|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Where tradition is strongest, this more or less is a drag on the development of the movement of renewal. But where the socialist forces have undermined the traditionalist establishment, they seem to have paved the way for the development of the Islamic movement which can now represent Islam in the eyes of the masses without any competition.
Where the movement was allowed freedom, it articulated and developed its agenda in interaction with public opinion and it observed an evolutionary approach to Islam, advocating a gradual implementation of Islam in order not to disrupt the stability of society already in order to formulate even better the models of Islam. It has also strictly observed the rules of the democratic game. But where it was repressed-and this is the more general pattern, it-s one of repression-it had little time to interact with public opinion, and its intellectual development was frustrated and it-s still at the phase of being an apologetic, emotional movement that advocates principles rather than programs and blueprints. Normally its broken down in smaller groups, and in some cases revolutionary thought became popular in cases of extreme repression. There are many common features to these movements. Most of them are modernist movements because they are led by the elite, their thought is generally liberal. In some areas, there is a factor of traditional Islamic thought, but this is more so in traditional monarchic societies. The movements are democratically organized, they don't follow the traditional pattern of a spiritual leader and a number of followers, but their internal democratic life is inhibited by the ear of secrecy that they have to observe to protect themselves against repression. They are mostly universalist in their spirit, more so because they are led by elites, who are universal in their outlook. The eastern flank of Africa is more international perhaps, whereas in the Maghreb, in the western part of north Africa, the movement is more nationalist and is more focused on the domestic scene. But there is no common organization, there is no central command for Islamic movements. The Arabic movement is relatively closely linked, but for the rest, these movements only interact through conferences and through exchange of literature. Those movements which have developed sufficiently and which were allowed to present their program did develop an economic program which lays strong emphasis on institutions of social justice and of solidarity, but their outlook generally is liberal. They don't go for the socialist agenda of nationalization, price control and whatever socialism may represent. Actually, as activists, intellectually they are in some way reacting against the socialists. They have developed also a political agenda where they were allowed to express their opinion. They believe in the supremacy of law, the supreme law of Islam, not only as a check to the absolute power of government, but also as a limit to the functions that government should undertake. In the values of Islam, the individual freedom is not just a license, but it's also an obligation that each individual, he owes it to his God to develop an independent viewpoint and contribute it effectively, and the state has to allow that much. And it's also a value in Islam that society has to be autonomous of the state and has to undertake most of public functions, except those which have to be left to the state. In politics they also emphasize a strong moral agenda to stamp the corruption in the administration and in the elective process in particular. They accept the plurality process where decision making is through debate and through voting and elections, but they always prefer a spirit of consensus rather than one of conflict and confrontation. Their impact on political stability has been rather controversial because they do represent a new order, a phase of social change, and the established order sometimes being very intolerant, sees them, sees the Islamists as, if not a threat to stability, at least a negative force in public life. But the more enlightened establishments have probably accommodated these movements and have allowed them to play their part in socio-political activities. Perhaps it's too early for many West African Islamic movements to have an impact on public life or on policy of the sort I have just described. With respect to religious minorities, there has been absolutely no tension between these movements, revivalist mementos and other religious minorities. In fact, the de-Islamization of Islamic societies has brought about some tension because religion has come to be viewed as a label of contrast with the other, rather than a spirit and a substance that probably draws Muslims and non-Muslims, especially Christians, even closer to each other. But these movements have advocated a status for minorities which is very liberal. Drawing on precedents from Islamic history, they think that minorities are entitled not only to the freedom of religion and of religious practice but also to cultural autonomy, even to a measure of legal autonomy, in the sense of decentralizing the Shari'a law, to respond to different majorities in different regions of the same country. Islam, of course, also teaches not only tolerance of minorities, but positive relationship based on justice and benevolence. 
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
