Some important points
Reader comment on item: Debate: Islam and Democracy

Submitted by Linas Kondratas (Lithuania), Jul 24, 2003 at 05:01

1. The question whether Muslim society can change : The question is not whether Muslim societies can change (all societies do change with the time), but whether they can change in a pro-western way and still remain islamic. I think they cannot. Islam is like block or monolith, subject to the pressure from the West. It could either support the pressure, and if the Western pressure, lessens in the future then Islam come stronger as it was, having perhaps absorbed some Western elements but with the core intact; or it could break or collapse suddenly - with unforeseeable circumstances; or more likely - unstable situation could last for quite a long time; but I do not believe it can undergo a radical change gradually as Western societies did since the Renaissance and Enlightment.

2. Islam is absolutely incompatible with the Western liberal democracy as it exists today, since it lacks the concept of popular sovereignty and individual rights. These concepts are alien to Islam, as much as they are is to Judeochristianity. These concept come from Rome. Although in Rome Gods and their cult had very high importance, and the propitiation of Gods was thought absolutely necessary to assure the well being of the state according to the principle "do ut des"(I give that you would give also), but Romans lacked divinely revealed books, and their laws were voted by Senate and Comitii(people's gathering) according to the interests of the State(which interests of course included the necessity to have good relations with Gods and render them their honors). Individual rights were also developed by the Roman legal system. Since Arabs had the touch only with the Late Roman state(the Dominate - the absolute monarchy) modeled itself of the Oriental(Persian) model the tradition of the Roman republicanism is alien to them. Many characteristics of the Arabic state(union of the politics and religion - din wa dawla, the Holy war) are in fact adopted from Late Roman/Byzantine or Sasanide states. The Holy war was the first time launched by the Roman-Byzantine emperor Heraclius against the Persians and probably served as the model to the Muslim jihad and make impression on early Muslims("defeated were the Room in the nearest land but afterwards they will come victoroius and then will rejoice the believers")

Yet Islam could develop its own type of the consensual rule, based more on the informal or semiformal consensus building between various tribes, clans, groups more, than on formal procedures or majority vote. In fragmented societies, as are those of Middle East and eg. Bosnia, the traditional majoritary democracy does not vote, because everyone is voting for their "own" representatives and the results of the elections are clear in advance, and group which is minority would have the prospect to be in the eternal minority and the exclusion in the system of the majoritarian democracy. Muslims to whom the Roman legal system is deeply alien also cannot have much respect for a formalized legal procedure; for them more important is not the letter, but niyya and maqasid. If a piece of the formal written law is an obstacle for achieving the desired result, then probably the it is the law, and not the desired result that will be sacrificed. To stick to the legal formalism probably looks like madness for the most of Arabs and Muslims.

The injustice in the Western society is the breaking of formal legal norms, while for Muslims the injustice would be the efforts of one group to gain benefits at the expence of the vital interest of other groups irrespective whether formal legalism is honored or not . Secondly, the Western societies have received a large dose of platonic idealism, and for example the Western societies try to enforce the ideal(equality of rights, equality of chances etc.) even if these ideals obviously contradict the empirical evidence(human beings are obviously not equal, they have very different needs and potential every one). While on the contrary the Muslims do not have any such idealism. For them there is no tension between the ideal and the fact. Muslim societies align to the fact not to the ideal. For them is more important to get the society that would simply be somewhat working and satisfying at least the most vital necessities than to go after ideal. One example, if the law excludes women from becoming president or senator, Muslims would hardly consider it a big problem, since in fact the number of woman who would aspire for such position is negligent and the real interests of the absolute majority of women are not affected . While for Western feminists it would be highly insupportable since it contradicts their ideal of the "equality of man and woman". In generaly for a Muslim and Muslimah it is irrelevant to have any formal declaration of "rights". For him or her it is more important to really get that what covers his/her necessities.

3. If the popular sovereignty does not exist in Islam, and the body politic not creates its own laws but implements the will of Allah, there is still much ground for debate and discussion what are the best ways to implement the will of Allah. Secondly it is often believed, at least by some fuqaha, that Sharia is given by Allah for the best interest of the people themselves, Sharia does not necessary exclude the concept of the public or individual interest.

4. The change with the Muslim society can happen not because Muslims change but because the the world arround them changes. For example one of very popular slogans nowadays is "sustainable development". I would say that the idea of the sustainable development is in the very core of the Islamic systems, since a Muslim by instinct strives for stability and stationarity and abhorrs change. Bid'a as we know is the biggest sin. If the West is really serious about the "sustainable development", then the global environment could turn much more friendly for Muslims in the future. The spirit of competition which reigns in the West today is also deeply antithetical for Muslims who instinctively prefer consensus and cooperation, and not competition. Muslims prefer a well arranged environment where everyone has one's place assigned to such environment where the order emerges from the free play of forces. On the other hand any serious introdution of the "sustainable development: is oimpossible in the aggressively competitive network. I also think that the interest-based society is inherently unsustainable, because money does not breed money - the interest rates must be covered from more intense exploitation of the environment. So I think the idea of the "sustainable development" will revive the idea of the interest-free economy as well.

5. Concerning the question whether Islam is Judeo Christian or not I would say that Islam was the reformation of the Judeochristianism of the Muhammed's time in the sense that Protestantism was the reformation of Catholicism. In both cases the reformers claimed that the existing tradition was corrupt and removed from the state of affairs which as they said existed in the past(Abrahamic tradition in one case and Apostolic tradition in the other) and that they doing nothing more than restore it. So that Islam is not Judeochristianism equally as Protestantism is not Catholicism, but Islam has certainly very intimate ties with the Judeochriatianism.

6. Privileging Muslims over non-Muslims is hardly to disappear from Islam since for a Muslim granting equal status for persons with "wrong opinions"is indeed very antithetic. In the eyes of Muslims non-Muslims simply don't deserve equal status since Muslims believe, that especially those non-Muslim persons who live in the Islamic world and know Islam well, are deliberately rejecting the truth because of their ill-will, because Muslims think that Islamic principles are clear and understandable enough in order that everyone of good-will could follow them.

7. Concerning higher criticism. The so called "revisionist science" has until now produced very meager results. The most what the adepts of this science do is to try to raise doubts over the accepted views on Islam. However the one of the topmost principles in Islam formulated I think by Shafii says "the doubt does not remove or destroy an established truth". So that revisionists if they want to prove their point, must develop a positive theory on the beginning on Islam and substantiate it by arguments and facts stronger than those on which accepted opinions rested, otherwise their work will be simply ignored by the bulk of Muslims. I think different role of the higher criticism in Christianity and Islam has to do with the difference of the methodological role of doubt in these traditions - if in the Western tradition the doubt can deprive a truth of credibility, in Islam it cannot - only a stronger truth can.

8. Concerning the "coming of the Christianity and Judaism to terms with modernity" I could say that those who "came in terms" were liberal branches of the respective traditions, which are now quickly wasting and waning away, and those who remain truly Christians and (practicing)Jews are those who adamantly reject modernity and "higher criticism"

---

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.