[jinnzaman]

D. In those states that have no Islamist parties, but have attempted to uphold Islamic law, their have been foreign influence as well (Afghanistan and the Apostasy debacle)

The fourth empirical problem with arguing that the Shari’ah should be subjected to vote is that in those elections where Islamists have won, they were either kicked out or marginalized by foreign powers. The best illustration of this pattern is in Palestine’s first major elections following the demise of Yasser Arafat. In the January 2006 elections, HAMAS won a large majority of the seats in the Palestinian parliament. Out of the 132 available seats, it won 76 seats whereas the next largest party, Fatah, received only 43 seats. The US and Israel responded by freezing tens of millions of dollars in aid and didn’t unfreeze it until a civil conflict erupted between Fatah and HAMAS. The US then began sending over $150 million in direct cash transfers to the Palestinian authority in order to bolster Mahmoud Abbas while Israel went so far as to release $800 million in Palestinian tax revenues that they had withheld when HAMAS had won the elections. The US also began sending $40 million of emergency aid to various humanitarian organizations in Gaza in order to undermine HAMAS further. The strategy worked and HAMAS, the democratically elected political party of the Palestinian people, has been caged off in Gaza. This illustrates that even if Islamist parties were to actually win seats, foreign interference in the form of economic sanctions, boycotts, or counter-funding strategies will be used to subvert the popular will of the Muslim people who seek the Islamization of their society.

E. In those states that have popular Islamist movements, they have been subjected to foreign influence as well (Afghanistan under the Taliban, Somalia, now Sudan)

Fifthly, in those states where Islamists have actually acquired dominance, they have been subject to foreign influence as well, such as how the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the UIC in Somalia have been overthrown. Somalia is a more pertinent example given the weakness of the alleged links to terrorism. The UIC brought organized government to a country that had been racked by anarchy and civil strife for over a decade. They re-opened Mogadishu Airport and Seaport after being close for almost a decade, and fought fought pirates that were preventing food aid from coming into the country, opposed the destruction of the environment, and banned the use of narcotic substances. Nonetheless, the US through the CIA funneled thousands of dollars over a period of several months in order to support warlords who opposed the Islamization of the country. This illustrates that even where Islamists attain power in a just manner and unify countries torn by civil wars and anarchy, foreign powers will nonetheless interfere to stop the Islamization of the country.

F. In those states that Islamists have won, they have achieved remarkable progress, especially financially (Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia)

The final criticism that democrats have of Islamists is that, even if they were to win these elections, they would not have a viable program for economic growth for their constituencies. This argument has many flaws with it. The first problem with this argument is that the purpose of Islam as a whole is not the acquisition of material goods, but worshipping Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) as he deserves to be worshipped. While work is promoted under the Islamic worldview, the accumulation of wealth is looked down upon to the extent that Islamic law establishes many practices that redistribute wealth. In addition to this problem, the empirical evidence indicates that Islamists have faired well in the economic sector. In fact, one of the reasons for the popularity of Islamist groups such as Ikhwan, Hizbullah, and Jamat e Islami is their ability to generate funds which are distributed for humanitarian organizations. Ikhwan al Muslimeen has established 4,000 NGOs in Egypt alone and has dominated Egypt’s professional unions. The overwhelming majority of Islamist groups are comprised of working professionals and entrepreneurs such as doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc. (p 33-34, “Making Islam Democratic” by Asef Bayat)
Turkey’s Justice and Development party grew out of the Islamist welfare party which was forcibly dismantled by a coup d’etat in 1997. In the 2004 election, the AKP won 42% of the popular vote, beating out the secular Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Social Democratic People’s Party. In 2005, the GDP growth rate for the country was 7.4%, making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world thanks to the fair market values espoused by the AKP. (Source)

IV. Conclusion

The general trends seem to indicate that the masses want some degree of Islamization and political empowerment and Islamists have been able to fulfill these demands in the few political arenas that they are allowed to enter. However, due to corrupt elites colluding with foreign powers, these political successes are reduced. If the course that the Ummah seeks to embark on is a path of democratization, then we must become aware of those situations where democratization is not really about popular empowerment but about minimal political participation that conforms to the global capitalist system. Those who seek to promote democracy must realize the severe limitations that such a path would take and must realize that in some situations, they are working against the sovereignty of there people instead of supporting it.
If democratization is a waste of time, some might argue to scrap the program entirely. Instead of the ballot, why don’t Islamists simply adopt the bullet? The problem with violent revolution is that the Shari’ah, according to Sunni orthodoxy, is severely limited. In those situations where Islamists have engaged in popular revolt (Algeria, Syria, Pakistan), they have failed to whip up popular support and their actions have denigrated into either a quick bloodbath or a cycle of violence that creates disillusionment from even their constituents. It is in the best interests of the Ummah, then, that Islamists submit themselves to the rule of law, whether Islamic or Western. If legal means exist to amend social injustices, then Islamists should utilize those means. If there are no legal means, they should engage in a thorough political campaign of agitation using non-violent means. The only circumstance where the Shari’ah permits violence is when rulers have clearly and unequivocally apostated. This apostasy must be open enough that it begins to affect the very nature of the state. Such judgments are reserved for experts in the religious sciences, the fuqaha and independent judges. The overwhelming majority of them have declined to engage in takfeer of rulers.

Unfortunately, this leaves little room for addressing social injustices. Nonetheless, Islamists must utilize whatever Islamically lawful means they can to promote their agenda. Violent revolution is counterproductive and undermines the legitimacy of the Islamist vision. If the end is to promote Shari’ah, the means must be in conformity with the Shari’ah as well. Islamists should not engage in compromises of their values for short term political success. Moreover, it would contravene the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) to impose the Shari’ah from the state in a top-down manner. Islamists should focus on building Muslim characters, promoting family values, engaging in promoting the good and forbidding the evil, reviving the Sacred Sciences, promoting Halal commercial ventures, and applying pressure on elites and political actors to Islamize by arguing with them in the best of manners. While the ballot may not provide immediate realization of the Islamist dream, the bullet will produce only nightmares.