69 million page views

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"
Submitting....

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 and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (69) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
2Are Islam and democracy incompatible. How about Islam and ethics? [377 words]PrashantApr 12, 2013 00:39205107
third largest democratic country [5 words]antarApr 11, 2013 07:20205084
Democracy/secularism [130 words]KateSep 4, 2010 19:54177685
See the Reality, Women is still a commodity in Islamic Country by and large. [80 words]Sardar Ravi Ranjan Singh 'Bharat Panthi'Jul 20, 2010 11:49175804
The need for foreign intervention - Islam's incompatibility with democratic principles [157 words]AlexMar 11, 2010 22:11169999
Caliph was elected [30 words]bary soetoroJan 11, 2010 18:02167193
Indonesia: The third democratic country in the world [34 words]barry soetoroMar 28, 2009 23:11152919
Five minutes before twelve [84 words]Listiani LestariFeb 3, 2011 18:56152919
indonesia [10 words]b soetoroFeb 6, 2011 07:42152919
1Islamic 'Democracy' under Sharia Law? OXYMORON [281 words]TheWayItIsJul 3, 2006 17:3848804
2Islam and democracy [1168 words]Guy Leven-Torres (Agricola)May 30, 2007 15:0248804
Christian fanatics lack moral authority to criticize Islam [409 words]J. GuzmanApr 6, 2011 21:0348804
Security for US more important than spreading democracy [325 words]Saleem SiddiquiFeb 21, 2006 19:2636882
JIHAD IN ISLAM [56 words]I.N.F.Dec 1, 2005 17:1129272
1Sharia: DOA in Ontario [254 words]Mark-Alan WhittleSep 16, 2005 09:1725897
pkk ist doof [80 words]Sep 3, 2005 19:4025456
Plz read well about Islam first [28 words]someoneFeb 28, 2004 17:2514020
Later [126 words]truthMay 4, 2006 07:3714020
very good [12 words]lelekDec 14, 2003 08:4812647
Correction for Mike Ramirez [46 words]A.A.Sep 12, 2003 16:3111231
The question is on democracy. [52 words]Al-Zhoheir HajimSep 5, 2003 01:1211037
No reform Muslims [117 words]Hank RothAug 21, 2003 22:5510715
4Freedom, equality, justice & human dignity in islam [229 words]A.A.Aug 11, 2003 12:0010504
this is islam [234 words]FADWAApr 26, 2006 06:4410504
2Islamic Vs. Western Human Rights [677 words]CanadianChrisSep 29, 2010 16:0110504
1the information is not based on truth [69 words]hawwaJun 5, 2011 09:3110504
Equality For All in Islam??? [147 words]Mike RamirezAug 5, 2003 10:1410447
10Why is a man allowed to have more than one wife in Islam? i.e. why is polygamy allowed in Islam? [1263 words]Mohammed Rizwan MemonNov 27, 2009 12:2310447
RE: Why is a man allowed to have more than one wife in Islam? i.e. why is polygamy allowed in Islam? [601 words]SoManyContradictionSoLittleTimeJul 30, 2010 21:0910447
1Just answer the question [116 words]rational thinkerFeb 15, 2014 18:0810447
equality for all [25 words]coolknOct 20, 2014 08:1510447
Understand first. [18 words]SalihuMay 12, 2017 03:5010447
Answer [49 words]Manish guptaAug 21, 2017 22:5910447
Islam-Double talk [155 words]hari iyerAug 1, 2003 11:5210385
Discrimination? [77 words]S.C.PandaJul 30, 2003 07:3310324
1Sharia Law and Turkey [131 words]M. LeviJul 28, 2003 23:1710286
3Sharia Law and Turkey [131 words]M. LeviJul 28, 2003 23:1410283
Mohammed 's rule by consent and consultation [77 words]N.K.Jul 28, 2003 10:5610275
1ISLAM, Terror "Ghulam Nabi" , The Prophet's truth [939 words]No-americanDec 13, 2007 10:1910275
The Enlightenment can be evil, too [97 words]Peter J. HerzJul 25, 2003 23:5010244
It's a matter of time [182 words]Tim EarlJul 25, 2003 09:5310237
2Dr. Khan's ignorance [101 words]A. A.Jul 24, 2003 14:0710214
1conquest by the womb and sword [109 words]Y Brandstetter MDJul 24, 2003 08:3810198
Some important points [1515 words]Linas KondratasJul 24, 2003 05:0110191
Islam and Democracy [107 words]Nozrul HussainJul 23, 2003 18:1310185
3Muslim Women Prime Ministers [263 words]Peggy RapierJul 23, 2003 11:5410179
Tansu Ciller / Muslim Women Prime Ministers [99 words]Jan OOct 19, 2007 09:0510179
Female political leaders in Islam and in Muslim-majority countries [35 words]Dr. Fawzy SaadJul 27, 2011 11:2010179
Muqtedar! You are utterly WRONG! [231 words]Lakshmi NarayainJul 23, 2003 02:0510165
religion and democracy: can islam do it? [1285 words]Peter J. HerzJul 22, 2003 23:3810154
1Islam & democracy [874 words]SaankhyaJul 21, 2003 03:1010095
Islam is better than democracy and Muslim women have all the rights and freedom since 1400 yrs ago [176 words]Nur IbrahimFeb 16, 2011 10:4810095
A Leopard Can't Change Its Spots [126 words]James CartwellJul 20, 2003 11:2210093
Our is the best society? [149 words]JafetyJul 19, 2003 13:5410087
What is the real problem? [469 words]Dennis WheelerJul 18, 2003 22:3810086
PEW Report [119 words]Julian WassermanJul 18, 2003 17:5010085
Islam and Democracy [671 words]Vijay DandapaniJul 18, 2003 15:2410084
Dr. Muqtedar Khan [26 words]Dan GurtaJul 18, 2003 13:4710083
Islam itself [36 words]Regan HuffmanJul 18, 2003 13:1410082
Muqtedar Khan is wrong [118 words]Malolan CadambiJul 18, 2003 04:1310080
The real question [72 words]William PapkeJul 17, 2003 17:4710075
1Biblical criticism & the truth about stoning in Islam. [388 words]Richard BurdJul 17, 2003 17:4110074
Appreciaton for #1167 article [29 words]Mike HeibergJul 17, 2003 12:4610066
Khan misses several key points [222 words]Jane AdlerJul 17, 2003 12:3810065
Debate: Islam and Democracy [1434 words]Gabriele (Gila) KleinJul 17, 2003 12:0210064
Debate: Islam and Democracy [48 words]Mike RamirezJul 17, 2003 12:0210063
What others have said about this topic [601 words]Karl EricsonJul 17, 2003 11:4310061
Different perspectives [214 words]Kenneth BesigJul 17, 2003 11:2610059
Islam's "civil war" [43 words]Glenn KlotzJul 17, 2003 08:4310055

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)