Islam and democracy can coexist There's an impression that Muslims suffer disproportionately from the rule of dictators, tyrants, unelected presidents, kings, emirs and various other strongmen - and it's accurate. A careful analysis by Frederic L. Pryor of Swarthmore College in the Middle East Quarterly (Are Muslim Countries Less Democratic?) concludes, "In all but the poorest countries, Islam is associated with fewer political rights." The fact that majority-Muslim countries are less democratic makes it tempting to conclude that the religion of Islam, their common factor, is itself incompatible with democracy. I disagree with that conclusion. Today's Muslim predicament, rather, reflects historical circumstances more than innate features of Islam. Put differently, Islam, like all pre-modern religions is undemocratic in spirit. No less than the others, however, it has the potential to evolve in a democratic direction. Such evolution is not easy for any religion. In the Christian case, the battle to limit the Catholic Church's political role was painfully long. If the transition began when Marsiglio of Padua published Defensor pacis in the year 1324, it took another seven centuries for the Church fully to reconcile itself to democracy. Why should Islam's transition be smoother or easier? To render Islam consistent with democratic ways will require profound changes in its interpretation. For example, the anti-democratic law of Islam, the Shari'a, lies at the core of the problem. Developed over a millennium ago, it presumes autocratic rulers and submissive subjects, emphasizes God's will over popular sovereignty and encourages violent jihad to expand Islam's borders. Further, it anti-democratically privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, males over females and free persons over slaves. For Muslims to build fully functioning democracies, they basically must reject the Shari'a's public aspects. Turkey's first president Mustafa Ataturk frontally did just that in his country, but others have offered more subtle approaches. Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese thinker, dispatched the public Islamic laws by fundamentally reinterpreting the Koran. Ataturk's efforts and Taha's ideas imply that Islam is ever-evolving, and that to see it as unchanging is a grave mistake. Or, in the lively metaphor of Hassan Hanafi, professor of philosophy at the University of Cairo, the Koran "is a supermarket, where one takes what one wants and leaves what one doesn't want." Islam's problem is less its being anti-modern than that its process of modernization has hardly begun. Muslims can modernize their religion, but that requires major changes: Out go waging jihad to impose Muslim rule, second-class citizenship for non-Muslims and death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy. In come individual freedoms, civil rights, political participation, popular sovereignty, equality before the law and representative elections. Two obstacles stand in the way of these changes, however. In the Middle East especially, tribal affiliations remain of paramount importance. As explained by Philip Carl Salzman in his recent book, Culture and Conflict in the Middle East, these ties create a complex pattern of tribal autonomy and tyrannical centralism that obstructs the development of constitutionalism, the rule of law, citizenship, gender equality and the other prerequisites of a democratic state. Not until this archaic social system based on the family is dispatched can democracy make real headway in the Middle East. Globally, the compelling and powerful Islamist movement obstructs democracy. It seeks the opposite of reform and modernization -- namely, the reassertion of the Shari'a in its entirety. A jihadist like Osama bin Laden may spell out this goal more explicitly than an establishment politician like Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but both seek to create a thoroughly anti-democratic, if not totalitarian, order. Islamists respond two ways to democracy. First, they denounce it as unIslamic. Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna considered democracy a betrayal of Islamic values. Brotherhood theoretician Sayyid Qutb rejected popular sovereignty, as did Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi, founder of Pakistan's Jamaate-Islami political party. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Al-Jazeera television's imam, argues that elections are heretical. Despite this scorn, Islamists are eager to use elections to attain power and have proven themselves to be agile vote-getters; even a terrorist organization (Hamas) has won an election. This record does not render the Islamists democratic but indicates their tactical flexibility and their determination to gain power. As Erdogan has revealingly explained, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off." Hard work can one day make Islam democratic. In the meanwhile, Islamism represents the world's leading anti-democratic force. source
In the long history of the world, modern democracies have proven to be the most attractive governments, most supportive of human rights, and the most compelling to oppressed people from every other form of government. Combine that with a strong economy with opportunities and it attracts people from everywhere. Hence the enormous growth of the US and its amazing historical ability to attract people from all over the globe, every continent, and every oppressed nation.
everyone talks like they will ever have a chance to become democracy or they have a real say in their prospects.
"In the Christian case, the battle to limit the Catholic Church's political role was painfully long. If the transition began when Marsiglio of Padua published Defensor pacis in the year 1324, it took another seven centuries for the Church fully to reconcile itself to democracy. Why should Islam's transition be smoother or easier?" I expect it will be a very painful and violent transition, but I see no alternative.
thank you for this subject, which indicates to some information on the Islamic world, but we regret to tell you that this information might be wrong, already the world's Islamic and Arab peoples from more governed by dictators, however, came from these tyrants and their supporters? I think they west and the Americans because they have been the beneficiary of their existence, democracy is only the current picture of colonialism before, what is being done by America in Iraq for five years-called democracy? The Americans came five years ago, raising the banners of freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people to liberate it from Saddam Hussein, the strange thing is that America itself is one of the weapons throughout the duration of seven years in his war with Iran, Saddam suddenly become the enemy?!, Look at the age of the current Arab leaders including Egypt, Mubarak Eighty exceeded general, the Tunisian president approached the general eighty also, each of whom has more than 25 years in power? How this is supported by, Who benefits from the current chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Sudan and other Muslim countries? Why these places only by wars? Is it because America wants to be emancipated from slavery? Or goes to these regions in natural resources and oil? There are dozens of places in the world by the suppression of freedom, you Cuba, North Korea, China, Burma, Serbia, why did not America go there? For the liberation of these peoples? As for talk about Islam, Islam exhorts the democracy of various kinds from the collection of votes for election, the freedom of belief, even to respect the rights of animals but to respect the inanimate, and there are dozens of examples in this matter. The last question, why the West insists on the education of Arab democracy through wars? West wants only to increase women's freedom to us, and giving legitimacy of homosexuals, but is transferred technology to the Arabs of the West? Will it help them in training courses? Every American and Western aid be conditional on several conditions to dismantle the Arab world and erase the Arab identity and making the identification of Western identity is prevailing. C U
Tegaratv, if you do your research , alot of these dictators were put in power by the help of various intelligence agencies including our own here in america. This info will never be told in our high schools. You need to take courses in college like the one i took called true american history dating back to colonial times. Fascinating course. It opened my eyes up like never before. Democracy if done right can be a fantastic form of government, but its hard to eliminate the tempation to horde power up into the hands of a few elite. This is why the founding father made the constitution and also gave so much power to the seat of the presidency and indirectly gave the common people a chance at having a say, but i think we should all debate this delegate bs.
But there is not a shift from Islam to democracy, because Islam is a way of life and gives , maximize the role of reason and give it all the characteristics and needs certain things for the good reason. Islam is a summary of where other religions, in addition to the characteristics of new and things were in Former religions impede the functioning of life, several centuries ago, like the Church refuses to treat the sick and demon are women, Thus people rejected because they oppose the encroachment and impede the functioning of life, these things do not exist in Islam, The real problem is some Muslims distort the image of Islam by something wrong they believed the teachings of Islam because of ignorance
Democracy inevitably becomes socialistic. Islamic values aren't compatible with government socialism. Whether or not you agree with Islam's view of history, laws etc., it's economic values are very pro-capitalism, pro-sound money, pro-private property rights, pro-economic freedom. If the religion should ever perish, the economics of the religion are definitely worth saving.
There is no word that nations have called for, spoken about in length, and desired fervently in their hearts more than freedom. People have delivered speeches about it, written books on the subject, composed newspaper columns in support of it, and have raised banners calling for it; they have made it an objective for which all other matters could be sacrificed. On many occasions, people have keenly called for it while being unaware of what they wished to get from it. This has remained the case until it became the means by which politicians achieved their political aims and personal interests, and used their apparent pursuit of it to attract people’s attention and gain their support. In many cases, this claimed pursuit of freedom has become a means and a justification to destroy any real freedom and wage wars against many nations. It was made to sound as if democracy is the way to achieve such freedom, because democracy is founded upon freedom; thus the proponents of this ideology have made having a democratic system mandatory for achieving freedom; they argue that one leads to the other, and must exist in order for the other to do so; therefore, one who loves freedom must call for democracy and love it, and vice versa. Such people also claim that, consequently, whoever hates democracy and is an enemy of it is also an enemy of freedom. The questions that arise here are: does democracy (as practiced by the Western nations) truly achieve the freedom that mankind desires and requires? Does it even raise the level of freedom that people enjoy? What is the type of freedom that democracy achieves for nations, and where are its boundaries? Is an American or a European truly free? Are the lives that they live in their nations ones of freedom, or even paltry so? Does Islam oppose the principle of freedom or does it approve of it and call for it? If Islam does approve of it, then how does it deal with it and expect people to practice it, and what are the permissible types of freedom within Islamic boundaries? Also, is freedom in Islam the same as that in democracy, or are they different? Which one of the two 'freedoms' is more realistic and coincides with the sought freedom, the one in Islam or the one in democracy?
All these questions and many others force one to compare between freedom as Islam presents it and calls for it - how it was practiced under Islamic rule for fourteen hundred years and is still being practiced today, and how freedom is practiced in democratic systems, and how contemporary countries and nations apply it. This comparison must be made in order to see which of the two is more beneficial, more realistic, more honest and closer to the truth. The limited human mind is what defined freedom in democracy and decided what is good and what is bad in it according to what its desires and lusts imposed, which entails that freedom in democracy becomes limited at times and broadens at others, depending on what the decision makers feel is beneficial at the time. This means that the nations who practice such systems become experimental laboratories and are in a state constant flux regarding what is allowed and what is not. In Islam on the other hand, freedom is clearly defined and its limits and boundaries have been set by Allaah alone, who is the infallible Creator of all mankind Whose Qualities are perfect and beyond defect, weakness or incapability. He is All-Knowing of the condition of His creation and Knows best what their requirements are and what suits them. Thus, freedom in Islam has a distinct feature, which is stability - what was permissible in Islam fourteen hundred years ago remains so until the Day of Resurrection. In Islam, every person knows what he can and cannot do as well as the areas in which there is room for manoeuvre, according to what Allaah has permitted. Furthermore, freedom in Islam is underpinned by ultimate justice and authority because it comes from Allaah, contrary to that defined by democracy, which is man-made and therefore fallible and subject to shortcomings and injustice. In democracy, the limits of freedom move within the circle that has been defined by human legislators. In democracy, freedom is opposed to and conflicts with whatever is defined as evil by human legislators, which, due to their limited knowledge and abilities, entails the inclusion of much evil in the circle of what is good and allowable. It also implies that much good will be included in the circle of the evil and forbidden. Under democracy, many evil things have been made permissible based on its definition of freedom, but were later found to be immoral and oppressive, which caused them to then be prohibited. Likewise, many matters that were later found to be beneficial were initially prohibited, and this constant fluctuation causes the concept of freedom in democracy to be undermined and belittled. Conversely, in Islam, freedom is opposed to and conflicts with whatever Allaah has defined as evil due to His comprehensive Knowledge and infallibility. Allaah has only permitted what is good and beneficial for mankind and has prohibited only that which is evil and dispraised. Consequently, the range of freedom in Islam is only from what is good to what is praiseworthy. Freedom in democracy only serves to enslave people to one another - people who should in reality be slaves to Allaah only; it causes people to be under the control of others who may be lower in status than themselves; those who are in control are the ones who set their rules and forbid and allow them whatever they wish – all that those who are under such control can do is to submit and obey. What type of freedom is this which entails enslavement to other humans? In Islam, freedom frees man from enslavement to other humans to the comprehensive enslavement to Allaah Alone. One might argue that both are forms of enslavement, so what is the difference? - Allaah is the Creator; He provides for man, facilitated the universe for him and guided him to the right path; therefore, Allaah alone has the right to be worshipped and man should be grateful to Him and obey His commandments. Worshipping the Creator gives the slave might, honour and dignity, while on the other hand, being enslaved by other humans who are weak and incapable is a form of oppression and punishment. - Man was created with the natural disposition of being a slave, so if he is not a slave to Allaah, then he will certainly become a slave to another human, and this is a false state of affairs, regardless of the form it takes and the status of the human who he is enslaved to. - Worshipping Allaah represents the ultimate freedom because it frees one from being enslaved to other false gods. In democracy, freedom places man under varied types of pressures and external strains that make him lose a great portion of his freedom of thinking and choice. Examples of these pressures are the media; the pressure of fulfilling his lusts using different means to do so; the pressure of earning provisions, which is one of the greatest that people face; the pressure that politicians and religious leaders place upon people, and how some of these people fabricate and alter facts; the pressure of intoxicants and drugs, which are now widespread; and the latest pressure, which is the threat to anyone who refuses to give in to the instructions that have been set to deal with the phenomenon of 'terrorism,' which is a powerful means of placing great pressure upon people. These types of pressure deprive man from a great deal of the freedom of choice, freedom of thinking and freedom of adopting opinions that he would have taken if these pressures did not exist. These pressures deprive man from his freedom, despite the claim of some who live under such a system to be free. The contemporary tyrants do not need to exert much effort to accomplish what they wish from other nations; all they have to do is apply some of these pressures for a short period, and sure enough, other nations usually surrender to their requests. These pressures are referred in the Quran. Allaah Says (what means): “Those who were oppressed will say to those who were arrogant: 'Rather, [it was your] conspiracy of night and day when you were ordering us to disbelieve in Allaah and attribute to Him equals.' But they will [all] confide regret when they see the punishment; and We will put shackles on the necks of those who disbelieved. Will they be recompensed except for what they used to do?†[Quran 34: 33] They plot continuously, day and night, in a way that prevents one from having an opportunity to pause and think correctly in order to be guided to a sound decision. In Islam, man is freed from all external pressures and effects that may limit or even deprive him from his freedom of choice and decision. Islaam frees man from all such pressures. In democracy, freedom exposes man to all evils, corruption, and everything else that would ruin his good morals and pure nature; it causes him to become inclined towards aggression and abnormality. Its similitude is like that of a person driving a car without brakes who is also negligent of other drivers and pedestrians, therefore, he would slam into others and cause many accidents. On the other hand, in Islam, freedom is a cause for one to adopt the finest and most courteous morals and behaviour, it does not allow one to transgress in any way and preserves man’s health, faith and thinking; its similitude is like that of one who drives a car with excellent brakes and who stops where he is supposed to and drives only when it is safe to do so. Freedom in democracy appears as if it is a gift that man gives to another fellow human, and it is as if he has the right to give him as much of it as he desires and whenever it suits him. In Islam however, it is a right that Allaah has granted to His slaves, and no human has the right to deprive others from it except for a reason that is legislated by Allaah. The words of ‘Umar, clearly reflect this when he said: “Who gave you the right to enslave others when they were born free?†This is freedom in democracy and in Islam, so which is worthier for the title? Allaah Says (what means): “…And remain on a right course as you are commanded and do not follow their inclinations...†[Quran 26:15]