| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
097520
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article examines the contemporary debate in Muslim-Arab scholarship as to the compatibility of Islam and Western democracy. This debate centres on interpretations of shura, or consultation. The article claims that Islam, as a body of texts, traditions and practices, does not favour or reject any specific system of government. Rather, four main theories on Islam and democracy compete for hegemony: a theory integrating some aspects of Western democracy with shura and rejecting others; a theory dichotomizing shura and democracy; a theory contending that shura is democracy; and a theory legitimizing exiting political orders by defining them as manifestations of shura. The article examines the historical roots of each of these theories and analyzes the social-political roles they play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134221
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Through an analysis that focuses on wasati and salafi fatwas, but searches also beyond them, this article demonstrates the emergence of a broad agreement (albeit not a consensus) in Islamic jurisprudence on the permissibility of political participation in the West. This broad agreement is based primarily on jurists' evaluation, drawing on 'fiqh al-muwazanat' (the jurisprudence of balances) that, in some cases, participation brings more benefit (maslaha) than harm (mafsada). The article comparatively examines wasati and salafi approaches to politics and to Muslim minorities to explain why jurists who disagreed on other fundamental issues in the field of fiqh al-aqalliyyat al-Muslima (the religious law of Muslim minorities) reached similar (but not identical) conclusions on political participation. Based on this analysis, a revision of some prevailing categorizations of salafiyya is suggested. Deliberations by some salafis, jihadi-salafis and members of Hizb al-Tahrir who oppose political participation and their refutations of the justifications invoked by jurists who legitimized it are also examined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
139310
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article analyzes the opinions of the intellectual and political luminaries of the Muslim Brothers from the 1930s to the late 1990s on launching an armed insurrection against an unjust Muslim regime. An examination of works by Hasan al-Banna, Hasan al-Hudaybi, ‘Umar al-Tilmisani, Muhammad Qutb, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Ma'mun al-Hudaybi reveals that, in addressing different types of challenges, the mainstream of the movement developed a broad and consistent consensus on the matter that draws from classic Islamic jurisprudence. According to this consensus, violence can be applied only as a last resort and only following an application of ‘fiqh al-muwazanat’ (the jurisprudence of balances) that indicates that success is certain, and that the harm caused in the process would not be greater than the benefit incurred. How a specific regime came to power, and the level of injustice it commits, are irrelevant criteria; a decision on launching a violent revolution is primarily concerned with pragmatically assessing opportunities and consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
120053
|
|
|