Close

Forgot your password?

Choose a newsletter




Premium access provided by ENSTA

Your premium access provided by ENSTA

Enter your email to begin

Premium access granted to you by NRC Q

You have been given free premium access to Worldcrunch for 8 weeks thanks to NRC Q.

Enter your email to begin

Premium access granted to you by EM-LYON

You have been given free premium access to Worldcrunch for 8 weeks thanks to EM-LYON.

Enter your email to begin

Premium access granted to you by Goldsmiths

You have been given free premium access to Worldcrunch for 8 weeks thanks to Goldsmiths.

Enter your email to begin

Premium access granted to you by WorldCrunch HQ

You have been given free premium access to Worldcrunch for 4 weeks thanks to WorldCrunch HQ.

Enter your email to begin

Premium access granted to you by MINES Alès Alumni

You have been given free premium access to Worldcrunch for 8 weeks thanks to MINES Alès Alumni.

Enter your email to begin

Premium access granted to you by ESCP Europe Alumni

You have been given free premium access to Worldcrunch for 8 weeks thanks to ESCP Europe Alumni.

Enter your email to begin

Premium access granted to you by IONIS Education Group

You have been given free premium access to Worldcrunch for 8 weeks thanks to IONIS Education Group.

Enter your email to begin

Premium access granted to you by MinnPost

You have been given free premium access to Worldcrunch for 6 months thanks to MinnPost.

Enter your email to begin

Premium access granted to you by Expatica

You've been given FREE premium access to Worldcrunch

Enter your email to begin

Worldcrunch

Sharia And Democracy - Twelve Points Of Contention

Article illustrative image Partner logo Flags, faith, people, power

Salafis might accept procedural democracy — that is to say the vote and the ballot box — as a means that allows them to attain power. But do they accept the core values of democracy? Do they respect personal freedom, diversity, coexistence and mutual understanding? In this debate with a Salafi friend, Amr Ezzat pinpoints 12 contentious issues that attempt to shed light on conservative Islamist thinking.

1-He told me that the Islamists did not voice demands for implementing Islamic Sharia or emphasizing the Islamic identity since those demands ran the risk of dividing the protesters and jeopardizing the achievement of the common goal. I told him that we now need to garner a consensus to produce a constitution that expresses the demands of all Egyptians, but that Islamists now insist on incorporating what they declined to declare in the past. 

2-He told me that the situation is different now, since we are set to build the nation. And building the nation requires doing what is “right” rather than what receives a consensus. It is right to implement Sharia, which is a necessity for the Muslim majority, he said. I told him that I am counted among this Muslim majority he is speaking about and most of the members and supporters of the political powers are also counted among it, and all of us oppose what he calls for.

3-He told me that a Muslim who does not want Sharia implemented would be an atheist or in need of reviewing his or her beliefs. When I told him to deduct “the atheists” from that majority, he told me that those he calls atheists were only a minority.

4-He told me that in Islam the majority does not necessarily possess the truth because truth is what God sent to his Prophet ... democracy contradicts with Islam since it could lead to results that violate this truth. He explained that Islamists accepted democracy because they thought it would bring them to power since the majority of people, they thought, supported the implementation of Sharia. “If the majority does not want Sharia, what would be the case?” I asked. He said that in that event democracy would be an ineffective way to implement Sharia.

5-He told me that democracy is also in contradiction with Islam because it makes “the truth,” which is the basis for making laws, something relative and dependent on lawmakers' discussions and votes. “Thank God those MPs were Muslims!” he said. 

6- He then told me that I was manipulating the conversation to evade the truth that the majority wants Sharia. "Is that democracy?" he asked. I told him that...attempting to restrict this process in the name of Sharia is a suppression of democracy.

7-He told me that, like him, I too reject democracy when it goes against my views. I told him that an illustrative example of my point is when some people gather in some place and decide that they are all equal owners of it and that everybody has a right to be different and that collective issues would be decided on through discussion and then a majority vote. 

8- I told him there is no guarantee for democracy other than the people's agreement, otherwise the more powerful will crush the weaker and violate their freedom and right to equality.

9-He said that I am restricting the wish of a large sector of people who want to be governed by Sharia and what they think is right. I told him that with reference to the first part of our conversation, he had every right to be governed by Sharia and to use it to elicit ideas for politics, administration and the law, but that I reject to have my freedom restricted and to be deprived of a freedom that does not harm him in a direct way just because it violates what he thinks is right. He said that religion calls for such restriction and that by asking for that freedom I would be restricting his adherence to religion. 

10-He asked why I opposed Sharia. I said that to think that your ideas are the words of God and that they constitute the truth is something that has nothing to do with me, for I could contest how far your ideas are expressive of religion or I could have no faith in your religion at all. We both agree that the freedom of religion is absolute and should be safeguarded and that exercising that right does not violate democracy.

11-He said that those guarantees that pepper my speech would make me, like him, reject democracy if it does not have freedom and equality as a basis for it and that he rejects democracy if it will not be a method to implement Sharia and so we would never agree. I said that he was right since I insist on my freedom and right to equality while he insists on restricting that.

12- He said that conflict was the solution since the power is sometimes needed to establish the truth. He added that Egyptians would have not been Muslims if it weren’t for the Islamic conquest of Egypt. I told him that Egypt has since taken strides to become a democratic republic and that Egypt was entering a new stage where political legitimacy emanates from the masses which did not raise the implementation of Sharia as a demand. He said that they did not want conflict at the beginning. I told him that he wants to use force to establish what he thinks is the truth, away from democratic participation. He said that this was legitimate. I said “do not ask me then why I do not want your understanding of Sharia implemented!”

Translated by Dina Zafer

Sign up for our weekly Global Viewpoint newsletter now


Be a part of the conversation. Click to show comments
About this article source Website: http://www.almasryalyoum.com/

Load More Stories

Unlimited access to exclusive journalism, the best world news source across all your devices

Subscribe Now Photo of Worldcrunch on different devices

Your premium access to Worldcrunch is provided by

University of Central Lancashire

Please register to begin


By registering you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.