It is interesting to note the three distinctions of Islam that Tamara Cofman points out in her piece “Three Kinds of Movements”. Cofman seems to make the argument that in general people practicing Islam can be categorized based on their use of violence and the state in which they operate in. I think it is interesting to think about how the separation of church and state would work with the Islam faith.
Unfortunately, I think the fact that Islam is the foundation for governing will prevent an adequate and satisfactory democracy from being achieved. I feel that one interprets their faith in many different ways. A prime example of this is the September 11 attacks. Some scholars make the point that Osama Bin Laden interpreted the Koran in a way that seemed to encourage such violence like what occurred. Others say that Bin Laden isn’t a true Muslim.
I think the point here is that it would be tough for a group of people in a state to come to a consensus on exactly how the Koran says to rule a state. I think this is why a majority of Islamic ruled regimes are ruled by a select few, i.e. Saudi Arabia. In my opinion, these differing interpretations are what lead to radical movements and groups like Hamas forming. The people who form these groups are so fed up with someone else’s interpretation of their faith that they decide to forcefully practice their own way. In this way, they not only separate themselves from the state’s sovereignty but furthermore create a gateway for others to rebel as well.
In my opinion, I think Islamist groups can evolve into global democratic leaders across the world. However, I think these groups will only work if they disassociate themselves from the state and its connection to the Koran. In order to do so, I think the best way would be to establish a nonviolent agenda that circumnavigates the general philosophy of Islam.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment