There was an underlying theme to the discussion of Islamic Law at the Law Library of Congress. Panelists Dr. Issam Saliba of the Law Library of Congress, Dr. Nathan J. Brown of the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, and Dr. Lama Abu-Odeh of the Georgetown University Law Center each presented from their respective point of view on the issue of Islamic Law in writing the post-revolution constitutions of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Resonating from the event, however, was one message topical to those countries currently in the throws of their own maybe-revolutions: tyranny is not a model for an Islamic state.
Dr. Issam Saliba began with a look at Islamic law dating back to the Ottoman Caliphate, citing as a touchstone for the lecture’s theme the Arab adage: “Islam is a religion, and a state.” Saliba framed opportunities to re-write governing documents in the Maghreb as an invitation to return to the “general principles and values” foundational to Islam. Saliba borrowed quotes of the Prophet Muhammad to illustrate these principles, the first of which--representative government--lay on Muhammad’s derivation of political authority from “the consent of the polity and not any other sources”. Saliba continued to emphasize the inherently democratic tendencies of the Prophet’s vision, moving on to justness in governance, as well as respect for individual liberties and freedoms. He concluded that examples being set by today’s leaders are not in line with what the Prophet envisioned to come from Islam.
Dr. Nathan Brown looked at the issue from a more logistical perspective, pulling on his expertise in Arabic constitutional law to explore the ways in which the processes of forming of those constitutions have changed. He spoke of the protestors in 2011, ignited by an opportunity to “get the politics of [their] societies right” in electing new leaders and re-drafting their constitutions. He highlighted the challenges of determining what an Islamic constitutional provision looks like in practice, beyond “rhetorical commitment” to Islam, and how these challenges are effected by weakened regimes’ ability to resist public desire to be included in the new drafting processes. The people of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia want the re-drafting of their governing documents, unlike the last 20 years, to be public and open for their participation.
Dr. Abu-Odeh began with a joking lament about “always [being] asked to talk about women”, but more importantly the present difficulty of doing so “in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, especially with the takeover by the Islamists of state power”. She described what she called the “woman issue”: the tendency among “partially informed” Americans to be perpetually drawn to a conversation surrounding the effects of Islamist laws on female populations, a conversation which “doesn’t exactly amount to offering any insight” but is “more like confirming what one already knows”. She shed a light on the changing discussions on women in the Middle East following 9/11, alluding to the often adhered-to but seldom-recognized “almost obligatory” need to “first denounce American imperialism, global capitalism, and the influence of foreign funding on local NGOs” before eventually being forced to “blame it all on the history of colonialism.”
The three panelists agreed on the inextricabilities between Islam and constitutional law, and the issue’s conducive nature to varying interpretation across disciplines, resulting in miscommunications in all tiers of interaction in society: from casual surface relations, to scholars in a more formal setting, up to those actually conducting foreign policy. However Islam is translated though, we must be aware of the implications surrounding our assumptions and potential subsequent ignorances. That takes an endeavor to understand Islam removed from its modern politicization and villainization. One of Dr. Saliba’s quotes encapsulates this sentiment: “a state that does not protect personal freedom, implement justice, and ensure…respresentative government…in my opinion, could not pretend to be an Islamic state.”
Photo: Mariam Soliman (cc).
a global affairs media network
Understanding Political Islam in a Time of Revolutions
July 2, 2013
There was an underlying theme to the discussion of Islamic Law at the Law Library of Congress. Panelists Dr. Issam Saliba of the Law Library of Congress, Dr. Nathan J. Brown of the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, and Dr. Lama Abu-Odeh of the Georgetown University Law Center each presented from their respective point of view on the issue of Islamic Law in writing the post-revolution constitutions of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Resonating from the event, however, was one message topical to those countries currently in the throws of their own maybe-revolutions: tyranny is not a model for an Islamic state.
Dr. Issam Saliba began with a look at Islamic law dating back to the Ottoman Caliphate, citing as a touchstone for the lecture’s theme the Arab adage: “Islam is a religion, and a state.” Saliba framed opportunities to re-write governing documents in the Maghreb as an invitation to return to the “general principles and values” foundational to Islam. Saliba borrowed quotes of the Prophet Muhammad to illustrate these principles, the first of which--representative government--lay on Muhammad’s derivation of political authority from “the consent of the polity and not any other sources”. Saliba continued to emphasize the inherently democratic tendencies of the Prophet’s vision, moving on to justness in governance, as well as respect for individual liberties and freedoms. He concluded that examples being set by today’s leaders are not in line with what the Prophet envisioned to come from Islam.
Dr. Nathan Brown looked at the issue from a more logistical perspective, pulling on his expertise in Arabic constitutional law to explore the ways in which the processes of forming of those constitutions have changed. He spoke of the protestors in 2011, ignited by an opportunity to “get the politics of [their] societies right” in electing new leaders and re-drafting their constitutions. He highlighted the challenges of determining what an Islamic constitutional provision looks like in practice, beyond “rhetorical commitment” to Islam, and how these challenges are effected by weakened regimes’ ability to resist public desire to be included in the new drafting processes. The people of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia want the re-drafting of their governing documents, unlike the last 20 years, to be public and open for their participation.
Dr. Abu-Odeh began with a joking lament about “always [being] asked to talk about women”, but more importantly the present difficulty of doing so “in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, especially with the takeover by the Islamists of state power”. She described what she called the “woman issue”: the tendency among “partially informed” Americans to be perpetually drawn to a conversation surrounding the effects of Islamist laws on female populations, a conversation which “doesn’t exactly amount to offering any insight” but is “more like confirming what one already knows”. She shed a light on the changing discussions on women in the Middle East following 9/11, alluding to the often adhered-to but seldom-recognized “almost obligatory” need to “first denounce American imperialism, global capitalism, and the influence of foreign funding on local NGOs” before eventually being forced to “blame it all on the history of colonialism.”
The three panelists agreed on the inextricabilities between Islam and constitutional law, and the issue’s conducive nature to varying interpretation across disciplines, resulting in miscommunications in all tiers of interaction in society: from casual surface relations, to scholars in a more formal setting, up to those actually conducting foreign policy. However Islam is translated though, we must be aware of the implications surrounding our assumptions and potential subsequent ignorances. That takes an endeavor to understand Islam removed from its modern politicization and villainization. One of Dr. Saliba’s quotes encapsulates this sentiment: “a state that does not protect personal freedom, implement justice, and ensure…respresentative government…in my opinion, could not pretend to be an Islamic state.”
Photo: Mariam Soliman (cc).
