Are Islam and Democracy Mutually Exclusive?
“Have I made it clear enough that people, no matter where they come from, all like to be free? That freedom is not a Western idea? There was one more thing about that myth the myth of America that I wanted to mention. The way some people talk about so called Muslim societies as if they are sort of trapped by what they call culture and religion, and there is no way that they can change. But this is a double standard, because we should remember that in the West, in the mid-nineteenth century, women did not have the right to vote, that there were many people in the U.S. and Europe who were saying that a woman’s place was in her home, and that the Bible says so. America has a history of slavery until the late 1950’s and early 1960’s the buses and restaurants were segregated and a lot of blood was shed in order for African Americans to gain equality. And the arguments that were used against women and against abolition are the same kind of arguments that are now used against change in relation to women’s rights in Muslim majority countries. Because, if Sharia laws are Muslim culture, then slavery and burning witches in Salem are the culture of this country, not Emerson and Thoreau and Martin Luther King. And the Inquisition is the culture of Europe, not St. Thomas Aquinas or Dante or Cortes. People should understand that we have our Hafez and Rumi and great poets and great philosophers, and that we also have a set of traditions that are regressive and oppressive and need to be changed (Azar Nafisi, Reading Lolita in Tehran, pg 368).”
Disclaimer: A.) I am in no way shape or form an expert on Islam, not even close. All I have to bring to the table are my personal experiences gleaned from living in Turkey for several years, conversations with very close Muslim friends, and articles I find on the internet. B.) Secondly, my purpose is more to state that the west does not have the monopoly on democracy. Democracy is not simply for Westerners.
Definition of Democracy
I define democracy as an ideology. Let’s be honest no country has a real democracy. It is impossible to have every citizen voice their opinions and use that to decide policies, nothing would ever get done. Even in the US we have representatives and the electoral college. I would define democracy as an ideology that supports freedom of speech, religion, press, meeting, ideas, etc, basically the anti-thesis of a dictatorship. Democracy implies multivocality and multiculturalism. It is in ingrained in the culture; it is not simply about imitating democratic activities. Just because you hold elections does not mean you are democratic i.e. certain countries where the political parties win with 99.99% support and the ballots are tallied up in the government headquarters all hush hush. Moreover, democracy neither equates laissez faire nor anarchy. Democracy encourages citizens to dialogue and vote about the direction of their nation. With this in my mind the question is not so much who is democratic and not democratic, but who is more democratic.[1] There is no ideal democracy.
Why does this matter?
First, this matters because democracy is a universal human right. Every human has a voice that deserves to be heard. Everyone deserves “fully contested elections with full suffrage and the absence of massive fraud, combined with effective guarantees of civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association.”[2] Every human should be allowed choices and options and not live under a dictatorship. Everyone deserves to choose how to speak, express, dress, etc. Everyone deserves to live in a society where leaders are held accountable for their actions and where there is equality among all.
Secondly, there are many who presume that to be Muslim implies anti-women sentiment, violence, terrorism, etc. The prevailing opinion of Islam is negative. I see this as a problem. I see essentialization as a problem. One’s religious preference does not determine whether one is a good person or not; the actions of one’s life determines that. I don’t care if you’re Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Baha’i, etc. Those labels do not dictate your choices or determine your value. You make your life choices, not your label. And I’ve met good and bad people of all religions. This is an important matter to me because I encounter much Islamaphobia which frankly I think is ignorant discrimination and bigotry.
What is Islam?
“For Beetham, the trouble with all such ‘negative’ hypotheses about religion and democratization is that they [treat] ‘religions as monolithic, when their core doctrines are typically subject to a variety of schools of interpretation; and as immutable, when they are notoriously revisionist in the face of changing circumstances and political current.”[3]
Ok, I’m going to have to leave this question to Muslims, because as I mentioned earlier I do not know much of Islam. All I know are the 5 pillars and the two Eids. The only thing I have to say here is that Islam is quite complex with varied manifestations and for non-Muslims to categorize all Muslims together is uneducated. Malaysia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are all so different.
“For one, Islam has several different sects and different schools of thought within each sect: The Shiites differ from Sunnis, which differ from Ismaelis, Sufis, Alawis, etc… Second, there are significant cultural and geographical differences between Arab and non-Arab, Gulf, non-Gulf Muslims, Middle Eastern, East Asian, or African Muslims: For example, Iranian Muslims practice and implement the teachings of Islam differently from Saudi, Bangladeshi, Iraqi, or Turkish Muslims.”[4]
Not only that, but Islam contains concepts such as shura (consultation), Ijma (consensus), and ijtihad (independent reasoning) which can be used to support democracy.[5] I still remember one of my classmates in Turkey telling me how his father often told him that, “If I had been lucky I would have been born a girl.” His father had really wanted a daughter. To say that all Muslims mistreat women is misguided. It implies that all Christians are perfect husbands, which is also not true.
What does a democratic country look like?
Well, first off it starts with a leader who values the voice of those he leads. It also requires a constitution or some sort of agreement on the governance of the land. It requires multiple political parties and lobbyists and advocates for different groups of people including the marginalized. It requires citizens who are active and vocal about their needs. It requires the government and those governed to work together.
“Yes, political Islam and democracy can work, but not by pushing for early election. A transitional government, led by a respected leader who is not shackled by a strong ideology and who can cultivate consensus and has wide public appeal must take at least 2 years to allow secular and Islamic parties to develop their political platforms and make the public fully aware of their socio-economic policy and other urgent issues facing their nation. In the interim a constitution should be written based on freedom, democracy, and equality with separation of church and state constitutionally enshrined.”[6]
Empirical Data
In a study by Myunghee Kim[7] she compared two variables “religious commitment” and “support for democracy.” She conducted her research on both Muslims and Christians from 20 countries and concluded that, “Neither religious values nor religious practices deeply shape support for democracy. Instead, other variables such as perceived group threats and political indicators (ideological self-placement and political involvement) wield the greater impact, particularly among industrialized societies.”[8]
This is something that I also agree with. Democracy is a culture that must be taught and valued. And factors that more accurate depict violent outbreaks and tendencies toward dictatorships are perceived group threats and political indicators. Not only that, but as I woman I have personally experienced misogyny from people of different faiths and creeds. Your religious label does not determine how you will treat those weaker than you.
My answer to the question.
So in answer to my aforementioned question I say: No, Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive.
Admittedly, the separation of church and state is not very strong in Islam. And we see very few successful democracies in countries that are majority Muslims i.e. even in Turkey we see how Erdogan superficially supports democracy while he imprisoning journalists. [9] And after the failed coup last month there was even talk of him bringing back the death penalty. [10] There are much more examples of dictatorships than democracies in the Muslim world.
“Iraq is one of many examples of this phenomenon. For over 35 years, Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist and although Iraqis attempted to overthrow Saddam’s regime several times, their efforts failed miserably. With the fall of the authoritarian regime in Iraq in 2003, Iraqis embraced democracy and took pride in the change of Iraq’s political system. The majority of Iraqis are Muslim but this did not impact their resent of authoritarianism and nor their preference for democracy. This reveals that even today, many Muslims actively seek a democratic political system, but hostile dictators actively seek to silence them.”[11]
And yet, I believe that democracy is possible in Muslim nations. Not only that, but in “democratic” countries I see a decline of democracy. When certain presidential candidates allude to using more violence against protestors or calling women “10’s,” or making racist remarks, I begin to think that this is not a safe place for me as a woman and the child of immigrants. It makes agree with the Reddit comment that “It seems like people don’t actually want democracy anymore, they want a dictator who agrees with them.”[12]
Democracy must be valued and protected. And ultimately, the question of whether Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive must be answered by Muslims.
“Can liberal democracy work in a society inspired by Islamic beliefs and principles and shaped by Islamic experience and tradition? It is of course for Muslims, primarily and perhaps exclusively, to interpret and reinterpret the pristine original message of their faith, and to decide how much to retain, and in what form, of the rich accumulated heritage of fourteen centuries of Islamic history and culture. Not all Muslims give the same answers to the question posed above, but much will depend on the answer that prevails.”[13]
What do you think? Do you have any Muslim friends? What is your experience with Islam? With democracry?
[1] https://www.al-islam.org/articles/islam-and-democracy-an-obscure-relationship-fatima-al-samak
[2] David Collier, Steven Levitsky, “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research,” World Politics, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Apr., 1997), 6.
[3] https://www.al-islam.org/articles/islam-and-democracy-an-obscure-relationship-fatima-al-samak
[4] Ibid
[5] ibid
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/is-islam-compatible-with_b_3562579.html
[7] Myunghee Kim, “Spiritual Values, Religious Practices, and Democratic Attitudes,” Politics and Religion, 1 (2008), 216.
[8] Ibid, 228
[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/is-islam-compatible-with_b_3562579.html
[10] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729636/Erdogan-tells-rally-million-Turks-bring-death-penalty-Germany-warns-Ankara-no-place-EU-countries-using-capital-punishment.html
[11] https://www.al-islam.org/articles/islam-and-democracy-an-obscure-relationship-fatima-al-samak
[12] https://markmanson.net/crazy-world
[13] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/02/islam-and-liberal-democracy/308509/
There are some intriguing stats from some pew polls that seem to indicate Muslims prefer democratic style government and also the freedom of themselves and others to practice their own religion. Here is one from 2013: The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society
“Do you have any Muslim friends?”
> Well after leaving ubf I realized I have only a few actual friends. My social life has been severely stunted by two decades of UBF lifestyle. So no I don’t have any Muslim friends.
“What is your experience with Islam?”
> I have read some of the Koran and discussed Islam with a few fellow pizza delivery guys back in college. They were peaceful and clear in their beliefs. They were charitable in discussing religion and politics.
“With democracy?”
> As an American, I have grown up with democracy. I would agree there is no pure democracy. What I see in America is more of an oligarchy.
Of course, my views are tainted by my time at UBF. Almost all the leaders at ubf like to claim they are a democracy. I heard that so many times even way back in 1987. This turned out to be one of many deceptions however. There is no democracy at all in the ubf system of governance. The voting is a ruse. You must obey your shepherd.
The issue with Islam and democracy is that the Koran enshrines a lot of political rules and systems as part of its core doctrine (see Sharia). This means that a dedicated Muslim will seek to, whenever possible, to institute these laws and rules upon the masses. Since these rules (under Islam) are without question then democracy is meaningless because nobody’s opinion on it matters in sight of the Prophet (…pbuh).
Islam is therefore *at odds with* democracy.
It’s worth noting before people attempt to paint Islam and Christianity with the same brush and make that all too common fallacy that all religions are the same, to point out that Christianity is not at all like this. Christians have strayed from sound reason in the past, but at its core its message differs. Christians have inaccurately argued that since the bible gives rules, and the rules are from God then every rule, even social ones- are to be imposed upon the state in obedience to the bible. The issue here is that “Since then the majority of men to whom human laws apply are not very virtuous, human law forbids only the more serious wrongdoing [such as murder and theft], chiefly what would harm others and must be kept in check if human society is to be preserved.” The bible moreover was not meant to establish a system of government. Jesus makes is abundantly clear that his message transcends political and religious factionalism. With the Koran the message is not so. In order for the end times to occur a caliphate needs to rise. This caliphate needs to adhere to Sharia. This has been the ultimate goal of ISIS from the start. It is why they make silly claims about conquering Rome. Because the Koran says that the end times will come when the Caliphate conquered Rome. As an Iranian pastor told me recently “Isis is not radical Islam. It is dedicated Islam. That is why Isis converts people all around the world to its cause without trying. Because all Isis is really asking them to do is open the Koran and take it at its word.”
No, all religions are not the same. But the Bible is a complex book (set of books, actually) which could very easily be used to justify lots of things that we would find abhorrent, including polygamy, slavery, executing Sabbath breakers, and especially jihad. I do not believe those are correct uses of the Bible. But to get to (what I believe is) a correct reading isn’t so easy; it requires lots of careful thought.
@forrests I would like to meet this Iranian Pastor. The nature of Islam intrigues me because I find so many differing views, so many differing interpretations. Islam shares a lot with Judaism and thus Christianity. There are many commonalities and of course blaring differences. I have heard stories of those who have read the Koran and found Jesus. One of friends shared how she witnessed the most Christ-like behavior she’s ever seen from a Muslim.
From different professors of Islam I have heard many different views on the interpretation of Sharia Law. It’s almost come to the point where it depends on who you ask and which school of Islam. I still have never read the Koran and therefore know next to nothing about this subject. But it’s a question that is often on my mind.
This quote from Forests is essentially what I’ve heard and been told (but have not read the Koran to verify it for myself): “Isis is not radical Islam. It is dedicated Islam. That is why Isis converts people all around the world to its cause without trying. Because all Isis is really asking them to do is open the Koran and take it at its word.”
When I first heard this I thought that it would be the same for Christians to simply take and apply the OT narratives as the standard and rule for Christian living (without assimilating the NT as the fulfillment of the OT through Christ): “polygamy, slavery, executing Sabbath breakers, and especially jihad” (as mentioned by Joe).
But even then, the difference with Israel was that the Law was a willing covenant that the people chose to embrace that applied only to their own theocracy. It was never something to be instituted on others; Israel wouldn’t punish or crusade against gentiles who broke the Sabbath because they had not violated a covenant with God.
Hertoa points out that the Old Testament law regards Israelites and non-Israelites differently. That is true. But Islam also treats non-Muslims and non-Muslims differently. And we should admit that many parts of the OT are very unkind toward outsiders. Ethnic cleansing is as prevalent in the Bible as it is in the Koran.
I understand why Christians would instinctively feel that the Bible is way nicer than the Koran. As a Christian, I want that to be the case. But I’d bet that many Muslims instinctively feel the opposite. The books have different character and history, but both are products of their times. Both contain a lot of material that offends modern sensibility. Both require a good deal of processing and sanitizing to stop believers and nations from using them to justify bad stuff. As a world religion, Christianity has made more progress in processing/sanitizing than Islam has. But if so, we are only ahead by a century or two. It was less than 200 years ago that mainstream western Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. It was only a century ago (for example, the First World War) that mainstream western Christians were saying that the Bible compelled them to make holy war against other Christians. I wish it were true that these mis-uses of the Bible were only done by a minority of believers, only on the fringes of Christianity. But that is not the case. These misuses of the Bible were widespread. And we still need to make progress on these fronts. For example, there are major portions of Christianity today where people believe that that Bible requires women to be (in various ways) subservient to men.
The reason I follow Christianity rather than Islam is not that the Bible is superior to the Koran. (Although I do believe it is, but that case is not an easy slam dunk.) My reason is Jesus. A Christotelic approach to the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) produces a religion that I find beautiful and compelling and true. But non-Christotelic readings of the Bible can produce all sorts of strange beliefs and nasty behaviors. I have heard many Christians in UBF and elsewhere who say that the Bible is a set of laws and principles to be obeyed, and that the main goal of Christian life is to submit to the word of God in the Bible. Their kind of religion is extremely similar to Islam.
The gospel does not say that we are supposed to make the whole world subservient to Jesus. The gospel proclaims that Jesus is already Lord of the whole world. To me, that is very significant. It means that Christians should make every effort to orient their lives (including the ways they approach Scripture) toward Jesus. And it means that we should not be surprised to find Jesus at work in any part of the world, including many parts of Islam, where I am sure that Jesus is drawing people to himself in ways that we may not presently see or understand.
This short article by Brian Zahnd says a great deal about how and why we center our faith on Jesus rather than a book.
http://brianzahnd.com/2015/02/jesus-god-say/
I should be sympathetic to those who say this: “I have heard many Christians in UBF and elsewhere who say that the Bible is a set of laws and principles to be obeyed, and that the main goal of Christian life is to submit to the word of God in the Bible. Their kind of religion is extremely similar to Islam.”
I no longer do so but I used to say that the BIBLE is “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.”
It is so much easier to follow some rule of law (read 5 chapters of the Bible a day and feed 5 sheep a week) than to have an intimate fellowship with a person (practice the presence of God).
@Joe Beautiful article. Thank you for sharing. I liked this part:
“The Old Testament is not on par with Jesus. The Bible is not a flat text where every passage carries the same weight. This is why Jesus says, “You have heard it said, but I say to you…” When the church tries to embrace Biblicism by giving the Old Testament equal authority with Christ, the Father thunders from heaven, “No! This is my beloved Son! Listen to him!”
Jesus is what God has to say.
“The Bible is not a flat text where every passage carries the same weight.”
There are different schools of thought about this. On the one hand you have e.g. Dispensationalism which would agree with this idea, but on the other side e.g. Covenant Theology that would disagree and consider it dangerous if you start to weigh certain Bible passages higher than others. They even find it dangerous when in some Bibles Jesus’ words are printed in red color because that is considered to be the beginning of making such differences.
And while you rightfully point out Jesus’ words “you have heard it said, but I say to you…” in this context, they will remind you that Jesus also said “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”. Evangelicals also like to quote “All Scripture is God-breathed…”.
Anyway, I agree with you and Joe. Unfortunately, it doesn’t even help if you neglect the OT and resort to the NT only. I remember a Pentecostal cult-like church that a friend of us attended, which had a theology that was extremely suppresive to women. They had to cover their heads and always obey their husbands and were not allowed to complain about them, even if they were abusive. The situation for women in this Christian church was probably worse than in a moderate Islamic community. And all this suppression of women was taken from NT passages (mainly the epistles of St. Paul).
“They had to cover their heads and always obey their husbands and were not allowed to complain about them, even if they were abusive. The situation for women in this Christian church was probably worse than in a moderate Islamic community. And all this suppression of women was taken from NT passages (mainly the epistles of St. Paul).”
This is what scares me. So many inhumane injustices have been justified using the word of God, i.e. spiritual abuse, neglect of children, extreme legalism, etc. You can twist Bible verses to say what you want them to say. And inevitably your interpretation of the text is a reflection of who you are. This is what shocks me, how two people can look at the same night sky and come to completely different conclusions. One will see the splendor of God’s creation and another the emptiness and meaningless of life. Our interpretations are colored by our idea of who God is or isn’t. As Joe said Bible reading/application takes a lot of careful thought.
There will ALWAYS be differences in the way we look at the Bible or anything else. But I think a big major issue is when we fail to be gentle, humble and gracious toward those we strongly disagree with. We/I/many fail to be “gentle and humble in heart” (Mt 11:28) even in our blogging and comments. Many would rather raise their voice and shout others down unlike the Messiah (Isa 42:2; Mt 12:19).
* Too often Christians love the word of God more than God.
* We desire gifts more than the Giver.
* We love justice more than we love the Judge.
I think that generally we/I fall short and fail to love God with the entirety of our being (Dt 6:5) by loving others, especially our enemy … or just those who bug us, rub us the wrong way and annoy the heck out of us! 🙂
The extent to which you embrace the other is the true litmus test of character. Without the power of God we fail miserably at it. How do we treat those different from us? That matters more than your SWS attendance, 1:1 Bible studies, hail mary’s, candles, incense, tithes, Christian pamphlet handouts, altar calls, etc. How do you treat the foreigner? How do you treat the person who gives nothing in return?
Per Jesus, unless we love God with all our heart, our love for our neighbor (spouse, friend, foreigner, adversary) will fall short. No one can love others by “winging it” or faking it. We either love or we don’t.
So when we don’t love God with all our heart:
* Those who “love the Bible” will tend to look down on Christians who don’t seem to care much for Scripture.
* Those who love charismatic gifts (of healing, prophecy, tongues, slain in the Spirit) will tend to think that Christians without such gifts are Christians who short change themselves.
* Those who love social justice will think that Christians who are not inclined toward social justice are “do nothing” Christians.
So unless God enables us by His Spirit to love Him with all our hearts, our world (and even our churches) will be lacking the most important ingredient of LOVE.
The Beatles surely got it right: All you need is LOVE!
Your comment reminds me of this article, “Love is not Enough.”
https://markmanson.net/love
Read it if you get a chance.
I’ve not heard of Mark Manson, but that article is not something that draws me to his wisdom. He mistakenly defines love as romance only. In that sense, romance is indeed not enough.
However, love is enough, for God is love. How can we be our genuine self in a world where everything has been done? How do we find our unique contributions?
Perhaps Mark should listen more carefully to John Lennon’s song. In spite of the bad things in John’s life, his song remains as timeless truth. And Lennon is NOT singing about romance here:
“There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say, but you can learn
How to play the game
It’s easy.
Nothing you can make that can’t be made.
No one you can save that can’t be saved.
Nothing you can do, but you can learn
How to be you in time
It’s easy. All you need is love, all you need is love…”
Read more: Beatles – All You Need Is Love Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Yes, God’s love is enough, but man’s love is very flawed.
And it is often through man that our perception of God’s love is created.
I agree with Dr. Ben. I agree with you and I agree with Mark Manson.
I agree with Manson’s point that love (the romanticized) type is not enough.
The problem in English is that we only have one word for love.
When we actually are describing many different things.
Also, I agree that lyrics are not enough.
You can sing about love, preach about love, blog about love, but it’s much easier to talk about than to live out.
From my interpretation Mark Manson was calling John Lennon out on his idolized form of love that didn’t trickle down to how he actually treated people.
(I’m not trying to bash John Lennon, please don’t misunderstand. I also have problems loving people, ask my family.)
But keep in mind that Mark Manson himself is not a Christian nor is his audience explicitly Christian, so the love that he describes is the rom-com love, cheap love.
But if you read Manson’s other articles he talks about people not knowing what love is, not knowing unconditional love: https://markmanson.net/what-love-is
Mark Manson isn’t for everyone. He’s extremely explicit and very rated R, but I enjoy his point of view and glean a lot from his articles. It’s not for everyone though.
The reason I brought up his article is that it is much easier to enunciate the words “all you need is love,” than to actually love. It came across as an extreme simplification to me.
And I agree with your assessment. There is indeed wisdom to be found everywhere!