in Islamist ideology are only embraced by the masses when they shed dogma and idealism in favour of pragmatism and compromise. There are early indications that Ennahda in Tunisia is going down this path with the Brotherhood in Egypt not too far behind. Ennahda has already stated that it won't seek to ban alcohol or impose a version of Islamic banking.

Full Story on the Guardian website

I just read the article and I quite like it. I hope this is the road these countries will go down but do you think they will? Is this the start of a freer, more democratic middle east? Could this also be a way to showing the people in the west that Islam really is a religion of freedom and peace?

 

[England my lionheart]

Its great news about Ennahada ,as for the MB in Egypt i see problems on the horizon because of their affiliation with Hamas

 

[Sahar]

It should be noted that the Arab and Middle Eastern countries are not alike. For example, Turkey and Tunisia are different from Egypt concerning secularism. The two suffered from anti-religion "eradicative" secularism that was forced upon their peoples, contrary to the Egyptian situation. Thus the political groups/movements that have an Islamic tinge in these two secularized countries move from their reality. I believe the Islamists there try to reach a middle ground. In Turkey, the AKP tries to create a political and social atmosphere that is more friendly to Islam, instead of the anti-religion secularism and I think MB of Tunisia will do the same.
Turkey faced a main problem; the military control of politics which created political and consequently economic instabilities. The AKP managed to draw off the political carpet from the military and now they are about to form a democratic constitution. Also, they managed to put Turkey on the economic map as an economic power which enabled her to be a main player in the Middle Eastern politics.

The AKP experience is successful because it has not been about empty slogans but they could achieve progress on the ground that did reach the Turkish citizen. In contrast to the secularists who caused the political and economic instability and weakness before the reach of the AKP.
The AKP managed to give a lesson that notable advancement can be achieved by those who have Islamic inclination. On the contrary, the secular regimes in the Arabic and ME world failed to achieve that.

I believe An-Nahda comprehended the Turkish experience and they wish to walk in its footsteps. And they wish to take the gradual approach.

And if you achieved justice, dignity and equality then you achieved the main bulk of the objectives of the Islamic teachings and rules. (The main and comprehensive objectives of the Islamic law [Shari'ah] is protection of religion, life, the mind, progeny and property). And this is what the Arab world revolted for, the peoples were fed up with the injustice, the inequality, the humiliation and corruption. The catalyst for all that was a man who set himself onto fire because he was humiliated, he couldn't find the life of dignity.

So I think what the Arab people want is not to clash with their Islamic identity and at the same timethey want acts on the ground that can provide an honorable life to them...not empty words and mottos.

 

[Sahar]

Also, I don't think if An-Nahada or any winning Islamist party planned to promote or apply the Islamic banking for example, it would be less free. The point is if they do represent the aspirations of their peoples and their best interests or not.

As for the West, I don't think how the Westerners view Muslims or Islam has been on the list of the Arab revolutions but I think the unarmed revolutions that managed to overthrow the corrupt regimes managed to somehow change the stereotype about the Arab man (Arabs are violent, terrorists, blablabla...). (Although the Islamists try to give reassuring messages to the local secularists and to the Western world). I know that the Egyptian revolution is viewed with much respect and admiration throughout the world and as an inspiring example to many.

Anyway, democracy won't serve the Western and Israeli interests like the tyrant regimes especially when it comes to major central countries like Egypt or Syria.

 

[Flankerl]

Hm 3 days ago the egyptian authorities closed the great pyramids because of rumors that jewish freemasons were on their way to them to do some kind of rituals there.



Probably nothing to worry about.

 

[muslim-]

People generally just want to keep their Islamic identity. They aren't against "freedoms", they are fighting for them.

Now what kind of governments will develop? We don't know. Oppression of previously western-supported dictators is what pushed most to have extreme tough and sometimes irresponsible positions.

Now that they are free to participate in the political scene, they are feeling their way, still adapting to the new scene. They are forced to become politically correct and responsible, because when you are in government, you have a direct affect on the people that choose you or choose to refuse to support you.

When people work collectively in a society that has many lawyers and intellectuals (as opposed to places like Afghanistan, which was destroyed by continuous wars for over 3 decades), this can only lead to reasonable outcomes.

Places like Somalia and Afghanistan are essentially places in which people live in poverty, and where most people are uneducated and illiterate. This leads them to extremism, and certainly isn't a model that people would accept in places like Libya, where the leader of the transitional government is a lawyer and able to develop a system that is Islamic and that would guarantee freedoms, far from interpretations of individuals here or there.

When you hear people talking about a khilafa system. Its just talk. The reason is that theres simply no such thing as a khilafa system. "Khaleefah" historically was only a title, and even some accused of being non Muslims (like the Fatimid nation), used that title, while perceived by most as anti Islam!

So theres no such system, and if asked to apply it, no one would know how.

Legally speaking, the system of government in Islam is "Shoora" (which literally means consultation), and is basically consulting the people and letting them choose what they want. How is the consultation done? Thats open for discussion, and its precisely why I said after dictatorships people will have long debates when discussing the best model for this, and trying to look for a model/system that can't be easily hijacked by any group in particular, whether religious or even commercial (corporations).

This is especially important in places like Syria, in which theres some opposition groups now, that are basically acting like opposition, but work for Iranian intelligence agencies. The large number of sects and ethnicities, causes some to be loyal to foreign countries, which can be problematic. Just like what happened in Iraq, which was essential given to Iran as a gift by George Bush of the US.

So essentially people are trying to feel their way through, and figure out the best way to apply shoora principles. What helps is that in Islam theres no such thing as a theocracy, because theres no central religious authority that can claim absolute truth, so things are left to the people.

Also, I think codifying Islamic laws is essential, and would help create a civil society. Because most of "extremism" today, is basically based on individuals that claim that they know, without any legal background, and without knowing principles of applying laws in societies and end up with very shallow understandings, and without understanding how societies work. Thats why they feel that they have to force everything. I think having people participate in politics far from dictators will help in leading people to have responsible, more moderate understandings of things.