Since the beginning of the modern period -usually called the Renaissance (Nahd · a in Arabic) -prominent pre-Islamists and Islamists such as Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī, Rashīd Rid · ā and Yūsuf alQarad · āwī have condemned the political oppression that prevails in much of the Muslim world and attributed its backwardness to that oppression. For many of those authors, the solution is the implementation of the old Arab institution of consultation (shūrà), which is mentioned in the Koran and has been associated with the Western parliamentary system. But were those Islamist authors just trying to encourage the adoption of Western-style democracy in Muslim lands by painting it with the brush of Islam? Can we really conceive shūrà as a form of democracy? And what about those who espouse shūrà but reject democracy? The present paper looks at that institution in its historical context and offers the opinion of several renowned contemporary Islamist thinkers on its prospects. Shūrà in Pre-Islamic ArabiaBefore Islam, shūrà was the process of consultation by which a tribal chief (the sheikh) received the advice of the tribe's most prominent members, who made up the shūrà council. The sheikh consulted them before taking decisions on intra-tribal conflicts, war and peace, treaties etc., and he also sat in session and listened to the grievances of regular members of the tribe. In general, he was appointed by the previous sheikh or, less often, elected by the shūrà council, and he could be deposed if he did not fulfil their expectations. In principle the appointment was for life, but the position was not hereditary.The shūrà council could be considered a primitive parliament, in that it elected and supervised the work of the executive power (the sheikh) as well as representing the different views within the tribe (although an effort was made to arrive at decisions by consensus). Council members usually had to be over 40 and enjoy a high social status. However, the council's decisions were not binding, and it did not have an enforcing body; therefore, the sheikh was free to ignore its advice, although this was not common. Shūrà at the Time of Prophet Muh · ammadThe Prophet of Islam, Muh · ammad (d. 632 A.D.), consulted his followers -and especially those closest to him, his Companions (S · ah · āba) -on topics the Koran did not provide an answer to. Presumably, among his objectives was to encourage Muslims to follow his example and to consult each other on matters of common concern after he was gone.Muh · ammad's most trusted advisors were Abū Bakr al-S · iddīq (d. 634 A.D.) and 'Umar ibn al-Khat · t · āb (d. 644 A.D.) -the first and second caliphs (successors) respectively. The Prophet used to say that he had two ministers from heaven and two from Earth: his heavenly ministers were the (arch)angels Jibrīl and Mikhā'īl; those from Earth, Abū Bakr and 'Umar. 1 But in spite of encouraging consultation, the Prophet did not develop a political system. Questions such as how to choose a successor, who should be consulted in case of

This paper explores how and why Islamism (i.e. political Islam) emerged in the last decades of the 19th century. It resorts to original sources to illustrate Muslim responses to the perceived threat of Westernisation and, notably, the development of Islamism as a reaction to the evolving socio‐political conditions in the Middle East. In addition, it demonstrates that, despite claims to religious purity, Islamists have incorporated elements of the foreign ideologies they profess to oppose. The article ends by providing a tentative classification of modern‐day Islamists.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract