I think there are two seperate issues here: the efficacy of drone attacks, and potential terrorist attacks on the UK by Pakistani nationals.

I don’t think the drone attacks are effective and, as you say, they are killing more civilians than terrorists. They should stop for those reasons alone.

However, the drone attacks are fuck-all to do with attacks on the UK, which will continue whether or not the drone attacks continue, or whether or not the UK condemns them. They are simply the latest excuse for nihilistic attacks on the West by psychotic racists who would otherwise be ‘justifying’ their atrocities in terms of some other grievance.

Linking both issues simply grants them credance.

I want to agree with you, but the evidence you’re pulling together seems pretty weak. Here’s one question from the poll you link as showing the unpopularity of the drone attacks:

Do you think anti-American feelings in the area increased due to drone attacks recently? (Yes 42%, No 58%)

The tectonic plates of Islam seem to be in conflict in Sudan, Nigeria, Phillipines, Thailand, India, Nepal. There is also the persecution of Christians and their dhimmi-status in Egypt, Tuirkey,Iraq,Pakistan, Iran.
Not to mention in several westerrn countries and strangely enough Malmo, Sweden. a country which is anti-Israeli, neutral , welfare.generous and rabidly anti-racist to the point where anti-Muslim sentiments can ruin you.both legally and ocasionally physically,with the assistance of Goverment ( blind-eye ) sanctioned attacks by the Swedish ” anarchists ? “.
it must become evident eventually that Islam has a propulsion all of its own , and is not neccessarily, freedom-fighter, Che Guevara-status, protector of the oppressed third world masses that its brilliant and perceptive proaganda machine would have us believe.
I am against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and believe that pulling out would do more to defeat the Islamic movement than staying, The West would be blamed naturally for any follow-on conseqences as a result of any withdrawl .
Bit of a damned if you do–or don,t .

Dan O’Huiginn,

Yeah, I possibly should’ve used a different link, but I was short on time and that was the closest thing to hand. As it states in the link, that poll was conducted exclusively in those parts of FATA which are currently under Taliban control, and you’re bound to get different results when you expand it to the rest of Pakistan. The biggest difference is that people in FATA are more receptive to drone attacks because they have experience of having their territory violated by the Taliban. Beyond that region, the feeling is very different; last year, World Public Opinion reported that 72% of people surveyed believed that US military presence was a critical threat to Pakistan. (http://tinyurl.com/ch8fhx)

Shatterface,

However, the drone attacks are fuck-all to do with attacks on the UK, which will continue whether or not the drone attacks continue, or whether or not the UK condemns them. They are simply the latest excuse for nihilistic attacks on the West by psychotic racists who would otherwise be ‘justifying’ their atrocities in terms of some other grievance.

I’d agree with that. I think stopping the drone attacks might help Pakistan’s security situation, and given the links between our two countries, that’s helpful for us as well, but you’re right that these crackpots plotting carnage can invent any number of reasons for why their murders are justified because they’re thoroughly irrational.

But it’s worth repeating that there are good reasons to stop the drone attacks other than the vain hope this might prevent attacks here in the future: they are a sign of impotent rage, not purposeful engagement. They make the US look weak.

The thing with Pakistan is, my British Pakistani friend tells me, is that they don’t know what they want for their country. They”d much prefer blaming everyone, India, the UK, the US, for their fate but they won’t ever blame themselves, nor do they show signs of ever fighting for their democracy.

They need to realise that the Taliban is the real enemy here and only then can Pakistan succeed.

I’d say bring back Musharraf – he seemed to know what he was doing.

Journeyman
Can you please take your anti-Muslim rhetoric somewhere where it’s wanted. Indonesia and Malaysia are good examples of what the Muslim world can do. And as for Sweden, I’d prefer to live there than here.

Actually, I think the title of this article is part of the problem. There is nothing ‘we’ can do. No concession we make will stop terrorist attacks and anything we do to aid Pakistan will be interpreted as aggressive, colonialist or whatever.

Pakistan is beyond OUR help, it’s up to other countries without our shared history. We’re not responsible for every sparrow that falls and it’s egotistical to think otherwise.

The problem with “finding out what they want and giving it to them” is that it only encourages them to want something else.

The attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team suggests to me that at least some of these terrorists have no political goals but are opposed to the existence of secular culture as such.

Actually, I think the title of this article is part of the problem. There is nothing ‘we’ can do. No concession we make will stop terrorist attacks and anything we do to aid Pakistan will be interpreted as aggressive, colonialist or whatever.

When I first posted this over at my own blog, it was titled “Attack of the Drones”. It’s since been changed because, well, the editors like my blogging, but really hate my blog titles. I take your point, though.

Pakistan is beyond OUR help, it’s up to other countries without our shared history. We’re not responsible for every sparrow that falls and it’s egotistical to think otherwise.

Well, we’re engaged by virtue of the fact that we invaded Afghanistan. This sense of isolationism doens’t help – though I much prefer talking with people than bombing them to hell.

I would prefer the US remains there and tries to stabilise Afghanistan because a resurgent Taliban would bring Pakistan and India closer to war. That is much worse than the current scenario.

However, the drone attacks are fuck-all to do with attacks on the UK, which will continue whether or not the drone attacks continue, or whether or not the UK condemns them.

I don’t think it’s that clear-cut. The existence of the Taliban and the general sense of chaos makes it easier for the al-Qaeda elements to build up their support – which in turn makes it easier for terrorists who want to attack us.

Shafiq is right though – I don’t think Pakistanis themselves know what they want a whole…

Pakistan lacks both the will and the resources to deal with these groups on its own

If the Pakistani government can’t act, and the US doesn’t, who does that leave?

The drone attacks continue not because anyone likes them, but because no one has been able to think of anything better.

I am not sure that stabilising the country is possible given the size of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan-the resources that it would take to effectively police the border and prevent further incursions and support from the tribal areas in Pakistan would be prohibitive given the current political situation in NATO (In particular the apparent reluctance of some EU countries to supply further units and the limits on operations that existing units can take part in). Without effective policing of the border and because of the size of the country hit and run attacks will always be rife.

Depressingly, the chances of decisively “winning” the war given both the current political situation in Pakistan are slim but having invaded the country we are now responsible for it-a good case for thinking long term rather than rushing in with no real plan for the morning after.

Sorry, Sunny but it’s partly the fact that we invaded Afghanistan which makes us unsuited to help Pakistan. Any attempt to help Pakistan will be seen as colonialist. Let a moderate Muslim country step in and help. Sometimes you have to accept the world is not ours to police anymore: sometimes we’re just part of the problem.

shatterface – not denying that sometimes we are part of the problem.

However, I was for the invasion of Afghanistan in that it presented an opportunity to the US to the goodwill it had been bestowed after 9/11 to oust the Taliban and help put in a genuinely progressive govt in association with other moderate Muslim govts and the UN. I also believe the Taliban were hell-bent on destabilising South Asia to incite war between India and Pakistan – another reason why I supported the invasion. Taliban are scum, and frankly I doubt many Muslim countries have the capability let alone willingness to take them on. Pakistan has been supporting them for far too long.

Pakistanis don’t have a clear sense of what they want because Pakistani nationalism was an driven by one elite grouping in the Indian subcontinent. The “idea” of Pakistan has never had a firm footing (Stephen Cohen).

Britain and the USA will fail if they try to meddle too much with local politics.

What they can do is concentrate on promoting good governance at the state level. Primarily, they can go after low-hanging fruit: healthcare and education. Pakistan overspends on the military exactly what it underspends on the former two, and military spending is partially tied up with Kashmir-Pakistan spends so much militarily just to keep up with India’s ever-rising budgets. AfPak isn’t a fully resolvable situation without resolution of the Kashmir conflict, and an eventual waning of the ISI’s influence.

Building schools will keep kids out of non-state controlled madrassas, a lot of which are probably still funded from the UK (had two jerks knock on my door asking for money, refusing to speak English just yesterday).

The Taliban is opposed to the West almost by definition. Pakistan is a failed state. In order to prop up the Pakistani government we’d have to invest so much money and military force that it would be, to an Islamic observer, indistinguishable from an invasion (or at least a coupe). Pakistan’s government would lose credibility: as far as the Muslim world would be concerned it would be a puppet government. That’s just going to inflame the situation.

And I suspect you are right that we wouldn’t be in this mess if we’d made a better job of Afghanistan but unfortunately we diverted our resources to Iraq instead.

Incidentally, I take ‘isolationism’ to mean withdrawing from international affairs because of cost, whether in terms of money or the lives of troops. That’s not what I’m advocating.

I’m just recognizing the way the rest of the world sees us rather than the way we would like them to see us. Let’s not make a bad situation worse.

I made similar arguements where Mugabe was concerned. Sometimes we have to recognize we are the wrong people to help out and look to someone else to step in.

The UK, US and NATO need to be a lot clearer about their strategic objectives in Afghanistan – and, by extension, Pakistan. That’s where Neil’s article is quite right, but unfortunately that key point seems to have become obscured in the discussion.

What is our goal?

Can we achieve it?

How will we know when we have achieved it?

Until we have good answers to all three questions, we are just getting our own soldiers and plenty of innocent bystanders killed in a spasm of self-importance.

After 9/11, there was a pressing reason and clear legal justification for invading Afghanistan: to destroy an organisation that had attacked a NATO member. Installing a progressive government in Afghanistan was a bloody stupid objective, reeking of imperial hubris. As it happened, we screwed up, allowing the forces we were we were at war with to escape into Pakistan. At that point, we had no reasonable military objective in Afghanistan, although we could reasonably feel a moral obligation to undertake substantial humanitarian relief.

In principle, we might use the same justification we used in Afghanistan to argue for an invasion of Pakistan. In practice, there are all sorts of reasons not to do that. They have nukes. We might well get our arses kicked in conventional warfare. Many of our citizens have close family connections to Pakistan. We would suffer the mother of all blowback, and destabilise the entire region with unpredictable, and possibly calamitous, results. Lots of people would die, out of all proportion to our goal.

So, step back and look at our strategic objectives. Our conflict is with Al Qaeda (and any entity similarly inclined to kill and terrorise our citizens). We should try to defeat them by the most effective means available – which are not generally military. We should cease military action that fails to advance that objective.

@Shafiq
” Journeyman,Can you please take your anti-Muslim rhetoric somewhere where its wanted ”

Anti-religious rhetoric actually. I,m an Atheist. I not very keen on Christianity either,and risk accusations of anti-Christian rhetoric.

” Indonesia and Maylasia are good examples of what the Muslim world can do.”

A definate improvement,but check out ( Plight of Ex-Muslim Christians in Maylasia- youtube.)

” and as for Sweden, I,d prefer to live there than here ”

If you did, there would be no need to censure people like me.

My apologies to the staff for getting “of topic”,but I thought i,d answer.

@Shafiq
Sorry, my fault,I should have elaborated at comment 3.
My point being,and relevant to the article–that Islam being in conflict in so many locations that do not seem connected with American-British policy in Afghanistan-Pakistan, one can,t help wondering as the author Niel Robertson writes,

“what do would- be terrorists want from us “.
” and if we give it to them ,will they stop plotting to blow us up “.

One expession I fell over recently,which might describe whatever the West does or doesn,t do,everywhere and anywhere concerning its relationship with Islam is–” imperfect options “.
Meaning that there will always be a grievance, be it the Crusades that pushed Islam back over the French border and from the gates of Vienna or the results of the West miraculously deciding to become isolationist and the chaos resulting from such an inviting power vacuum.
I am against any Western involvement in Islamic affairs,but we cannot turn the clock back.
One must begin to wonder at some point,if ” micro-management”, foreign policy-tuck in a bit here , and let out a bit here is no more than the continuing exercise in total wishfull thinking and self-delusion.
The politicians are no wiser than the general public. Running round like a bunch of headless chickens for the last 20 years,clapping with joy and relief everytime they think they have fallen over a ” moderate “.
Capital, Multi-National Corporations, Energy, Wahabism , Weapon contracts ; O.I.C , Knights of the round European Council table, and appeasment for money.

Please excuse a few short observations

“Britain isn’t involved in the US’ bombings” – surely it is NATO that is fighting in Afghanistan? Briatin is involved. You shall be known by your friends…

Secondly, I amnot sure that we can solve Pakistan’s problems when our analysis is focussed solely on how they impact us. Any solution thatworks must be driven by the needs of the pakistani people. That is called democracy. Pakistan should give it a real go. To the extent such solutions suit our needs we can facilitate, to the extent they run counter toour interests,we can push back diplomatically. Looking at what suits us (a nice quiet life) and deciding how to achieve this – by concession or by force – is not a way forward.

I do worry that Pakistan is about to be labelled “basket case” by the global business community. Does it matter if it then slips away economically and like Eastern Europe becomes the poor neighbour? It matters because of the misery and suffering for the people.

@ Journeyman

I apologise, your post sounded like it was one of the usual hate-filled ones written by others.

As for your comment on terrorists, what you say does have an element of truth to it. There are people in the Muslim world that want to kill as many Westerners as they can (well, get others to blow themselves up and kill westerners in the process i.e. Bin Laden and upper-level terrorists); but there are many others that are persuaded to to blow themselves up by bin Laden & co, and because of Western intervention in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and because of the US supporting dictators such as the Saudi Royals and Hosni Mubarak.

If the West stopped intervening, there’d still be some West-hating Muslims, but they won’t have anyone prepared to fight.

This explains it better

“We” don’t “do” anything about Pakistan. The recent “terror raids” in Manchester and Liverpool were a very transparent sham designed to get the awful behaviour of police and the ridiculously named Independent police complaints commission in the Ian Tomlinson affair off the front pages. There was no terror. They just rounded up a few innocent dark skinned foreigners in the hope of mobilising the racist vote. Pakistan is none of the business of British politicians and they should leave it alone. As they should Afghanistan and Iraq.

‘If the West stopped intervening,’

The point is, how can you define ‘intervening’ in such a way that it is something that conceivably could stop? How could you tell if it did? And if you did, would that artificial definition really map well to the issues that drive local anger?

The ‘west’ does sells arms to Saudi Arabia, and doesn’t sell arms to Hamas. It does buy oil from Iran, and (for a time) didn’t buy it from Saddam’s Iraq. All of those are or were generally seen locally as interventions, and _reversing all those decisions would be, or would be seen as, interventions too_.

There is no single thing Obama could to do that would undercut the Islamist greivance narrative more than some reasonable but blunt warning of non-military sanctions on Israel if it continues down it’s current path. But that would unquestionably be an intervention.

Legitimacy, fairness and, above all, success are the issues that matter. Is something the right thing to do, will it be perceived as such, will it succeed, and is it affordable?

Not trying to act as if we lived in a world where we didn’t exist.

SHAFIQ says: Indonesia and Malaysia are good examples of what the Muslim world can do

Whilst I would agree that Journeyman’s comments are “off-piste” and appear anti-muslim, I’m not sure you can blythely state the above, correct me if I’m mistaken (as I may be behind developments in the above named countries, and they are far from being “rogue states”), but isn’t apostacy a punishable offence? Are women treated as equals? Is homosexuality a crime? Whilst I will always support an individual’s right to worship, I will not support a state’s right to subjugate it’s people in the name of faith, people have the right to change religion, women have the right to live outside of the shari’a if they wish do they not?

In short Shafiq, what do you feel is more important; the individuals right to freedom of worship, or the state’s right to enforce one version of religious dogma? Tthe state should facillitate any good muslim’s right to worship in peace, but I don’t feel it should implement religious law outside of those that wish to partake of it. What’s your opinion?

Apostasy is not a punishable offence in both Indonesia and Malaysia. There is discrimination of minorities, but I cited these two countries as examples of how Muslims can make progress (and they are making progress in these areas).

Indonesia is relatively tolerant of homosexuality, Malaysia is not. Women are discriminated against in some areas of both countries, but in comparison to other Muslim and South-East Asian countries, they do have rights and there are many women prominent in politics and business.

About your last question, it’s a tough one, many Muslims in both countries want Shariah to be a source of legislation (though not the only source). I do agree that those people who don’t want Shariah Law shouldn’t have to be subjugated under it, but in the end it’s up to the population of both countries to decide.

Both countries have reconciled themselves with the past, are making decent economic progress, have fully fledged democracies, and are opening up (albeit slowly) to liberal ideas, which all in all, provides other Muslim countries a model to emulate.

Thanks for the correction re: Indonesia (a far more liberal country than malaysia and not my main target) and apostasy, but it’s not so clear cut in Malaysia is it? Article 11 of Malay constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but i thought one still had to apply to a Shari’a court and that permission to renounce Islam (as one’s belief system) was rarely granted?

However, I agree they are better examples of Muslim states than those we are more closely associated with (Saudi Arabia being my chief bug-bear). This raises an important point that should be more of a focus for liberal interventionists (as Sunder Katwala points out elsewhere on this site), that of effective democracy promotion within the ethnically diverse “muslim world”, we can’t claim to whole-heartely support democracy when we have closer governmental ties with one of the world’s most repressive regimes to the marginalisation of nascent democracies.

“I do agree that those people who don’t want Shariah Law shouldn’t have to be subjugated under it, but in the end it’s up to the population of both countries to decide.”

All well and good, and on the face of it an innocent enough observation/ideal, but it misses a key feature of ANY democracy and that is a voice for, as well as constitutional, legal (law enforcement rather) and judicial protection of minorities. If you just let a majority of a population decide that the Shari’a should be fully implemented then you cease to have a democracy and at best have demagoguery and at worse a theocracy with entrenched apartheid-like qualities. Democracy is much, much more than the “will of the majority”. The liberal-left in the “West” needs to be more actively engaged, to promote this more holisitc idea opf democracy…

I agree it’s not so clear cut in Malaysia but as time goes on, I do believe it will go in the direction of Indonesia. One problem with Malaysia is that these matters are decided by state governments and not federal governments, making reforms harder.

Your second paragraph I agree with totally. It makes no sense to say you support democracy and then support repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where the majority of people in both countries want democracy.

Personally, I favour the dual system that is sort of set up in Malaysia, where people who want to live under Shariah Law can do so (if they declare themselves as Muslims) and all others live under a secular system. It seems like a paradox, but Muslims in every Muslim majority country want a state that enshrines freedom of speech, freedom of press, protection of minorities and religious freedom AND have Shariah as a major source of law

NB, I’m changing my name as I’ve noticed another Leon on here, don’t know if he was first, but henceforth I shall be Leon Sheffield

I think the key is to acknowledge states, rather like Israel/Jews, as Muslim states rather than Islamic States (a subtle difference, see Bosnia, or Turkey I suppose as examples, rather than Iran say). The dual system you describe unfortunately leaves you at the mercy of Shari’a courts if you are born muslim, or choose at a later date to become muslim. What about a woman’s right to choose to wear the hijab, or not and still regard herslef a muslim, or a gay’s right to be openly such and still practice Islam (before anyone says being gay is against the Islamic faith, it is also against the Jewish and Christian faiths too, but there are plenty of openly homosexual paople within those religions who are accepted as free to practice as such by middle-of-the-road congregations).

My objection is that the Shari’a is too rigid and discriminatory, people may choose to live under it, but what happens if they change their mind? It ceases to be a meaningful legal system if you can just opt-in and out when you feel like it, but that would be what was necessary to incorporate it into a liberal idea of democracy with freedom of speech, worship and association for all and if that is the case why have it as even part of a dualistic legal system at all?

I suppose it depends on what part of Shariah is implemented. I’d argue that it’s not up to Shariah courts to decide whether a woman should wear a Hijaab or not and as far as I know, although it says women should wear a Hijaab, it doesn’t say that they must be forced to do so or punished otherwise. If you decide you don’t want to be under Shariah, then you simply go to a secular court.

Your point about homosexuality is one that I hear often – what I’d say is that Islam is very clear about it, Homosexuality itself is not forbidden but engaging in homosexual acts is, a subtle but important distinction. If you don’t want to follow Muslim law, then it makes no sense for you to remain Muslim. It’s like me joining and voting for a Nazi party and then complaining if they get into power. One of the reasons why many people are Muslim is because of it’s rigidity, or as I heard a person say, ‘the goalposts don’t keep on changing’. Yes, things can be reinterpreted to make it more relevant, but to allow things that are explicitly forbidden would not be accepted.

An opt-in, opt-out system may seem meaningless, but incorporating Shariah into the legal system is seen as an important obligation of Muslims in Muslim countries. You could have a Palestinian-type system where civil law is dealt with by Shariah and criminal law is dealt with in a Secular way, which would combine the strengths of both systems as Civil law is where Shariah is usually preferred to Secular law

1) Waht meaning does the Shari’a have if you can pop off to the secular court if you don’t like it?

2) From my own personal experience muslims don’t have a one-size fits all approach to life, love and religion; I meet many people for whom the Qu’ran means different things and who place differing emphasis depending on their own spiritual leanings (from Sufi through to hard-line Wahhabites), how can a univeral Islamic law reconcile that? How can you get such different interpretations based on the Shari’a (again Indonesia compared with Saudi Arabia)? Doesn’t that lead to major intellectual problems in devising a legal system, leaving it open to moulding by hardliners? Don’t you have to ask, almost, what kind of Shari’a? It would be my opinion that religious laws should apply only to free followers of a religion, when they feel it’s appropriate, depending on their sect’s emphasis (and that may seem to much of a moving goalpost to others, but I can’t see Sufis being overly keen on strict religio-political dogma). In essence, I suppose I think that religion should be a personal thing about a relationship with God (I’m an atheist btw) that motivates and informs your political activity, without dominating it.

5) “One of the reasons why many people are Muslim is because of it’s rigidity” Well for many more it’s because they were born into it and receive little positive education about alternatives (as with any religious upbringing), you can get rigidity from other sources.

3)If there is just one area of Islamic law you are opposed to, but otherwise consider yourself a “good muslim”, it would seem (on the face of it) that your statement above: “If you don’t want to follow Muslim law, then it makes no sense for you to remain Muslim. It’s like me joining and voting for a Nazi party and then complaining if they get into power.” excludes you from being a muslim. If I can move away from the Nazi party in your analogy to the Labour Party, then you can say something similar, but you can attempt to influence the Labour Party’s direction and policy, you can’t do that with religion. I can say Labour is moving in the wrong direction and be unhappy with it, refuse to agree with it on some issues whilst remaining an active participant. (does that make sense)

4) Islam remains a young faith and hasn’t gone through many of the Schisms and revsions that have effected change in Christianity (yet?). The most comparable faith (whether members of either accept this is another matter!) it seems to me is Judaism, which worldwide varies from strict hasidic orthodoxy to the mainstays of the liberal (and secular) left in America and elsewhere (even allowing for the Wolfowitzes of the world). Do you see the same happening within Islam over the coming century?

1) It has meaning to those that do want it. Are you going to deny Muslims that do want to live by Shariah the chance to do so?

2) You’re second point is an important one, but it can only be addressed once there is a working democratic system that incorporates Shariah Law. Only then can the Shariah legal system evolve into something that most Muslims are happy with. Having said that, I’d argue that there is a middle ground where the vast majority of Muslims place themselves and where there is a traditional definition of what Shariah encompasses. I’d also say that changes to the Shariah system would be made in a similar fashion to the way legislation is passed here.

It’s also interesting that you mention Sufism. Most Sufis are keen supporters of Shariah Law and many early Sufis were also Shariah Court Judges.

3, 4 and 5) My point about the rigidity applied mainly to converts to Islam.

If there’s an area of Islamic Law I’m opposed to, it can be in one of two circumstances:

a) I think the current interpretation is wrong and that Islam is not meant to be that way. In this case, I would voice my disagreement and petition for a change in the law.

b) If I disagree with a particular aspect that is quite explicit in the faith, then I have to question my belief in the faith itself.

To go back to the Party analogy, a case of (a) would be if I thought the part was heading in the wrong direction and that Gordon Brown was the wrong guy to lead the party. A case of (b) would be if I found myself having distinctly right-wing views and if that’s the case, I’m in the wrong party.

As for revisionisms within Islam, I’d argue that there is a limit to how liberal you can get without completely leaving the religion. I just can’t see any major revisionist movements within Islam seeing as everything in the religion has to have a basis in the Qur’an or the Hadith

“Are you going to deny Muslims that do want to live by Shariah the chance to do so?”

clearly I’ve said nothing of the sort and that’s bordering on being an ad hominem argument. I question it as a rigid basis for a legal system in a democracy, but if an individual or group wishes to adhere to it, as long as there is no direct conflict with secular law then no problem.

There is often a middle-ground in most religions, but the most overtly religious states (whether current or historic) have largely adopted strict definitions of religious doctrine as by their nature they come to fruition through the activism of dogmatic minorities, by-passing the moderate majority.

Is religious law as maleable to changes in current thinking as you suggest above “I’d also say that changes to the Shariah system would be made in a similar fashion to the way legislation is passed here”? Surely if a law is based on the perceived word of God then it is inherently incredibly difficult to modify?

With regard to a muslim being opposed to an aspect of shari’a as it stands and petitioning for a change, what happens if the complaint is not upheld? Do they cease to be a muslim even if that one thing is their ONLy objection?

I’m sorry I didn’t mean it like that. My question was meant to say, should Muslims be denied the possibility of living under a Shariah-based legal system, if they so desire?

Your second paragraph is true, but there hasn’t yet been an overtly religious democratic state, and there is no reason why you can’t have one where liberal definitions of religious doctrine form the basis of the legal system.

I would say the religion is extremely malleable, which is why you can have Sufis and extreme Salafis (and everything in-between) claiming to follow the word of God and claiming to have the correct interpretation of the religion. The most obvious example of this is democracy itself – there used to be a belief that it was incompatible with Islam and although some still see it that way, most find it ridiculous.

That’s up to the person to decide. It should be dealt with in the same way any other complaint about the law is dealt with. If I was unhappy with a certain law, I’d petition my MP to get it changed – and if it receives widespread support, the law changes. If I was unhappy with an Islamic Law, I’d petition a parliamentarian to get it changed and come up with a theological justification for it getting changed – and if it receives widespread support, the law changes. If there was no theological justification, then I seriously would have to re-evaluate my beliefs.

They should not be denied, as long as there is no conflict with a national secular law/universal human rights, of course they shouldn’t.

I struggle with the notion of a truly democratic religious nation state (as you may have guessed!), I’m not sure religious orthodoxy (I want to be quite clear that this applies to any religion as far as I’m concerned, but more specifically the Abrahamic religions) sits easily with liberal democratic values. Democracy, at its core, isn’t about majority rule, it’s about fair and equitible representation for all (minorities included), I don’t see how you can reconcile religious law as the cornerstone of national law if you need to protect the rights of out-lying groups (once again homosexuals and women are obvious exemplars). Of course if it’s just civil law for those individuals who choose to live under it, then it’s easier to reconcile, but still represents a challenge. Plus, even if you just had a muslim majority state (to come back to specifics) with Shari’a for muslims only, it still has the potential to create a quasi-apartheid state, with non-muslim minorities at real risk of discrimination (similar to the discrimination suffered by Palestinians/Arabs of Israeli citizenship – ie, there’s no legal discrimination as such, but there is certainly more subtle and institutionally embedded prejudice.). However, saying that I don’t believe that Islam is incompatible with democracy in any way.

Back to your last paragraph; one of the problems with all religions is that you can find justification or apparent justification for most points of view if you look long enough, so you’d have one scholar saying the law shouldn’t be and another saying it should, both using the same holy book.

I’m enjoyinmg the discussion btw!

“I struggle with the notion of a truly democratic religious nation state (as you may have guessed!)”

Yup and I understand why (It’s never been accomplished before). There are a hundred ways it wouldn’t work and only a couple of ways it would.

“Democracy, at its core, isn’t about majority rule, it’s about fair and equitible representation for all (minorities included), I don’t see how you can reconcile religious law as the cornerstone of national law if you need to protect the rights of out-lying groups (once again homosexuals and women are obvious exemplars).”

I think your reservations about majority rule can be applied to Western democratic states to. I’d assume that women’s rights and the rights of homosexuals would evolve in a similar way to how they evolved here. Women would have to be an important part of the democratic process, if it is ever to work.

“Plus, even if you just had a muslim majority state (to come back to specifics) with Shari’a for muslims only, it still has the potential to create a quasi-apartheid state, with non-muslim minorities at real risk of discrimination (similar to the discrimination suffered by Palestinians/Arabs of Israeli citizenship – ie, there’s no legal discrimination as such, but there is certainly more subtle and institutionally embedded prejudice.). ”

I suppose the government would have to step in to ensure that there isn’t a quasi-apartheid state. An example here would be Palestinians in the West Bank – the Muslims and Christians do everything together, they live together, go to the same schools, hospitals and even celebrate religious festivals together (e.g. the Orthodox St. George’s Day last weekend). The only separating point would be which court they go to to resolve civil law issues.

“ne of the problems with all religions is that you can find justification or apparent justification for most points of view if you look long enough, so you’d have one scholar saying the law shouldn’t be and another saying it should, both using the same holy book.”

That is true, which is where elected representatives would step-in. If you have to opposite points of view, it would be up to the legislature to decide, which one becomes law. And then the Supreme Court would be able to decide whether this law abides by principles of equality and justice for all.

I didn’t know how to block quote so it looks a bit messy, sorry.

And I’m enjoying this conversation too. You really have made me think about all the different issues that could arise.

“I suppose the government would have to step in to ensure that there isn’t a quasi-apartheid state”

That’s incredibly difficult for a government to do, because by defending minorities it risks losing voters from the majority. People need constitutional protection and easy recourse to legal redress. YOu need robust “enlightenment” institutions for that. Once again, using Israel as an example, there is no legal or constitutional apartheid state; ie, Arab/Palestinian Israelis have full citizenship rights (until Netanyahu gets his way) and voting rights and full access (legally) to the justice system. The only (arguably) racist postition is immigration, yet there is still entrenched discrimination against Israeli Palestinians not living in the territories.

I suppose my point here is that a constitutionally secular state (with that one immigration provision) struggles, depsite the efforts of many Jewish (as well as Palestinian Israelis) citizens to prevent a slide into easy/lazy discrimination and that would be even more difficult for an overtly religious state, as by the very nature of religion, followers, on one-level, see themselves as superior, morally, to followers of an alternative religions or no-religion.Does that make sense?

“I’d assume that women’s rights and the rights of homosexuals would evolve in a similar way to how they evolved here.”

I think, in the modern world, to many rights are seen as universal to let them evolve in an organic way, too many people’s lives/livelihoods are at stake for that. These have to be enshrined from the outset if any religious democracy wants to be taken seriously…

However, you’re beginning to map out the basis of a constitution for a religious state. I don’t think we’ve arrived at a democratic one yet…

I don’t know what block quoting is…

I’m confused because I don’t see the difference between a government in my ‘religious democratic state’ and a government in a normal secular state protecting minorities. Both would come under the same problems such as risking losing voters.

What ‘enlightenment’ institutions are there in a secular state that wouldn’t be in existence in a religious state? Simple measures such as making sure schools aren’t segregated on religious lines would help a lot (In Israel, the vast majority of schools are Arab-only or Jewish-only and so are the neighbourhoods).Most Jewish people in Israel have never met any Israeli-Arabs and if you don’t know someone, it’s easy to hate them. Maybe it’s just me who’s not getting the difference.

“I think, in the modern world, to many rights are seen as universal to let them evolve in an organic way, too many people’s lives/livelihoods are at stake for that. These have to be enshrined from the outset if any religious democracy wants to be taken seriously…”

That is true, but in most Muslim societies (as well as others), just implanting a democratic state whether religious or secular, is not going to end years of prejudice. In an ideal world, people would know to respect others, but in reality, it doesn’t work like that. Constitutions can enshrine rights but that doesn’t mean things are going to change overnight (this is true again for both religious and secular) – the US constitution and discrimination against Blacks being a great example, the constitution was clear that all men were born equal but Americans were still supportive of segregation.

“However, you’re beginning to map out the basis of a constitution for a religious state. I don’t think we’ve arrived at a democratic one yet…”

My vision of a democratic religious constitution would be very similar to the current US one. You have the Checks and Balances and the rights of each person written in the constitution: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Equality for all, No Discrimination. The only difference would be is that the government, in addition to ruling over the state, would also be the central religious authority. They’d pass Islamic law as well as Secular law

“I don’t see the difference between a government in my ‘religious democratic state’ and a government in a normal secular state protecting minorities.”

That demonstrates that you’re an open-minded liberal and you are to be applauded for it. However, what I’m trying to say, is that religious doctrine overtly (and subtextually) places the believer as morally superior to the “other”, leading to further (often subconscious) prejudice in a lot of people (this is a potentially natural outcome when you are brought up within an orthodox religion). This makes it harder for the state to fight prejudice. Nation states have similar problems with foreign nationals and races, but they don’t have the additional baggage of percieved religious/moral superiority (religious states have both of these scenarios to deal with – ie the probelms of the trad. nation state adn the religious state) making it that much harder.

“What ‘enlightenment’ institutions are there in a secular state that wouldn’t be in existence in a religious state?”

Presently, all of them, as there isn’t a democratic religious state. Plus to a man of faith the law of God is higher than the law of man. Enlightenment institutions are about the law of man and are inherently separate from God. My problem isn’t so much their existence in a religious democracy, just their moral authority.

“Simple measures such as making sure schools aren’t segregated on religious lines would help a lot”

We can’t even do that here. Some people want overtly religious educations for their kids. Personally, I think religion has no place in education, it has no role to play. People can receive their religious instruction at home, in a church, a church group, temple, synagogue, or mosque.

“Constitutions can enshrine rights but that doesn’t mean things are going to change overnight (this is true again for both religious and secular)”

True, but change doesn’t have to happen in the HEARTS of men overnight, just in the LAWS of men. Again, for me the issue is reconciling religious doctrine with universal human rights.

“the US constitution and discrimination against Blacks being a great example, the constitution was clear that all men were born equal but Americans were still supportive of segregation.”

Technically the US constitution initially valued a “negro” at 3 fifths of a man, until the 14th (in 1868) and the 15th (in 1870) amendment and then it took 100 years for segregation to legally end. I don’t want to see a religious democracy start from a backward position. Start with equal rights and see how quickly people catch up.

“They’d pass Islamic law as well as Secular law”

Do you not see that as a potentially “sticky-wicket”, wouldn’t other muslim majority states (as well as muslims in non-majority states) take umbridge at a distant nation “changing” religious law? I think if we ever see a religious democracy it will be Islamic, but if we could come back 100 years later I think you’d see something uncannily similar to current traditional democracies, as people are given more freedom, they want more freedom and eventually religious law would fall away as national law.

I think I’d be much happier if we could all live in secular democracies, where people are free to pursue their own paths (within reason obviously). And as you pointed out, your verfsion of a religious democracy isn’t too different from secular democracy…

I think I finally understand what you mean by the in-built religious prejudice and I suppose it just means these hypothetical religious states would have to work harder to ensure it doesn’t happen.

“Plus to a man of faith the law of God is higher than the law of man. Enlightenment institutions are about the law of man and are inherently separate from God. My problem isn’t so much their existence in a religious democracy, just their moral authority.”

I think in the case of Muslims today, most still put the law of God above the law of man, whether they live in a secular state or a religious one, and by institutionalising the religion, you prevent it from being hijacked by extremists.

“Some people want overtly religious educations for their kids. Personally, I think religion has no place in education, it has no role to play. People can receive their religious instruction at home, in a church, a church group, temple, synagogue, or mosque.”

This is something we agree on. I’ve always been opposed to faith schools as they damage community relations and in this ideal state, you would have strictly secular schools with religious instruction taking place after school.

“Start with equal rights and see how quickly people catch up.”

I agree. Put it in the constitution so it can’t be changed. I do think however, that this would work in both a secular and religious state and that neither would result in a magic bullet where the area was rid of prejudice.

“Do you not see that as a potentially “sticky-wicket”, wouldn’t other muslim majority states (as well as muslims in non-majority states) take umbridge at a distant nation “changing” religious law?”

It’s happening already. Saudi Arabia ‘changes’ religious law all the time but if you like it, you follow it, if you don’t then you do whatever you want. A state like this that works would provide a model for other Muslim states to follow, so eventually they’d end up in the same position.

“as people are given more freedom, they want more freedom and eventually religious law would fall away as national law”

That could indeed be the case.

“I think I’d be much happier if we could all live in secular democracies, where people are free to pursue their own paths (within reason obviously). And as you pointed out, your verfsion of a religious democracy isn’t too different from secular democracy…”

I understand why. The problem I have is that Muslims today, would probably not accept a secular democratic state like we see here; A religious democratic state would be much more palatable and it would (in my opinion) speed up the liberalisation of Islam.

I also think that the idea of a religious democratic state would speed up the adoption of democracy in Muslim nations, most of whom are still incredibly authoritarian.