Islam and Global Affairs Simulation Day III
Islam and Global Affairs Simulation Day III
3.35-3:50: Media Reports
Each media outlet will take no more than 4-5 minutes each to report on the conferences in Iraq, Afghanistan and the USA.
Participants: CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera.
3:50 - 4:20 US Presidential Debates
This is an integrated Presidential primary and national election debate simulation. Each Presidential candidate will make a 2-3 minute opening statement on his/her foreign policy on the subject of democracy promotion in the Middle East and political Islam. They will then answer questions from the house.
4:20 - 4:45 Debriefing Session
3.35-3:50: Media Reports
Each media outlet will take no more than 4-5 minutes each to report on the conferences in Iraq, Afghanistan and the USA.
Participants: CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera.
3:50 - 4:20 US Presidential Debates
This is an integrated Presidential primary and national election debate simulation. Each Presidential candidate will make a 2-3 minute opening statement on his/her foreign policy on the subject of democracy promotion in the Middle East and political Islam. They will then answer questions from the house.
4:20 - 4:45 Debriefing Session
17 Comments:
The simulations that we engaged in during class were very informative on many of the issues that face the framers of the Iraqi and Afghani governments. The various opposing views, historical scholarly opinions and modern political influences in the Middle East and throughout the world have created a very complex minefield of issues for Iraqi leaders, Afghani leaders, American politicians and minority groups of all sorts.
The seemingly simple issue of what constitutes and Islamic Republic or even an Islamic government is riddled with complexity and nuance. The Afghanistan group found even coming up with a very simple and basic outline for creating an educational curriculum for the developing Islamic Republic was very complex. Different groups demanded very different things, while minority group representatives demanded equal protection and an equal ability to participate in government, other representatives, including al-Nabhani demanded that only a Muslim man be allowed to lead the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Women’s groups advocated truly equal protection under the new government’s legal system, apparently fearing a return to the horrid era of inequality that took place under the Taliban regime. All of the of the groups found that compromise was the only way in which each representative was able to achieve any portion of their agenda. Ultimately the discussions displayed the true strength in forcing the varied interests in a Democracy to either compromise and participate in the political system or accomplish nothing by refusing to accommodate the desires of others.
The greatest learning experience in the simulations was about the role the media plays in shaping the situation and conflicts. The ability of the media organizations to highlight those aspects of any situation that they feel might result in greater viewers is actually very interesting. Focusing on those issues that Arabs and Muslims across the world are concerned about, allows for al-Jazeera to shape issues in a way that draws in greater Muslim viewers. An al-Jazeera news anchor’s job is to ask questions on those issues which are important to the station’s viewers and in a manner that is very narrow. In a courtroom the same type of question is considered leading, the response from the person being interviewed is essentially narrowed to a level that any response other than a flat rejection of the question itself is conceding at least some level of truth in the question itself and its validity. The media thus controls much of the apparent conflict as major actors must then go forward and give a great deal of effort to control the “spin” that media organizations create to enhance the number of viewers.
The simulation itself allowed for a great learning opportunity. Playing the roles forced students to truly commit themselves to learning the specific nuances of their character. The great depth of study that went into learning the roles each student played enhanced their knowledge of either the specific political or theological views that are necessary to address in the complex situations that have arisen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actual debate and group sessions allowed each student to connect the theological and political views they learned with those that other students learned. The great level of differences in the spectrum by the many participants in each stage of simulation was amazing, learning the nuances of each scholar, leader or politician’s views allowed the simulation to take a true life of its own as each day progressed. The clearest differences by the participants could be seen in the opinions of Vice-President Dick Cheney, Dr. Muqtedar Khan and the Ayatollah Khomeini whose opinions truly highlighted best the complexity in political conferences such as these.
This post has been removed by the author.
The simulation was very informative and helpful in familiarizing with the opposing stances of the various participants in regard to the compatibility of Islam with democracy and the US attempt to transplant democracy in the Muslim World.
It made me realize how challenging it probably was to find consensus among ethnic, religious, feminist and other groups when seeking to give equal credence to both Islam and democracy in the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions. I also realize the importance in such conflict-prone Muslim countries to incorporate Islam in their constitutions while preserving women and minorities rights in order to promote democracy, peace and unity.
However, my experience in this simulation led me to the conclusion that there is no room for Islamic extremists such as Jihadists in democratic debates. I might be a little pessimistic but if some Muslim extremists believe Islam is incompatible with democracy in the first place and in fact offers a better way of organizing society; they are never going to embrace democratic principles because; they are always going to reject democratic constitutions and might call upon a “jihad” to destroy American influence in their countries and advocate the establishment of Islamic states in which the Shariah would be strictly applied. My point is that no matter how much Islam is incorporated in the constitutions of Muslim countries, as long as they are also “democratic” and influenced by Western values; they are systematically going to be discarded by fanatics.
I liked Hilary and Obama’s foreign policy on the subject of democracy promotion in the Middle East. Obama talked about giving aid and diminish poverty as a way to fight radical Islam. Hilary pointed to the need to improve the American image in Muslim countries which I think is crutial.
I participated in the simulation as Ayatollah Khomeini. The name was familiar, I knew he had been the leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran after the overthrow of the Shah but I almost did not know anything else about him, particularly his Islamic doctrines. Therefore, I learned a great deal about him. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is one of the most influential Shiite Muslim philosophers of our time; he was the supreme leader of the Iranian Revolution from 1979 to 1989. He implemented his most important theory: “velayat-e-faqih”. He thought the laws of society should only be made up of the laws of God that provide instructions and cover all topics in human life. Because Sharia is the proper law, he believed an Islamic state should be under the guidance of one supreme jurist-leader, a “faqih” who surpasses all others in knowledge and its government composed of jurists who are also erudite in Sharia. As the supreme ruler of Iran, he had absolute authority which he believed was god-given. He considered the “velayat-e-faqih” a continuity of the velayat of the prophet and the twelve imams. He was very anti-American and was head of state during the eight year Iran-Iraq war with Saddam Hussein backed by the US at that time. The “velayat-e-faqih” model is of course completely anti-democratic as it utterly discards the fundamental principle of rule by the people.
The simulation itself was a very interesting experiment. It was an excellent training for theological and political debate. The group discussions were particularly instructive in terms of learning how to confront ideological diversity, make concessions and try to reach a compromise.
The simulation done in this class was a different and creative way to learn the issues and different opinions on democracy in the Middle East. It was nice having a different learning environment than usual. It was interesting to be able to hear in detail different arguments, along with having to research one particular person on your own. Because I was researching a United States democratic Presidential candidate’s views, I liked to hear about the different theologians’ and philosophers’ arguments, though very different from my own. It was interesting to hear both the religious take and political take on democracy in the Middle East and whether or not democracy is compatible with Islam. The simulation was a little difficult in that you had to separate your own personal opinions from the person who were researching and arguing on behalf of. So, if you disagreed with what the person believed, it was important, yet difficult, to not include your own opinion.
On the first day, after hearing from theologians, I learned that there are three main opinions on democracy in Muslim countries. They are 1) democracy and Islam are compatible, 2) Islam is better than democracy, and 3) democracy and Islam are not compatible. I learned that those who believe that democracy and Islam are compatible think that they are compatible because both Islam and democracy work towards a common good and have the same ideals. Those who believe Islam is better than democracy think that a government’s emphasis should be on divine laws and God and that strife and materialism come with democracy. Also, Islam promotes brotherhood and other positive community ideals. The last idea, that democracy and Islam are not compatible is only believed by one person included in the simulation.
The second day provided a more political aspect. The group that I was a part of, the United States foreign policy group, discussed the best way to go about promoting democracy. I learned that there are quite a few opinions on the best way to go about promoting democracy in the Middle East. There are those who wish to use the military and any means necessary to force the Muslim countries to adopt democracy as their form of government, and there are those, like Hillary Clinton who I represented, who believe diplomacy, along with military when absolutely necessary, should be used to work towards stabilizing the Middle Eastern countries that need it, and only then can democracy be established.
After researching Hillary Clinton’s views on United States foreign policy in the Middle East, I learned that her goal is to restore the United States’ international standing. Reestablishing other nations’ trust and faith in the United States is the first step of many gradual ones that must take place if the US ever wishes to establish democracy in non-democratic nations and states. So, although democracy is ultimately the goal of the United States’ foreign policy, it cannot be accomplished if the current policies are continued and followed. Changes must be made at home before any can be made abroad.
Overall, the simulation was very helpful in learning the different religious and political aspects of the ongoing controversy over making the Middle East democratic.
Memoirs from a Giuliani Simulator
It occurred to me as I ferociously searched through YOUTUBE speech archives, and press reports on Giuliani campaign pitch records I had an interesting reoccurring thought. It is no doubt an admiral and wonderful thing to be able to stand for something, and have conviction in defending one’s stance. But, as I contemplated how I would play Giuliani and make sure that I stayed true to his stances, I wondered about the true benefits of ideological stagnancy in politics. Perhaps it struck me as much more negative than usual, because I was role playing a candidate that I did not share much in common with ideologically. Nonetheless, being a politician, and worse still a politician who is vying for a new position (especially the presidency) forces one in the eyes of the polarized and pitch-craze hungry public, and the controversy-seeking media to pigeon-hole oneself into a marketable (but insincere or dangerous) box. This is why a candidate like Ron Paul, who argues against the war, but is running for president as a Republican – is constantly scrutinized or dismissed by some as a kook. If indeed candidates, including Rudy Giuliani, simply play politics for the camera, it is probably the necessary evil in trying to run for a political seat. But, after giggling and smirking to myself about how I as a soft-spoken registered independent and ideological liberal was playing a flamboyant conservative presidential candidate, I was visited by a thought that left me unsettled. Somewhere in the political ideological quagmire that I experienced in class during “Dick Cheney’s conference”, that I am sure politicians experience in real life – I see and read it in the news – real people’s lives and issues are in the balance. As Giuliani “valiantly” defends the war in Iraq and promises to stay the course, and almost flippantly threatens war in Iran – in the meantime and during his time (God forbid) soldiers will continue to die, civilians get caught in the crossfire, radicalization of new generations happen every day, and so much more. Yet, in an interview, even after the reporter tells Giuliani that 2007 is speculated to be one of the bloodiest years in Iraq, he responds and says that this is proof that they should pursue his aggressive foreign policy. The point I am trying to make is that at the end of the day, after we talk politics – real people’s lives are in the balance.
The point was not lost on me that indeed religion or theology connects to foreign policy. Giuliani is on record for supporting the offensive foreign policy that he does, because he does believe, “Radical Islam is the enemy, and we need to come to terms with that.” Whether or not he knows what being a “moderate” Muslim actually means theologically, let alone what a “radical” entails (besides 911), is rarely an issue scrutinized by the media when he utters these things. About Giuliani specifically, I learned that although Giuliani stays disturbingly true to the Republican stance on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he differs from Republican candidates in very controversial ways – that tempts one to think that all his venom is to compensate for his liberal stance on sexual orientation associated rights and being pro-choice. He perhaps would not have made it as mayor of New York without having been liberal on these issues, because New York has as we say in Spanish, “un poco de todo [a little of everything]”. Overall, I enjoyed having to force myself to absorb, understand, and then regurgitate with an amount of conviction a stance on an issue that I did not in reality support. Perhaps, without the element of competition for a grade and the theatrics, I will exercise the same research on stances that I do not support in order to find more ground for ideological middle ground – as a future political scientist.
The Simulations held in class were by far the best learning method. They offered a unique way of enlightening Dr. Khan’s students on topics that are prevalent to Islam. The most pressing issue that was discussed was the topic of Islam and Democracy. The simulations allowed for arguments for Democracy in Islam (through the United States intervention) and against it. Some of the speakers believed that Islam supported democracy, which was seen by describing the democratic processes of the twentieth century Muslims who overthrew regimes. Others believed that democracy is a distant and Western philosophy. The main problem with the debates, regarding Democracy, is the extremists. These Islamic extremist/fundamentalists deny any connection between Islam and Democracy. This is a huge problem. Those who refuse to see and listen to other perspectives lose all creditability in their arguments. These Islamic extremist do not only deny Democracy in itself, but they deny everything the United States Stands for, which is morally incorrect. These previous attributes can be seen in the views of Ayatollah Khomeini. Ayatollah is a Shiite Muslim philosopher who believes the laws of the land should be based on Allah. Consequently, Ayatollah does not believe in democracy, but believes in absolute authority. Another type of person who denies democracy can be called a Secularist or Rejectionists. Secularists disagree on the fact that state and religion are together, while Rejectionists state that Islam would never conform to democracy. On the other side of the spectrum is John Esposito, who is the editor-in-chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World. Mr. Esposito believes that Islam and democracy are completely compatible.
I believe that Islam and Democracy are in fact compatible. Democracies as well as Islam both work towards to the common good.
I played the part of Condoleezza Rice. I am very happy I chose her because I feel as though we have very similar opinions on the topic of Democracy in Islam. In her interview with “MTV” she said the following: “If we truly want to bridge the ever-increasing gap between the Western and Muslim worlds, the first step is for you Americans to travel, learn languages, and demonstrate that they are not just the images portrayed on nightly news programs.” This statement is important because it shows that education will bring Muslims and Westerners (including democracy) closer. Education will erase stereotypes. Condoleezza believes that democracy is the first step towards defeating terrorism. In her many interviews she has stated several times that Islam is a peaceful religion. Consequently the main reason why Islam and Democracy are compatible is because religion is a cornerstone of democracy. Condoleezza backs President Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq mainly because it has opened doors for the Iraq people to gain individual freedoms and political participation by women, which are both part of democracy. Condoleezza states, “The desire for freedom burns deep inside people. Do you want to be able to educate your children, both boy and girl? Do you want to be able to worship as you please? These are the basics of democracy.” This clearly shows that she is behind democracy in Islam. Condoleezza forecasts a time when people will ask the question “Why would anyone doubt that there would be a democratic Iraq, or a democratic Palestinian state?” She also states that anyone who believes that democracy and Islam do not coincide is a terrorist or extremist.
I believed the simulations to be a fun and interesting way of learning new topics on Islam. The simulations really brought together the goal, which was linking theology to politics. It was very interesting hearing the radical and extremist talking about how Islam and Democracy are not compatible. The simulations allowed for people to really play the part that they assigned themselves. I think the best performer in this simulation was Rudi Giuliani. He played his part perfect and was prepared to debate the other presidential opponents. Day number 2 of the simulations was the best I believe. Day number 2 allowed for everyone in their groups to speak on their subjects. It really showed the diversity of everyone.
There where a couple of things that I had expected to happen in the simulation which did and some I didn’t see coming. Though I was surprised on how smoothly it did actually run. Having that many people from all different backgrounds, scholars from Oxford, Harvard and Islamic scholars from the Middle East, politicians from the West and East, it’s a wonder anything got done at all. There where a couple of things that I hadn’t seen coming and startled me. I had expected the talks to get more heated over Islam and Democracy clashing, but especially when the different regions where grouped. Maybe this was just our class after all being in a debate is easy but to be in a whole hearted one without actually sharing the same views as the person you’re acting as in the simulation is difficult.
The news specifically the BBC was my character for the simulation. As far as what I learned about being a news anchor and columnist. I realized after the first day of the simulation that I could write pretty much what ever I wanted. I understand that everyone in this particular situation would know because everyone I was reporting to were the same ones that I had gotten the information from. I’m sure or I at least hope in real journalism there are more checks and balances. I’m sure it would be hard since so many journalists are reporting on the same thing to foul up with you’re facts in a real world situation. The media’s real role should be to give a un-biased report of current news to the word or locally. The BBC specifically gives typically a fairly un-bias and fairly liberal report
. At least that should ideally be the goal. I found when writing my news report of the previous simulation talk as well as when creating questions for interviewing, it was very difficult to come up with any kind of a meaningful question or meaningful report without being bias. I don’t want to say that it is impossible to give people news without being bias one way or another, however I hate to say I really don’t see a way around it. The news can report I believe, a broadcast that can give a basic overview, trying to give both sides of the story, public broad casting is something which personally I have found to be most reliable. The simulation as a whole I thought went very well though. I thought at the end there would have been more of a overall consensus. The simulation took place over three days everyone got a chance to speak and at the end it didn’t seem to me that anything was really resolved. Usually in real talks at least as far as I know they push the issues a little harder, I felt like we should have come to a better idea of what the Iraqi constitution should include and a resolution on Islam and Democracy would have been nice. But having the simulation itself, getting to know a specific character and the kind of role a single person can play. Also just giving everyone some insight as to how a meeting like might go was just as important. Maybe this is a bit biased but I think the news has more control then any one a single person or even a entire group can weigh in on a certain opinion. But journalists and the news decide how those opinions and that message are carried to the people.
In the simulation I learned a great deal about the variety of opinions out there regarding Islam and democracy. While many of the opinions fell into various groups, each opinion had its own nuances which I felt contributed significantly to the overall discussion. As for the discussion of Islam and democracy itself, I think the discussion that was held on US foreign policy showed the problems of incorporating this debate into an actual policy.
My person was Tariq Ramadan and through the simulation I learned a great deal more about his opinions than I had previously known. I found many of the articles that he had written to be very interesting and engaging. The only problem I found with researching him was that although he did write a chapter in the Islamic Democratic Discourse book, aside from that chapter many of the works on his website dealt more with European Muslims and reinterpreting Islam in a modern context. So I felt that while I was very well suited to talk the first day, the second day I had not as much to say since my arguments were more theological and less political. I would have liked on the second day to have the three groups shuffled mid way and that way allow those of us in the US foreign policy group to have a chance to way in on the constitution of Iraq in Afghanistan, since some of us in that group were theologians. However Ramadan’s writings on European Islam did put into perspective how someone can be both a Muslim and European or Muslim and a member of another society for that matter. I think that the idea of being a Muslim in Europe is something that could be translated into a state in the Middle East since one could then be both a Muslim and citizen. Ramadan also talked about the hudud punishments in one of his articles and his argument for putting a moratorium on them was very interesting. He argued that implementing the hudud punishments isn’t going to make your society more Islamic since these punishments are being dealt out in unstable countries with questionable court systems and in a way that is cruel and unjust
Overall, I felt that the simulation did an excellent job of highlighting the difficulty of blending theology and politics and how different beliefs both religious and political can influence this debate. The US presidential debate on the third day did a good job of showing how the theology and politics debate gets translated into politics and how different political ideologies filter this debate through their own lens and put different perspectives on it.
Danny Harper
Throughout the several days of our simulation we went through pretty much every idea and concept that you could imagine. I ended up coming away with a lot more than I expected from the exercise. Many of the characters that were portrayed by our class were either unfamiliar to me or people that I had serious misconceptions about. I ended up actually learning a lot about the subtleties of the positions that many of the participants held. Many of them were far more nuanced and complex than I originally assumed and some (namely Khomeini) were pretty much as simplistic as I had imagined. Several of the participants were totally new to me and Noah Feldman and Bernard Louis in particular were very interesting speakers. I ended up actually going out and looking up some of their opinions afterwards and found them to be quite fascinating.
I played the role of Barack Obama and I was already fairly well versed on his foreign policy goals and ideals. However, there were quite a few aspects of his strategy that were new to me as a prepared and researched for the role. I had no idea that Obama actually supported building schools to educate Muslim children in the Middle East as a counter to radical madrassas and while that idea seems good in principal it feels a little off to be educating another nation’s children in foreign policy. Also Obama is by far an away the most committed candidate to increasing aid to the Muslim world and combating all the various causes of extremism as opposed to merely fighting the symptoms that terrorism and Islamic extremism bring to light.
All in all the simulation was a pretty informative and sometimes hilarious endeavor. I picked up quite a few new names and it inspired me to do a little research on my own. Some of the positions articulated by our guests were filled with incredible insight and nuance, while others seemed almost laughable in their transparent adherence to ideology. I’d consider the simulation a success and enjoyed it a lot, my only real complaint was that we never really got to hear the various Iraq and Afghanistan factions / characters talk to the class. I thought that those individuals might be pretty interesting.
Our simulation was centered on a largely debated topic that has occupied the world stage for some time. The ability for Islam and democracy to co exist in the Middle East has long been thought of as a foreign idea. Not stagnant on the principle that democracy would not be welcomed in the Middle East, but that it in itself would be unable to survive due to social conditions. The looming beliefs that Islamic values so deeply rooted in the Middle East would be unable to assimilate with the fundamental principles of democracy have seemed to be the largest optical facing this ultimate desired goal.
As policy makers in the State Department attempt to decide how necessary the growth of democracy in the Middle East is, an argument rages on in the conservative think tanks. The theory that people in the Middle East inherently hate the west seems to control that way in which the United States goes about its foreign policy.
In playing Irving Kristol, the debated “father of neo conservatism” I quickly learned and figured out that policy created by the neo-cons has overwhelmingly controlled the United States foreign policy for the last seven years. With this theory in place it became clear that our spread of democracy through violence and war has left our country with the reputation of the bully of the global community.
With the intrinsic beliefs for a strong military and a staunch and rigid foreign policy, the Irving Kristols of the world have celebrated the way in which we have handled Iraq. With these individuals desiring a continued military campaign into Iran, their beliefs on how to protect America becomes inescapably clear. With the overthrow of foreign regimes and the implementation of foreign contractors, the spread of democracy is the ultimate cover up for a Middle Eastern controlled United States.
With voicing our desire to spread democracy to the world we have given our selves the ability to act as parents. Simply telling other nations that we are ultimately aware of what is best for them. Thus allowing any means to reach our goal of democracy and in turn controlling important nation states. Iraq is a shining example of our first foothold for a controlled and stable Middle East.
By ultimately promoting democracy in the Middle East we believe that we are protecting the United States from radical Islam. By removing regimes and replacing them with democracy we will be able to protect America from the terrorists of the world. In our simulation it became clear that all of the nation states as well as its citizens were ultimately only concerned with what is best for their own county. Unfortunately it makes the possibility for Islam and democracy to co exist.
The United States believes that through spreading democracy in the Middle East we are ultimately protecting our selves. In the Middle East they believe that by defeating the west and not allowing for it to implement its beliefs on their way of life, they are protecting themselves. With both ideologies guarding against the other, the ability for the two to mutually survive will always be at odds. The simulation helped to prove and show that beliefs are deeply rooted and that to change a perception of a nation is a difficult task.
I learned a lot from the complex of why individuals choose to create an issue about an Islamic Democracy. Well I understood why people who want to implement democracy have others who are hesitant to approach democracy. When you handed out excerpts in the Iraqi constitution and the Afghanistan constitution, I took more from that conversation we had about compatibility then the simulation itself though the simulation worked really well, better than I expected. The structure of the constitution and how it leaves certain parties out of the constitution is something that the United States did as well. The situation made me became more aware how today’s society is more sensitive to certain issues.
I was playing Ayatollah Sistani and I understood that he was a prominent player in creating the Iraqi constitution, but what I read on Sistani is that he used a quiet approach even though he was revered he never wanted to abuse that power. After looking at his website he shows that he is a modern Muslim who supports moderate views. He was a prominent role in calling for free elections in Iraq. He wanted free elections and not an appointed government from the U.S. Ayatollah Sistani was able to relate his opinion always from a point of view that the listener could understand. I wish I was able to give my speech like this, but Moqtada Sadr took up most of my time and I had to be careful with what I was going to say. I decided to call on all “Iraqis to become aware of the danger threatening their nation’s future and stand shoulder to shoulder in confronting it by rejecting hatred and violence.” It was great to become someone you were not, I wish we a simulation at least once a week. It would have been a lot of fun.
Ayatollah Sistani is a man that is able to understand the hadith by realizing the real meaning behind the text words. I found this peace of information because you made the same argument that you also need to take the history of the time into when each hadith was revealed.
The Simulation worked out very well. It was frustrating that I had to sit there because I don’t think Sistani would have said anything that would be controversial in front of the media, but that is my impression. We should have videotaped the presidential debate as well, because we able to videotape the media. It would have created an atmosphere where wouldn’t be far from realistic. The satire was quite hilarious, but it wasn’t realistic. Overall it was pleasant surprise to do something different then other professors.
I learned a great deal in terms of how things perceived to be simple become increasingly complex after a superficial glance. It seems as if no group wants to be marginalized, so making laws that include all of them in a post-Hussain Iraq mired with sectarian violence must be a difficult job. Even the formation of a single nation under one religion became a point of contention. I understood why so little is accomplished. Coming from a scientific perspective, if there is a cure to, say, cancer, then the moral imperative is utilizing that cure and prevent suffering. However, in international relations and government molding, there are many actors that are entirely irrelevant to the overall good of a nation, like Chalabi, and create a publicly perceived nebula around the solution. Those that are trained in economics, policy creation and philosophy should be framing constitutions, not angry secularist or vehement fundamentalists.
My role as Syed Qutb required me to read Milestones. Through reading Qutb, I understood his anger for America and the Western powers that play the role of benefactor to Muslim rulers that exploit their powers and steal from the public. After all, Qutb wrote Milestones while in an Egyptian prison. What I found very useful in my understanding of Qutb was his perspective of Jahileeyah; that entire nations can be ignorant through their practices, not just the individual. Muslim nations throughout the world are implementing policies that are so innately un-Islamic that they make Las Vegas seem sinless. From the monarchial systems employed by fake Arab royalty to the usurpation of billions of dollars by “elected” officials, the Islamic world is becoming increasing like the tribes of Quresh during pre-Islamic times. The Arab world was once a sandbox with a few tribes fighting back and forth for materialistic gains; contemporary Arabia seems exactly the same, except for it is a grander scale. Thus, there must a reformation in the manner in which nations conduct themselves in an Islamic manner. The idea that we cannot comprehend economies without interest proves that we are in a state of ignorance and theological indifference.
The simulation went pretty well; however, I was hoping for more time to debate one another. I was hoping for a more heated exchange with my fellow classmates as that always adds fun to the situation, but did not have lines crossed like in Arab Israeli conflict. The topic, whether Islam and democracy are compatible was very interesting and applicable to today’s formation of the Afghan and Iraqi constitutions.
Reflecting on the similation, there is one thing that is clear; Amerian democracy and Islam cannot co-exist without compromise. Most of the participants did agree that democracy and Islam were compatable but there were issues on U.S. military presence and the effect on how Arab people view America and their connection to democracy. When debating which were the best methods of spreading democracy, the conseratives of the group (mainly Guiliani and Romney) stated that American security was the main objective and that military action and detaining suspected terrorists was necessary while a democratic system would eventually be set up in areas such as Afghanistan. On the other hand, the liberals felt that democracy was an important goal, but not solely focused on an American agenda. Other groups had more targeted ways of encouraging democracy such as add an amendment to the constitution that would clearly define Shar'ia law and also have a declaration of human rights and a section that not only would have Islamic education in the classrooms (though this would be the basis) but also expose children to other religions and views.
The similation also had a brief section on how the current Presidential candidates would deal with the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, Romney and Guiliani maintained that military occupation and pressure were necessary for U.S. security and that Muslim extremeists were the enemy. The Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama, sided more with promoting moderate Islam. The following question was brought up; what is a moderate Muslim? Does the moderate Muslim be defined by thological, political or soical issues? There is no real answer to this. The interviewers of these candidates were members of CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera.
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.
The simulation was very informative in my opinion. The topic on hand was whether Islam and democracy are compatible. The simulation made me realize how hard it is to write and pass a constitution in a nation with many different ethnic groups. Even among the same ethnic groups, there were different political and religious ideologies that made it difficult to satisfy all. Coming into the simulation, I had mixed opinions as to whether Islam and democracy are compatible and whether religion should play any role in the political structure of a nation. The debate to amend the Iraqi constitution made me realize one can not segregate the two. This lead me to believe that regardless of whether one believes Islam and democracy are compatible or not, the two must form the foundations of an Islamic republic. Various views among historical religious scholars, secularists, and different political and minority group leaders made it very difficult to come to an agreement and made me realize the importance of the democratic process of including each voice and concern in the constitution. I was riddled when I thought about how much of Islam should be involved in the political structure and what kind of role it should play if any. The simulation also made me realize the complexity of molding the constitution in which both Islam and democracy prevail.
My role in the simulation was that of Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi left Iraq at the age of 12 and returned after 58 years during the 2003 invasion by the US. Being educated in the west, his secular ideology was not very popular with the Iraqis when he ran for Prime Minister. Many Iraqis regard him as an outsider, someone who stayed away too long. As Chalabi, I had to argue that Islam should play no role in the Iraqi constitution. Chalabi being a Shiite Muslim, made it difficult to argue for minority rights as that would displease his Shiite constituents. I learned that under Saddam, Shiite political parties weakened and politician that were exiled were too disconnected once they returned. Also, I learned that Iraq has historically been a modern secular nation. However, US sanctions and economical instability during the 90’s helped religious extremism to take roots in Iraq.
Overall, the simulation was a unique learning experience. It was a hands on way to understand the difficulties of forming the political roots of an Islamic nation.
I thought the simulation this semester was interesting. We can see now how difficult this situation is about Islam and Democracy and whether it can work with eachother. It was very interesting to see the different sides to Islam and democracy, from the scholar's to the clerics and the US politicians, where everyone had an interesting view on it. Before the simulation I could not see Islam and Democracy working with one another, simply because of its conflictions with Sharia law, but after research my person I started to gain a better understanding on democracy and Islam, and see that it might actually be able to work together, if the people were willing.
There were a few surprises in the simulation because I was not completely sure how it would all play out. The first day, and the day I participated in was interesting. It was interesting because I thought it was going to be a debate but when we came to class we found out that we had to give a presentation about our roles position on Islam and Democracy, and I know I was ill prepared for it, and I am sure many others that had to participate on that day were too. Nevertheless, I did enjoy seeing how we were able to organize our roles positions and prepare for the presentations with out much notice.
I played John L. Esposito a profesor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies. He mainly focus's on whether or not Western Principles like democracy conflicts with Islam in away, from either the Quran or other Islamic texts. He tries to give an understanding to certain things in Islam that complements democracy. Many muslims he says, believe that Islam is a support for democracy and can also be considered a requirement. That democracy can actually reinforce certain concepts of Islam, because there are things in Islam that are simliar to democracy. It is a way to fulfill certain requirements of this faith in the contemporary world. Such as individual freedoms, Shura or mutual consultation and Ijma being the consensus of the Muslim community. He is a strong believer that many Islamic scholars that refuse democracy's reject it because of certain misconceptions. They have these misconceptions that the only democracy that one could have is what the The west has. That democracies do not follow one aspect but they can make it how it works best for Islam.
The simulation was a good experience and I did learn a lot. It showed how complex Islam and democracy is but that people some people do indeed want it and they have connections with eachother. Without these discussion, we would never come to any sort of conclusions and not be able to see the different opinions each individual has. I now believe that infact Islam and democracy's can be compatiable, and that it is slowly working since about 1.4 billion Muslims are already living in democracies. The people in Islam want to have the ability to participate with the government and have a voice in society.
By the time the sign-up paper got around to me, there were not too many choices left, none of whom I knew a lot about. While looking at the names available, I saw the name Noah Feldman, and being a Jew myself, I decided to stick with another Jew, and so I picked him. At that time, I knew nothing about Noah Feldman, so I learned a lot about him during the preparation for the simulation and the simulation itself.
Probably the coolest thing I learned about Noah Feldman is the part he played in Iraq. In the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority, he served as an advisor, and was even given the authority to help form the Constitution for the new country. However, his work in Iraq was cut short, whether because of his being fired or because he quit is not known. I also learned that Noah Feldman graduated from Harvard University, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He is now a faculty member at Oxford University and regularly contributes to The New York Times Magazine.
The article I used the most, but not solely, to find out Noah Feldman’s views on what should be done in Iraq was, What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building. Feldman believes that the goal of spreading democracy to Iraq was possible initially because the Shia and the Kurds would want it, even though the Sunnis probably would not want it. However, according to Mr. Feldman, there were not enough troops sent and the United States was not well enough informed for the war.
According to Noah Feldman, the most important aspect of setting up a democracy is ensuring order and public life for whatever country democracy is being attempted in, and in that order of priority. Order is the primary concern, because without order there would be no safe place to begin setting up a government, education system, and economy-which is necessary for a good public life.
Unlike my lack of knowledge for who I was imitating, my knowledge for what I was discussing was extensive. So there was not a lot I learned about the Iraq War and whether democracy and Islam were compatible during the preparation for the simulation. What I did learn about the subjects presented was the views of the other people that took part in the simulation. I was able to learn the views of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan on the compatibility of Islam and democracy and the views of Bernard Lewis on the Iraq War, simply by listening to the speeches of the people who were simulating them. However, learning the views of these people through classmates relies on the accuracy of the portrayal by everyone. Realistically, no one could have perfectly portrayed who they were supposed to be, but as far as I could tell, just about everyone did well at being who they were supposed to be.
In terms of the simulation itself, I had a lot of fun with it. I liked how the simulation was different each day, instead of being the same format each day. The first day was a good warm-up because a majority of the people in the class had to speak, so there was not a lot of pressure as each of us became more accustomed to our person. The structure of the second day was equally fitting for it being the second day, because we had begun to get more comfortable with our persons, so the smaller group size helped as actually have a discussion, rather than just making a speech. Unfortunately, I was sick for the third day of the simulation, but I heard that it was equally well done.
The simulation was insightful for learning about the compatibility of Islam and democracy. There was no one answer. Views varied from “absolutely not,” to “absolutely yes.” However, most of the views of Islam and democracy being compatible gave some democracy up for Islam. Most of these characters focused on an ‘Islamic Democracy,’ as if Islam was incompatible with the democracy we have here in the United States. I mean, how could any “good Muslim” choose a secular state over an Islamic one, even if the difference is in name only? In my opinion the state should not be answering theological questions, nor should it cater to one group’s interests and disregard the other groups. There are many Muslims who enjoy living in secular countries and find nothing wrong in their governments not extolling some form of Islam. However, there are many countries whose citizens would decry such an outcome as an attack on their faith. Our separation of church and state would undoubtedly be unthinkable to the majorities of many Muslim countries.
My character for the simulation was Mohsen Abdel Hamid, and what a character he is. Information was scarce to come by and although I could find many sources, they all rehashed the same limited information. However, his views were not too difficult to ascertain. Hamid formerly led the Iraqi Islamic party, a fairly hard-line Sunni party whose ideologies are in line with those of other Islamist groups such as Al-Qaeda. On the other hand, he advocated participating in fair elections and achieving his goals through non-violent means. Although this is obviously the opposite of the means Al-Qaeda employs, he sympathized with their position. He was a strong critic of the 2003 invasion and wanted the US to agree to a withdrawal timeline. One thing I could not fully understand was his support of Saddam Hussein’s regime. In fact, Hamid was shortly imprisoned by the regime and fled the country to live in exile until his return after the invasion. Surprisingly, Hamid declared that Hussein should be treated as a national hero. This may be because of his Hamid’s belief in a very strong, unified Iraq as was present with the Baath party. For this reason I do not think that Hamid was worried too much about what form of government there was as long as it worked in the interest of his ideals. Still, he had nothing against a democracy as long as it was fair. He was afraid that the US was not doing enough to protect the elections in Iraq and that the US was imposing its democracy upon Iraq.
On the discussion about Iraq’s constitution, I found it difficult to argue for my character’s views on the Iraqi constitution. I was basically making arguments I believed to be flawed or incorrect. The minority non-Muslim groups wanted Iraq to be a secular state and to guarantee freedoms for themselves. There was a major fear that the group in power would implement religious laws as it saw fit. This threat was very real, as evidenced by Afghanistan. There apostasy from Islam was made punishable by stoning to death, and were it not for an outcry from the international community, it would have been carried out. Although I wish it wasn’t so, I really think that there is no way that any Iraqi constitution has a hope of working if it does not espouse Islam. I think the question is how far it has to go for people to accept it as an “Islamic state.” I have full confidence that a real functioning parliamentary democracy could be accepted in Iraq. I am also pretty sure that having a secular state in all but name is not going to work. On top of calling itself an Islamic state, the Iraqi constitution would have to prove to the electorate that it is indeed Islamic. This brings not only the problem of unequal rights of non-Muslims, but the problem of there being little to no consensus on Islamic laws. For every man who says that stoning is un-Islamic, there is another who says it is. The situation is quite complicated and no sides really want to compromise their beliefs, but they must do so if anything is going to work.
Post a Comment
<< Home