Islam the Question of Whether

Islam

The question of whether or not Islam is compatible with democracy depends more on a definition of Islam than on a clarification of democracy. Democracy is more than just the external political and social institutions such as having a representative Parliament. In fact, democratic forms of government are diverse. The American governmental system differs significantly from that of Great Britain's or France's and yet all these nations are considered to be democratic. The definition of democracy, therefore, stems mainly from European Enlightenment philosophy which trumps individual freedoms and personal liberties over any state intervention. The core philosophy of democracy is what is important, and not what form that philosophy ultimately takes. Islam would seem to be as compatible with democracy as any other world religion. After all, Christianity and Judaism -- the other religions of "the Book" -- share with Islam the presence of religious texts that cannot be taken at face value and be compatible with democracy. The Jewish Bible advocates slavery in all forms, including domestic slavery and the subjugation of women. Yet Israel manages to be a religious and democratic state at the same time. Islam can also achieve this goal, as is evidenced with the secular state of Turkey.

As Klausen points out, Islam and democracy are already cohabiting in Europe. The difficulty is coming up with a comprehensive means by which to integrate the diverse religious and cultural values of European Muslims with the various expressions and types of democracy in Western nations. There are different methods by which European Muslims advocate the integration of their religion with their state. Some are secular, some are religious, and yet others are orthodox but still consider Islam as being potentially compatible with at least most forms of Western democracy. Still, Klausen finds that integrating Islam with democracy is proving difficult. On the one hand, secular Muslims often believe ironically that governments should actually fund religious institutions because to disallow this welcomes too much input from foreign and private investment sources. It is "dangerous" to permit religious institutions -- especially those that run religious schools in Europe -- to be outside of the jurisdiction of the government. Such as stance opens the doors of madrasas to fundamentalism influence vis-a-vis the private and foreign sectors.

Other European Muslims assume that "voluntarist approach" which posits that religious law must be subservient to secular law but only in certain areas. For instance, Klausen illustrates how many Muslims want to pick and choose their civil rights battles by denying civil rights for gays which would be too government "imposing" itself on religion (Klausen 92). Using gay rights as an example, though, it is clear that Christianity in America is as potentially incompatible with democracy as Islam anywhere in the world.

The potential enemy of democracy is not Islam, but religious fundamentalism. Many Muslims worldwide could easily find that maintaining their faith in a wholly secular society is possible if not desirable. However, many Muslims, especially those in the Middle East and in developing nations, do not have access to the educational systems that would help them understand exactly what democracy is. Fatema Mernissi points out that in the Third World, access to education has been paltry. This has created a situation in which democracy is presented as a shell, devoid of the core philosophical underpinnings.

The majority of colonized countries, Muslim or not, have "never experienced the phase of history so indispensable to the development of the scientific spirit," notes Mernissi (p. 46). Likewise, many Muslims in Second and Third World nations do not quite grasp how principles of individuality, freedom of expression, and personal liberty are crucial to the definition of democracy. The presence of a parliament does not a democracy make.

Mernissi's assertion that the Third World has enabled much of Arab and Muslim societies to be cut off from the philosophical underpinnings of democracy can easily explain why Islam seems incompatible with secular humanism. Arabs, "like the rest of the citizens of the third World, have never had systematic access to the modern advances rooted in" the Enlighenment (Mernissi 46-47). Mistrust of colonial overlords has fueled an anti-Western sentiment. This also prevents democracy as a worldview from taking root, let alone democracy as a reality. The result is that people in the Muslim world are experiencing "modernity without understanding its foundations, its basic concepts," (Mernissi 47).

In the Arab world "the state and its public schools...remain the only means of creating and propagating democratic culture and educating tolerant citizens," (Mernissi 47). The goal is to interject democratic principles into teachings of Western civilization. This might help minimize the misunderstandings of what democracy is and thereby prove that Islam is absolutely compatible with it. After all, Islam has spearheaded scientific inquiry even when Christianity was in the Dark Ages. The fact that there is no Arab word for "democracy" is meaningless in a world in which societies learn and grow from and with each other (Mernissi).

Berman's analysis of Sayyid Qutb also shows that Al Qaeda does not speak for the entire Muslim world. Eikelmann agrees. "Muslim religious scholars, both in the Middle East and in the West, have already soken out against Al Qaeda's claim to act in the name of Islam," (p. 39) Al Qaeda is like the Tea Party in the United States, only more overtly violent; Al Qaeda is a core group of fundamentalists who cling to a religious conservatism by blinding followers to the truth of what democracy is and what it would entail for the average Muslim. Islam is every bit as compatible with democracy, but just not in the way at Qutb conceives of either one.