BY
MUHAMMAD GHALI AHMED
Ph. D CANDIDATE
INTRODUCTION:
Traditionally, a society became modern at a clearly detectable moment in its history because it always involved a sharp break from the non-modern, traditional past. Modernization therefore, can be traced through various phenomena like; industrialization, urbanization, hygienization, secularization, centralization and politicization of societies.[1] Thus, the introduction of social, economic and political structural changes in non-Western societies led to the adoption f technology and to a more stable and successful stage of modernization. In other words, it solidified is modernity when certain condition was met. The first is the re-organizing the local communities in modern social form by within they moved from Gemeinschaft (membership inn an ‘intimate’ community) to that of Gesellschaft (membership in a ‘non-intimate’ society). The Middle Eastern Societies seemed as an excellent case study of Modernization theories by which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is our primary case this in this paper. Thus, the Modern history of the Middle East began with the invasion of Egypt in 1798 by the French leader, Napoleon Bonaparte and then set the stage from a transitional period between traditional societies to that of Western style of Modernity.[2] This approach remain stuck as the transition from the traditional society to that of modern has not been completed because the Middle East has not gone thr4ough all the characteristics or stages of Modernization as mentioned above to be regarded as Western or Modern. The process of direct European territorial intervention in the Middle East accelerated the spread of Modernization by which the European settlers in the Middle East became an “agents of Modernization” process. This also facilitated the nationalist movement as nationalism was an integral part of Westernization in the Middle East. This process was primarily aimed at achieving three main objectives in the transformation of the Middle East to that of a modern society. The first is to modernize the region technologically and economically as the military technologies imported from
Europe was accepted by the Egyptian ruler Muhammad Ali and that of Ottoman Empire Salim III. This was followed by educational and agrarian reforms deigned by the European advisers. Second is to implant Western model of institutionalization and ideology and the third is to bring about perceptive change to democracy underpinned by new legislation and administrative polices, thus putting in place the infrastructure for a modern Westernized state rather than Modernization without it interest Eurocentric ideological cleavages to the Middle East.[3]
Thus, Papp’e argued that the inability of the European agents of change of new administrative policies (Liberalism) and democracy (new legislation) on the horizon was the failure of the European Modernization process in the Middle East. This paper set to examine the impart of Civil Society in the Middle Eastern region. Whether Civil Society exists in this region or rot? What types of Civil Society and their main objectives? With the rejection of the Western style of democracy and liberalism, do the Muslim countries, in general, accommodate or tolerate the existence of Civil Society that often challenge the existing status-quo? From historical analysis, Islam did encourage, accommodates and practiced civil society movement that worked hand-in-hand with the state. As the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the host of the two Holy Mosques of Islam, does the Kingdom also tolerate and accommodate the medieval idea and concept of Civil Society from the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and the Rightly Guided Khalifs? These are the variables we are going to examine in order to ensue whether the nation of Islam is anti-thetical to change and development. Similarly, whether Islam and the Western civilization are compatible in their drive for human rights, freedom of association and choice and equality before the law; or the two are incompatible? Does Islam share similarity in respect to civil society with those existing in the western world today?THE CONCEPTUAL DEBATE OF CIVIL SOCIETY.The current use of the term ‘Civil Society’ lacks its general agreement on its usefulness of the concept or its precise definition. Some see the concept yet another example of an ideological product of the centre to the periphery in order to perpetuate the periphery’s dependence. This debate divides the academics not only in the North but also of the South. However, social science often enjoy consensus among its practitioners to those willing to use the concept to the appropriateness of the concept as a tool for the understanding of social and political processes presumably taking place in non-Western societies. Thus, Mustapha Kamel al-Sayyid, in his approach of ‘The concept of Civil Society and the Arab World’ argued that, Arab intellectuals, espousing different ideological causes, have engaged that intellectual battle on the conceptual understanding of Civil Society including the scientific states of the concept, the universality of any of its definitions, premodern origin of Civil Society, in the Arab World, the actors qualified to be among its collective members at present, the distribution of power within Civil Society, and finally, deciding which Arab countries come closest to an acceptable definition of Civil Society.[4] This acceptable definition of Civil Society, is generally perceived and conceptualized by the Arab intelligentsia, which shall guide us to the understanding of the interplay or relationships between Civil Society and state in the Muslim countries in Middle East as our case study. Contrary to the assumption of the Islamists intellectuals on it concept of state and society. Their approach holds that Islamic states did not try to dominate society rather it accorded a considerable measure of autonomy to several actors within the societal framework. This found to be a useful precedent for Muslim countries. They proposed the term of ‘Mujtama’a Madni to be ynonymous to Civil Society. The term stress that membership is distinctfully based on particular religion and community. Alternatively, they proposed another term called al-Mujtam’ al-ahli or the ‘Unofficial Society’, while others founded ‘Mu’assasat al-Umma the ‘nation’ institutions’ guided by Maqasid Islamiyya or “Islamic goals/interests”. Their analytical power resides, in their view, a distinction between a Civil Society and all other types of societies that are judged to be uncivil. Such a distinction would loose its theoretical and political importance, if it were to be diluted by including, organizations based on primordial loyalties.[5] Unlike the Islamist intellectuals, the liberal nationalists maintaining the concept of Civil Society but adopting it to reflect specific conditions of Arab culture.
They identified Civil Society institution conceptually, to maintain only the economic, cultural, or religious institution that are not subject to a single uniform regime imposed by public authorities and that act under the exiting conditionalities of the states by which competition is allow with each other through expansion, renovation, innovation of their activities.[6] However, both the Islamist and the liberal nationalists’ intellectuals disagree on the particular stance of the European definition of the concept of Civil Society to serve as the point of reference. This lack of agreement on a commonly acceptable definition of the concept from the assertiveness of societal actors in many Arab countries, is currently creating tension in the region by which genuine civil societies are mistakenly presumed to be political parties or revolutionaries from their outlook. These societal actors in Middle East are fast changing the scope of Civil Society operations in
Yemen,
Kuwait,
Egypt,
Tunisia,
Lebanon,
Palestine, Jordan,
Algeria and
Mauritania. While similar stirring of such forces is taking place in Syria and Saudi Arabia today.
For al-Sayyid, the feature of Civil Society in the Middle East could be useful if seen through the discourses of Lockean and Marxian synthesis as a meaningful framework of analysis of both the structure and process of Civil Society. Putting up a principal proposition of this framework, al-Sayyid put forward six steps by which the process of Civil Society currently taking place in the Arab countries as follows;a) A Civil Society would exist only in countries in which class divisions are becoming increasingly important as a basis of social organization and in shaping citizen’s perceptions of their own situations.b) In a Civil Society, the state abides by certain rules in dealing with societal actors, recognizing in particular their autonomy.c) Citizens relates voluntarily to each other on the basis of shared interests that do not exclusively replicate primordial ties.d) State and the society accept and protect the exercise of the right to dissent by citizens, including expressing views at variance with those of the majority, provided that dissenting minorities do not use force in persuading others to adopt their views.e) Civil Society does not necessarily encompass the whole of society in any country, and;f) The presence of a Civil Society in any country does about not necessarily entails that groups forming this Civil Society are equal in terms of political resources, including their relative access to state authorities.[7]Thus, conceptualizing the term Civil Society in the Arab Society’s through this Lockean and Marxian framework stated above led to the conclusion by the Arab intellectuals, in spite of their disagreement. They seem to accept the fact that a genuine Civil Society, no matter its structure and feature designed, does not exist in any Arab country. For Civil Society, according to al-Sayyid’s definition, evokes an image of a political order respecting the Civil and political rights of citizens leaving free space for a wide variety of their activities, and responding to their deeply held whishes and aspirations for personal dignity and decent living.[8] By this definition, we could see, lacks the enabling environment for the contemporary Arab political systems to possess such qualities as mentioned above. As such, we now turn to view the existing of Civil Societies in the Muslim countries through this definitive approach as to answer the literatures to understand the contending conceptual definitions of Civil Society from the perception of Arab intellectuals. One would make the mistake by viewing its definition from the scope/lens of Eurocentric or Western-centric conceptual approach and arrive at erroneous conclusion that Civil Society does not exist in Middle Eastern region. This would not have guided us to understand how and to what extend does this social phenomenon is perceived by a non-Western societies in line with the drive for odernity and development.However, Arab political systems would differ with respect to the extent to which Civil Society is allowed to evolve through the formation of civic associations of the six criteria outline above, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia falls among the countries whereby freedom of association is not recognized, whether for political parties, professional associations, or trade unions. Therefore, the growth of Civil Society in this particular country is very weak compare to other countries in the Middle East region. With those countries that allowed reasonable measure of freedom of association, uthorizing political parties, permitting the establishment of various types of professional bodies, class-based organization and private societies. These countries are:
Egypt,
Tunisia,
Algeria,
Yemen,
Morocco,
Mauritania and Jordan with the exception of Kuwait that is relatively coming closer to the path of political liberalization. Although, political parties in Kuwait, have not been fully authorized yet, but recognising the existence of different political parties or groups with an open participation in the parliamentary elections is a right move in the right direction of political liberalization in Kuwait[9]. On the other hand, Farhad Kazemi sees authoritarian regimes (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman and Syria) in the region and some Muslim political regimes like; Monarchical, Socialist, Secular nationalist, Islamist autocrats, Mobilization, Military junta, and others depends largely on the use of tacit or explicit coercion to secure popular compliance. These political systems also raise questions about its legitimacy of the regimes and the Middle East long-term political stability.[10] The regimes have explicit reference to Islam in their constitutions, in actual practice; most of them are in fact secular in application. Therefore, the source of authoritarianism must be found in regime types mentioned above other than simply refer to Islamic religion or system of governance practiced, exemplified by the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and the four Rightly Guided Caliphs. Kazemi aintained that these sources of regime types of authoritarianism in the Muslim world inhibited the growth and establishment of Civil Society as existed during the time of the Prophet and the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs is not far away, other than the role of the state which has been problematic in the Middle astern politics.First, the region’s state have dominated the economy, manipulated it socio-cultural diversity to fragment the opposition, used repression to stifle dissent, and promoted different ideological ormulas to rationalize non-democratic regimes.Second, these features are both nurtured by the internal and external environments, internally, the rentier-states, Gulf countries in particular, that is allocation stages dependent on oil extraction for their economics and security rents for their revenues in their alliance with the Western countries, succeeded to cultivate government without accountability and promoted autonomy of the state from their society. These regime types use the income from rent to enlist compliance and to pursue goals not necessarily in the best interest of their societies. The sense of political obligation in respect to accountability and responsiveness to the society does not ecessarily develop. As the population of most of these states do not contribute to the states revenue through taxation of domestic economic activity. Therefore, the rentier-states of the Gulf nations or Oil Sheikhdoms find themselves increasingly reluctant to liberalize their political systems, as such; Oil rent becomes a factor perpetuating authoritarian government in most Middle Eastern countries if not ll.Third, the rentier-states succeeded to discourage the emergence of an independent bourgeoisie that can engage the states in economic give–and-take policy of taxation and accountability. Rather, they assumed to satisfy the population at large in material context through the provision of a host of services and economic activities paid through income received from oil rents. Its economic activities or extensive economic programs tend to engage the bourgeoisie fully and reward it economically in projects conceived and funded by the states. Thus, as long as the oil rents are available, they respond only to those conserves of the population which they finds necessary for maintaining their power and position.Finally, the bourgeoisie fortunes come to centre on the states and their define economic goals in order to maintain their dominations and reluctant to liberalize their political systems. The bourgeoisie in turn exert the position of dependent on the states by their inability and unwillingness to engage the state in delineation of rights, responsibilities-cum-accountability, and obligations.[11] On the contrary to a responsive, accountable state with much more liberal projection, Griacomo Luciani, states that taxation of domestic economic activity as a revenue source for the state would often times widening the state’s fiscal base as essential inducements for democratization. He posited that state facing fiscal crisis will be force to increase taxation on its population. This in turn, will create demands from within the society on the policy-makers of the states for accountability and democratic institutions.[12] The failure of Civil Society in the Muslim countries, rather the authoritarian regime types in the Arab world/middle ease is not related to either Islamic religion but a transformation of Islamic system of governance through historical process that witnessed dynasties, monarchs, autocrats, military dictators without reference to Islamic principle of governance and accountability as established by the Prophet. As Bernard Lewis aptly put it, that those are countries, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Sheikhdoms, where established dynastic regimes rest on the traditional prop of usage, custom, and history. Their legitimacy relies heavily on acceptance and too much repression, he was however certain that all these regimes would give way a liberal types of democracy through the use of modern electronic communication devices that are available to those who will use these Media devices to overthrow the existing order as the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini did. Khomeini succeeded by the use of these communication devices while in exile in Paris to see the fall of Shah and restored Islamic regimes in Iran 1979.[13] The Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, was the first electronic revolution in history, this Ayatollah Khomeini method of regime change in the Middle East, that was used to its maximum benefit to overthrew the Shah via the direct-dial telephone system, recorded cassette tapes, reaching a vast audience of the Iranian through also, satellite television, the fax machine, and electronic mails that carry messages of subversion in ways difficult to prevent or control by the Shah authoritarian regime. These methods, according to Lewis, are now being used in a more sophisticated form by other dissident groups, ethnics, religious, and ideologies against authoritarian regime types in the Muslim world for regime change.[14] To sum up, then, authoritarianism currently existing in the Muslim world today is a phenomenon intimately tied with the Eurocentric style of state formation which legitimized its economic and political control that the Muslim states established over their population. This etropole–satellite networks between the (dynastic Sheikhdoms) authoritarian regime types and their Western counterparts legitimized these states to extend the boundaries of their control over Civil Society and try to enforce one-why dependency. The efforts of the states have been and are being challenged in much of the Islamic world by witnessing series of emergence of a more vibrant Civil Society and political parties as a counterweight to state domination, is a positive developments in the region be it North Africa, the Gulf countries, and the Mediterranean axis. Ultimately, it will bring in a more balanced relationship between the state and society which will help pave the way for reform, accountability, and probable democratization.[15]We now turn to examine Islam and Democracy, whether Islam is antithetical to democracy or not? Or Does Islam stand inimical to Civil Society? If Civil Society exists in Islam, what are the institutions that promote Civil Society in the early age of Islam and Islam as being projected in contemporary times by the Muslim intelligentsia as anti-democracy and Civil Society. ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY ARE THEY COMPATIBLE?We begin with the conceptual definition of democracy as seen by Samuel P. Huntington’s dictum that “one can confidently call a country a democracy when it successfully made two consecutive, peaceful changes of government via free election”. For Huntington, democracy means’ a polity where the government can be changed by elections as opposed to one where elections are changed by the government”.[16] This definition has liberal ideology undertone which was developed in England primarily as method of choosing or removing government. The victors of the Second World War in 1945 rather imposed parliamentary democracy on the three major Axis powers namely the Britain and France bequeathed their own brands of democracy, with varying success to their former colonies during the postwar retreat from their empires.[17] Islam on the other hand, with its multiple meanings, denotes a religion–as system of belief, worship, doctrine, ideals, and ideas that belongs to the family of monotheistic, scriptural religions like the Judaism and Christianity. In other words, Islam means a whole civilization that has its legitimacy from divine revelation through the Qur’an and the Tradition of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessing of Allah be upon him) established. Thus Islam as a religion by distinction is what Muslims viewed as original, pristine, pure Islam of the Qur’an and the Traditions of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) before it become corrupted by the backsliding of later generations, primarily by the ethno-religion sentiments of the Umayyad and the Abbasid dynasties. This revealed knowledge based Islam, established a magnificent intellectual structure of classical Islamic jurisprudence and theology known as the “Ulama, Scholars dedicated and committed to the centre of socio-political, religio-political and societal welfare guidance in respect to the primary protection of state-society relationships and interest Maslahat insaniyuyat (Public interest). Not to place state in control of social, political and economic issues at the expense of the population. The advocates of this type of Islam in contemporary times are brand named as “Fundamentalist by the Western hegemons/Neo-Cons in particular. Clearly, this last version of Islam is, notwithstanding incompatible with the Western-Centric Liberal democracy from ideological point of worldview. The Islamic Fundamentalists, from our definitive point, viewed this Western-Centric Liberal democratic method of government with contempt as a corrupt and corrupting form of government that is only interesting in power as an avenue to perpetuate its dominance with its so called national ‘interests’. Rather, Islamic worldview of a democratic state is to pave the way for full participation in public life. It is the state that provides protection, maintains legal order, and safeguards rights of individuals and groups. Traditionally, Islam has been preoccupied with the essence and significance of order and at the same time wary of chaos (fitna). The idea is that, according to Kelsay, political authority is important to the welfare of the religious community, and is to be respected as such.[18] Thus, democracy as a sociopolitical system, also as a civilization strand is compatible with Islam. The proof of this compatibility between Islam and democracy through the establishment of equivalent conceptual terms or terminology such as Shura (Consultation), Ijma (consensus) Ijtihad (on relevant legal issues, some degree of allowance for independent inquiry) Shari’a (the Islamic Law), and Bay’a (Fidelity to the pact between government and the governed as an oath of allegiance/social contract) which could stand equivalent to that Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacque Rousseau and Emmanuel Kant idea of “Social-Contract” to protect the “general-will” of the society. Still like today’s method of say electoral system (by which government are elected by the people not the government changing election for the people), as mentioned above by Samuel P. Huntington to be the right way of changing government through election not on the other way round. Rather Huntington further asserts, in his controversial article, “The clash of Civilization” that Liberal democracy is not compatible with the religious tradition of Islam viewing it from Western-Centric ideological lens. Islam, in our view, would ultimately be incompatible with liberal democracy that refused to accept, tolerate and accommodate coexistence of difference ethnic, races and nationalities structured out of revolutionary sentiment and racism in its worldview.[19] Liberal democracy based on this definition of Samuel Huntington, for Islam as a pristine religion structured out through it divine revealed knowledge would never be compatible because Islamic civilization through its historical process, has been and still accommodating, tolerating and accepting different nationalities, ethnically different in their languages, thus Islam is universal in nature and scope. It does not institute racism, domination of one particular ethnic-race or nations over others, class culture and self-centeredness. Islamic civilization as a comprehensive, all-inclusive system of governance that set to see the welfare of its population comfortable and secure for both individual and groups access to their free space of existence and strive in their own endeavor, guaranteed the scope and nature of political participation and endless degree of freedom (hurriyya), and human rights (shakhsiyya)..We should note here that the issue of compatibility or complementarity of Islam and democracy or Islamic civilization namely, religious and political institutions does not indicate identity that plays a complementary roles in the pursuit of human development and welfare. Rather one should see Prophet Muhammad as both a religious leader and a statesman. He succeeded in building a community that challenged the system of clan loyalty, a characteristic of pre-Islamic Arabia society to that of which the solidarity of the Ummah (Muslim Community) would lie not in the blood loyalties of kinship, but to one consciousness of a Muslim membership. This relationship create a relative independent institutions of Ulama (Knower) recognized for their expertise in the interpretation of the Qur’an and the Traditions of the Holy Prophet. These specialists, unlike the Christian clergy, carried out the power to “bind and loose” (Ahl al-Hal Wal’Aqdi) with respect to the Islamic legitimacy of rulers or government policies.Their power (Ulama) rested in their knowledge of revealed information not in their political expertise or their military capacity.[20] To sum up, Islam and democracy are compatible in respect to the established institutions like Shura, Ijma, Ijtihad, Shari’a, Ulama’a, a and guidance of democracy, Qiyas, and Bay’a oath of allegiance/social contract. All these institutions were existing during the Medieval Age of Islam by which the issue of autonomy and recognition of the minorities namely, women, the dhimmi –religious minorities, institutions of Hisba is an instituted authority that carries out checks or addresses the issue of those wronged by the state, individual or groups e.t.c. The incompatibility of Islam and democracy today is viewed through the current European state system that successfully established these authoritarian regime types in the Middle East for the western Elites interest as against the population. Rather, these regimes are structured to serve the purpose of resource base for their Western Allies who use them to satisfy their primordial national interests at the expense of the generality of the entire population of Muslims in the region. As such, authoritarianism, Traditional autocracies and fascist autocracies as political system in the Middle East are off-shoot of the bias and colonial trick of the Western elites to maintain and sustain domination and control of the international order. Ideologically, we can say that Islam and Western-Centric Liberal democracy are in sharp contrast as Samuel P. Huntington concludes. Therefore, democracy as conceptual terms with all its relevant institutions of good governance and of social welfare is part and parcel of Islam of yesterday, today and tomorrow. There is a chance to restore this method of governance with the consciousness of change and innovation of necessarily needs but guided on its own divine guidance. To understand the essence of change in the Islamic world through reawakening of civil society from Islamic perspective, lead us to examine some of the Civil Society institutions that was there in the early stage of Islam and their ability to operate in the framework of state-society relationship for the service of umanity. CIVIL SOCIETY AND ISLAMThis chapter seeks to examine whether Islam and Civil Society are compatible or there is nothing as such called or known as Civil Society in Islam? And that Civil Society is a Western concept with its origin through the existential, theoretical, conceptual, normative and ontological debates. We should admit the fact that Civil Society has been in existence in Islam through it various mechanism of operation and understanding. Essentialists like Ernest Gellner would argue that Civil Society has no home in Muslim society where religion and state (din wa dawla) purportedly know no separation and where the very notion of secular society is anathema. On the contrary, Augustus Richard Norton would see it different through the definition of Civil Society as “an admixture of various forms of associations that refers to a quality, civility, without which milieu consists of feuding faction, cliques, and cabals. Civility for Norton implies tolerance, the willingness of individual to accept disparate political views and social attitudes; to accept the profoundly important idea that is no right answer.[21]Richard A. Norton sees civility within associations as a basis for examining Civil Society in the Muslim world. It is this civility and the conceptual understanding of Civil Society from Islamic point of view which has been in existence in the first stage of Islamic historical process. This concept of civil society reawakening, was adopted and internalized by the Islamists movements, whether fundamentalists or Moderatists in the Middle East, pushing for a greater reforms and political participation.They share a conception of state-society relations that is contrasts to the secular liberal views. The secular liberal view of state is to play a crucial role in protecting the rights of citizens and in regulating the excesses of society. While the Islamists, abreast with the divine role of the state, do not advocate a vanishing state, rather, they present state to be subordinate to society, and that state is effectively and appropriately the creature of society. Without society, therefore there would not be state, as such; state-society relations, in Islam are inseparable. Norton further argued that, the Orientatlists work on Islam was primarily based on textual, cultural and historical essentialist concepts of Islam; rather they missed out the fungibiltiy of popular participation in the Islamist movements. Popular participation in the political process by instilling pragmatism and a political logic of give–and-take by willing to play by the rules, saw the Islamists clinching the majority position in recent parliamentary election in Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen and recently Palestine.[22] The Islamists understand the role of Civil Society as a vehicle for change in authoritarian regimes through the conceptual equation of Shura (consultation) to be construed more broadly as encompassing elections and parliamentary forms of representations. And that Ijma ‘(consensus), and Bay’a (affirmation of communal loyalty/social contract), Hurriyyah (freedom of associations), and Huquq al-insan (human rights) received equal play in the discourse of Islamic populists. For Richard Norton, polities are, by definition, contingent upon choices and opportunities. To assume otherwise is simply silly.[23] Thus, Islamic theory and practices sustain a number of legitimate human groupings or association existing between the state and the individual. These groupings are endowed with their own sphere of autonomy free from government intrusion by provision of number of institutions that serve to operationalize the concept of Civil Society. The institutions are:
- Hisba: means, the supervision of the application of the law in society, especially in market places, against treachery, mishandling, monopoly, usury, exaggerated profits, and the like. This could be known in this contemporary time as “Regulatory Body” independent from the state control but accountable to the Muslim community representations.
- Diwan al-Mazalim: serves in a way analogous to both a small claims court as well as a court of popular appeal. It’s a form of tribunal by which every Muslim could go and complain against any form of injustice done to him directly by the state organs or agents of the state or individuals or groups.
- Awqaf or religious Endowments similar to Scientific, literary, and academic foundations for the development of art and science. This institution is autonomous in Islamic society by which individual could endow awqaf so that scholarships, schools, universities, and publications were supported by the institutions without government interference and
- Sufi tariqas (Mystical orders) is an autonomous religious sect that recruits members from the societies. It existed largely independent from state control and do play extremely important role by mediating between families or tribes in case of dispute or disagreement that may arise between tribes or the state in which they lived.
These institutions of the early Islamic state played significant roles analogous to those similar institutions in our contemporary time identify as Civil Society. Islamic theory contains within it an idea of an integrated political–religious community, but with the power dispersed among it constituents elements.[24] In conclusion, from the literatures observed whether Islam, democracy and Civil Society are incompatible. By definition of these concepts and their interdependence in socio-cultural, political, economic, and spiritual coexistence in society, we realized and arrived in conclusion that Islam is never and would never be inimical/antithetical to democracy and Civil Society. On the other hand, looking at these concepts from ideological point, Islam, we could confidently argue that is incompatible to that definition of democracy. We also examine the stance of Civil Society whether Islam do accommodate such movement or its originated from the west? Observing divergence definitions of Civil Society and a thorough study of some institutions that are analogous to contemporary Civil Society from Islamic view point. We found out an interesting historical process of Civil Society autonomy in various stages of Islamic societies as successfully established by the Islamic leaders and their followers since the medieval era.We can confidently conclude that if Civil Society is allow to be present and functions properly in most Muslim countries, the movement will pave the way of fostering a distribution of power in the polity, create an environment of popular participation through a balance that allow group autonomy, while preserving a wide scope for individual freedom and association without state interference as we are currently witnessing in Muslim world. As the Islamists are currently using the platform of Civil Society to justify their legitimacy through recognition of political participation in the
Middle East. This move will usher in a new wave of socio-political change in the region in particular and the Muslim world in general.
MUHAMMAD GHALI AHMED
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
KULLIYYAH OF ISLAMIC REVEALED KNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN SCIENCES
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
[1] Pappe, Ilan. The Modern
Middle East. (Routledge,
Park, Abingdon, Oxon, U.K, 2005) pp. 2-3
[2] Ibid. p. 4.
[3] Ibid, p. 5.
[4] Al-Sayyid, M. K. The Concept of Civil Society and the Arab World in Halim, Baraka, The Arab World: Society, Culture and State, (University of California Press, 1993), p. 131-132.
[5] Ibid. p. 135.
[6] Burhan Ghalyun, “Bina’ al-mujtama al-Madani al-arabi dawn al-awamit democratic” in Michel Camau, e d., (Establishing Arab Civil Society: The Role of Internal and External Factors) in Camus, Al-Mujtama al-Madani, p. 738.
[7] Al-Sayyid, M.K. in Halim Barak, The Arab world: Society, Culture and State (
University of
California Press.
California, 1993) pp. 136.
[8] Ibid. p. 141
[9] Ibid.
[10] Farhad Kazemi, Perspectives on Islam and Civil Society. In Sohail H. Hashmi, (ed) Islamic Political Ethics: Civil Society, Pluralism and Conflict (Princeton University Press,
New Jersey, 2002), p. 40
[11] Ibid. p. 43.
[12] Luciani, Giacomo. “The Oil Rent, the Fiscal Crisis of the State, and Democratization” in Ghassan Salame, (ed.) Democracy without Democrats. The Renewal of Politics in the Muslim, (London: I.B. Tauris, 1994), p. 131.
[13] Lewis, Bernard. “A Historical Overview” in Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, and Daniel Brumberg (ed.) Islam and Democracy in the Middle East, (London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999), p. 215.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Farhad, Kazemi. “Perspective on Islam and Civil Society” in (ed.) Sohail H. Hashmi, Islamic Political Ethics: Civil Society, Pluralism, and Conflict. (
New Jersey:
Princeton
University Press, 2002), pp. 43-44.
[16] Bernard Lewis, “A Historical Overview” in Islam and Democracy in the
Middle East, p. 209.
[17] Ibid. p.208
[18] Kelsay, “Civil Society and Government in Islam,” cited in Farhad Kazemi, “Perspectives on Islam and Civil Society” in Sohail H. Hashmi (ed.) p. 39.
[19] Ibid.
[20] John Kelsay, “Civil Society and Government in Islam” in Sohail H. Hashmi (ed.) Jack Miles, Islamic Political Ethnics. Civil Society, Pluralism and Conflict, p. 101.
[21] Augustus Richard Norton, (ed). Civil Society in the
Middle East (New York: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 11-12.
[22] Ibid, pp. 23-24.
[23] Ibid, p. 23.
[24] Hassan Hanafi, Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society: A Reflective Islamic Approach, in Sohail H. Hashmi (ed.), Islamic Political Ethnics: Civil Society. Pluralism, and Conflict, pp. 60-61.
