God vs. Democracy (Book Notes: Legacy of the Prophet)
In Legacy of the Prophet: Despots, Democrats, and the New Politics of Islam, Anthony Shadid writes:
[Sayyid] Qutb’s key idea, and the one that has alienated so many orthodox Muslims, is his belief that contemporary Muslim society is jahiliyya, evoking the time in the Arabian peninsula that predated the prophet and the divine revelation that he received. The word is often translated as a state of ignorance, but in fact its meaning is much more powerful, connoting something more like barbarism.
For Qutb, a society that recognizes God, but tries to secularise him or confine him to a certain sphere of life, is jahiliyya. To worship God means to apply his law — the legal system known as sharia that was codified from the Quran and the example set by the prophet. Qutb believed that no modern society had properly done so, placing the entire world, from his perspective, in a renewed state of jahiliyya, a condition perhaps more sinister than its pre-Islamic variant.
Modern jahiliyya, he said, is more sophisticated than “the simple and primitive ways of the ancient jahiliyya” because it claims that “the right to create values, to legislate rules of collective behavior and to choose a way of life rests with men, without regard to what God has prescribed.”
Qutb’s argument here may have alienated many orthodox Muslims, but that doesn’t mean they don’t sympathize with or even support his proposed solution: that society will be better off if it is made more Islamic because all of today’s problems can be traced to a lack of Muslim values. Secularism undermines religious values and must be eliminated. Secularism leads to atheism, and that is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to either a person or a society.
Unfortunately, too many people are willful and refuse to follow God’s laws. They vote to create their own laws, but these laws merely reflect the will of men rather than the will of God. Does any of this sound familiar? It should: it’s very similar to the criticisms made by the Christian Right about America. One difference, though, is that the Christian Right thinks that it has a potential majority backing for enacting God’s laws over society.
Despite that, the Christian Right regularly argues that America has become jahiliyya without using that term. Modern America has become a place where gays are out of the closet, where abortion is legal, where the separation of church and state prevents the government from favoring certain Christian denominations over every other religious position, and where their understanding of “Christian Values” doesn’t dominate politics or culture.
If jahiliyya is a state in which Islam is not applied, a society that fails to adhere to its laws, ethics, morals or values, Qutb argued, then those people who live under its sway cannot themselves be Muslims. Even if they pray, fast and make the pilgrimage — sacred duties of every follower — they do not obey God’s law and therefore must be considered unbelievers.
Kevin McCullough has similar ideas:
Faith in the God who created this planet is essential to the future of man. To reject this is to reject the most essential part of life and the realization of what it can and should be. It is also an attempt to cut off the lifeline of support, guidance and wisdom that comes from God’s revelation to mankind.
This Creator God is the God of the Old Testament, who spoke and created this world and all that is within it. This Creator God is alive, well and sometimes still amused at the folly His creation lives out because they believe themselves to be smarter than Him.
Today, we recognize God for who He is and we do so as a nation that He has allowed to prosper – despite our best efforts to marginalize Him.
Like Qutb, Kevin McCullough believes that society must apply Christianity to its laws, ethics, morals, and values. Both believe worshipping God requires applying God’s laws to society. Both believe that those who don’t follow God’s laws as they understand and interpret them are, effectively, unbelievers. Qutb doesn’t believe them to be true Muslims; McCullough doesn’t regard liberals as true Christians.
There are far more similarities between Islamic extremists and the Christian Right than either group would like to acknowledge. The former is far more willing to employ violence in pursuit of its goals than the latter, but is there no reason to think that the latter would not be similarly willing if the conditions changed? There is nothing about Christianity that would prevent it from resorting to violence and there is nothing at all uniquely peaceful about America’s Christian Right.
Read More Book Notes from the
Comments
Well, I sort of disagree… see, even in monotheism, if you could get orders from god, it’s almost like a monarchy. It still wouldn’t be democracy, but a theocracy, if you got orders from Bishops and stuff.
Lately with monotheism is coming the idea that everyone gets orders from god, not any more than others, some just specialize in doctrine more. In that case, everyone inputs equally.
Now, if you want to go into economics though, religion is very much communism. The rich give to the poor, or they go to hell? Hmmm… of course, it is a communism they’d still ideally serve within a democracy, and be communism despite that, as to enact free will. It isn’t charity if you’re forced by your government, after all. Of course, the same might be said of being forced by God… ah well.