Over at the leftist Web site Znet I happened upon an argument for Shariah in Egypt which caught my attention, frankly, for seeming rather out of place.
In the midst of the public debates involving secularists and Coptic activists, on the one hand, and Islamic political groups—especially the Muslim Brotherhood, which is often in the media spotlight when it comes to discussions on Islamic law—on the other, there is an alternative middle way. In this middle way the concepts of shari’a, democracy and secularism would exist alongside one another as part of a united political system, without compromising the fundamental tenets of any of the three concepts.
On the one hand, it is good to see something outside of the normal polarities in such debates. The future of social equality and justice in the Middle East (and everywhere else, for that matter) hinges on the organic development of equal and just social practices, not from the imposition of foreign political ideas on unique situations. Or, in the words of the great Billy Bragg: “I went out drinking with Thomas Paine. He said that all revolutions are not the same. They’re as different as the cultures that give them birth. For no one idea can solve every problem on earth”
On the other hand, I fear the article ignores the need for fundamental changes in contemporary conceptualizations of Shariah and its relationship to the political sphere. Dictators like Mubarak are certainly an impediment to the development of a genuinely democratic and pluralistic society, but they most definitely aren’t the only such impediment.
I also found the following rather troubling:
Copts should continue to fight for their rights, but without infringing upon the majority’s values by calling for the removal of Islamic principles from politics entirely.
Are the majority’s values so fragile they can’t stand up to debate in the public arena?
willow 6:23 pm on February 4, 2010 Permalink |
In a word, yes. Egypt is at a very tenuous cultural crossroads: the old, secular, westernized generation is dying off, and a new deeply religious but very capitalist/consumerist generation is taking over. (This may sound like an oxymoron and perhaps it is…it’s very common in certain circles to pray 5x a day and go into debt to buy the blingiest new imported car.) The majority’s values are not clearly defined, and buckle under very little pressure indeed.
I’m curious as to what this person means by ’secular’, however. As it stands there is no such thing as secular civil law in Egypt…if you are Muslim you are married, divorced and buried according to Shari’a (by law) and if you’re a Copt you’re married, divorced and buried according to Coptic law (by law). So a Coptic woman, for example, cannot seek a divorce from her husband because Coptic law prohibits divorce except under certain extreme circumstances. If she wants a divorce, she has to convert to Islam. There is no ‘neutral’ civil law to which she can appeal.
I don’t think there is or ever will be ’secularism’ in Egypt in the sense that it is meant here.
thabet 1:12 am on February 5, 2010 Permalink |
I don’t think it is that strange. Look at the US and Turkey.
willow 7:21 pm on February 5, 2010 Permalink |
Good point.
null 2:22 am on February 6, 2010 Permalink |
This is happening in India too
thabet 1:29 am on February 7, 2010 Permalink |
What did you think of this debate between Noah Feldman and Saïd Amir Arjomand?
midwinterspring 11:21 am on February 7, 2010 Permalink |
I don’t know enough about Feldman to know whether or not Arjomand’s vitriol is deserved here, but I think the latter is probably correct in emphasizing the moralistic/authoritarian aspects of calls for Shariah. On the other hand, it’s really something that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis (of course, this would also be a failing on Feldman’s part). What Islamists ‘mean’ in Turkey doesn’t seem to be at all the same as what Islamists ‘mean’ in Egypt. But if we are to speak in generalizations, then I would share Arjomand’s skepticism toward Islamist movements.