[AAWSAT.NET] An article entitled "Doctrines of People in Elections," published on March 20, 2005, on the website Islam Today , described elections as a "mishap" and presented the "correct" legal and political stance towards them. The article was written as a response to the first municipal elections in Soddy Arabia...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in their national face...
, which took place on February 10, 2005. Its author was Ibrahim Al-Nasser, one of the most prominent symbols of Saudi Salafist activism--also known as "Srourism"--and whose writings constitute a vision and an inspiration to the members of the movement.
Nasser started his article by emphasizing that democracy is a modern Western ideology, and is based on the adoption of secularism and the exclusion of religion. Nasser stated that democracy is "a contradiction and violation of the law of Islam, and is inconsistent with the establishment of religion and monotheism."
However,
the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits...
after he presented his ideological stance against democracy, Nasser wrote on his preferred political stance towards the existing democratic systems in the Islamic world. He stated that "democracy should be rejected as a philosophy, set of values and a mechanism, but should be accepted as a practice, within limits, seeing as it is in demand and is perceived as a necessity by the public. Those who hold such views use democracy as a mechanism not because it is permissible, but because of the damage that may occur if they do not."
Thus, Nasser managed to strike a balance between his belief that democracy is an alien and un-Islamic phenomenon, and his belief that it is necessary to play a political role in societies that have adopted democratic features.
Revisiting the Arab Spring
The changing political landscape and the outcome of elections in the countries that experienced the Arab Spring have revealed an apparent alliance amongst the various political Islam groups, the Moslem Brüderbund, and the Salafists
...Salafists are ostentatiously devout Moslems who figure the ostentation of their piety gives them the right to tell others how to do it and to kill those who don't listen to them...
. These groups, who were once ideologically divided, have today joined forces in order to safeguard the 'Islamist rule' project. Led by the Moslem Brüderbund and blessed by the Srourists, they aim to secure the success of the project in the wake of the Arab Spring.
Salafist activism is also known as Srourism after one of its most prominent leaders, Muhammed Srour Zein El-Abidine, a teacher and a Syrian national who moved to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1960s. It is different to traditional or mainstream Salafism in its political ambitions. Salafist activism is generally described as a movement that combines traditional Salafi doctrine and dogma with the activism of the Moslem Brüderbund. As such, the visions of both Ibn Taymiyyah and Sayyid Qutb are important intellectual influences in the movement. On the other hand, traditional Salafism follows the historic approach of complete compliance with authority; opposition is forbidden, but offering guidance is permissible. However,
alcohol has never solved anybody's problems. But then, neither has milk...
it avoids political involvement and actively advocates for religious education, guidance and judiciary.
While the Moslem Brüderbund took an early stance in favor of democracy and put theory into practice when it won seats in parliament, Salafist activists--at least, those who embraced the events of the Arab Spring--faced a dilemma. If the movement were to directly approve of and support democracy and elections, it would have to break with its intellectual heritage, based on the rejection of modern Western political systems. On the other hand, if the movement strictly adhered to its beliefs, then it would give its rivals, the liberals and the secularists, free reign and it would not be able to assist the Brotherhood.
The stance taken by the Srourists towards the Egyptian constitution is a good illustration of how they solved this dilemma. Their position reflected a convergence between Salafist activism and the Moslem Brüderbund's project. Clearly, the developments in the Egyptian political arena place the constitution at the center of the divide between the Islamists--the Moslem Brüderbund and the Salafists--who are in support of the constitution, and the liberals and the others who reject the new constitution and see it as a Trojan horse attempting to create a totalitarian religious state. However,
if you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning...
another divide came to light amongst the Salafists, as some perceived the new Egyptian constitution as an instrument for "delusions" and "suspicions" and argued that it is "evoking contradiction in Islam."
The Egyptian Salafi Sheikh Mustafa Adawi, for example, stressed to the Egyptian media that it is forbidden to vote in favor of the constitution, saying, "Whoever casts a positive vote for the constitution is a sinner. The constitution includes extreme violations to the Book of God and the Sunna of his Prophet, peace be upon him."
In order to unite the Salafists and to deprive the liberals of a victory amid all this upheaval, Sheikh Nasser Al-Omar, a prominent Srourist leader in Saudi Arabia, wrote an article on his website, The Moslem, on the day of the constitutional referendum, December 15, 2012. In it, he explained the stance of Salafist activists towards the referendum, democracy and political representation in parliament. First, Omar emphasized that "liberal Western democracy is in opposition to Islamic law. Some, however, contemplate the situation in Egypt while under the impression that Shari'a is an accessible option and [its adoption] only requires for followers to advocate it to the public."
He continued, "Disloyalty towards religion is not permissible except in the case of coercion. However,
facts are stubborn; statistics are more pliable...
the Faqih [expert in Islamic law] is the one who can differentiate between the two corrupting vices--disloyalty and coercion--and would avoid the worst of the two. He realizes that failure [to cast a vote] would best serve to bring triumph to iniquity."