No religious current can claim a monopoly on social values, but this truth seems to have escaped Islamists who have risen to prominence on the back of the Arab Spring, writes Azmi Ashour* The Islamisation of politics and culture is a subject that merits serious study as it has become a major factor in the shaping of people's mentalities and behaviour in society, to which testify the majorities won by Islamist parties in the recent elections that have been held in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco. The issue is not Islam, per se, as a component of culture, for Islam is one of the religions that elevated humanity and humanitarianism. Rather, what is worrisome is the increasing prevalence of processes of theological interpretations and religious judgments that are rooted in the past, regardless of their validity or their appropriateness to the present, and the scarcity of contemporary religious jurisprudence that reflects an awareness of the laws of social and human evolution. The Quran, itself, contains many verses that underscore the need to learn from history and to derive the laws and lessons of experience. It follows that the attempt on the part of some to monopolise religion and to use it to force time to stop and to pen society's intellect and outlook on life in a period in the distant past conflicts with the general principles and values of Islam. The process of freezing a society in an ancient epoch casts to the fore many issues, not least of which is the tendency to suspend the mind on matters that require us to exercise our intellect and to fall back on handed down religious interpretations and judgements that were informed by the circumstances and conditions in which they were issued. In this regard, it is important to draw a distinction between the principles and values that are enshrined in religions such as Islam, and the realm of human ideas that evolves with change and cumulative developments. The former are essentially connected with human nature and the human condition, and therefore remain as valid today as they were in the past. For example, the values of justice and freedom are connected to innate and inalienable rights and, although they have suffered setbacks in the course of history, they have always oriented mankind's compass even at the darkest moments of tyranny and injustice. No nation or society can claim a monopoly on the history of human values. It is the property of all mankind and it was enriched not only by the revealed religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) but also by the world's other religions and the experiences of the succession of human civilisations for thousands of years, including those that preceded the revealed religions. The universal laws as they function in the pulls and thrusts in human societies are not so much connected with the birth of religions as they are with the very beginning of creation. That is the moment they went into effect and so they have remained until now, whether or not they agree with theological judgments (bearing in mind that not all theological judgments are necessary correct). For example, the pursuit of livelihood is not solely a concern of a class of people that subscribes to a particular faith, or the affiliates of the revealed religions, or even the faithful as opposed to the godless. It is a universal concern because it stems from the laws of life that dictate that people need to work in order to survive. This is only logical because if there is one creator responsible for the organic form and composition of human beings, then there must be universal laws, as opposed to manmade laws, that apply to all human beings without exception. This unity of universal laws that govern all mankind puts paid to the notion that any single group or class has the right to monopolise religion. Moreover, in light of this universality, religions become more in the nature of guiding beacons that shed light on various issues and matters over time and that are intended to steer mankind towards the discovery of its essential being. Perhaps the first principle that all these religions affirm is freedom -- not just freedom from tyranny and oppression but also freedom of intellect, in the sense that the faithful should believe in the creator through reason and persuasion, not simply by conforming with others. Unfortunately, the pietism we see today has become a form of pressured conformity, and as this phenomenon spread along with the proliferation of theological rigidity against a backdrop of widespread poverty and ignorance, religion has become a tool for stripping people of their powers of reason and their will and turning them into submissive and gullible sheep who are not only unable to discern sound interpretations from casuistic ones, but also unable to detect the myths on which the latter are often based. It is little wonder that those who speak in the name of both the people and religion have acquired such power and authority over ordinary people. The burgeoning of religious authority has assumed various forms both inside and outside the religious establishment, aided by the proliferation of political Islam in the form of groups and camps that base their legitimacy on a monopolisation of religion and an antiquated doctrinairism, and that are willing to exploit a weak, ignorant and politically and socially suppressed populace in order to spread ideas that they would never have been able to market in a more enlightened and empowered society. As a result, religion and its associated rites, beliefs and practices have become instruments to mobilise the masses behind the agendas of self- acclaimed religious authorities. The history of ideas informs us that sound ideas automatically find their way into acceptance and practice with no need for compulsion. Perhaps the most prominent item on both moderate and extremist Islamist groups' agenda is the call to resurrect the Islamic caliphate. Many loose and ambiguous terms and ideas have paraded beneath this calling, none of which have the slightest bearing on the Western reality that they claim to reject. Contemporary political philosophy in the West distinguishes between two senses of government: one concerns the substance of the governing process and the conduct of the affairs of society, the other the form of government. With regard to the first, we find that solid humanitarian values, such as justice and freedom, have been essentially institutionalised in the culture and codes of behaviour of society. The effect of this has been to make this culture and the institutions that embody it the custodian of the form of the governing process. Consequently, the person of the ruler is subordinate to this cultural system. He moves in accordance with it; he does not control it. This is evident in the method that is used for choosing the head-of- state, for example, which is done through popular elections and then only for a designated term of office, after which the head-of-state steps down in favour of another elected president. It is also evident in the system of accountability, which brings to bear an institutionalised set of values and processes to monitor the actions of the head-of-state and to hold him responsible for his mistakes. The institutions, themselves, are closer to the second sense of government, as form or structure, which is essentially weaker than the first, which concerns the values that are established in a society's culture and translated into its norms and behaviour. Taking the foregoing analysis of the term "government" as a paradigm, we find that the advocates of an Islamic or theocratic state represent the inverse. What matters to them is not the institutionalisation of such values as justice and freedom in society, but the form, whether a caliphate or any other brand of religious authority that subsumes the identity of the individual. It is form at the expense of substance, one opinion at the expense of diversity, and a single theological interpretation at the expense of a wealth of interpretations. The upshot is that all the loose and ambiguous terms that these Islamist groups are bandying about, such as the "caliphate," are ultimately a big deception. They serve less to promote the realisation of justice and freedom than to promote a framework for usurping people's will and rights in the name of religion. * The writer is managing editor of the quarterly journal Al-Demoqrateya published by Al-Ahram.
