The search for consensus does not belong to Islam, but to the tribal culture. Ijma (consensus of opinion) is not a social consensus but a consensus paradigm. The Islamic culture did not even search for a consensus on the reading of the Koran, it only ensured that its basic readings be preserved. In the canon law, different opinions are not only mentioned, they are also preserved as components of Islamic knowledge. If you have any doubts about this, then you can analyze our very well-known Hanefi canon law The expression, the crowd of Islamic scholars, does not belong to the Commonalty, but is the name given to the common opinion of the majority. Although, the expression public is implied here, the Islamic legislative mechanism is not Republican. And even though the opinion of the majority is taken as a base, this opinion is not forced on the minority, hence a democratic, not republican attitude is displayed by recording the opinions of the minority and by showing tolerance towards their practice.
The consensus available in Islam is based on obedience not election. A single decision on which to reconcile as well as basic opinions are not accepted; this means that the one who is elected, accepts the possibility of rebellions against his/her leadership during his/her tenure in office, and this is the base of the modern state system.
In the Arab society, the tribal culture is integrated right into the base of the state political system. Iraq is like this, so is.Saudi Arabia. It is also the same in Jordan, Yemen and Egypt. If there is any 'administration' in Iraq, it is the tribal administration. The reason of [rebel Iraqi Shiite cleric] Muqtada al-Sadr's street justice, is the field independence it provides for tribal law. One of the reasons that made Muqtada's father one of the greatest Shiite leaders in Iraqi history, is the success he showed in efforts to harmonize Islamic law with tribal law.
Those who try to bring democracy to the Middle East, should understand that their efforts to harmonize democracy with Islam, which they have in their minds, would be of no use. Islam already foresees a democratic model with an eternal dimension. What is to be done is to display a democratic model that does not have the precondition of 'nation state' and can reconcile with the tribal laws. As a country that displayed the greatest efforts in this regard,.Turkey has proven how difficult it was to get rid of the tribes. In addition to this, the migration to the cities, that was considered as beneficial in Turkey, was also tried in the Arab societies and ended up in a fiasco, causing the separation of tribes into tribal suburbs. The Medinet'us-Sadr in Iraq is one of the best examples of this.
A similar formation of the tribes in the West was that of the German princedom. Its adaptation to the political system occurred after bloody battles that lasted 30 years. Being more suitable to collapse in comparison to the tribes, even the elimination of the feudal structures from history involved a struggle that lasted a century. (We are talking about the feudal lords hated by their people as opposed to the tribal leaders whose people adore them).
It is a difficult task for a tribal society to adapt to a free and democratic structure. It will be beneficial that those who want to do this read the 'Munazarat' of Bediuzzaman, who tried to persuade the eastern tribes to support constitutional monarchy as a form of government in 1911. However, to be able to understand this better, it is first necessary to understand the tribal structure of the Arab society.
June 21, 2004
