Islam & democracy
Reader comment on item: Debate: Islam and Democracy

Submitted by Saankhya (India), Jul 21, 2003 at 03:10

Dear Dr. Pipes,

I am an admirer of your forthright and incisive scholarship. The following are my comments on the “Debate: Islam and Democracy”.

1. Firstly, the “Debate: Islam and Democracy” conveniently avoids core issues. The issues that should have been debated are, whether or not Islam (i.e. the precepts of the Quran, the Hadiths, the Sharia) per se:
i. Is compatible with democracy guaranteeing equal rights and equal protection of laws to all citizens;
ii. Denies equal rights to women and non-muslims;
iii. Sanctions slavery;
iv. Empowers muslims to wage Jihad against non-muslims till kufr is completely eradicated (this concept is the fountain head of terrorism and organised violence against non-muslims since 7th century, and of which ordinary muslims and muslim women are greatest victims);
v. Calls for intense loyalty of muslims to the ummah i.e. muslim brotherhood, to the negation of loyalty to one’s nation-state which is a major source of conflict in any multi-religious society,
vi. Allows the freedom of expression including the freedom to discuss, if not question its doctrines, without which no democracy can sustain.

2. Secondly, it is no use beating around the bush by skirting core issues. When every word of Quran is considered sacrosanct and unchangeable, how is it possible for the muslim world to modernize?

3. Thirdly, a distinction need to be made between an undesirable practice that is an appendage of the past and the one that is sanctioned by scriptures or doctrine. The former can easily be eradicated by social reform and legislation, whereas the latter calls for religious reform that is far more difficult and has to necessarily come from within that religion. Further, the prerequisite for any reform, whether social or religious, requires acknowledgement of the source of the problem and not merely the problem. This “Debate: Islam and Democracy” has failed to discuss the crucial doctrinaire / scriptural issues.

4. Fourth, the claim of Dr. Khan that “…unlike the U.S., four Muslim nations have or had women heads of government” and “I am convinced that it is just a matter of time before the entire Muslim world democratizes” is spurious to the least. These countries have or had women heads of government in spite of Islam and not because of it. They were once part of the great Hindu civilization whose remnant influences are responsible for women in these countries continuing to enjoy better rights than their less fortunate counterparts in the core countries of Islam i.e. Middle East. Thus, in general, the farther a country is from the epicenter of Islam (i.e. Middle East) the less Islamic, and hence more democratic it is. Eg. Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia are, relatively speaking, more democratic with better rights to women than Pakistan, which in turn is better, again relatively speaking, than the Middle Eastern countries. In other words, the extent of democracy in a society is inversely proportional to the degree of its Islamization. More importantly and contrary to the optimism of Dr. Khan, the situation is fast worsening due to tablighi and taliban movements to rid these societies of pre-islamic influences. Blasting of Bamian Buddhas is just one example. I sincerely wish that Dr. Khan’s optimism will become a reality and I will be delighted if I am proved wrong even after a century.

5. Lastly, the pattern of women enjoying pre-eminent position and better rights including religious, in societies with pagan (i.e. non-Abrahamic) religious influences is clearly evident across the globe. In other words, the more pagan the influence, the higher is the status of women. It is not a coincidence that the first and second women heads of government in the world in modern era are from Srilanka (Sirimavo Bandarenayake) and India (Indira Gandhi), which are Buddhist and Hindu majority countries respectively, and both are constitutionally democratic and secular with equal rights and equal protection of laws to all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion and sex. It is again not a coincidence that almost all women heads of government both past and present, are from South and South-East Asian countries having high degree of dominant or remnant Hindu / Buddhist influences.

In contrast, the greater the influence of totalitarian theologies (i.e. prophetic monotheistic religions) and ideologies (i.e. Communism, Nazism, Fascism), the lower the status of women. This is notwithstanding the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment and Modernization. The fact that none of the Communist countries both erstwhile and present, the Western including American and Australian countries, the Islamic countries and the lone Jewish country, produced or elected women heads of government (barring Thatcher and Golda Meir and those few non-core Islamic countries having abundant remnant Hindu influences) amply demonstrates the point that there is something in these totalitarian theologies and ideologies that denies equality to women. Maybe totalitarianism, whether of theological or ideological variety, itself is responsible, as it essentially suppresses the weak of which womenfolk constitutes a major chunk. This is not to say that constitutionally or legally women are denied equal rights in Western democracies. But the moot point is that they do not elect women heads of government in spite of Enlightenment etc., probably due to Christian doctrinal / scriptural influences which might be working subconsciously if not openly, in the minds of the populace. And there does not appear to be any other cogent reason for this paradox in Western democracies.

Yours truly,
Saankhya

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.