چکیده:
In the first half of this paper I examine the importance of peace as an ideal
in the liberal tradition. I begin by tracing the evolution of this ideal through
the works of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, showing how the idea that
relations between human beings should not be based upon force lies at the
heart of the liberal tradition. Amongst some contemporary liberals, however,
especially those influenced by John Rawls, there is a suggestion that liberal
peace is only possible between individuals who are willing to make a radical
separation between the religious and political domains, assigning religion
exclusively to the private domain. In the second half of this paper I question
this claim and argue that liberal peace does not necessarily involve the
privatization of religion. I believe that such question are better discussed in
concrete rather than abstract terms and I so focus on a particular thinker
who is clearly against the privatization of religion: Sayyid Qutb. On the
surface it might seem that long term peace between secularist liberals and a
thinker like Qutb would be impossible, because he seems to be an implacable
enemy of liberal democracy. His most radical and influential work,
Milestones, was, in part, written as a polemic against those Muslims who
believed that the Koran only sanctions defensive Jihad and not offensive
Jihad. Qutb argues that Islam offers a universal message and at the heart of
this universal faith is a hatred of tyranny. Therefore, Muslims must not just
struggle to defend Islamic lands from attack but must fight against tyranny
wherever it occurs. And Qutb identifies tyranny with any society where
human beings have usurped the God’s sovereignty. Now, in so far as western
liberal societies are based on the idea of popular sovereignty and selfdetermination
this might seem to suggest that Qutb is arguing for the
legitimacy of Muslims waging violent jihad against western liberal
democracies, and this is how he is often read, both by many western liberals
and by contemporary Islamic jihadists. I argue, however, that this is a hasty
conclusion to draw, for it is clear that Qutb’s primary target was oppressive
authoritarian regimes in the Arab world and his views towards western
liberal democratic society were far more ambiguous. Firstly, it is not clear
that the liberal tradition is really based upon the idea of human sovereignty
in the way Qutb rejects it, for this tradition is seeped in the natural law
tradition, and there is a strong agreement amongst liberals that a legitimate
society is one ruled by law and not the arbitrary will of human beings.
Secondly, although Qutb is opposed to the idea of popular sovereignty, he
himself seems to offer an analogue of the social contract, for he believes that
although all law ultimately comes from God, Islamic law cannot be imposed
by force and so that before one can have a society governed by divine law
there needs to be an Islamic community, and which can only come into
existence through the free submission of its members to the law. Finally,
Qutb’s views on hermeneutics also suggest a far more liberal position that is
usually attributed to him
خلاصه ماشینی:
Now, in so far as western liberal societies are based on the idea of popular sovereignty and self- determination this might seem to suggest that Qutb is arguing for the legitimacy of Muslims waging violent jihad against western liberal democracies, and this is how he is often read, both by many western liberals and by contemporary Islamic jihadists.
Secondly, although Qutb is opposed to the idea of popular sovereignty, he himself seems to offer an analogue of the social contract, for he believes that although all law ultimately comes from God, Islamic law cannot be imposed by force and so that before one can have a society governed by divine law there needs to be an Islamic community, and which can only come into existence through the free submission of its members to the law.
: Qutb; Aquinas; Divine Law; Limits Milestones, Qutb’s last and most radical work1, is in part a polemic against those Muslims who believe that the Qur’an only sanctions defensive Jihad and not offensive Jihad.
Firstly, it is not clear that western liberals, or Islamic fundamentalist, need to regard western liberal societies as based on the rule of human made law rather than the rule of God, for it is always possible to interpret western political institutions through the lens of natural law theory, which was one of the main sources of the liberal tradition.