I think yes, Islam is compatible with democracy. It is also compatible with a lot of other methods of government. There's nothing mandating or prohibiting any particular form of rule in the source texts of Islam (Quran and Hadith).Quraishi, who teaches constitutional law and Islamic law here at the UW Law School, explained how, historically, Islamic law developed, with a "public lawmaking realm [that] was separated from the realm of those who derived law from from interpretation of divine texts." This traditional public lawmaking "could very easily translate to a democratic public legislative (even representative democracy, even federalism if you like that too) system."
The question then becomes what do you do with the law that is derived from divine texts (and this is law, by the way, that a lot of Muslims in the world like, and in fact demand their rights under - much the same way we demand our constitutional rights - and this includes women, often in a very empowering way, but that's another topic) - i.e. the doctrinal corpus of law created by private Muslim jurists (fiqh).I wish everyone could hear Asifa give this presentation. She's a terrific speaker, and she uses Powerpoint slides, which I normally hate, quite brilliantly. There's a point in the presentation where one circle moves to a different position and everyone feels a great sense of enlightenment.
What I was tackling in my presentation was the roadblock in this issue that I think is presented by the western tendency to think that the sovereign state should be the location of all law for all of society. Once we are able to re-think the location of legal authority in a society, that some can exist as valid and authoritative, yet outside the realm of public lawmaking mechanisms, then I think that we will have gotten much further to coming up with a system of government and lawmaking and adjudication for Muslim societies that can be (but doesn't have to be, frankly I don't care what it looks like, that's up to them) "democratic" but in a very different model than western nation-state democracies.
I don't have any specific proposal on how this would look, and how it would work (that's something for me to work on for the next several years). I'm just saying that the western model is not the only one, and then I try to push that point by showing how the merging of nation-state model with Islamic law pressures from the people and political movements has actually resulted in the worst of both worlds - i.e. theocratic-type authorities despite the fact that neither Islamic heritage, nor the western model would have chosen that on their own.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. Feel free to continue into the comments, where some readers take issue with Quraishi, and I relay some of her responses and note that she likened muftis (whom I initially mistakenly call mullahs) to law professors.
পোস্টগুলি
৫৪টি মন্তব্য:
...Once we are able to re-think the location of legal authority in a society...
"Re-thinking the location" is something I hope this county never does. It would open the way to a religion-based state, which would be a disaster.
Robert: You should see that Quraishi's analysis shows that Islam is compatible with the separation of religion and state!
Dave: You could have said the same thing about Christianity, looking at Europe not all that long ago in the great historical scheme of things. The question is whether the two things are compatible, not whether the religion necessarily or strongly leads people to democracy.
I think I understand the thrust of her argument.
1. Did she address how to reconcile the overlaps in Civil and Religious, areas of interest?
2. Assuming this approach is implemented: How does one implement this approach in bi or multi-culture country. e.g Nigeria
3. How does one protect religious rights of minorities without using a Dhimmitude approach?
"the western tendency to think that the sovereign state should be the location of all law for all of society."
in Western society, don't we also rely on something outside of the state as the location for our laws? (The notion of individual rights?)
Quietnorth: The point is that if you have a right, in our system, we expect the courts to enforce it. Rights, wherever they originate (a lot of us would say it's in the written law), are then recognized and preserved by the government, through its courts. Even if we create private rights through contracts, we expect the courts to be the enforcers. It would be odd to us to think of going to individual scholars -- Quraishi liked mullahs to law professors -- to get an answer to your legal question and have that be the end of it, with no recourse to the government's courts.
Malaysia says it is a Muslim democracy, although I think its legal system is based for the most part on English common law.
I am a bit confused as to who the enforcer of law would be if not the nation-state. A parallel religious "court?" What would be the arbiter of disputes? Surely you can get different opinions from different law professors; advice, by itself, lacks, what, "the force of law?"
Ron: According to Quraishi, people accepted that there were multiple interpreters and shopped around for someone they liked. The divergency and decentralization was not perceived as a problem. So, essentially, you're being "western" to ask the question that way.
There can be no fundamental equality accorded in a state of Democracy if the Spiritual and Secular cannot be separated. This is impossible in an Islamic state. Al Qu'ran and the Hadith are a priori, the given by God on which all else is based. Quraishi would have us believe that a Sharia Court could sanction a simple majority vote to be able to eat pork one day a week. The only thing inalienable in Islam is the original,unaltered direct communication(s) from God to Mohammed. The Quran cannot be amended. Why else would educated Muslims endorse a death fatwa against Solmon Rushdie? The poor bloke is still in hiding and like me, will not accept any cigar from Quraishi for buying into a myth.
"And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them."
"If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful."
"Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females."
Sura 4., An-Nisa
- fundamental equality, even for Jews?
According to Quraishi, people accepted that there were multiple interpreters and shopped around for someone they liked. The divergency and decentralization was not perceived as a problem.
Hey, I'm starting to like this idea! As an atheist, I won't have any laws at all! I can run amok! (which I've always dreamed of doing.)
The Krishnans,
On what does India base its code of laws? My perception was that it had an English legal structure, and I assumed it was colored by Indian common law.
I guess I'm asking how India deals with its Muslim minority and their desire for Sharia.
"...the western tendency to think that the sovereign state should be the location of all law for all of society."
Our law is clearly based on Judeo-Christian ethics; but since we believe in religious plurality, we cede authority to a secular state, answerable to the electorate and not to the diety, an admission that no one religion has a clear mandate from the diety. Can political, or radical, Islam admit the same? To me, there are two Islams, and radical Islam is out of the running completely; it's like saying, can Germany learn to live certain principles of Naziism. I don't know which she is speaking of.
She's very erudite, I'm sure, but again we keep hearing that Islam is compatible with some form of democracy...tba.
roadblock: "the western tendency to think that the sovereign state should be the location of all law for all of society".
I don't mean to be harsh, but frankly the location of all law for our (western, certainly American) society is precisely the sovereign state.
In other words, if you subvert this, you might as well toss all the historical effort of western society into the trash bin. Placing all our law into the sovereign state is not a menu option for us, it is the tautology that defines us.
Look, the alternative here is frighteningly obvious... either we are who we choose to be, or we are dhimmi.
And whether our fundamental nature, as western societies, are under attack by the sword of Islam or by the clever manipulation of PowerPoint slides makes no difference. This is a competition for the identity and values that will prevail in our cultures, and I for one have no intention of letting Islam and Sharia win.
people accepted that there were multiple interpreters and shopped around for someone they liked.
This may be some form of therapy...but law?
The divergency and decentralization was not perceived as a problem.
If two diverging interpretations are in the same room together, or are about something both sides feel is terribly important, I don't see how it could not be seen as a problem. What happens then, mob violence? Oratory? Random chance?
So, essentially, you're being "western" to ask the question that way. Maybe...but all cultures have disputes, both internal and external. I'm trying to see how such a system would look, and perhaps enlighten my own "western" outlook.
I wrote: "Quraishi liked mullahs to law professors..."
Asifa corrects me. That was muftis not mullahs ("a mullah is just an elder of a variety of types; a mufti is someone qualified to issue a fatwa"). She adds:
"It's not that the *only* recourse for fiqh law decisionmaking is by the muftis/law professors. That's only if there's an amicable mutual agreement to abide by their decision (e.g. like a mediator or some arbitration). But if one of the parties doesn't like it, she can take the case to a qadi court, which is appointed by the state to adjudicate fiqh-based disputes (and Qur'anic criminal law, sometimes). Now, the question obviously is - this is where we Americans get nervous - it's a state government enforcing rules according to doctrine derived from divine sources. Yep, it's a problem if the state decides to enforce them in a way that we (or more appropriately the relevant Muslim public - I still maintain it's really none of our business if we're
completely outside the polity) don't like. That's when the maslaha-basis (public good/welfare) of the state authority comes into play - and where there's the potential for flexibility (though I admit not every Muslim would go in the same direction on this). The state still has the power to decide the scope of the jurisdiction of its qadis - so it could decide to not empower a particular judge to adjudicate a particular area of criminal law (say those where one cuts off the hand of the thief) - on public policy/maslaha grounds. THIs is *not* changing the internal doctrine of Islamic law, but rather just deciding, for public good reasons, not
to apply it in certain circumstances. There's historical precedent for this, by the way, the 2nd Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, suspended the theft punishment during a time of famine - on the apparent grounds that the state was not providing adequately for the public and it would be unjust to punish starving people for stealing. A similar argument has been made by Tariq Ramadan, who has called for a moratorium on the death penalty
in Muslim countries b/c it is disproportionately applied to women and socio-economically underprivileged. Many disagree with him, but still,
he's making a significant contribution to the sort of thing I'm talking about. (Ramadan is, by the way, the Geneva prof who Homeland Security thinks is too dangerous to let him keep the visa they issued him; they revoked it days before he was to start a tenured position at Notre Dame last year).
"Anyway, that's much more than I intended to write. I just wanted to say that, yes, there is the police power of the state somewhere in here (as your readers have pointed out), and of course there's the rub. But I think we're all colored in how we imagine this would work out b/c we've seen the most extreme, restrictive uses of state power on the
back of religious law, and I just don't think it has to look that way."
I wrote (twice) "Quraishi liked mullahs to law professors..."
Should be likened. Sorry!
"Yep, it's a problem if the state decides to enforce them in a way that we ... don't like".
No, it's a problem either way.
Religious doctrine and the apparatus that executes that doctrine have no place in the legal system of a secular, western society. Ever.
Look, put down the law books and put down the Koran and take a quick gander at the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It could not be more clear.
Look, if you really have to live by Sharia, then you have to choose either to avoid our legal system or go live somewhere else. We have a legal system based on fundamental principles that are incompatible with Sharia, and we've spent many years and have invested lives of hundreds of brave soldier-citizens to get it that way.
No to the camel, no to the nose, and no to shoving that nose under the tent.
Yes, we know who Tariq Ramadan is, and I doubt he was denied a visa for his views on the death penalty in Muslim countries.
I agree with the paul and other posters here who say that separation of church and state is not a subject for revision. In theory and practice, identity politics will be the death of democracy.
Thanks for the clarification,Ann! Interesting stuff!
What a great example of how you can say disgusting things in a nice way. Let's paraphrase:
"This idea that people should vote for a governnment and then that government makes the laws is just another idea. So Western democracy, seperation of state, freedom of religion, these are just value-neutral ideas and other ideas are just as good.
So when you talk about Muslims and democracy, the problem isn't Muslims, it is the presumption that YOUR democracy, (the one where you vote for a government and then that goverment makes laws which are equally applied to everybody) is better than OTHER kinds of democracy.
I don't want to get into the specifics of what kind of democracy Muslims should have, though. That's another topic. It suffices that Muslims will live under divine law 'cause that's what they like- and they'll demand the rights of that divine law 'cause that's what they want. Of course Muslim won't have to VOTE to make those laws into actual laws, or to prove they really want those laws. After all, I assure you they do, and that's enough."
And this woman is a law professor, lol.
First of all, everyone should be clear that Quraishi is not talking about changing the U.S. system. Clearly, we have separation of religion and state as part of our written constitution. It's a great idea too. But how do you convince other countries to adopt it? England has an established church, you know, so it's scarcely as fundamental an idea as you are assuming. Quraishi is writing about countries where Muslims are a majority. If they operate democratically, what are they going to do with respect to religion and government? You need to make arguments that are appealing to the people who are going to make the decisions democratically. Quraishi is trying to talk about that. A lot of you seem to be missing the point! How would you go about convincing someone who cared about the Muslim tradition to separate religion and government? Do you have any idea how even to begin to do that? Try to focus on what she is talking about!
Ann: "How would you go about convincing someone who cared about the Muslim tradition to separate religion and government?"
You don't. You encourage them to update their religion.
The best argument in favor of secular law over sharia is to remind Muslims of the religious wars in Europe's history. These are the reason why we (the West) now separate religion and government.
And the factional bloodshed going on today among Muslims (Shiites vs. Sunnis) is their version of the same thing.
If this argument isn't sufficient to persuade a Muslim society to follow the West's example, I doubt anything else can.
Prof Quraishi, through no fault of her own, is answering the wrong question. People often conflate the idea of democracy with the idea of personal freedom because that is historically how the former idea was sold. She quite rightly points out that Islam and Democracy are compatible, but what people are really asking is whether Islam is compatible with Freedom.
As democracies are established in the Middle East, I suspect that Islam will slowly be edged out as Christianity has been in the West. This seems to be what the more radical sects are afraid of.
But even in the West, it is by no means certain that the radical secular viewpoint will ultimately triumph. In recent years many have seen that secularism has its costs and are trying to negotiate at least a partial return of religion to the public discourse. I think that is what paul d'abarge, PatCA and DEC are afraid of for their part. I personally think their fears are unfounded, and that religion and freedom are indeed compatible, but it all depends on who is in the driver's seat. And politic power tends to attract the least savory representatives of any ideology.
I have no fears, Jack. I have dealt daily with Islamic nations for 30 years. I lived in Muslim Egypt and in Muslim Indonesia. Over the decades my friends, neighbors, and customers often have said the same thing: "We need to update our religion."
With respect to your comment "as democracies are established in the Middle East," you are getting way ahead of yourself. The U.S. isn't doing too well with its "democracy crusade."
"How would you go about convincing someone who cared about the Muslim tradition to separate religion and government?"
This question is based on the assumption that most Muslims do NOT want religion and state separated in the western tradition. Yet every Iraqi blogger I read, including the devout Muslim Alaa at the messopotamian, wants no concession to religion, because it leads to tyranny. All the Muslim friends of my liberal Dutch friend supported Pim Fortuyn, because they “know what the radicals can do.” Certainly she is not asserting that she speaks more authentically for Muslims than people who live in Muslim countries!
So, her argument cedes legal authority to religion to please... whom exactly? The Muslims who shout the loudest, western intellectuals?
The Afghans and the Iraqis have made a good start at establishing consensual governemtns. I wish our intelligentsia could look beyond their contempt for the West for once and be more supportive.
Paul a' barge says all law comes from the sovereign state. I take it he means that human rights owe their existence to the state.
If the state can create human rights, it can just as easily take them away. And if it does, Paul is left without any argument.
I think I'll pass on this notion. I feel much safer with the natural law theory set out in the D of I.
I think my arguments have been mentioned by others, in relation to Turkey etc., so I'll concentrate (as ever) on elucidation.
Teacher, leave dem kids alone!
Mufti is a great word.
I love using it, but sadly, it generally raises eyebrows of incomprehension.
Mufti, apart from its religious significance, means "going in street attire", and not wearing uniform or official dress.
It used to be used commonly before WWI in many countries, like Germany, which had uniform manias.
This is what Wikipedia says:
The history of this description comes from the term Mufti to describe an official class of men in India who at that time, interpreted the law.
Known throughout India as Muftis', they dressed in civilian attire, unlike many other civil servants of the day. So, when a naval officer shifted out of uniform into civilian clothes to proceed ashore, it was spoken of as shifting into 'mufti'.
Mufti Day is an event at certain schools in which students are permitted to wear ordinary clothing, instead of the usual school uniform.
In my school in England, when you reached the sixth-form (US=12th grade), you were allowed, as the term had it, to go mufti.
Bliss.
Cheers,
Victoria
My question is:
Is Islam compatible with democracy when Muslims are in the minority?
It seems to me that this is a wholly different question than whether a majority-Muslim nation can be democratic. In my mind, the recent rioting over the Danish cartoons, during which Muslims in Britain called for beheadings, and Muslims worldwide called on the Danish government to apologize, shows a fundamental (no pun intended) lack of understanding of how a democracy works when Muslims don't get to make the laws.
Anything can be "compatible with democracy." A country in which 51% or more of the people think Jews should be put to death is not a good place to be Jewish. A nation in which 56% of the people believe homosexuality should be punishable by death ain't a great place to be gay. Come to think of it, I think I just described a Muslim-majority democracy.
Democracy does not have to be necessarily synonymous with individual liberty. Democracy does not necessarily mean a free press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. Where our founders got it right, if I'm allowed to be "western" for a minute, was in creating a system that limited the power of both the government AND the peepul. 60% of the people in America could believe that gays (or Jews, or whatever) are evil and deserved to die, and, legally, it wouldn't matter. I'm pretty sure you couldn't say the same about a country run under Shari'a, whether it was a kingdom, a theocracy, a democracy, or whatever.
Obviously, some Muslims have little or no problem living in a country such as America. But, to me, the question remains: can Muslims -- MOST Muslims, not SOME Muslims -- live in democratic societies that emphasize individual liberty over religious teachings? Can most Muslims understand that occasionally being offended is the cost of doing business in such a society? Can most Muslims understand that the Q'uran most be subservient to the law in such a society?
Hopefully the answer to all these questions is "yes," but I must confess that over the last several years I've become increasingly pessimistic that this is the case.
The problem with this is that the question is illogically framed.
Islam isn't the problem; the problem is SHARIA, which is nothing more than a set of common laws.
It is SHARIA that is incompatible with democracy; because in a democracy, we all get to vote on what our laws will be (and as such, our laws can have nothing to do with our individual religions. See abortion laws.)
And so, let's redebate the issue: Is SHARIA compatible with democracy?
AlaskaJack said...
Paul a' barge says all law comes from the sovereign state.
AlaskaJack is wrong. Paul A'Barge said that indeed, "the sovereign state should be the location of all law for all of society".
What AlaskaJack confuses is the distinction between LAWS and RIGHTS. Indeed, according to the Declaration of Independence, our RIGHTS come from G-d, not from the state.
However, all of our LAWS reside in the sovereign state, separate from any religion. Check out the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights ... it's not that murky.
Can Islam be compatible with demoracy?
One of the things that make Christianity more compatible (with democracy)is that it is fundamentally a religion of choice.
According to scripture, God did not wrap up operations, wipe out the fallen angel, and MAKE us all be good. He allowed a choice between himself and Satan.
Christianity is about people freely choosing to follow God without coercion.
In the past (and even today) Christians have fudged that central point because they have often as not merged the Old Testament (Jewish scripture) and New Testament into one continuous message.
But to the extent Christians follow Christ's example, and indeed take the New Testament as a NEW TESTAMENT or new set of standards, then one can very easily harmonize Christianity with democracy, giving unto Caesar what is his, and to God what is his.
I don't imagine that Islam has this split (New/Old Testaments) and tends to follow an Old Testament literary/theological form (in terms of earthly punishments for non-believers).
So, Christianity has had a clear path to evolve, moving from a world under a pure God's direct supervision (Old Testament), to a world where God submits to earthly law, and shows us how to live and makes a sacrificial "way" (New Testament), to a world now where God in the form of the holy spirit comes into your heart/life, and guides you from inside. God in heaven, to God on earth, to God inside of man. (And counterintuitively, the closer God gets to man, the gentler he shows himself.)
In proper practice then, the Christian of today should not look at Old Testament law and practice it, seeing the Old Testament as simply God's example to us of how unapproachable he is in his purest form. We turn to Jesus, and his example, and by focusing on that, we come to understand the importance of voluntarily choosing who we will serve.
In the end God want's voluntary company, not mandated love (which, in itself, is impossible). It is this underlying issue of choice that helps harmonize Christianity with secular forms of governance, including democracy.
Does Islam have that type of release valve (of a Christ) to make it work with democracy? I am not sure, but actual real world examples seem to indicate otherwise.
Islam, in many ways, is like Judaism. There is the Torah, which is notoriously difficult to follow in today's world. And we have the Talmud, which seeks to "explain" or rationalize the words in the Torah to make them more liveable.
So today, we end up with a largely secular Jewish world (foresaking scripture altogether), alongside a small minority of Orthodox followers.
I would argue that you cannot be a good Jew, or a good Islamic person (in terms of accurately following those scriptures) and have true harmony with Democracy, without becoming more secular (as most Jewish people are today).
Crownfield: I can't let you copy such long quotes. Please provide links and summaries or very short quotes.
Centcom: The slides are just diagrams that won't mean anything without the accompanying lecture.
Finn: "I would argue that you cannot be a good Jew, or a good Islamic person (in terms of accurately following those scriptures) and have true harmony with Democracy, without becoming more secular (as most Jewish people are today)."
It's for Muslims to articulate the meaning of their own religion. It seems to me that all religions are susceptible to reformation. It is a natural process of human thought to discover the need for reformation in a system that contains to much repression.
Cato: " the essential problem here seems to be the postmodern idea that reason is not universal..."
Well, I think you could say, in Quraishi's approach, that reason is something all human beings possess, but reason continually produces discordant answers, even when we are trying to intepret the same text.
But I do agree with the observation that Quraishi's portrayal of the Muslim tradition seems suspiciously like the ideas about postmodernism that flowed through academia when she pursued her degrees. I have no way of knowing whether her historical interpretation is accurate, but I do find it very appealing, which is another thing that makes me suspicious about its accuracy! On the other hand, I favor interpretations of religion that improve human life, so maybe I like someone going into the history, finding a plausible and beneficial interpretation, and promoting it. Isn't that what reformation is?
This "Law professor" makes it seem that Mr. Ramadan was denied entry for unjust reasons. Being the Grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't sound like the beginning of a fabulous resume.
This defense of Islam sounds like a much cleverer way of reaching the same goal as Bin Laden. I appreciate Bin Laden's approach a bit more since at least I don't have to parse his words to find his meaning.
Daniel Pipes lays it out.
He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the "future of Islam."
Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.
Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had "routine contacts" with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.
Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.
Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is "any certain proof" that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as "interventions," minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.
And here are other reasons, dug up by Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer doing work for some of the 9/11 families, as reported in Le Parisien:
Intelligence agencies suspect that Mr. Ramadan (along with his brother Hani) coordinated a meeting at the Hôtel Penta in Geneva for Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of Al-Qaeda, and Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, now in a Minnesota prison.
Mr. Ramadan's address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism.
I did not hear Professor Quraishi's talk. I'm sure she is thoughtful and persuasive, and it sounds like she is dedicated to melding Islam and democracy. If there were more like her, theoretically it could be done but it seems to me that Islam and democracy are not philosophically compatible unless Islamic societies are willing to become more secular.
Democracy is founded on the principle that people govern themselves. Religions in western civilizations, which were historically Christian and Catholic, ultimately relinquished temporal power as discussed above (the concept that Christianity is a choice), thus making possible the concept that temporal power resides in the people and can be delegated to the State.
It is my understanding that Islam is based on the concept that the higher law of religion governs the people, who are powerless. Islam does not recognize the concept that people can choose, thus people who live in Islamic countries do not have a viable choice to submit to democratic government and equally to their religion. Their only choice is to be religious or to be secular. Even more important, democracy is based on the concept that the people are the source of power and rights. Islamic religion, society, and law do not recognize that concept.
I think the best we can hope for, and I do hope and believe this can occur, is something similar to Japan. The US imposed democracy on Japan even though it was an undemocratic nation in government and culture. Democracy was successful because the Japanese did not fundamentally alter democracy to suit their lifestyles and beliefs. Instead, they modified their culture - which was intertwined with religion - to make democratic government acceptable. I think Japan is a good example of how a nation can retain its culture within a democratic framework. Whether this would be enough for Islamic societies remains to be seen.
Of course Islam is not compatible with democracy. The only Muslim countries which are vaguely able to practice democracy were only able to do so at the point of a gun by secularists who wished to re-make their countries away from Islam.
This has nothing to do with setting up an established religion. England has an established Church and it seems to be doing fine. The distinction here is that the CULTURE is entirely different in England than it is in Islam, and the reason for that is Christianity does not impose a totalizing effort of control over one's lives according to secular rule. Islam, by contrast, has a detailed code for ruling over one's everyday life. And Islam reveres its prophed, Mohammed, who it sees as the perfect man that all should emulate, and he ran an undemocratic theocratic state. Those cultural assumptions aren't going to go away, there are implicit in an understanding of Islam and cannot be ignored.
So Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
Democracy is not compatible with any school of thought that seeks to place itself above the will of the people.
For many centuries, the West was not ready to supplant Christian law with Democracy.
Still today, I know many socialists and communists that pay lip service to Democracy, but also admit they think that sometimes Democracy doesn't work, and the government should decide what's best for the people no matter what they think. So those also, I believe, are not compatible.
So no, I think no religion is inherently compatible with Democracy. But rather, Jewish and Christian organizations finally realized they had to let go of the reigns of government. It took a lot of oppression and bloodshed before we figured it out. The Muslim leaders and people have not yet realized this.
(In the West we also have arbitrage which people can agree too, in which other standards besides the government law can apply. This may be one route. Though I've read that is abused in some places esp. regarding women and divorce.)
Ann:
Am I reading this right that she is basically advocating decentralizing much of how the legal framework of society is set up? kind of allowing communities to govern themselves in regards to some matters while leaving others up to the state?
Wrong question
Asking whether islam is compatible with democracy is the wrong question. It is the wrong question because democracies come in all sorts of forms.
The right question is whether Islam is compatible with a sustainable system to protect the results of minorities.
Unfortunately, whatever the theoretical answer is, the empirical answer is somewhere between "no" and "maybe a little".
Re your comments on postmodernism and academic thought, Ann, I agree. Per that dogma, accomodating fundmamentalism in hopes of defanging it is a pleasing conceit, but it has never worked.
As to reformation, Islam has no central authority, like the Vatican, so I don't think a comparable institutional "reformation" will ever take place.
However, many Muslims themselves have already "reformed" by moving to the West to live in a non-religious society, or by embracing the western concept of separation of church and state: see Lebanon, Afghanistan, hopefully soon Iraq. Intellectuals who ignore or condemn these developments because of supposed Western influence are missing the relevance boat.
The Jawa Report ran a statistical analysis on this question, comparing Muslim populations flows with civil rights increases and decreases and such...
The essay is here:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/155935.php
It is refuted here:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/155984.php
Dean's World has talked A LOT about this subject: http://www.deanesmay.com/ is the URL for that site. Once in there you can search within that site for the posts on this subject. He runs some numbers and the results are interesting.
Anybody relaly interested in this subject should go there and check it out. Some (by no means all, nor even half) imprtant fruits of that discussion:
1. 99% of the time when Americans discuss Islam they're thinking of the Middle East when there are more Muslims OUTSIDE the ME than inside.
2. Democracy is just the means to an end- liberty. It is probably the ONLY means to that end, but the point stands. When people say democracy they really mean liberty, most of the time. 3. It is hard to talk about Islam and democracy because people usually end up talking about the ME and liberty.
That's happening a lot in this thread.
Interstingly enough nobody on either site said that democracy should be non-democratic in order to be compatible with Islam, lol.
According to Quraishi, people accepted that there were multiple interpreters and shopped around for someone they liked. The divergency and decentralization was not perceived as a problem.
Sounds like "jurisdiction shopping" here in the US. In the US, that's something that is done only by the plaintif. Do both parties in the Islamic "suit" get to "mufti shop"? Only the plaintif (in whcih case, strict fundamentalism will rule)? Only the defendant (in which case, moderation will rule)?
In the US, we have "binding arbitration". We also have courts that routinely refuse to honor contracts, and overturn provisions the judges don't like, after the fact, for the strict benefit of one of the parties in a suit.
If the State can't force itself on the religious "courts" / deciders / arbitrators / whatever, i.e. if the State is not Supreme, then you do not have "Democracy", since you don't have rule by "the people", you hve rule by whoever it is who can pass and enforce rulings against the choices of the State.
If God is Supreme, and religious leaders are the final authority of what God wants, then you have a Theocracy, by definition.
"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, render unto God what is God's." An Islamic society not run on that principle, or one whose members in general believe that everything is God's, cannot be anythig other than a Theocracy.
If there is a muslim majority country anywhere in the world that is run on that principle, I'd like to hear about it.
Greg: "Sounds like "jurisdiction shopping" here in the US. In the US, that's something that is done only by the plaintif."
As a jurisdiction teacher, I feel compelled to correct you on that point. Defendants have forum shopping tools too. They may be able to remove from state court to federal court, and they may be able to move for a transfer or to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. They can also consent to personal jurisdiction or venue when it is improper, but choose to fight it when they are displeased with the choice.
The fundamental problem one must consider when facing the position of Islam within secular regimes is that of epistemology, or truth claims. If we view the position of Islamic scholars on a spectrum from “conservative” meaning those who insist on a literal interpretation of the Qur’an to “liberals” who may use more figurative and lenient approaches to Scripture; we find that even most of the liberals are not willing to concede that a nation must be neutral to the truth claims of every religion. Timothy Sisk summarizes the position of Islamist scholar Mumtaz Ahmad on the issue of democracy and says:
[…] the Islamist perspective of democracy does not accept the premise that truth is relative, an essential tenet of political pluralism. A secular political group that does not accept the principles of an Islamic state is not an appropriate candidate with which to share power. (Sisk 25-26)
This is the heart of the problem: how to enforce the relativity of truth on a religion and a culture that completely denies such a concept. This move towards relativity occurred over centuries in the post-Christian west, and if it ever occurs in Islamic cultures it may take an equal or greater length of time. Post-modern philosophical concepts are now dominant in Europe and the United States, relativity is almost an a priori to western intellectuals. Though many religious movements in the west would reject such relativity and claim to have access to an absolute truth, this has not motivated them to rise up against the secular order that has grown up around them. Islam however has not proved so malleable in the face of western intellectual trends.
As a jurisdiction teacher, I feel compelled to correct you on that point. Defendants have forum shopping tools too.
Clearly you know more about this than I do, so I'm not going to argue with you.
But why is it that companies get stuck with so many lawsuits in "plaintif friendly" counties?
Was the rest of what I said good, bad, or irrelevant?
TIA,
Greg
Let there first be a single Muslim equivalent to the ACLU, where Muslim attorneys defend athiests, Jews, Christians, women, Sudanese slaves and... cartoonists are protected from the mobs.
Until the Muslim "moderate" protests are at least equal in size to the only protests we see, it is suicidal to act as if the mainstream doesn't agree with the vocal.
Dhimmi and democracy are not compatible. Let me know when the majority of Muslim clerics reprint the Koran without the words dhimmi, fatwa, dar al harb and jizya.
And does Muslim democracy give them the right to vote the existence of a Jewish Israel away?
Greg D said..."But why is it that companies get stuck with so many lawsuits in "plaintif[f] friendly" counties?"
Because they have enough purposeful contact with the state to lose a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and because the lawsuit has enough connection to the county to satisby venue requirements and to avoid the granting of a motion to transfer or a motion based on forum non conveniens (that is, the inconvenience of the forum). There had been some strategic moves that were possible using class actions that permitted some of problems you're thinking of, but these were recently remedied by the Class Action Fairness Act.
As to the questions about how Muslim approaches work, I don't know.
Joel puts his finger on the problem. But the problem belongs to western democracies. Except for a few intellectuals, the notion the there is no such thing as truth will never be accepted by the general poplulation of the West. Couple this with the fact that this same population is fast losing (or has already lost) all understanding of the traditional world view and mythology that sustained western culture for centuries (i.e. the Judeo-Christian tradition), and you have a cultural vacuum. This is the situation in Europe today.
And what will fill this vacuum?
The most likely candidate is Islam. Post-modern nihilism can never compete with the world view offered by Islam.
It is the likihood of this outcome that should leave those who value the contributions of western civilization very worried.
alaskajack, you and your intellectuals are wrong. While you have come to the conclusion there is no truth scientists, ignorant of this "fact", have put truth to wonderful use. Their accomplishments are all around us. It enables us to communicate. To live longer. To visit distant places. And soon, unfortunately, it will permit the most depraved members of the world's most nihilistic faith, Islam, to incinerate us on scales that will surely convince even the most intellectual among us that there is indeed truth.
If Quraishi truly understands Islam, then what she says is taqiyya. You cannot have true democracy without the Rule of Law, which means there is one Law and it applies equally to all. The Koran and Sharia are likewise uncompromising, except under Sharia non-Muslims are inferior. The two systems are fundamentally incompatible. They cannot co-exist unless one or both change substantially.
Tanstaafl, I think you missed my point. Reread my post.
Pardon my late arrival... but:
At issue is not singularity of locus of authority but will whatever loci exist allow: 1) peaceful resolution of conflict amongst differing loci, and 2) that each locus allows a peaceful process of change that citizens can buy into.
It is well within the traditions of Islamic history (see Ibn Khaldun's "Muqaddimah ") to allow such liberty but it is seldom if ever within contemporary practice. Particularly when a misstep can result in one being labeled a heretic and threatened with penalties tougher than mere excommunication.
While personal, internal behavior is the realm of religion, Interpersonal behavior depends on rules all parties -- even those not of the faith -- can buy into.
So, yes, Islam can be compatible with democracy, but Islam may not always be compatible with government.
"Post-modern nihilism can never compete with the world view offered by Islam."
I didn't miss your point alaskajack. I said it was wrong and I pointed out why.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন