Baber Johansen

43
resources of its religious meaning implied in fiqh’s classical model of
norm discussion and norm production and thus open the way to
conceptions of contingency so radicalized that they view contingency as
the general form of existence for all norms and acts. 101
Therefore, many Islamist movements criticize the integration of Islamic
law into the constitutional and positive law of the modern nation state. It
seems to me that this critique produces its own contingency. These
movements attempt to unite in their organizations the two functions that,
from the tenth century on, were separated in the classical model of
religion and politics in Islam: political authority and religious
scholarship. They claim to be the only source of legitimate political
authority in the religious community and, at the same time, the highest
authority for the interpretation of Islam. They insist on the necessity to
realize through direct political action the principles of the sacred law as
they understand and interpret them. Their aim is to create a unity of the
political and the religious that escapes the control of the nation state and
represents the only religiously legitimate form of politics. They thus blur
the frontiers between the learned interpretation of religion and direct
political action. The religious argument increasingly becomes subject to
political constraints and thus renders credible the notion that all
arguments and all norms are contingent and receive their legitimacy, their
validity and their force not from theological and intellectual insights but
from the political requirements of the moment.
It seems, in fact, that many of these movements reinforce the
fragmentation of politics within the nation-states in which they are active.
Will this fragmentation, in the long run, be a positive factor for the
democratization of their societies? Will their opposition to the executive
open a larger field for the citizens’ participation in the political process or
will they play a negative role in suppressing the open debate and the
public liberties that are necessary for the democratization of states and
societies? The answer to this question cannot be searched for in religious
dogmas and beliefs. It is a question of practical politics and remains as
such entirely contingent.