Muslim reformist scholars’ arguments for democracy independent of religious justification

Abstract

This article examines the ideas of three contemporary Muslim reformists, namely Abdolkarim Soroush, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, and Muhammad Mujtahed Shabestari, concerning the relationship between democracy and the Islamic principle of shura (consultation). The article aims to demonstrate how the theological-philosophical approaches of these scholars—particularly with respect to their methods of interpreting the Qurʾan and the distinctions they draw between the pre-modern and modern worldview—have contributed to the rise of a political discourse which seeks to understand concepts such as shura and democracy within their own specific epistemological and cultural contexts. This political discourse, as the article argues, supports democracy without any narrow religious justification and promotes a form of government whose legitimacy is not based on religious sources or authority, and thus is neutral towards different religions and their followers.

The Manipulation of Religion and The Legalization of Underage Marriages in Indonesia

“…27 Akbar writes that, within the context of religious legitimacy, where something lacks a basis in religious sources or authorities, it will be viewed neutrally by different religions and congregations. 28 These religious identities and understandings can be manipulated by authorities, then ultimately internalized and incorporated into society's values. 29 Within the context of underage marriage, religious leaders, neighbors, elders, and family all contribute to the practice.…”

A typology of shī ʿī discourses and possibilities of democracy

“…Rather, it is the responsibility of the believers to formulate a viable political system capable of fulfilling justice. In the contemporary world, human rationality advocates the establishment of a democratic political system as an appropriate means to meet this goal (Mojtahed-Shabestari 1999; Akbar 2020). Yousefi-Eshkevari, who also characterizes justice as the main objective of Islam, claims that a democratic government is compatible with Islam in this age because it would facilitate this objective.…”

“…Khatami's administration itself emphasized matters such as the need to develop civil society, freedom of expression, the rule of law, and cultural freedom. Such discourses were less emphasized after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became the president in 2005 but emerged again in the 2009 election when reformists sought to regain power (Akbar 2020). Reformist Sh ı ʿ ı scholars conceptualized a cohesive discourse of democracy and secularism-the foci of this section-which is now the leading competing discourse against governmental Sh ı ʿism in Iran's contemporary political milieu.…”