Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
>The most widespread agreed mechanism for resolving differences is
>democracy, but apparently you hope for something else. Is suspicion
>about democracy widespread among the Muslims you know? Why is this?

Agreed, I was making a parallel that an Islamic society could also
incept mechanisms to deal with the multitude of differences that
currently exist. With respect to democracy, most Muslims support the
concept of elections, accountability, the rule of law and good
governance. However contrary to popular views, democracy is only one
means by which societies can achieve this. Many people including
Muslims have argued that democracy in its pure form is impractical and
in its current form is oligarchic and hierarchical

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/ted5.htm

Hence the need to look at alternative paradigms to achieve the above
ends
  

    
>Do you plan to expand the scope of the magazine to include matters
>relating to other English speaking countries such as the US, <Canada,
New Zealand and Australia?

Though the magazine addresses several international themes, it obvious
has some UK centric articles due to the location that we publish in.
However even within these articles such as the BNP (a far right British
political party), we hope to address the subject in a way to make
generic points. The main point in the article was the need for an
intellectual rebuttal of the BNP's positions rather than an over
emphasis on seeking legislation to ban them, a position supported by
many Muslim groups in the UK. Where topics in the rest of the world
including the countries you have mentioned can generate some of these
more generic discussion points, we will of course write about them or
allow guest wriers to submit articles.
  

    
Farooq and Sajjad, can you tell us a little about Hizb ut-Tahrir? 
Also, what is the relationship between the Hizb ut-Tahrir political
party in Britain and _New Civilisation_ magazine?

I have read various documents written by different spokesmen on behalf
of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, such as Dr. Abdullah Robin, and they have
consistently stated Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks change through dialogue and
peaceful political means, and renounces violence and terrorism.  Yet,
in the press I've heard Hizb ut-Tahrir referred to in terms such as
"dangerous," "subversive," "a threat," etc., and allegedly linked to
terrorist activities.  How do you explain this apparent contradiction?
  

    
>There was also one line "The issue for Islam is not therefore one of
>reform..." which appears to be in conflect with the concept of
>Islah. Can you clarify this point?

We have an article in the next issue on this, but a few points

1 The fact that Christianity went through a period of reformation, it
does not necessarily follow Islam has to. Two reasons why Christianity
needed reformation was the theocracy and infallibility of its ruling
class and secondly its opposition to scientific advancement. Islam on
the other hand rejects a theocratic and infallible clergy and as we saw
historically Muslims embraced scientific and medical progress in a
huge way.

2 Secondly as Islam is 1400 years old, people believe reformation
inevitable. Time alone, it would seem, is not enough to render an idea
invalid. The revival of ancient Greek philosophy, art and culture was
termed a ‘renaissance’ in Europe. Many of the foundations of the West’s
contemporary intellectual and political tradition are associated with
three millennia-old discourses still considered valid in the twenty
first century. Indeed English common law emerged in the Middle Ages,
taking from Roman law and influenced by Norman and Saxon custom; the US
Bill of Rights, passed in 1791, reflects the guarantee of due process
given by the Magna Carta in 1215 and the English Bill of Rights of
1689.

3 Lastly while reform implicitly discounts the validity of an idea
through suggesting that it is in need of alteration, Ijtihad tackles
contemporary problems using Islam’s original principles and rules: it
does not demand their alteration but their application. Regarding
Islam’s legislative rules and principles they are founded on a doctrine
that addresses problems as those extending from the needs of human
beings as human beings; that is to say, not in their racial, regional
or tribal context, or as a reaction to a particular social condition;
nor as Muslims or non-Muslims, but as human beings. It is not a
specific doctrine in as much as it is specific to all human beings. It
is a timeless conception of the human condition, for it is not man’s
nature that changes with the expanse of time, but his material
circumstances: the complexity of material and technology, which develop
through continuous scientific endeavour. The needs that extend from
man’s nature - whether basic organic requirements, the need to regulate
political, social and economic relationships individually or
collectively, or basic instinctual feelings such as for survival,
justice and security – remain consistent, although their manifestations
may change, but not always increase, in complexity and propensity. New
world-views, thoughts and beliefs may develop over time and emerge at
various points in human history, but these too do not represent a shift
in man’s fundamental nature, intellect or needs. Since the Islamic
system addresses problems as demands extending from this consistent
human nature, it is continually applicable and a consistent source of
solutions for tackling human problems. 

Indeed, it is not thoughts, but things that time may render obsolete:
an idea is invalidated by identifying its intellectual shortcomings;
material things are replaced and considered obsolete as scientific and
engineering progress produces increasing material sophistication.
  

    
The comparison of Britain vs the US in terms of cultural
diversity/multiculturalism is useless.

The USA, essentially, was a land with no culture that became what it
is by immigration.

Very few Americans can trace their generations back more than three or
four generations.

We're all immigrants here.  

Our ancestors came here because they could be Catholic, or Jewish, or
Amish, or Lutheran or athiest and it was OK.  We were founded on the
basis of personal, religious and political freedom for all.

This is totally unlike  the UK or France or Germany which established
their national cultural heritage 500-plus years ago.

So just because there are problems in France, for example, absorbing a
huge influx of uneducated African Muslims - generally economic
immigrants from its former colonies -  does not mean they will happen
here.
  

    
>The USA, essentially, was a land with no culture that became what it
is by immigration.<

Patently false white supremacist garbage.  The geographic area now
occupied by the United States was home to hundreds of nations before
european conquest.

In addition to the rather deliberate error of omission with regards to
ignoring the presence of indigenous peoples, the
anaesthetized/sanitized term "immigration" implies a national portrait
which distorts (if not obliterates) at least two major facts integral
to the creation of the United States:

1) conquest through hook, crook, sword, and gun is qualitatively
different from people just "moving in" to an area;

2) your whitewashed narrative also leaves out the histories and
experiences of people who were dragged to the U.S. (often literally),
most notably enslaved Africans but also (in smaller numbers) other
populations.  This form of arrival is also qualitatively different from
just "moving in."

It is exactly this kind of attempt at fascist revision of
history--made possible through the entrenched dominance of (in this
case) a "white" mainstream, which demonstrates the failure of
multiculturalism.  Anything short of a substantively pluralist approach
is a recipe for reinforcing unaccountable hierarchy.  In this regard,
U.S.-based critics of Islamist regimes would do well to take a look in
the national mirror, as they have quite a mess of their own to deal
with before acting as credible judges.
  

    
Forgetting about Native Americans is a common error, even among people
who know better.   I'm sure it was unintentional.  Calling people
names doesn't help.
  

    
I did say "essentially" for exactly that reason.  

The fact is the USA is about "E Pluribus Unum."

England isn't, nor France, nor Germany, nor Italy.
  

    

<sajjadkhan>
> Many people including
> Muslims have argued that democracy in its pure form is impractical and
> in its current form is oligarchic and hierarchical

Pure classical 'town hall' democracy, is impractical, true, outside of
small villages. That's why we have representative government. There is no
question in my mind that currently there are significant problems with how
democracy is realized today. But changing that can be a tricky business.
There is a 'joke' that the chief cause of problems is solutions.  There
are many changes I've seen that have made things, on balance, worse.  I'm
certainly willing to consider other structures, but there is a high
barrier of proof that one would have to pass before I decided it was a
good idea.

To me the root problem with democracy is not in the ideal nor in the basic
structures but in the spiritual and intellectual development of people.
If this level were somehow to be raised, then many problems we see today
would become less if not eliminated. The question is this could be done.

> reform implicitly discounts the validity of an idea
> through suggesting that it is in need of alteration

It seems that you are using the word reform in a differed sense than I
would when you refer to altering the idea.  Reform could also be focused
on changing how it manifests. When we in the US talk about tax reform,
electoral reform and other types of reform, we talk about changing how the
basic principles manifest: hopefully making the tax system fairer,
elections more honest etc not changing their essential characteristics.
Even the Protestant reformation could be said to be returning to the very
early non-hierarchical history of Christianity before the Catholic church
was founded.

<the-voidmstr>
> The fact is the USA is about "E Pluribus Unum."

This is one of the root ideals of the United States.  There are endless
failures in implementing that idea, to be sure, but I think it is worth
endless efforts to get closer to that ideal.  Because that ideal states
that we should strive to be brothers and sisters to each other as members
of one family.

It's interesting to me that one of the things I've heard people express
about Islam at its best is the same ideal, that Muslims should treat
each other as brothers and sisters.
  

    
Is there an English translation of the Quran that you would recommend?
  

    
> tell us a little about Hizb ut-Tahrir?<

Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamic political party. It was created in 1953
to reverse the decline in the Muslim world by reviving the Muslim world
upon the Islamic thoughts. So the party works to bring about an
intellectual and political revival based upon Islam in the Muslim
world.
 
>Also, what is the relationship between the Hizb ut-Tahrir political
party in Britain and _New Civilisation_ magazine?<

Members of the party write articles for the magazine just as
conservative politicians write articles for the Spectator magazine or
Labour politicians write articles for the New Statesman. This is the
genre of New Civilisation, a magazine that reflects Islamic political
thinking just as the Spectator reflects conservative politics or the
New Statesman reflects the politics of the left. 
  

    
Farooq, back in the 1950's and 1960's, the two predominate
anti-colonialist, anti-western streams of thought in the Moslem world
were Pan-Islamism and Communism.

It appears to me that what has transpired sociologically is that
Islamists of the modern era have synthesized these two threads. A lot
of the preaching of the radicals today seems to interpret the Quran in
a way highly colored by an anti-capitalism that would warm the heart
of old Karl Marx!
  

    
>How do you explain this apparent contradiction?<

Good question. I think these types of accusations come with the
territory. Anybody who works for political change will encounter
obstacles. At one time those who opposed the rule of the Church and
monarchy were persecuted or those who worked to bring down communism in
the former Soviet Union were also viewed by the state as dangerous and
subversive. It is to a large extent inevitable that we will face these
types of accusations, which is why we challenge anybody who makes such
accusations to discussion and debate. 

In the Muslim world many of you know that representative government is
an illusion. Anybody who challenges these dictatorial regimes will be
oppressed as was the case, and is still the case in Iraq. This is
complicated by the support of the western powers who prop up these
regimes to serve western interests. As one example, the Egyptian
government led by President Mubarak receives $1 billion in foreign aid
- it is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid even though it
has one of the worst record of human rights abuses anywhere in the
world:

"From the Camp David peace accords in 1978 until 2000 (the latest year
for which figures are available), the United States has subsidized
Egypt's armed forces with over $38 billion worth of aid. Egypt receives
about $2 billion annually--$1.3 billion in foreign military financing
and about $815 million in  economic support fund assistance --making it
the second largest regular recipient of conventional U.S. military and
economic aid, after Israel. In 1990, the United States also forgave
$7.1 billion in past Egyptian military debt in return for Egypt's
support of Operation Desert Shield. In addition, Egypt receives excess
defense articles worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually from
the Pentagon. The announcement that 23,000 U.S. troops will be based in
Egypt to conduct biannual military training exercises (Operation
Bright Star) may have longer term implications for U.S. aid to the
region, as might Egypt's willingness to support U.S. efforts against
the Taliban."

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/egypt.htm 

Human Rights Watch Middle East/North Africa

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

Consequently if one challenges the Egyptian government they are also
challenging western imperialism. The nature and purpose of the
accusations then become clearer.
  

    
>A lot of the preaching of the radicals today seems to interpret the
Quran in a way highly colored by an anti-capitalism that would warm the
heart of old Karl Marx!<

I don't know about warming his old heart! The reasons why Muslims
oppose capitalism is built upon completely different arguments to those
of Marx. And the solutions to the economic problems is built
completely different principles to communism. The communists view the
economic problems and injustices as a consequence of the class struggle
in which politico-socio-economic systems are created, destroyed and
replaced. 

Whereas Muslims view the economic problem not as a consequence of a
class struggle but rather view the economic problem as the distribution
of wealth in society. So for the communists the solution is to create
a system in which the class struggle is eliminated by abolishing
private property. While in the Islamic economic system institionalises
the distribution of wealth by prohibiting the hoarding of wealth which
creates a rich entrepreneurial environment i.e. it encourages people to
invest their money into new businesses and industries such that
economic activity is dynamic. This is a big topic!
  

    
Marx considered the option of massively redistributing wealth (rather
than the means of production) on a regular basis,  and concluded that
the only way to make it permanent would be permanent violence.  Was he
wrong about this?  How would you do it?

Also, I think that you are just using a different definition of
democracy than I am used to. Usually democracy is used as an ideal
(with equality, freedom, majority rule, and minority rights as
sub-ideals within it), and then people argue about how to best
implement it. (and also argue about what each of these terms means, of
course)
  

    
>To me the root problem with democracy is not in the ideal nor in >the
basic structures but in the spiritual and intellectual >development of
people.

>Usually democracy is used as an ideal(with equality, freedom,
>majority rule, and minority rights as sub-ideals within it), and >then
people argue about how to best implement it.(and also argue >about
what each of these terms means, of course)

Yes democracy is an ideal, but like with most ideals the key question
we need to ask is can it be implemented. Just look at some of the sub
ideals you raise many of which in origin contradict with each other.
For example majority rights vs minority rights, laws vs freedom, rule
of law vs national security. The tensions between these sub ideals are
huge and fudging the issues does no justice to building a coherent
political vision. Yet this complexity is never discussed in depth when
we discuss the need for democracy in the Muslim world.

In essence two other problems also exist, democracies have to be
representative to get around the practicality point, but as I mentioned
previously this tends to lead to representatives being over influenced
by the wealthy and the powerful, hence negating the sub ideal of
equality. Secondly majority rule does not necessarily lead to sound
laws (the majority can be wrong), but even putting this to one side our
representatives don't even read the bills being passed.(see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15620-2004Nov26.html. If
the goal is good governance, representative government, the rule of
law and rigorous accountability then democracy in my mind is quite a
distance from achieving this. The problem I see is that we have become
obsessed with the process of 'democracy' and forgotten that this should
just be a means to a set of more fundamental goals. The US is a good
example, just because we see elections every 4 years, does this equate
to the fulfillment of these more fundamental goals. Or what about the
elections to be held in Iraq in January? I think we are in danger of
succumbing to process over substance.
  

    
Farooq, it seems to me from my study of history that the classic era
of the imperial heights of Islam and the Caliphates ca. 800-1200 CE
emphatically did *not* interpret the problems of the distribution of
wealth in the manner the radical preachers do today.

The orthodox interpretation of that time was positively Calvinist in
its approval of blessings bestowed in this world! The poor were poor
so that the blessed Creator could test the hearts and hands of the
wealthy and mighty.

The Sufis and other heterodoxies mostly confined their dissent to
ironic fables and fulminations about the fate of the greedy in the
afterlife. All we see in history opposing the economic order in a
practical sense are the bandit chiefs and the false Mahdis.

I do aver that the anti-capitalism of modern radical Islam certainly
seems colored quite strongly by the previous generation's romance with
communism.
  

    
>I'm certainly willing to consider other structures, but there is a
>high barrier of proof that one would have to pass before I decided >it
was a good idea.

Yes I am also aware of the law of unintended consequences and the
phrase 'beware of what you wish for.' You are right to be sceptical,
but the crucial point is that you are willing to consider other
structures.

>Reform could also be focused on changing how it manifests>

I agree, two points. 

1 The underlying principles or texts can remain applicable, what will
alter with time is their manifestation. For example an Islamic
principle in the ruling system is that the Caliph should receive the
'baiyah' (or oath of allegiance)so that his authority is derived from
the population at large. Now this principle can manifest in the form of
a local election, nationwide, amongst leaders in civil society, or an
indirect vote in the elected consultative assembly. Also when it comes
to voting any style maybe adopted postal voting, at the ballot box,
text voting, internet etc, all can be used. The key point is that the
principle of people transferring authority should be applied. Another
principle is that Non Muslims are free to worship, such principles
cannot be subject to change by a future Caliph or a vote by a future
electorate within a Caliphate. Any such attempt would be validly struck
down as 'unconstitutional'

2 This is why it is important to be accurate in the 'reform'
discussion. Some people are clear that they want Islamic principles and
texts relating to societal matters to be superceded as they see them
as medieval and backward. Others use 'islah (reform)' when they
actually mean greater application of the texts (ijtihad), so we need to
be clear on what we mean by 'reform.'
  

    

Thanks for clarifying the meaning of reform.

> Yes democracy is an ideal, but like with most ideals the key question
> we need to ask is can it be implemented. Just look at some of the sub
> ideals you raise many of which in origin contradict with each other.
> For example majority rights vs minority rights, laws vs freedom, rule
> of law vs national security. The tensions between these sub ideals are
> huge and fudging the issues does no justice to building a coherent
> political vision. Yet this complexity is never discussed in depth when
> we discuss the need for democracy in the Muslim world.

This tension would also be true in any system. For Muslims, the tension
would exist between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims along with Druze, Alawites not
to mention members of other religions or even atheists.

Many Muslims trumpet the relatively lenient treatment of Christians and
Jews during the hight of the Caliphate, but at the same time there was
terrible persecution of another group of monotheists, the Zoroastrians in
Persia as well as subjugation of women because of tribalism and lack of
moral development.

This shows how hard it has been in recorded history to have a truly
ideal society.

> While in the Islamic economic system institionalises
> the distribution of wealth by prohibiting the hoarding of wealth which
> creates a rich entrepreneurial environment i.e. it encourages people to
> invest their money into new businesses and industries such that
> economic activity is dynamic. This is a big topic!

That's an interesting idea.
  

    
It seems like this conversation has drifted into rather theoretical
issues.  What short-term, practical goals do you have for your
magazine?  Is it largely concerned with Moslems in Britain or with
international issues?
  

    
WHO ARE THE AMERICANS? AND WHAT DO THEY WANT?

We are here with Billy-Bob Smith and Bubba Smith (no relation) who
have created a website called www.allaboutwhatamericanswant.com to
explain to the rest of the world what Americans want.  They are also
thinking of starting an underground newspaper called NEW IDEAS that
will bring new ideas to readers.

Billy-Bob Smith: Well, Americans want peace, even if we have to kick
some Iraqi butt, or anyone's butt, but you gotta understand that after
the World Trade Center, it was whole new ballgame and we were always
tired of getting put down by people we saved over and over and it was
time to get tough.  Other than that, Americans want peace.  And
Americans want good jobs with good paychecks and we don't want to see
our jobs going to Mexico or China.

Bubba Smith:  Not that we have anything against the people in those
places, but we just want our jobs back. That's something that people in
other countries don't understand about Americans.  They think that
because we are _for_ America that we are _against_ them, but we are
not.  It's just like gays.  I am not gay and Billy-Bob is not gay, but
we don't have anything against gays as long as they don't come on to
us.  Or it's like women.  We like women, you know, but that doesn't
mean that women shouldn't get paid as much as men when they do the same
job.

Billy-Bob Smith:  Right, that's because Americans are really all about
fairness and equality.  Some Americans are assholes but you can't
judge everyone by the actions or words of a few.

Bubba Smith: Right, well, that's part of being American, too, is that
we don't blame a whole group of people just because some Blacks are on
welfare or some women are lesbians or some Iraqis bombed the World
Trade Center.

Billy-Bob Smith:  Right. And you know, it isn't just about kicking
butt in Iraq, either, because this week the Huygens probe landed on
Titan and that was pretty spectacular if you saw those pictures.
America leads the world in outer space exploration and we are proud of
that.

Bubba Smith:  So, all in all, Billy-Bob and me just want to say that
America is a big country with a lot of people and we want the world to
be our friends, but if anyone wants to mess with us, then bring it on.
But other than that, I think that a lot of Americans see the time when
the whole world is American, not just like today with McDonald's in
India, but with a United Nations that really works more like a
worldwide United States.  Where we might have like Senators from each
nation but congressmen from each district, so that we have a balance of
powers.

Billy-Bob Smith:  Right, I think that most Americans could live with
the rest of the world not being Christians as long as it was not
against the law anywhere to celebrate Christmas, especially, you know,
with Jesus and Santa Claus.  Of course, this depends "cultural
literacy."  That's where everyone watches the same movies and TV shows
so that we all know what is going on.  I mean, like, with Yasser Arafat
dead, things are going to change in the Middle East.

Bubba Smith: Or maybe not.  Americans are pretty much all aware of the
fact that history changes and yet it doesn't, you know.  So, for most
Americans, that means that we don't worry about the past.  We look to
the future.  Americans are basically optimists, except when there is
high unemployment.

Billy-Bob Smith:  Well, that's all for now.
  

    
I can see the effectiveness of your magazine within and without
Islamic communites in England, Europe, and Africa and possibly here,
but  when I look at Indonesia or the Middle East, or the republics of
Russia they seem pretty closed to your ideas. Am I off-base in that
estimation and what are you hoping for in establishing changes within
those regions?
  

    
Sajjad, in the hard copy of _New Civilization_ that I have, I found
the editorial, written by Abdullah Robin and yourself, to be
interesting and thought-provoking.  Would you mind posting the text of
it here, for the benefit of our readers?
 
  

    
>Is there an English translation of the Quran that you would
recommend?<

I would recommend that you read a Quran that has both the Arabic and
English translation together with some CD's which have recitation of
the Quran in Arabic so you can begin to appreciate the Arabic language,
and the Quranic style. My favourite is the translation by Muhsin Khan
and Hilali because it has good references:

http://islamicbookstore.com/b8089.html

I would also recommend that you read some tafsir (explanation) of the
Quran such Imam al-Qurtubi's tafsir:

http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b7775.html

I would also recommend that people read books about the Islamic
sciences which cover subjects such as usul ul-fiqh which is the
methodology to derive Islamic solutions/rulings to human problems.

This is a useful online reference:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
  

    
Islamic science?  

Whatever might that be?