Expert: Le Anne Clausen - 8/11/2006

Question
I live in United Kingdom.

I will be conducting a workshop with a predominantly non-Muslim audience; with regard to testing a belief structure; intended in a realistic and a very small way to contribute towards good causes such as world peace, through discussion or debate; facilitated using the principles of free speech as exemplified in UK.  

The workshop has a set topic on liberal democratic mode of government. In order to give a balanced view I will explaining to the non-Muslim audience that as defined in Islam; Muslims are instructed to follow god’s laws; and on numerous occasions I have heard Muslims state that liberal democratic mode of government is based on human made laws.    

When UK gave back Hong Kong to China; on 30 June 1997; it was said that it will be based on one country; two system approach.

Can you please tell me if in your opinion Muslim countries can create free zones or expand their free zones so that liberal democratic mode of government can be exercised in these zones; and in other areas of the country there will be Muslim based laws?
Therefore there will one country, two political system approach, one being liberal democratic and the other Muslim based laws.

Recently a poll of Muslims in UK showed that four in ten want Muslim laws introduced in parts of UK.

I hoping if these two political system approaches can coexist together; there should be less scope for violent actions by going to war to impose liberal democracy in every Muslim country or by Muslims committing terrorist atrocities; and greater scope for understanding and resolving differences using dialogue.  

Answer
Greetings, and thanks for your question.  My apologies that there seems to have been a delay.  

The workshop sounds quite interesting, and I've been mulling over the points you've raised.  Here are some of the responses/questions I'd like to offer:

Some Muslims may argue that a liberal-democratic structure is based on human made laws (others would suggest the Judeo-Christian tradition, incidentally); but, other Muslims have argued that anything which does not directly contradict principles of Islamic law, are acceptable as harmonious with it and can be respected.  

Similarly, when surveys are taken saying that people want Muslim law imposed (or simply available as an option), I would caution to ask, whose Islam?  Islam and its interpretations vary nearly as widely as does Christianity or Judaism, and it'll be important to communicate this diversity of opinion and interpretation.  What parts of Islamic law do people want implemented, and how?  This does not necessarily mean the extremist interpretation of the law, such as practiced by Taliban, etc.  It may also mean protecting times for and practices of prayer and worship within a more secular society.  (By comparison, in the U.S., many people are required to work on Sundays, and cannot participate in church, despite laws that should allow them to do so.)

Many Muslim countries have also been heavily influenced by Socialism in the past, which made their public life more secular, such as Palestine and Iraq before the U.S. invasion (though becoming more religiously conservative around 1995 I believe).

I think that if you had a country where an extremist government was in power, you would not be able to implement a democratic free zone--they would not wish to yield the power/control (whatever the religion may be).  However, a moderate country may be able to allow citizens to choose to submit to a more conservative 'religious judiciary' for resolving issues.  If that were the case, then of course all parties involved in the judicial process should be freely consenting.

Perhaps a different way to think of two systems and one state is similar to what Jesus told religious legal scholars of his day:  ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar, and render unto God what is God's.’  What I mean by this is that Muslims can live a moral life (much of Islamic religious codes are for individual moral life) with adequate protection to do so, while also having a society free enough to allow others to live according to their own beliefs.  And that is either in a Muslim-dominant or –minority country.  I do believe that the most important factor in preventing extremist movements from taking over a country is to cease foreign occupations and use nonviolent methods of international conflict resolution, and for outside parties to respect the human rights of others.  For example, when I lived in Iraq before the war, women had much more freedom of movement, education, employment, etc. than after the invasion—when I left in May 2004, women’s rights and freedoms were practically nonexistent, and I believe that was a direct result of the U.S. occupation and its human rights abuses and degradation of the male population, and its emphasis on elevating the Shi’a over the Sunni in the new power structure.

I hope this is a start, beginning to address the many aspects that come together in your proposal. Good luck to you, and let me know if there’s more I can help with.

Peace,

Le Anne