Islam and Global Affairs: Simulation Day II
3.40 - 3: 55: The Media reports on the conference of scholars on the compatibility of Islam and Democracy.
3:55 – 4:40: V. President Cheney hosts a conference to discuss the viability and the pros and cons for the US and the region if the US were to make democracy promotion the primary goal of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Participants: C. Rice, D. Cheney, Irving Kristol, and R. Guiliani, T. Ramadan, M. Khan, O. Bakar, A. Tamimi, J. Esposito, B. Lewis, N. Feldman, R. Guiliani, H. Clinton, M. Romney, B. Obama [Chair: Cheney]
3:55 – 4:40: The Iraq group meets discuss the limits and problems in the Iraq constitution which seeks to give equal credence to both Islam and democracy. If the two are compatible there should be no problem but if there are irreconcilable differences then the constitution will lead to legal and political chaos.
The group shall determine if (a) the constitution is fine as is, or (b) it needs to be amended with the following amendments ----------------- and (c) it needs to completely scrapped and rewritten from scratch.
Participants: A. Sistani, Iyad Alawi, Iraqi Arab Bathist, Sheikh Baha al-Din, Muqtada Sadr, President Iraqi National Association of Women, Syed Qutb, Mohsen Abdul Hamid, Ayatollah Khomeini, and President Iraqi National Association of Minorities. [Chair: A. Sistani].
3:55 – 4:40: The Afghanistan group group meets discuss the limits and problems in the Iraq constitution which seeks to give equal credence to both Islam and democracy. If the two are compatible there should be no problem but if there are irreconcilable differences then the constitution will lead to legal and political chaos.
The group shall determine if (a) the constitution is fine as is, or (b) it needs to be amended with the following amendments ----------------- and (c) it needs to completely scrapped and rewritten from scratch.
Participants: Hamid Karzai, Pro-Taliban, President Afghan National Association of Hinds and Sikhs, President Afghan National Association of women, Maulana Maududi, Al-Nabhani, Abdul Wahhab, and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. [Chair: Hamid Karzai].
3.40 - 3: 55: The Media reports on the conference of scholars on the compatibility of Islam and Democracy.
Participants: BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera
3:55 – 4:40: V. President Cheney hosts a conference to discuss the viability and the pros and cons for the US and the region if the US were to make democracy promotion the primary goal of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Participants: C. Rice, D. Cheney, Irving Kristol, and R. Guiliani, T. Ramadan, M. Khan, O. Bakar, A. Tamimi, J. Esposito, B. Lewis, N. Feldman, R. Guiliani, H. Clinton, M. Romney, B. Obama [Chair: Cheney]
3:55 – 4:40: The Iraq group meets discuss the limits and problems in the Iraq constitution which seeks to give equal credence to both Islam and democracy. If the two are compatible there should be no problem but if there are irreconcilable differences then the constitution will lead to legal and political chaos.
The group shall determine if (a) the constitution is fine as is, or (b) it needs to be amended with the following amendments ----------------- and (c) it needs to completely scrapped and rewritten from scratch.
Participants: A. Sistani, Iyad Alawi, Iraqi Arab Bathist, Sheikh Baha al-Din, Muqtada Sadr, President Iraqi National Association of Women, Syed Qutb, Mohsen Abdul Hamid, Ayatollah Khomeini, and President Iraqi National Association of Minorities. [Chair: A. Sistani].
3:55 – 4:40: The Afghanistan group group meets discuss the limits and problems in the Iraq constitution which seeks to give equal credence to both Islam and democracy. If the two are compatible there should be no problem but if there are irreconcilable differences then the constitution will lead to legal and political chaos.
The group shall determine if (a) the constitution is fine as is, or (b) it needs to be amended with the following amendments ----------------- and (c) it needs to completely scrapped and rewritten from scratch.
Participants: Hamid Karzai, Pro-Taliban, President Afghan National Association of Hinds and Sikhs, President Afghan National Association of women, Maulana Maududi, Al-Nabhani, Abdul Wahhab, and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. [Chair: Hamid Karzai].
17 Comments:
As the President of the Iraqi Women’s Association (IWA),
The Iraqi group did not come to a satisfactory outcome in our discussion over the Iraqi constitution. As a representative of Iraqi women, I am obliged to denounce the constitution as it fails to significantly preserve women's rights and equality between the sexes. This new constitution is merely paving the way for a theocracy to take hold in the near future, especially if Islamic law becomes "a fundamental source of legislation," as article 2 clearly states. For women to truly be protected, the constitution must be a secular document in which every person is guaranteed equal rights and opportunity, especially under the judicial system. There are too many pathways to women’s oppression under the popular interpretations of Islamic law, which vary significantly in the Islamic world. Despite the assurances stated in Article 14, that “Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, etc . . .,” if Islamic law is a primary source of legislation and “experts in Islamic jurisprudence(Article 89)” (an area of study notoriously dominated by men) holds sway over judicial decisions, then women will still be treated in oppressive ways. The Iraqi Women’s Association understands that in order for women to truly have equality under the law, the constitution must observe a secular notion of judicial authority.
As President of the Afghan National Association of Women, I am in agreement with Ashley and believe Afghanistan too did not adequately address the issues important to women in the country.
The preamble of the constitution says it is going to be adopted, “For creation of a civil society free of oppression, atrocity, discrimination, and violence and based on the rule of law, social justice, protection of human rights, and dignity, and ensuring the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people”. This means the constitution is supposed to guarantee equal rights for men and women, defend people against racism, sexism, and uphold universal treaties protecting human rights. Be this as it may, the constitution also states in chapter one, article three that “In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam”. Though Islamic law does not contradict universal human rights, the laws in Afghanistan will still be subject to strict, Islamic, Shariah interpretation and this will inevitable hurt women, minorities, and non-Muslims in the country.
For women’s rights to truly be protected from authoritarian, fundamentally Islamic men, the new constitution will need proper enforcement from international peacekeepers or the Bush administration. Much like Ashley has previously suggested, the constitution must either be more secular or include a prevision against extremist interpretations of Islam.
As the President of the Iraqi National Association of Minorities, I must also express my disappointment with Tuesday’s talks. While the Iraq group was receptive to plight of minorities, the proposed amendment did not go far enough in addressing the needs of the people I represent. Assyrians, Turkmen, Mandaens, Armenians, Qawliyas, Yezidis, Shabaks, Jews and other Iraqi minorities have no chance to voice their concerns under current system of government in Iraq. We fear that without secular governmental institutions, non-Muslims will become disenfranchised. While the government does provide us with the freedom to practice the religion of our choice, it does not incorporate us into the political discourse that will decide our fate. I would like to see an amendment guaranteeing the representation of minorities in the political sphere. Specifically, we would like to have a number of seats in the National Assembly reserved for ethnic minorities based on their respective percentages of the population. This would mean only 25 of the more than 250 seats would be guaranteed to minorities, who would run for them during normal elections. You may be asking yourself why such a small percentage of people should be allowed such consideration. My answer is this- we cannot rely on the majority groups to represent our interests. Historically they have not and we see no reason that this would change. Also, giving voice to the minorities would negate some of the “zero-sum” decision making that is being practiced by the majorities. Finally, if minorities are not represented and subsequently forced to blend into society, the cultural richness and identity of Iraq itself would be diminished.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
As ayatollah Khomeini:
assalamou alaykoum
I was of course very disappointed with the outcome of Tuesday’s discussion. I heard all sorts of nonsense declarations.
Indeed, democracy and Islam are absolutely incompatible. Therefore, the Iraqi government which claims to be “democratic” and its constitution based on a “representative parliament” is purely anti-Islamic.
Moreover, the Iraqi constitution cannot be compatible with Islam because it was drafted with the influence of the United States whose goal (we all know it!) has always been to destroy Islam.
For the Iraqi constitution to be compatible with Islam, it has to be redrafted in order to have an Islamic state with a system of clerical rule and a supreme leader who shall be a “Faqih” (jurist).
If the non-Muslims (including the Sunnis) do not agree, why not create a separate constitution for us the Shiites?
I warn however and insist that having an Islamic state with a system of clerical rule is necessary to prevent injustice, corruption, oppression as well as deviation from Islam and Sharia law. But most importantly, to destroy anti-Islamic influence and conspiracies by non-Muslim foreign powers it is necessary to have that Islamic state.
I learned a lot about Abdel Wahhab, but I was a little disappointed that I didn’t get to make a full case concerning Islam and Democracy like I had planned. I did not realize that I would only have three minutes to prove that Islam and Democracy are not compatible and that in fact Islam is better. In any case I did a tremendous amount of research (that I’ll briefly summarize), so it was a very enlightening experience.
First I read Natana Delong-bas’s “Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad.” It was very interesting how she explained the historical context that Wahhab was living in regard to all the polytheistic acts that were going on around him, and the political situation that he was forced to work within to spread his message. She also highlighted his care for women’s rights in Islam as well, not from political pressure, but simply because that is what Islam preaches. I especially enjoyed her description of Wahhab’s focus on basic education for all laymen, so that they can be productive members of society and not mere puppets of ruler’s interpretations of Islam, thereby creating a checks and balances system of sorts. This is the main point I intended to highlight in my presentation of Wahhab’s theological perspective on how jurists would not be able to exploit the system for power if there was a competent civilian as a base.
However, I saw some misrepresentations of Wahhab’s views in Natana’s texts, so I decided to check her sources, mostly Wahhab’s “Fataawa wa Masaail.” This did prove very fruitful, since it clarified my suspicions that she had taken some of his statements out of context to be more accommodating to Western values. I have always believed that in order for any truly beneficial dialogue to take place, it has to be based on honesty, so I feel she could have been more direct with the claims she was making. In any case, I learned from Wahhab’s works that the main concepts of his work being Tawheed and God’s rule over man’s rule would highly contradict democracy. Wahhab does allow for some fluctuations in interpretations, but he stands by the ijma of scholars on the “ma’loom min al din bil darrura.” He actually does not stray that much from traditionalist interpretations as Natana claims he does. He presents a fairly mainstream interpretation of Islam. For example he does show that any secular form of government would undoubtedly be unacceptable. Any form of government or social institutions implemented would just have to stay within the small basic guidelines of Sharia. I applied these concepts to the discussion in “Islamic Democratic Discourse” to frame my argument.
Basically, Abdel Wahhab would contend that the jurists would be best qualified to interpret the form of Islam that would be applied in an Islamic state. The khalifa would be responsible for enforcing this Sharia, and would have tremendous power in governance. The khalifa would not have to follow the council of his shura if he decided to have one at all. He would decide which regional fiqhs were applied, and he would decide the type of government that would be in place. Basically, by recognizing the Scholars as such, the laymen legitimate their authority and empower them (of course the laymen have the basic Islamic knowledge we discussed earlier). Then the scholars’ approval or lack thereof would legitimate or not legitimate the khalifa’s actions and policies, so the people are not directly in control of their laws, but rather enforce an Islamic system of checks and balances to ensure the Sharia is being implemented correctly.
Main guaranteed points of contentions between Islam and democracy would be that women and non-Muslims cannot be head of state, and no policies that might damage the Islamic social fabric would be approved. Other than this, the khalifa would have prime control. He could choose to have women and non-Muslims in other parts of his government, allow political parties (that don’t promote non-Islamic values), have shuras, and allow ijtihad on issues that have not been settled by ijma. He would be required to uphold the citizens’ rights (Muslim and otherwise), maintain peace, support social progress (intellectual, etc.), and in general supervise the society.
I enjoyed the simulations, but I do wish we had more time to discuss these very complex issues regarding Islam and democracy. I feel then we might be able to make some progress through the dialogue. However, it was fun and allowed a quick snapshot of what such a dialogue would look like. I am fretfully afraid for the future of Iraq and Afghanistan, because these simulations showed me how un-realistic the current plans for government are. The articles in their “constitutions” are contradictory in practically every aspect. And they are so vague, that it will be impossible to enforce them justly. I believe the constitutions need to be overhauled and re-written from scratch with real contemplation at the cultural and religious stakes involved. Only then can they practically benefit the people, and not just be used to show off to the media.
This post has been removed by the author.
As Condoleeza I am happy with the talks of today that say democracy and Islam are compatitable. I believe that it is democracy is the first step in defeating terrorism. Those who do not belive democray and Islam are compatitable are just extremists and radicals that need education and learn that American is not just what is portrayed on the news.
( I put my 2 page paper on the simulations on Day III by accident)
The Islam and Global Affairs simulation was an interactive method to analyzing the role of Islam in politics. Specifically, the new Iraqi and Afghani Constitutions were studied and debated to better understand the compatibility of Islam and democracy, as well as its effects on American foreign policy and politics. From the simulation, I learned about the complexity of the situation, for the political leaders and citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan and the United States, the discrepancies in the definition and execution of rights granted to religious minorities in Afghanistan, and the difficulties in applying religious interpretations to present-day politics and reconciling differences between extremely opposing views.
One of the topics discussed to great lengths was the compatibility of Islam and democracy, as we heard theologians and intellectuals share their views on the issue. Tariq Ramadan, for instance, supported the compatibility of Islam and democracy, arguing that they both emphasize a cooperation towards the common good, and pointed to Muslims living successfully in democratic nations, thus proving the capability of people to identify with more than one belief simultaneously and without contradiction. Muqtedar Khan expanded on this compatibility, discussing the implementation of both Islam and democracy by separating the relationship of man and God – which should be left to the individual – from state matters. Intellects and political leaders arguing that Islam is better than democracy included Syed Qutb, who argued that the way to counteract jahaliah, or ignorance, is by using God’s laws to unify the Islamic society and create an Islamic state, and that the problems in the Muslim World only exist because Muslims have strayed from the divine laws. Others, including Nabhani, correlated democracy to other, less desirable aspects of Western culture. Nabhani argued that Islam is better than democracy, which instigates materialism, which in turns strays people from the path of God and leads to the lack of morals in a society.
As the President of the Afghan National Association of Hindus and Sikhs, I met with other leaders and intellectuals also concerned with Afghanistan to discuss the limits and problems of the Afghani Constitution. As a representative for religious minorities, I studied the constitution for the freedom of religion and the treatment of all Afghani citizens as equal, regardless of their faith. Within the constitution, I found several inconsistencies; for example, Article 22 prohibits any discrimination between the citizens of Afghanistan, but Article 62 states that the President and Vice-President must be Muslim, thus forbidding any non-Muslim to run for the presidency and thereby discriminating against them. Additionally, apostasy still falls under Sharia law, and thus could be punishable by death. Article 2 allows non-Muslims to perform their religious rights within the limits of the provisions of law. This last clause is vague and could allow for discrimination of religious minorities. These discrepancies within the constitution, in addition to several others, need to be addressed and clarified in order to work towards establishing a truly democratic state by protecting the rights of religious minorities. Furthermore, the rights in the constitution need to actually be protected as Afghanistan continues to struggle with issues of discrimination. According to the International Religious Freedom Report of 2005, non-Muslim minorities continue to face social discrimination and some Hindu and Sikh students were not attending school due to harassment from teachers and students.
This simulation not only forced us to independently research issue of the compatibility of Islam and democracy, analyze constitutions within this context, and put aside our personal judgments to take the role of other intellectuals (who may believe something completely different), but it also exposed us to more realistic processes of debate and compromise, which are not as easily understood from texts. For instance, when attempting to convey the importance of religious freedoms to a completely closed-minded member of the Taliban, I better understood the roadblocks still facing political leaders in terms of protecting universal human rights and achieving compromises when delegations composed of a variety of ideologies meet. Furthermore, the importance of the interpretation of religious and political texts was highlighted during this simulation. When meeting with my delegation, personal interpretations of the Qu’ran proved to affect our interpretations of the constitution, which leads to obvious discrepancies during the execution of laws. This showed the necessity of a constitution to be clear in order to maintain uniform law enforcement across time and geographical location. Overall, this simulation allowed us to not only gain a better understanding of Islam, democracy and their implications on American politics, it also allowed for a more realistic portrayal of the processes of debate and legislation.
--Ritika Samant
Debriefing Paper
As Dr. M. Khan:
The debate over the compatibility of Islam with democracy is one that is hampered by a general inability to focus on the practical issues at stake. Many times, well-meaning groups get stuck debating general concepts which, while important, fail to yield any measurable solutions. It is imperative to shift the focus of political debate away from passive analysis to the practical implementation of what such a debate produces. The constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan have further increased the urgency for such a shift to occur.
While researching Dr. Khan’s stance on the practical implementation of an Islamic state, two things stood out. First, a secular nation is not as secular as I was brought up thinking. Even when a government prohibits itself from engaging in religious policy, religious disputes invariably enter the supposedly hermetic bubble of public policy. The hijab in France, the Ten Commandments in U.S. Courts, and abortion cases clearly show that institutional religion is still a political influence. As a result more detailed provisions must be made for dealing with it. In the case of Islamic states, Dr. Kahn suggests separating the sharia into two broad categories: laws that mediate the human relationship with Allah, and laws that mediate relationships between humans. The latter can be fairly managed by government, even if it is based on religious norm, as humans can use their judgment to identify special cases that may be unjust and rectify them through appropriate juristic channels. Those laws that mediate the human relationship with god, however, cannot be placed in the control of the state, as no human can claim to judge a divine relationship. Therefore, the individual must be left to judge the situation independently and decide on an appropriate course of action. In practical terms, this means interest-free loans are okay, but mandatory hijab is not.
In the final analysis, no government can be secular. The importance is to establish an official policy of secularism either in the form of nonintervention in religious affairs, or in the form of protection of the individual from religious pressure. The result is the same, though the emphasis may be different. Either way, the state must police the worldly affairs (even if they use religious guidelines) but must not touch what remains between the individual and his god.
As playing Irving Kristol,
In the second day of the simmulation I attended a meeting held by Vice Pres Cheney. In this meeting we discussed if Democracy should be the United States number one goal in foreign policy. Our meeting was made up of conservatives as well as moderates. Although we all believed that Democray was important I felt as if the United States safety should be our most important goal in foreign policy. With the spread of democracy we might be able to to ensure our safety, but we can not make it our number one goal. We are responsible to put our nations goals and safety before all else. We should attempt to control the Middle East using our military stength. Once we have a controled area we should help these countries and teach them to support the United States. This is why democracy is important. Due to the fact that with democracy we may be able to have a degree of control over the middle east. Individuals believe that we should help others before we help our selves. This is far from the truth and the only thing that truly matters is the survival of the United States. It is not our responsibilty to save these people, but if we can help them to ensure our own self survival and safety then we sould be all for it.
As Ayatollah Sistani:
There was much pressure to re-write the Iraqi constitution, that there needed to be much more discussion on improving the present governments efficiency. We need to further discuss the matter from all its sides until we reach a final logical conclusion. I believe that today we made a great stride by including an article that creates protection for a multi-party system which does not violate any other articles already present in the constitution. In order for this constitution to work accurately Iraqi's need to stand strong from western media propaganda, and create a government that is far more democratic than U.S. media wants the world to see.
In regards to the issue of the compatibility of democracy and Islam, I learned that trying to come to a consensus involving the relationship between two such nebulous concepts is an exercise in futility. As if trying to objectively analyze the convergent and divergent characteristics between the two wasn’t hard enough, no one in such a debate if objective. Both topics inspire intense emotion, with civilizations staking their livelihoods on the narrow contexts by which they define them. The idea that parties involved tend to be uncompromising, shooting their diatribes at one another without genuinely listening, was reinforced.
There is hope though: when the debate shifted from the hypothetical compatibility to implementation, discussion at least had more specific goals: give Iraq or Afghanistan functional Constitutions. Things came to the ground, with people instead representing personal interests and historical events of their characters. It’s important to note how even our assessment of single clauses wasn’t targeted to the text, but continued to grapple with what “ideal” to convey – democractic or Islamic. Stump speech policy proposals by the presidential candidates illustrated the same specific action on one level, unresolved ideological question on the other.
I learned that Iyad Alawi has about as many parties he claims to represent and please as there are spellings of his name disseminated through English media. From British, American, and Kuwaiti funding, to his expatriate Baathists, to the current Iraqi Council, to the military, to the Sunni triangle, to secularists, and of course to himself. I don’t even know whether the strong man image or the soft diplomatic image or the manipulative charismatic image is more true to life. But I guess that means he can behave however he pleases.
Overall, the simulation was a good way for our class dialogue to represent more voices and sides of the argument than our personal opinions would on our own. I wasn’t there for the first day, but on the second day I think each group missed something in not hearing the discussions going on at the same time as ours. Part of simulations is to just watch others act out characters and bring their actions to life.
I thought that the simulation was very beneficial and was very informative in my perspective at least. On the first day of the simulation, we covered different opposing views from scholarly opinions and political leaders about whether or not Islam and democracy are compatible. I actually found this day to be very interesting because I got to see what my colleagues thought about Islam and if it is was indeed compatible or not with democracy. This simulation gave my colleagues and myself the opportunity to analyze Islam from different angles within the context of democracy in an enlightening way. However, I was very surprised to see that most of my colleagues agreed that Islam was indeed compatible, given that the media portrays the contrary.
This was my second time doing a simulation; but, my previous simulation was in a different class. I really enjoyed having a simulation as a learning technique because I learn more from discussion than I do reading from a text. This is because I can contribute to the discussion through the character I’m playing, especially if we have something in common. In this last simulation, I was the President of Afghanistan. What made taking on this role easier for me was the fact he was Muslim, and he is ruling a Muslim country. I already have background experience since I am both Muslim and kind have an idea how Muslim country is run. Additionally, I also thought that playing political roles gave me the opportunity to thoroughly acknowledge the problems and issues presented in the simulation and forced me to answers the questions as if my character would have answered them. The simulation has also forced many of us to contemplate our political leaders and the problems that many Arabs around the world face today. I also liked the fact that we had media coverage, even though I thought that the media coverage was in control of the simulation more than the students playing the political leaders. However, it was very useful to have the media sum up what happened on each day of the simulation.
Although there were many things that I did like about the simulation, there was one aspect of it that I disliked. I find that speaking in public is difficult for me, perhaps because I am shy. Playing a political role did not help the matter, for doing so can be challenging regardless of the situation.
As the president of Afghanistan, I would like to say that the Afghan constitution would not be contradictory to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam nor to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Myself and a my advisors, Pro-Taliban, President Afghan National Association of Hinds and Sikhs, President Afghan National Association of women, Maulana Maududi, Al-Nabhani, Abdul Wahhab, and Sir Syed Ahmed Khanagree, labored over the decision to either (a) leave the constitution as it is, (b) admen the constitution, or (c) completely rewrite the constitution. In the end, we descided that it would be best to admen the constitution so that each article would be clarified “in accordance with the law” of Islam. We agreed on adding amendments to the constitution regarding minorities, freedom of religion, women, science and technology, and education (specifically, the application of Islam studies to everyday life rather than solely memorization). In regards to women, we hope to achieve the constitutional mandate of equal rights between both sexes, and the rights of women will be the government’s main goal. Women will participate in all levels of policy and decision-making. In order to achieve this, each ministry will establish a unit to enforce the rights of women and will encourage the appointment and creation of women in leadership roles. The government will undertake programs to assure the participation of all women, and will ratify more policies addressing gender gaps in education. For example, the government hopes to improve access for female education, health, economic empowerment, and access to justice. Moreover, we intend to improve the literacy rate for all genders, while focusing on the enrollment rate of girls in primary and secondary schools and combating the forces that constrain girls’ progress to higher levels of education. To ensure this we will conduct a national literacy campaign for women and provide women protection to and from school. Also, we will increase the number of female teachers, educational facilities for women, and training programs for girls.
We also differentiated between Shira laws and regional laws. In regards to Shria law, we decided to have the laws written down, because we, as a diverse people, have different interpretations of the constitution and the holy book Quran. To eliminate any discrepancies concerning the constitution and the Quran in the long run, we decided to have the laws written out on a paper to use as a reference in the future.
Finally, as a student playing the role of a political leader, I hold my own opinions about the matter. However, I do not believe that they impacted the simulation. In my opinion, I do not agree with the Pro Taliban nor am I even willing to take into consideration the Pro Taliban’s opinions. They are more interested in keeping women in the house and kicking out minorities. Moreover, they do not care about the country’s progress in education, medicine, technology, foreign policy, and engaging with a global environment. (I mean, why would they.)
As the Afghan president, I tried to only make compromises that would benefit my country and my people to create a better life for the new generation coming.
In the similation, I played Azzam Tamimi, a British educated scholar who is a spokesman of the Muslim Association of Britian and the director of the Institute of Political Thought. He is a Muslim first, then a European citizen and has famously has supported suicide bombings as saying, "sacrificing myself for Palestine was a noble cause. It is the straight way to pleasing my God and I would do it if I had the oppertunity". His stance on the compatability of Islam and democracy is that they are clearly compatable but the United States will not allow Afghani's or other troubled Muslim nations because they only allow democracy to take place if an American approved person or group is in power and are scared of Muslim political parties that would clearly be elected by the majority if a fair democratic system would be in place. He discusses these points in an article called, "The Right to Rule Ourselves". In this article he also discusses the Arab mistrust of America and the military imposed democratic systems because their only expirience with the United States is via violence and the military.
In the end, our similation showed idealistic solutions for ending violence and everyone understanding eachother. In the real world, most of these people would never be in the same room with eachother and have the relatively un-baised views that we did while playing our characters. Though, in conclusion, I have decided that theologically Islam and democracy can co-exist if the United States starts using their time and money proactively in troubled Middle-Eastern nations instead of just creating more violence and destruction.
As the Iraqi Baathist Party, I expected to have a bigger role in the simulation. I was a little
disappointed to be honest that I did not have a greater role in the simulation. I enjoyed the whole simulation, I thought it was rather interesting and it was a different learning method. Everyone who participated in the simulation had something important to add to the simulation. The goal of the simulation was to examine the compatibility of Islam and Democracy, and the role that if Islam should play a role in politics. We examined the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and heard U.S. presidential candidates discuss their stands on foreign policy issues.
Being the Iraqi Baathist Party, I learned alot about them and their stance. It was interesting to find out that the founder; Michel Aflaq, was Christian. Even though the organization is a secular organization, most Sunni Muslims follow this party. I thought this was quite ironic. Their goals now are fighting exploitation, social inequality, sectarian loyalties, apathy, lack of civil spirit and they want a united Iraq. The Iraqi constitution mentions the Iraqi Baathist Party a number of times, in all cases its about banning the party. In one article, it even goes as far as calling it de-baathification! What I found to be the most interesting thing with this that the U.S. were the ones calling for de-baathification, and now they are doing the exact opposite they are calling for the Baathist party to be put back in to government.
I learned a lot from this simulation besides what I researched. I learned a little more about the presidential candidates' stances on foreign policy. Some of the speakers were not familiar to me beforehand so it was good to hear all of their points on compatibility of Islam and democracy. Overall the simulation was very beneficial and I learned many new things.
Post a Comment
<< Home