In an interview with the Jeddah-based Al-Bilad newspaper, Fahmi Howaidi, the Arab political thinker and columnist, threw light on a number of issues. These issues include terrorist activities, the implementation of Shariah and the establishment of an Islamic political system.
Howaidi believes that the current war in Afghanistan will not bring an end to terrorism because as long as people are frustrated in resolving their political and economic problems peacefully, they are likely to turn to violence. He noted with sadness that Muslim extremists have exploited modern technology to carry out terrorist activities while the West, on the whole, has employed it to improve human life.
Howaidi supports efforts to eliminate terrorism but thinks that success will come only if the reasons that led to terrorism in the first place are also eliminated. He strongly denied that Islam is anti-democratic.
“Islam teaches man how to worship God on the one hand and how to deal with society on the other; democracy is a system of government which functions with the consent of the governed. And democracy has advantages which Muslims do not reject. What they reject is the colonialism, exploitation and anti-Muslim bias associated with some Western democracies.
“Much of the Arab world views the Western democratic system — outside the West — as unjust because of how it has humiliated and deprived both Arabs and Muslims. Unfortunately, the Western media have contributed to perpetuating this hatred and enmity to Islam with little sympathy for Muslim sentiments and opinions. This is why the Muslim public seldom views democracy as an obviously superior system of government.
“The critics of Islam fail to identify the underlying cause for the Arab apprehension about democracy. Many Arabs fear that democracy will ultimately lead to Western cultural domination. This fear was very clearly expressed early in the 20th century when Lutfi Al-Sayyed Pasha, an advocate of democracy in Egypt, was defeated in elections. His rival warned voters about Pasha’s plans to introduce a Western democratic system which allowed a woman to marry four husbands and thus become equal to man. The propaganda succeeded and Pasha was defeated.”
Howaidi said many current political problems could be solved by establishing a political state based on a clear Islamic vision. “The vision would rest upon three main pillars — the basic concept and features of the state, the means to establish the state and its aims and objectives. The government should be by the will of the people with the people having the sole authority to elect, appoint and remove the government and its head. According to Islam, society is the responsible authority for protecting public interests. The Holy Qur’an says: ‘O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to God...’ (Al-Nisa, Verse 135). Freedom and equality are also the rights of every citizen in the state. The Holy Book says: ‘O mankind, We created you from a single (pair) of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well-acquainted with all things.’ (Al-Hujrat, verse 13).
“Justice should be the hallmark of the state as Islam does not tolerate injustice. There is a Hadith — the sayings and traditions of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him — that the Almighty said, ‘O mankind, I prohibited injustice upon myself and I have prohibited it amidst you as well. Therefore never be unjust to others.’ Islam allows fighting against injustice, for the Holy Qur’an says: ‘To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) because they are wronged — and verily, God is Most Powerful for their aid.’ (Al-Hajj, verse 39)
“As law is applicable to everyone, the Shariah (Islamic law) must be the ultimate legal authority and both rulers and ruled without exception should be subject to the same law. No injustice to, or repression of, any group of people is allowed. Islamic law is above individual whims and worldly desires; it does not tolerate the despotism of either legislative or executive authority.”
When asked about the apparent contradiction between his views on the establishment of an Islamic state and his earlier rejection of the term “political Islam,” Howaidi explained that the term “political Islam” was coined as part of a campaign to distort the real Islamic identity. “On the other hand those who speak of ‘political Islam’ ignore the real dimensions of Islam and seek to present an Islam which conforms to Western Christian culture. Islam is not a copy of Christianity; it carries a message of its own. The advocates of ‘political Islam’ should present Islam in its real form. In fact, the relation between Islam and Christianity must be based on the principle of mutual respect.”
Speaking of the dialogue between Islamic and secular intellectuals in the Arab world, Howaidi observed that the debate had failed to produce any genuine good. “We are currently seeing a polarization between Islamic and secular trends. The failure of the dialogue also made it impossible for people to close ranks and uphold a common or national cause. The unresolved clash between secularism and religion has paved the way for the birth of Islamic extremism which has been strongly resisted by Muslim society. Secularist extremism should also be opposed in a similar way.”
Howaidi explained that he always supported the implementation of Shariah. His objection was to its implementation without rectifying the mistakes in understanding it. He vehemently denied the charge that he supported the terrorist attacks and their perpetrators. He called this charge a form of intellectual terrorism. He pointed out that he was the first intellectual to clash in the 1970s with Egyptian extremist organizations. He argued there was a great difference between attempting to understand a movement and justifying its actions. “The actions of extremists in Algeria are, no doubt, first degree crimes — but we should also try to understand what led to those crimes and what produced such a desperate state of mind in their perpetrators.”
When he was asked if he believed that the establishment of a new Islamic party would succeed where others had failed, Howaidi was optimistic but expressed his inability to answer until the party in fact existed. “There are many people who want to live under a real Islamic system where Muslims will be able to discharge their Islamic obligations within a political framework which constitutionally and legally approves their actions. On the other hand, prohibiting legitimate political activities will be an invitation to clandestine operations with all the risks inherent in secrecy. The proposed Islamic party would accommodate all Muslims and non-Muslims with full rights; it would be above sectarian and ethnic considerations and operate beyond national boundaries.”
In Howaidi’s view, there must be a clear distinction between a legitimate struggle for rights and acts of terrorism. “Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Jihad Al-Islami are groups fighting against the occupation of their native lands and defending themselves.” Howaidi consequently voiced his fears that an unfair settlement in Palestine would serve no cause except to exacerbate tensions in the region.
