Are Islam And Democracy Incompatible?

[stromboli]

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Democratic_Values#ECtHR_and_Shari.27ah_Law

Islam differs from what most people typically think of as religion in that it doubles as a system of government.[1] Islam is an outright rejection of concepts like freedom, democracy, and human rights,[2][3] though it is rare for a Muslim to directly acknowledge this and they often attempt to create a different impression.[4] Muslims are commanded to live by the local laws if they are living in a non-Muslim state, but the mechanism for turning a non-Muslim state into a Muslim one is ambiguous. Hostility towards Islam is considered justification for conquest. Such hostility seems inevitable if a large group of people try to undermine our values and system of government. Muslims are forbidden from voting in 'secular' elections, so the overthrow of non-Muslim governments is presumably by force, either external or internal, as soon as they are powerful enough.

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the European Court of Human Rights determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."[124]

On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving the RP on the ground that it had become a "centre of activities against the principle of secularism". It also declared that the RP’s assets were to be transferred by operation of law to the Treasury. The Constitutional Court further held that the public declarations of the RP’s leaders, and in particular Necmettin Erbakan, Sevket Kazan and Ahmet Tekdal, had a direct bearing on the constitutionality of the RP’s activities. Consequently, it imposed a further sanction in the form of a ban on their sitting in Parliament or holding certain other forms of political office for a period of five years.

The Court considered that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions: (1) the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and (2) the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognized could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

This may be viewed as biased, given the tenor of the article. For this reason I add the following:

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy&date=2012-12-17

Are Islam and democracy compatible? A large literature has developed arguing that Islam has all the ingredients of modern state and society. Many Muslim intellectuals seek to prove that Islam enshrines democratic values. But rather than lead the debate, they often follow it, peppering their own analyses with references to Western scholars who, casting aside traditional Orientalism for the theories of the late literary theorist and polemicist Edward Said, twist evidence to fit their theories. Why such efforts? For Western scholars, the answer lies both in politics and the often lucrative desire to please a wider Middle East audience. For Islamists, though, the motivation is to remove suspicion about the nature and goals of Islamic movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood and, perhaps, even Hezbollah.

Some Western researchers support the Islamist claim that parliamentary democracy and representative elections are not only compatible with Islamic law, but that Islam actually encourages democracy. They do this in one of two ways: either they twist definitions to make them fit the apparatuses of Islamic governmentâ€"terms such as democracy become relativeâ€"or they bend the reality of life in Muslim countries to fit their theories.

Among the best known advocates of the idea that Islam both is compatible and encourages democracy is John L. Esposito, founding director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and the author or editor of more than thirty books about Islam and Islamist movements. Esposito and his various co-authors build their arguments upon tendentious assumptions and platitudes such as "democracy has many and varied meanings;"[1] "every culture will mold an independent model of democratic government;"[2] and "there can develop a religious democracy."[3]

He argues that "Islamic movements have internalized the democratic discourse through the concepts of shura [consultation], ijma' [consensus], and ijtihad [independent interpretive judgment]"[4] and concludes that democracy already exists in the Muslim world, "whether the word democracy is used or not."[5]

If Esposito's arguments are true, then why is democracy not readily apparent in the Middle East? Freedom House regularly ranks Arab countries as among the least democratic anywhere.[6] Esposito adopts Said's belief that Western scholarship and standards are inherently biased and lambastes both scholars who pass such judgments without experience with Islamic movements[7] and those who have a "secular bias" toward Islam.[8]

Islamist Rejection of Esposito's Theory

Ironically, while Western scholars perform intellectual somersaults to demonstrate the compatibility of Islam and democracy, prominent Muslim scholars argue democracy to be incompatible with their religion. They base their conclusion on two foundations: first, the conviction that Islamic law regulates the believer's activities in every area of life, and second, that the Muslim society of believers will attain all its goals only if the believers walk in the path of God.[50] In addition, some Muslim scholars further reject anything that does not have its origins in the Qur'an.[51]

Hasan al-Banna (1906-49), the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood,[52] sought to purge Western influences. He taught that Islam was the only solution and that democracy amounted to infidelity to Islam.[53] Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), the leading theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, objected to the idea of popular sovereignty altogether. He believed that the Islamic state must be based upon the Qur'an, which he argued provided a complete and moral system in need of no further legislation.[54] Consultationâ€"in the traditional Islamic sense rather than in the manner of Esposito's extrapolationsâ€"was sufficient.

Mawdudi, while used by Esposito, argued that Islam was the antithesis of any secular Western democracy that based sovereignty upon the people[55] and rejected the basics of Western democracy.[56] More recent Islamists such as Qaradawi argue that democracy must be subordinate to the acceptance of God as the basis of sovereignty. Democratic elections are therefore heresy, and since religion makes law, there is no need for legislative bodies.[57] Outlining his plans to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia, Abu Bakar Bashir, a Muslim cleric and the leader of the Indonesian Mujahideen Council, attacked democracy and the West and called on Muslims to wage jihad against the ruling regimes in the Muslim world. "It is not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy," he explained.[58]

Nor does acceptance of basic Western structures imply democracy. Under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic adopted both a constitution and a parliament, but their existence did not make Iran more democratic. Indeed, Khomeini continued to wield supreme power and formed a number of bodiesâ€"the revolutionary foundations, for exampleâ€"which remained above constitutional law.

Is Islamic Democracy Possible?

The Islamic world is not ready to absorb the basic values of modernism and democracy. Leadership remains the prerogative of the ruling elite. Arab and Islamic leadership are patrimonial, coercive, and authoritarian. Such basic principles as sovereignty, legitimacy, political participation and pluralism, and those individual rights and freedoms inherent in democracy do not exist in a system where Islam is the ultimate source of law.

The failure of democracies to take hold in Gaza and Iraq justify both the 1984 declaration by Samuel P. Huntington and the argument a decade later by Gilles Kepel, a prominent French scholar and analyst of radical Islam, that Islamic cultural traditions may prevent democratic development.[59]

Emeritus Princeton historian Bernard Lewis is also correct in explaining that the term democracy is often misused. It has turned up in surprising placesâ€"the Spain of General Franco, the Greece of the colonels, the Pakistan of the generals, the Eastern Europe of the commissarsâ€"usually prefaced by some qualifying adjective such as "guided," "basic," "organic," "popular," or the like, which serves to dilute, deflect, or even reverse the meaning of the word.[60]

Islam may be compatible with democracy, but it depends on what is understood as Islam. This is not universally agreed on and is based on a hope, not on reality. Both Turkey and the West African country of Mali are democracies even though the vast majority of their citizens are Muslim. But, the political Islam espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists is incompatible with liberal democracy.

Furthermore, if language has an impact on thinking, then the Middle East will achieve democracy only slowly, if at all. In traditional Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, there is no word for "citizen." Rather, older texts use cognatesâ€" in Arabic, muwatin; in Turkish, vatandaslik; in Persian, sharunadâ€" respectively, closer in meaning to the English "compatriot" or "countryman." The Arabic and Turkish come from watan, meaning "country." Muwatin, is a neologism and while it suggests progress, the Western concept of freedomâ€"understood as the ability to participate in the formation, conduct, and lawful removal and replacement of governmentâ€"remains alien in much of the region.

Islamists themselves regard liberal democracy with contempt. They are willing to accommodate it as an avenue to power but as an avenue that runs only one way.[61] Hisham Sharabi (1927-2005), the influential Palestinian scholar and political activist, has said that Islamic fundamentalism expresses mass sentiment and belief as no nationalist or socialist (and we may add democratic) ideology has been able to do up until now.[62]

Democracy as a form of government is very much a western-and secular- idea. The U S Constitution was created by the likes of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who were not religious men. Political forms such as a king and parliament are also essentially secular, because they act separately from any religion, even one (such as the Church of England, or Catholicism prior to the French Revolution) viewed as a state religion. In modern western governments religion is viewed not as a state function but separate and allowed under law.

Islam was created initially as a Caliphate run state; a caliphate being viewed either as a descendant of Mohammed or someone allowed to rule under the auspices of Islam. It has not, prior to western influence, ever been democratic. A caliphate is an autocratic state; consider Saudi Arabia, which still has a king as its ruler in the 21st century. As mentioned, Iran adopted a parliamentary government as such, but the Ayatollah or religious head is in fact the leader of the state. Those states that have adopted a democratic form such as Pakistan and Iraq are at best only barely stable as a government; inner conflict between sects and tribes makes that very difficult.

The sole "exception" is Turkey; but the elected president is a die hard fundamentalist Muslim who has forced his will on the democratic system to the effect of rendering it less than viable. Erdogan has been linked with ISIS and their attacks in Syria and against the Kurds.

I think the evidence is more than clear that Islam is not and will never be, in its present form, compatible with Western governments that are (ostensibly) populist based. We shall see.

[gussy]

The Gulf states are way beyond the point of economic strength that would be needed for burgeoning democracies.  South Korea, for example, was a dictatorship until quite recently.  Their economy eclipsed their political system and paved the road for democracy.  We see this time and time again.  Wealthy countries outgrow their archaic political system and become democracies.  This doesn't happen in the Middle East and North Africa though.  It becomes easy at this point to blame it on Islam. 

But in other parts of the world some Muslim countries have had evolving political systems.  Indonesia and Malaysia aren't western democracies but their systems have improved as their countries have developed.  Some of the better run countries in sub-Saharan Africa are majority Muslim.  Pakistan elected a woman PM before the Islamacists ruined their country. 

It might be more apt to say the combination of Arab politics and Islam is lethal to democracy.  Islamic countries that are more free from the Arab sphere of influence might have a better chance of becoming democracies.  Since these non- Arab countries are relatively poor, it might take a long time to find out.

[Shiranu]

The Gulf states are way beyond the point of economic strength that would be needed for burgeoning democracies.  South Korea, for example, was a dictatorship until quite recently.

The gulf states money is also mostly at the top; these are countries that still use slave labour, after all. The average U.A.E. or Arabian is not particularly well off (or educated) at all.

[gussy]

The gulf states money is also mostly at the top; these are countries that still use slave labour, after all. The average U.A.E. or Arabian is not particularly well off (or educated) at all.

I agree but I would say that these conditions are partially caused by their antiquated political system.  Any other part of the world with that kind of wealth has outlawed slavery and made education free for everyone. 

[SGOS]

This is a complicated issue that I can't distill to simple terms.  I wonder about those who argue each side in public debate.  I suspect these well meaning experts and pundits are politically motivated and trying hard to twist and spin facts and definitions to support their position.

Would I want to live in an Islamic State?  No.  Would I want to live in a country where religious factions were allowed to create a separate set of laws?  No. 

No religion, Islam, Christianity, or Hindu, has ever demonstrated enough self restraint to not try to force itself on everyone else.  They only demonstrate such restraint when they don't have the power.  Every religion has fanatical components seeking ultimate power, and I cannot think of a stronger threat to the pursuit of individual happiness than religion.

[Solitary]

Are Islam And Democracy Incompatible? Of course they are! All religions are based on dogma that puts gods or God above humanity, that look down on mere mortals. They are also all based on never questioning authority because they are sacred.  Solitary

[TPG]

Nope they aren't "incompatible" (agnostic Muslim)

[Desdinova]

Nope they aren't "incompatible" (agnostic Muslim)

Care to explain why?  And who are you?  Did I miss your introduction thread?

[leo]

Nope they aren't "incompatible" (agnostic Muslim)

What the hell is agnostic Islam ? Islam without the active belief in Alah isn't Islam. I guess you are another funny troll.

[stromboli]

Nope they aren't "incompatible" (agnostic Muslim)

Thank you. Now please give us links and demonstrate your point. Islam is based initially on a Caliphate system. Jordan and Turkey supposedly are democracies, but Turkey is undergoing a big shift to fundamentalism under Erdogan. There are Democratic governments, but countries like Saudi Arabia, a hard line Islam country, isn't.

And being an agnostic Muslim is neither here nor there. Agnostic is like saying I sort of believe and sort of don't, so that by itself doesn't effectively qualify your argument. Oh and by the way- welcome. Please introduce yourself.

[stromboli]

To expand on this- the point being is that, even though countries are by description a democracy, the real leadership is by Islamic leaders or leaders who lean heavily towards Islam in their methods.  And I correct myself- Jordan is a constitutional monarchy. They still have a king, although he is considered more progressive than some other rulers.

Naming a country a democracy doesn't make it one. When, as in Iran, an Ayatollah's decision can trump a political one, which happened under Ahmadinejad, who was a conservative leader.

[TPG]

                                                                                                                                                   What the hell is agnostic Islam ? Islam without the active belief in Alah isn't Islam. I guess you are another funny troll.

yes because  you're a troll for lacking faith

the point is if Islam was based on caliphate then The people shouldn't have had a choice when choosing Abu bakr RA astheir leader

[stromboli]

I'm not calling you a troll. You need to understand that as atheists we are usually in a minority position and we think of this forum as a place of refuge, in some ways. I would be more than happy to get a good discussion with anyone from Islam who didn't scream religious epithets and threaten us, which has happened a few times. We have had very few people from your religion who were willing to inform rather than attack.

If you have good examples of how democracy works with Islam, I'd like to see them. Be aware that we can be pretty harsh sometimes. I'd like to know more.

[TPG]

if any one of the sahaba was unhappy with Abu Bakr as khalifa then he would have walked down.Muhammad SAW NEVER introduced caliphate. He never criticised democracy.

[stromboli]

Thank you. I would still like to see some supporting documents or quotes from the Koran.