![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldFrom Patrick Martin's article "A holy city carves out its own path" from The Globe and Mail, on one Iraqi Shi'ite leader's vision of Iraq's future:
The problem with Mr. Jabir's argument is that, over the past several centuries, the West has moved away from the establishment of Christian religious codes as active elements of secular law. The overturn of sodomy laws in the past generation is but one example. Other examples from the past two centuries include the disestablishment of state churches, the enfranchisement of members of religious minorities as full citizens, the elimination of censorship based on religious orthodoxies' principles, and the growth of individualism.
The problem with Mr. Jabir's principles, insofar as Iraq's future freedom or lack thereof is concerned, is that they don't allow people to opt out. I wrote about this in March on Bonoboland, noting how Iraqi traditionalists do not allow women to move outside of their prescribed social roles, or allow people who don't accept Koranic stipulations on private morality to do as they please in private.
Western liberalism, and Western freedoms, emerged only after the claims of religious orthodoxies to an exclusive dominance of the public sphere were defeated. There is, for instance, a positive correlation between the 17th century Dutch Republic's rejection of a single religious orthodoxy for all (at least by the standards of the time) and its political and cultural freedoms. Certainly, the Dutch Republic was more free than the neighbouring Spanish Netherlands. It's very difficult indeed to combine the establishment of an exclusive and dominant religious orthodoxy with real personal freedom.
What would Mr. Jabir's vision of Iraq's future mean for Iraq? For starters, that it wouldn't be free--I doubt that he'd allow Muslims to listen to Western music, drink alcohol, and have mixed-gender gatherings in private. I'm also skeptical that he'd allow members of non-Muslim populations--Iraq's considerable Christian minority, for instance--to violate Islamic law whether in public or in private, since he seems to believe that Islamic behaviour is a prerequisite for public order.
What would this post-Saddam Iraq mean for the wider world? Sadly, not much else apart from the creation of yet another religious tyranny, whether explicitly so like Iran or Saudi Arabia or more quietly like most of the rest of the Arab world. Iraq will not become a beacon of liberty, as the proponents of the 2003 invasion pretended it would become automatically and as it could have been given better planning; Iraq will just become another reactionary Arab dictatorship, notable for its tormented political past and its poor oil-exporting present. Which is a shame, but given the United States' disengagement from social reform and any kind of constructive presence in Iraq, what can be done?
What kind of Iraq does Mr. Jabir foresee?
"First of all," he says, "one that is independent, of all outside interests." His comment is not only a rebuke of the U.S. presence in Iraq, but also a slap at some other Shia groups that spent the Hussein years in Iran and may be beholden to Tehran.
Second, his Iraq would be fully democratic, not sectarian, with seats or ministries set aside for each religious community. "That way lies the seeds of separation," he said.
Finally, it must be free, "but the freedom as we understand it as Muslims." By this, he means that there should be freedom of opinion and belief, "but not a freedom that crosses the border of what is right."
He explained: "Islam would define the border. If something is not forbidden, then people are free to enjoy it. But if it is haram [forbidden] then they must not." By forbidden, he includes such acts as listening to Western music, drinking alcohol and the mixing of the sexes -- none of which happens in Najaf today.
Mr. Jabir does not understand why such prohibitions are viewed with suspicion in the West. After all, he noted, the West also bans many acts of dangerous behaviour.
"You think Islam is all about terrorism, but we all follow the holy books," he said. "What is the difference between your Bible and our holy Koran?"
The problem with Mr. Jabir's argument is that, over the past several centuries, the West has moved away from the establishment of Christian religious codes as active elements of secular law. The overturn of sodomy laws in the past generation is but one example. Other examples from the past two centuries include the disestablishment of state churches, the enfranchisement of members of religious minorities as full citizens, the elimination of censorship based on religious orthodoxies' principles, and the growth of individualism.
The problem with Mr. Jabir's principles, insofar as Iraq's future freedom or lack thereof is concerned, is that they don't allow people to opt out. I wrote about this in March on Bonoboland, noting how Iraqi traditionalists do not allow women to move outside of their prescribed social roles, or allow people who don't accept Koranic stipulations on private morality to do as they please in private.
Western liberalism, and Western freedoms, emerged only after the claims of religious orthodoxies to an exclusive dominance of the public sphere were defeated. There is, for instance, a positive correlation between the 17th century Dutch Republic's rejection of a single religious orthodoxy for all (at least by the standards of the time) and its political and cultural freedoms. Certainly, the Dutch Republic was more free than the neighbouring Spanish Netherlands. It's very difficult indeed to combine the establishment of an exclusive and dominant religious orthodoxy with real personal freedom.
What would Mr. Jabir's vision of Iraq's future mean for Iraq? For starters, that it wouldn't be free--I doubt that he'd allow Muslims to listen to Western music, drink alcohol, and have mixed-gender gatherings in private. I'm also skeptical that he'd allow members of non-Muslim populations--Iraq's considerable Christian minority, for instance--to violate Islamic law whether in public or in private, since he seems to believe that Islamic behaviour is a prerequisite for public order.
What would this post-Saddam Iraq mean for the wider world? Sadly, not much else apart from the creation of yet another religious tyranny, whether explicitly so like Iran or Saudi Arabia or more quietly like most of the rest of the Arab world. Iraq will not become a beacon of liberty, as the proponents of the 2003 invasion pretended it would become automatically and as it could have been given better planning; Iraq will just become another reactionary Arab dictatorship, notable for its tormented political past and its poor oil-exporting present. Which is a shame, but given the United States' disengagement from social reform and any kind of constructive presence in Iraq, what can be done?
