Islam and Democracy: A Contextual Discussion - Term Paper Example

Islam and Democracy: A Contextual Discussion (Article Analysis) A talk of Islam and Democracy in a given context is a clear means towards greater understanding, or an increase in disagreements. Either way, the subject matter, found within is of emotive substance, drawing varied responses, reactions, perspectives and ideals. Different contexts, times/eras, civilizations, regional factors and outside influences have all contributed to the debate, regarding Islam and Democracy. Islam is of divine nature, as a Law provided to Man, as a guide in social behavior, order and interaction. Democracy, on the other hand, is a creation of Man, influential in enabling some form of social order, peace and positive socialization. On this core issue, both the Islamic religious teachings; and their counterparts in legal law are in agreement (Diamond, Larry, Marc and Daniel 12). To better understand the contextual nature of this debate, is the need to delve more into the two subject matters, as distinct ideals, with a form/ type of connection. This paper’s aim is to focus on a critical analysis of – Islam and Democracy – through an analysis of two texts – Lewis Bernard’s Islam and Liberal Democracy: A Historical Overview (1996) and Irfan Ahmad’s Democracy and Islam (2011). There will be a comparison and contrast of the two, with regard to the subject matter; thereby showcasing distinct features present. As a whole, the paper will aim at providing a better understanding of the distinct interaction between Islamic religion and the notion/ideal of Democracy. A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TWO: ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY The Islamic religion is a globally accepted way of life, represents different meanings. First, it is a global religion, influential to over 1 billion lives; as a system of belief, doctrine, worship and ideals. Pertinently, as Lewis (1996) alludes, it is part of the family of scriptural, monotheistic religions, with the other two being Christianity and Judaism (53). On the other hand, it also is representative of the whole civilization that grew and continues to grow under the guidance of Islam. Inclusive in this latter categorization, is the presence of art, culture, tradition, academics and general social interaction; which uniquely sets it apart from what may be conceived as ‘Christendom’. Democracy, as Diamond, Marc and Daniel (2003) provide, in reference to the liberal connotation, pertains to the core means/ avenue through which governments were chosen or removed; by way of viable electoral processes. This entailed the presence of representation, by way of parliamentary; and later on federal systems of governance (Diamond, Marc and Daniel 18). Uniquely so, is the presence of peaceful changes of governing administrations through elections; a transition best exemplified by Huntington’s dictum. There is also the upholding of various universal laws i.e. the Bill of Human Rights and Freedoms, which essentially, enable such transitions to occur in a peaceful, democratic manner (Lewis 23). Accordingly, he alludes to a democracy as an avenue of social governance in which two consecutive and peaceful government changes occur (52). In regard to democracy, it should be noted that there is a differing perspective; with regard to democracy, as envisioned by Americans and Europeans. This is influential with regard to the presence of democracy in European Monarchies, as opposed to republics. Lewis provides that Americans in general, tend to view monarchy and democracy in antithetical terms. This is as provided for in the American form of democracy, which is purely distinct from other existing democracies. In Europe, it should be noted however that their forms of democracy have fared better within constitutionally respected and acknowledged monarchies, than in their republican counterparts (Diamond, Marc and Daniel 26). Islam and the link to Democracy and Democratic Ideals. As seen earlier, there is a co-relational feature between Islam as a way of life, and Democratic ideals in the contemporary arena. In the Islamic world, the principle of dynasty is still quite strong, as is best showcased by the Religion’s origin (53). Saudi Arabia, home to the two core regions of the Islamic religion – Mecca and Medina, derives its identity and name from its ruling and founding dynasty, the Saud Family. Islam as a Religion and Way of Life and Governance In this context, as Lewis (1996) provides, it embodies both the religious aspect and the socialization culture pertinent to the populations which identify themselves as Muslims. There is the presence of pure, pristine and original Islam, as provided by both the Quran and Hadith (Prophet Muhammad’s traditions); in addition to what may be termed as classical Islamic Theology and Jurisprudence (53). Additionally, in contexts of contemporary society, has been the founding of Neo-Islam, projected by fundamentalists, who have been influential in the introduction of new ideals, unknown in Hadith, the Quran or the existing classical doctrines of Islamic faith. Autocracy has been the backbone of a majority of Islam dominated state entities, which number in total to about 53 nations. Noteworthy is the fact that in Islam there lacks a place for the word ‘citizen’, as is provided for in democracies. In place however, is the presence of a rich, historically diverse political literature (Lewis 53). This is in relation to how the ruler and the ruled regard political power; which is to be acquired and used for the betterment of society as a whole. This is the distinguishing factor, between an autocratic leadership and despotism. Ahmad (2011) alludes to the prevailing aspects of democratic leadership, as found within the Islamic world, where the ruler’s exercise political power is equated to a contract; of mutual commitment between the ruled and the ruler. Through presentation, he is able to showcase the practical aspect of democratic governance within the Islamic world, and specifically so, India’s Islamist organization – the Jamaat-e-Islami. According to him, Islam does regard all types of Governments, which are non-parliamentary or non-constitutional as being the greatest human sin possible (459). Islam and Democratic Governance Democracy, as practiced by the Western world, is different from that found in the Islamic world. This is true of the very foundations of both principles, fundamentally influenced by the aspect of culture. This provides the reason for its ‘incompatibility’ with democracy and democratic governance (Diamond, Marc and Daniel 32). Culturally, from the beginning, the Islamic world has not known a distinctive separation between the state and Islam. In this context, the three facets of Islam i.e. as a religion, civilization and means of governance, all prove to be individually antagonistic to the core ideals behind democracy (Ahmad 460). To this end, both the state and Islam, as a religion have stood side by side, with regard to governance, social order, peaceful interaction and cultural socialization. This is an exception to the secularization process found within most democracies, as a result of the fusion between the state/ religion and state. Distinctly, this should not be associated with the presence of Islamic fundamentalism, especially that of an extremist nature. Enriching this debate is the presence of two opposing poles (461). On the one hand are thinkers such as Maududi and Syed Qutub, who amongst others selectively utilized different Islamic traditions and texts to propagate their message. Theirs was the view that democracy cannot co-exist with Islamic jurisdictions. On the other hand, were thinkers such as Bayat, Filali-Ansary, Voll and Esposito, who envisaged the possibility of democracy existing within Islam. Their ideals were founded on the notion that just as the Church (Roman Catholic) endeavored in promoting democracy within the larger European region, so too can Islam, within Muslim states. Through normative-textual interpretation, there is provision of an avenue through which democratic governance may be possible within Islamic states. This is anchored on the most cited Quranic verse (XLII: 38) – ‘amruhum shura bainahum [decide your affairs through consultation]’ (461). The Islamic organization - the Jamaat-e-Islami – initially was opposed to the notion of democracy in Islam, but later on accepted and incorporated it. To be noted is the notion that Muslim polities may have inadvertently de-democratized by the West. Their opposition was influenced by the notion that democracy did serve as a defense for bloodshed. This is the reason why accordingly, dictators would rule, while evoking democracy. The group initially, was driven by the notion that Islam opposed democracy. This was due to the fact that the latter authorized the election of representatives, who legislated human laws, as opposed to divine laws (462). This distinction does permeate through the debate, focused on the issue of which laws to adhere to and the basis for such laws. In democracies, people are in possession of the right to formulate laws on issues of politics, morality, economics and social order. Conversely, in Islam, divine law is responsible for the founding of laws on morality, social order and the pertinent socio-economic aspects. Through the organization, Ahmad is able to showcase the co-existence or relationship present, between Islam and democratic institutions of governance (464). Accordingly, the group aimed at pursuing democratic practices and governance, with the aim of establishing the Islamic religion, which Lewis views differently. According to his text, he alludes to the presence of Islam as being the basis and hence, the foundation of democratic governance (Lewis 55). An agreement between the two authors, is on the fact that outside influences were crucial to the way in which Islam viewed and subsequently practiced democracy, abate in limited contextual nature. In addition is the fact that both Islam and Democracy share the aspect of power-sharing that is non-violent, between the ruled and the rulers (both entities being considered equal). Here, there is the comparison of the Mosque, in Islam, and the representative chambers, within democracies, as avenues of political participation that is basic to the lives of different populations. Not only is the Mosque an arena of worship, but also a venue where dialogue, business and discussions actively take place (Ahmad 466). Pertinent to this is Bellah’s ideals that American political theory attributes sovereignty as resting with the people, in addition to being both explicitly and implicitly attributed to God. Concerning this, Islamic law and jurisprudence, while resting on the existing Ulama, and the Umma in general, is fundamentally founded on the provisions and guidance of Allah. In conclusion, from both texts, there are both comparisons, as well as contrasts, with regard to the democratic principles’ application, within the Islamic religion and Muslim state. On the one hand, Lewis alludes to democracy existing only in case scenarios where two consecutive peaceful elections are conducted. Thus, democracy and Islam cannot be compatible, abate the presence of minimal linkages. Ahmad on his part alludes to the presence of Islamic forms of democracy, where the ruled population, is divinely protected from arbitrary law. This is influenced by the fact that all Islamic law (Sharia) and Jurisprudence, are divinely provided by Allah, with the aim of enhancing human lives, rights and property. Works Cited Ahmad, Irfan. “Democracy and Islam.” Philosophy and Social Criticism, 37.4 2011: 459–470. Electronic. Diamond, Larry, Marc F. Plattner and Daniel Brumberg. (2003). Islam and Democracy in the Middle East. JHU Press, 2003. Print. Lewis, Bernard. "Islam and Liberal Democracy: A Historical Overview." Journal of Democracy 7.2 1996: 52-63. Electronic. Read More