Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

Democracy and Islam at the Hay Festival

Chairing a debate on radical Islam at the Hay Book Festival brought me face to face with Hamas

I imagined any serious fireworks on the panel discussion I chaired last night on Islam and democracy would be provoked by Michael Gove, the Tory shadow minister who has made a point of challenging liberal sensibilities on radical Islam. His book Celsius 7/7 is a counterblast to the received wisdom that assumes engagement with the extreme tendencies of political Islam would be necessarily productive.

Gove was provocative enough – insisting that Iran should not be considered a democracy and brushing aside criticism of US foreign policy. You could almost feel the ultra-liberal Hay audience preparing to hate him. But Gove’s interpretation of the question "Is Islam Compatible with Democracy?", the title of the debate, was reasoned and calm. It amounted to a sceptical "I do hope so". It was difficult to argue with that. At one point, the New Statesman columnist Ziauddin Sardar said Gove’s ideological allies on the American neo-con right subscribed to a totalitarian ideology every bit as dangerous as al-Qaeda, but the Surrey Heath MP didn’t rise to the bait. He was also extremely courteous to Ghazi Hamad the representative of Hamas on the panel, placed right next to Gove for maximum effect.

It took Samir Al-Youssef, the Palestinain writer and critic, to really bring the evening to life. He began by saying baldly that no monotheistic religion, Islam included, was compatible with democracy. He thought the title of the debate was daft, but felt it was his only possible answer.

Later, when the man from Hamas explained, at some length, how his version of Islam was not only compatible with
democracy, but was essentially feminist and pacifist, al-Youssef couldn’t hold himself back. "I am an atheist," he said, "If I said that where you are in power, you would kill me." It was quite a moment.

I had only been told about the presence of Hamad on the panel at the last moment. I’m not quite sure what
book he was promoting, apart from the Quran. His interventions amounted to a series of party political broadcasts. But I took the opportunity to ask him whether he recognised any political system not based on Islam, Hamad’s answer was the longest, most tortuous "no" I have ever heard. For an Islamist the answer must always ultimately be no to this question.

We did not hear enough from the young Bangladeshi writer, Tahmima Anam, whose novel, A Golden Age, is set during her country’s independence struggle, She said the rise of the Islamist party Jamaat-i-Islami in Bangladesh was founded on the political cowardice of secular political parties who felt they had to make an accommodation with the religious radicals, She said most people, Muslims included, were terrified by the idea of Islamic state based on sharia law. Her
comments raised the loudest applause of the night.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

Osama Saeed
29 May 2007 at 12:05

"It was quite a moment"

Actually that's quite a cheapshot and blatantly untrue, and it says something about your discourse that you think it was "quite a moment".

Your question of Hadad, is equally true of yourself and the word "democracy". What's important here is not the semantics, but do you believe in freedom of expression, accountability of leaders etc. It doesn't matter whether your intention is to follow Islam or the Enlightenment in believing this, as long as the fundamental tenets of decency are there.

Osama Saeed
29 May 2007 at 16:25

And was the Hamas representative Hamad or Hadad? You have it differently in the same article. From what I see on Comment is Free today, it's Hamad.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/katharine_viner/2007/05/...

mbadr
30 May 2007 at 08:46

Just a secular/athiest love in.

And the last Bangladeshi writer is just a typical example of a young Muslim intellectual in the process of jettisoning her Islam (from the sound of things) and in the process playing to the western, anti Islamic, anit religious gallery.

The facts (it seems to me as a Muslim convert brought up in the west), are these:

1. Democracy doesn't actually exist anywhere. Peace and prosperity (by and large) exists in western country's simply because of the existance of a secure high standard of living that has persisited for a very long time (in reality at the cost of the rest of the worlds standard of living). Democracy (as consistent low turn out at elections shows) has little or nothing to do with it. Western propaganda wont change that.

2. Islam is completely neutral vis a vis political systems, because it is not based on politics. Islamists (I hate that word) who say so, are simply suffering from years of injustice from the west and are chasing an impossible (and un islamic) dream.

Even the concept of Khilafat, is not inherently political. The Prophet(saw) himself, in a well known tradition distinguished between worldly/temporal kingship and the Caliphate (even if the worldly kings themselves did not).

No amount of propaganda by 'dangerous Muslim dreamers' can change that fact.

These two facts are so obvious that it begs the question, what are these 2 diametrically opposed camps really up to, because they can't be that stupid, can they?

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

The horror comes home

22 January 2009 09:58

Ken Clarke's return

19 January 2009 16:10

A New Deal of the mind

15 January 2009 09:31

It's a New New Deal

08 January 2009 09:51

A year of ups and downs

18 December 2008 09:44

Mystic Mart

15 December 2008 13:06

The two-man show

11 December 2008 09:44

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Newsletter

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team

Vote!

Will the Iraq inquiry be a 'whitewash'?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 - 2009

Tracker