The relations between lIslam and the democracy have fed many discussions for this famous morning of black September of lan 2001.
Thursday January 27, 2005.
Four
years later and at a few days of the first elections in Iraq, the answers
brought by the Americans and Europeans remain very divergent.
German-American
LInstitut, whose seat is located in the small German city of Heideberg, tried
an approach of reconciliation while organizing, last November, an international
conference on the topic "Islam, religion and democracy". Several
intellectuals and thinkers of reputation had been invited to give their point
of view on the question of knowing if lIslam and the democracy were
reconcilable or on the contrary irréductiblement antagonistic.
Among
them, professors Abdelkarim Soroush from Teheran and Sadik Al Azm of Damas.
Both had been researchers at the prestigious American university of Princeton
thus quen Germany. The two men had just received in Amsterdam the Erasmus
price. Their sides, Egyptian professor Abu Zayd, which lives in exile in
Holland to escape a divorce "forced" "to have deviated of lIslam".
Two eminent German specialists in the Islamic studies, Stefan Wild and Udo
Steinbach, delivered the European point of view, but cest still professor
Arkoun who delivered the most noticed reflexion. For Mohamed Arkoun, to
reconcile lIslam with the democracy and the concepts founders of European lhumanism
nest not impossible mission. The Algerian thinker informs however, on a tone
which betrays a certain lassitude, that the way is difficult. He refers to the
European tradition of the Lights and with the secular scholastic steady to the
religion, a few centuries ago already, to note that this step is still largely
lacking in Islam.
The
tolerance, points out Mr. Arkoun, is a modern concept. Introduced to the XVIIIe
century by Hume, Locke, Rousseau and Voltaire, it na have time dapparaître in
Islam and the daccès lack with a high level education contributes to this
vacuum, according to Arkoun, which affirms that even the academics remain
ignoramuses on the matter. A reform of lIslam being improbable, Arkoun suggests
a vigorous ijtihad in the form dune "subversion intellectual". Just
like Lewis, it indicates the need for taking distances with respect to the
values passed in which many Moslems took refuge to avoid modernity quils
incarnée for a time and transmitted to universal civilization. Intellectual
research owes, according to him, sadresser also with lenseignement of lIslam in
the mosques and at the communities dimmigrés which, in their search cultural didentity,
tend to radicalize a simplistic vision of lIslam.
The
persons in charge for this intellectual penury are, according to Mr. Arkoun,
the modes which, during years 1960 and 1970, promoted a teaching of lIslam only
intended to reinforce their capacity and with ladosser with an elementary
nationalism in the Maghreb countries. The worst of the representations of this
bankruptcy remains, for him, lassassinat of the realizer Théo Von Gogh in
Holland by an emigrant maghrébin and the treatment of lIslam made by the media
since September 2001. In both cases, the researcher notes that the knowledge of
the religious bases and the concepts is poor and gives place to erroneous
interpretations or uses. Violence in the name of the religion is a
demonstration of lextremism, since the movements dextrême right in Europe or
the Jewish colonists fundamentalist precisely draw from the crowned myths their
racist attitudes with légard of the Moslems. In this respect, Mr. Arkoun
considers that the return to an approach ideological and deprived of critical
direction of the religion among Americans carries the mark of the
underdeveloped companies. He adds that tele-évangélistes American gives a
intellectual and cultural image comparable with the critical lack of corpus in
the countries dIslam.
Ladoption
of the universal Declaration of the rights of lhomme and its integration in a
number of Constitutions of the Arab countries were perceived like a positive
signal of modernity after the end of the Second World war and independences
recovered. But this declaration na still signed neither by the Vatican nor by lArabie
Saoudite that the new American secretary dEtat na however not included in its
list of tyrannies to reform. Guest to deliver to his feeling on limpact
reformers, Mohamed Arkoun declared: "We are losing the battle. We do not
count "a its side, professor Nasr Abou Zayd, which teaches in Holland, sest
shown more optimistic on limpact of the reformers. At the time of its voyages
in Indonesia (more populated Moslem countries, should it be pointed out), it
noted that the works of the reformers like Sorush, Have Sadik or itself are
very read. It believes in louverture of the Moslems to the democracy, even labsence
dun constrained corpus the reforming thinkers with compromises. It also notes
that the pressures born of the globalisation and the consumption of new
technologies, even sometimes of the loss of independences, contribute to bring
closer the thoughts and research the consensus.
It
recalls that lIslam, this nest not only the Close relation and the Middle East,
but also Turkey, lIndonesy, lInde, lAfric black and the countries dEurope
Western. For Abdelkarim Sorous, formerly to advise of Khomeyni and converted
with the role of leader Iranian reformist, the democracy and lIslam are
compatible in so far as the faith is not forsaken. It pleads for a secularism
different from the European concept of secularity. It adds that religious
comprehension must be perceived in its historical context and with the ideas
developed in the current century. It raises that lanalyse made by Levi-Strauss
on the priority of the duties in Islam served as the ideas néoconservatrices,
while pointing out that lAncian Testament also denies the rights of believing
to privilege his duties. The rule of the laws of the person sest made in
Occident against the religious thought, adds it.
As
for the Syrian philosopher Sadik Al Azm, the Moslem companies are demandeuses
human rights, of democracy and religious freedom and dexpression. It is,
according to him, the totalitarian leaders who cynically adopted the ideas dexclusion
of the Moslem world of the democratic context. It however believes quun
consensus, which also includes the Moslem Brothers, is being done against the
dictatorships with the capacity. Lévolution of Turkey (only secular and
democratic Moslem country at the same time) and the refusal of its government
moderate islamist to be used as relay with larmée American and the Israeli
aimings are from its point of view an indication on becoming to it relation
between Islam and democracy.
Al
Azm thinks aujourdhui that the challenge will come from lIrak and of its
capacity not to become a theocracy. LIrak na no experiment of the charia and
the sunnites must be solved, according to him, to express their regrets for
historical linjustice made against the Shiites at the time of the Succession.
Stefan Wild, for its part, supported the request of the Moslems for the
democracy while insisting on the fact that the human life nest exclusively not
governed by the religion and that the Moslem companies do not make exception to
this rule.
In
conclusion, the speakers reaffirmed that in spite of many obstacles, of which
some came from historical lattitude of lOccident, the companies and the
citizens of the Moslem countries lavènement want democracy. Everyone saccorde
on the principle, the divergences relating primarily to the means of coercion
used to try to force the countries dIslam in a way without their participation.
By
Ahmed Bedjaoui, El Watan