RSS/XML |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
Via Glenn Reynolds, I read this post by Dean Esmay disputing the assertion that Islam is incompatible with democracy. I agree with him, but his argument is flawed. He writes,
This very statement-that Islam is incompatible with democracy … would be akin to, in World War II, declaring ourselves at war with “Germanic People,” “Latin People,” and “Southeast Asians.” Not Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy and Tojo’s Japan. No, we would have declared that we were at war with anyone of Germanic or Latin descent, and anyone who happened to be short, yellow, and slant-eyed (to put it rudely and crassly).
Yes, Dean, it is rude and crass, all the more so because it is inapt and not applicable. Your analogy is a non-sequitur.
I am surprised because Dean has done a lot of studying and writing about Islam. But here he has equated a religious identity with an ethnic identity. This is crude stereotyping at its worst. Muslims are, like the Christian children’s song says of the Church, “red and yellow, black and white.” And Dean knows this.
To claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy is not akin to saying that Germans or Japanese are incompatible with democracy. It is like saying that Nazism or Bushido Shintoism were incompatible with democracy. Which they absolutely were.
But is Islam, qua Islam, incompatible with democracy? Actually, Dean never gets around in his teardown of Michelle Malkin to answer the question except to affirm that it is compatible. I think answer is not so clear as Dean makes it to be. Or, perhaps the answer is “it depends.”
Islam is compatible with democracy in some places in the world and not in others. It’s compatible in Turkey and India and some southwest Pacific places, but not compatible in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. The Iraqis are trying to make a go of it, but we don’t know whether they will succeed. And even in places like Turkey, democracy is decidedly not Jeffersonian.
Let us not fall into the trap of qualifying the answer by using the term, “Western-style” democracy, since that term is highly inexact. British democracy is not the same as American democracy and neither are very much like French democracy. They all share enough commonality that it is sensible to group them together (for example, an Enlightenment heritage) as long as we remember they are significantly dissimilar.
So, at the risk of sounding trite, whether Islam is compatible with democracy depends on what the definition of “democracy” is. And even in Europe and America, that definition has changed quite a bit over the last couple of centuries in Europe and America. Remember that at first, neither women nor Americans of African descent could vote in America and US senators were selected by state legislatures rather than directly elected by the state’s voters. In England until very recently, half the Parliament consisted of members born to the office and until Queen Victoria’s reign, the monarch really was the sovereign state embodied.
We should not expect that in any Muslim country today that democracy will mirror America’s. Tribal and clan identity will continue to be ways most of those societies are organized for a long time to come. Their democratic institutions, wherever they develop, will reflect that.
But let us be frank, at least with ourselves: the “problem” of the Muslim world, vis-a-vis democracy, resides in the Arab countries. (Even Iran is more democratic than Arab lands.) And the problem in those countries is not that they are “too Muslim” or not Western enough, but that they are not Muslim enough and they are too Western.
Prof. Bernard Lewis explains:
[I]t is helpful to step back and consider what Arab and Islamic society was like once and how it has been transformed in the modern age. The idea that how that society is now is how it has always been is totally false. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Assad family in Syria or the more friendly dictatorship of Mubarak in Egypt-all of these have no roots whatsoever in the Arab or in the Islamic past. Let me quote to you from a letter written in 1786-three years before the French Revolution-by Mssr. Count de Choiseul-Gouffier, the French ambassador in Istanbul, in which he is trying to explain why he is making rather slow progress with the tasks entrusted to him by his government in dealing with the Ottoman government. “Here,” he says, “things are not as in France where the king is sole master and does as he pleases.” “Here,” he says, “the sultan has to consult.” He has to consult with the former holders of high offices, with the leaders of various groups and so on. And this is a slow process. This scenario is something radically different than the common image of Middle Eastern government today. And it is a description that ceased to be true because of a number of changes that occurred.
Those changes included modernization in the early twentieth century, when,
… rulers decided that what they had to do was to modernize or Westernize. Their intentions were good, but the consequences were often disastrous. What they did was to increase the power of the state and the ruler enormously by placing at his disposal the whole modern apparatus of control, repression and indoctrination. At the same time, which was even worse, they limited or destroyed those forces in the traditional society that had previously limited the autocracy of the ruler.
Canadian journalist David Warren grew up in Pakistan. He wrote that Arab leaders most often,
… became socialists of one kind or another, for in the world of only a few decades ago, that very Western ideology of ‘socialism’ could still be presented as the coming thing, as a ‘scientific’ thing, the cutting edge of progress. Most came to believe that the best way to modernize their societies was through central planning, and that their own class was in effect the socialist vanguard.
But socialism worked even worse in the Arab countries than it worked in Europe: “None of [their] five-year plans ever worked. And the only thing that did work was the elites clinging to power, trying to Westernize or modernize their societies with increasing frustration.”
The second disaster for the Arab people was the opening of Syria-Lebanon to Nazism in 1940 when Vichy France allied itself with Germany. Since that area of the Middle East had been under French control, the Nazis walked in and Nazism took root.
Prof. Lewis also discusses the part Wahhabism has played in oppressing Muslim peoples, first in Arabia but now, flush with petrodollars, almost everywhere else in the world that Islam has gained a foothold. yet Wahabsim is not from the historical mainstream of Islam and absent oil wealth would still be an obscure, clan-based cult.
Bottom line: Islam as practiced and preached in much of the Muslim world today is incompatible with democracy of any recognizable kind. And Islamism (Islamic fascism) is no more compatible than Nazism. But the US, Britain and the West should not try to nurture democracy in Iraq or elsewhere that cleaves to a mainly Jeffersonian model. That is to guarantee failure. Prof. Lewis concludes,
The outlook at the moment is, I would say, very mixed. I think that the cause of developing free institutions-along their lines, not ours-is possible. One can see signs of its beginning in some countries. At the same time, the forces working against it are very powerful and well entrenched. And one of the greatest dangers is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail.
I think that the effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us.
Quite so.
Update: More thoughts here and an invitation to have your own thoughts posted under your byline on this site.
Comments policy
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | Oct » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
16 queries. 0.979 seconds
September 28th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Lewis is arguing some interesting side points but he avoids the main point: Islam has always been spread by any means possible, mainly by the sword. What does this have to do with democracy? It all makes for some fascinating discussion but the root of the problem is very simple indeed.
Here is the root of the problem: Islam does not respect other religions. Or to put it in base terms: Islam is incompatible with religious freedom.
I’ll repeat what the whole problem with Islam and how it relates to the West, other cultures, other religions, etc:
Islam does not tolerate religious freedom.
And therefore we can easily gauge when we know we will have won this war: When Islam tolerates religious freedom (including apostasy from Islam). The “war on terror” is really a war for religious freedom. I wish we fought it in those terms. I wish our policies were based around that simple fact. But they are not. And we are floundering because of it.
So we have been fighting this war from the wrong angles. Unfortunately, most of the western world will not fight for religious freedom (the secular left); in fact they are finding common cause with the Islamists on this main account alone. So we have a internal rift in the West based largely on this fact. And the Islamists know it and have exploited the “useful idiots” of the secular left to maximum effect.
One thing can be said to be at the root of all “modern” democracies: They tolerate religious freedom not just in law, but in principle and practice of its populations. That is why the Islamic world is having a hard time with democracy; they cannot get the most basic tenet of modern democracies: true freedom of religion. Their people (Muslims) don’t believe in it, aren’t taught it, and abhor the thought of it. That is why even Turkey struggles with it.
So I rather argue that our goal in this war must be one that has one simple premise: We must find a way to force Islam to accept religious freedom (including apostasy). We have the obligation. If Islam cannot reform this basic tenet by itself (and the odds are highly against that) then we must do everything we can to make them.
I think that’s what makes this war against Islamists so very much different than our other wars against ideologies. We have failed to outline what the real problem is. We are afraid of pointing out the real problem:
And the root problem is that Islam does not tolerate religious freedom (including apostasy).
So do not let Bernard Lewis’s 20th century thinking muddle the focus of what we really need to do.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Esmay should read what Zaquari has to say about it. There was an article in MEMRI, but the link has expired. I wrote about it last year:
Zaquari on Democracy
He understands democracy perfectly. He just thinks it’s anathema.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
How not to argue about Islam
This post by Dean Esmay, “calling out Michelle Malkin,” is what is known in the business as traffic bait. So go ahead and click it and give Esmay more of the traffic he wants. I highly recommend you read his…
September 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Somebody, somewhere in all of the discussions spawned by Esmay’s post, has noted that the question is improperly framed: Islam is perfectly compatible with democracy: A majority-Muslim community can vote in Islamic law and live happily ever after. What Islam is *not* compatible with is individual liberty, the idea that the individual posseses rights that transcend the powers of the government under which he lives. *That’s* the real conflict.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
[…] • Category: Blogs & Bloggers Start here, then go here, and here, and here. Some worthy ideas being discus […]
September 28th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
I suggest, based on the examples of so-called majority muslim “democracies” that democracy and islam can coexist in a state of varying degrees of tension, but they are inherently incompatible. It is impossible for islam, even if most of its more violent features are sublimated, to be fully compatible with any social or political scheme that fundamentally relies upon freedom of individual thought and action and political/legal equality of all such free actors. If a muslim cannot decide to renounce islam and/or sharia and voice that decision, even submit it for discussion and vote by the community-and we know that’s flatly verboten even under relatively progressive islam-then islam and democracy are fundamentally at odds. I find it hard to comprehend why this rather obvious circumstance would even require discussion.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
[…] e time. I deleted mine and am just gonna say this: start here, then go here, and here, and here. Some worthy ideas being discus […]
September 28th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Actually, Dean cites someone else and calls Malkin out in the same post. I don’t know and don’t see the connection between the two, and Dean’s fevered ranting in the comments makes me surprised that Michelle did not respond with the “I spy something that starts with a ‘U’” and plug her book some more.
Dean Esmay is now unhinged.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Democracy is one thing, and freedom is another. Muslims are perfectly capable of voting in democratic elections, bringing to power the worst sort of totalitarians. Sharia is fascism.
Look at Maylaysia, Indonesia and the Palestinians. Who would want that kind of democracy?
Freedom is the answer, not democracy. And now you have to answer the question whether Islam is compatible with freedom.
Have at it.
September 28th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
[…] All Evil, The Glittering Eye, Word Around the Net, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Jihad Watch, One Hand Clapping, Classical Values, Eteraz x x […]
September 28th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
The central question can be answered, but only by a Muslim scholar. Here’s what the leading internet scholar and fatwa producer has to say about the compatibility of democracy and Islam:
“The common form of democracy prevalent at the moment is representative democracy, in which the citizens do not exercise their right of legislating and issuing political decrees in person, but rather through representatives chosen by them. The constitution of a democratic country will be largely influenced by the needs and wants of its people. Thus, if its people want casinos, bars, gay marriages, prostitution, etc. then with sufficient public pressure, all these vices can be accommodated for. From this, it becomes simple to understand that there can never be scope for a democratic rule from the Islamic point of view.”
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
So, the Muslims THEMSELVES say that democracy isn’t compatible with democracy. I’ll slightly paraphrase what the Mufti says for clarity:
“There can NEVER be democratic rule from the Islamic point of view.”
September 28th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Turkey actually proves Islam is not compatible with democracy. The government is secular, but has to continually resist efforts by Muslims to take it over and impose Islamic law. The military often intervenes. Their constitution even provides that all rights can be suspended if necessary to preserve the government.
Islam is compatible with democracy in India only if you ignore all the religious based violence between Muslims and Hindus.
Maybe the better question is whether Islam is compatible with personal freedom. The answer is clearly “no” in any place where Muslims are in power. Turkey might come the closest to experiencing personal freedom, but there is still religious coercion there.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:17 pm That was, pretty much word for word, me, Growler. Apologies to you, Don, for link-whoring in your comments.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Oops. I meant Old Grouch. Apologies.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
As always, thank you for a clear, logical, intellectual analysis of the situation. No matter the situation, you’re most often the voice of well considered thought.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Michelle Malkin responds to Dean Esmay
How not to argue about Islam This post by Dean Esmay, “calling…
September 28th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Bill Q - criminy, I’ve done it on your site often enough!
September 28th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
The federal government finally starts to admit that Islam is a violent religion
Sometimes it really is amazing how long it takes for the federal government to start getting the big picture. How long will it take before someone tries to suppress this information, the way that the FCC tried to suppress the…
September 28th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Slinging the “islamophobe” label
Nobody has any control over things like the country they’re born in, their sex, or their race, but a person’s religious beliefs do not fall into that same category. Believing in Islam is something a person chooses to do. Keep that distinction in mind…
September 28th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
[…] led world-wide paralysis of understanding - things will only get worse. Donald Sensing has an excellent post on all of this.
By: TheAnchoress @ 11:20 […]
September 29th, 2006 at 4:06 am
Yes, much of Islam is NOT compatible with individual rights, Human Rights — Free Religion and Free Speech.
The solution? Imposition of Human Rights respecting governments on Iraq (done-in process), Iran (before they get nukes?) … and Saudi Arabia. These non-democracies must be changed soon, because their oil wealth is so corrupting.
How to change?
Thru an international Human Rights enforcement group, of democracies only (like the US, UK, Japan, but most importantly India).
Governments that do NOT respect Human Rights, do NOT deserve to have their own “national sovereignty” respected.
Though they may also change internal adjustments, like Saudi Arabia is slowly doing.
September 29th, 2006 at 6:42 am
Quite so.
You and Dr. Lewis under sorely estimate the West and overestimate the Middle East. They cannot destroy us, we can only be destroyed by ourselves. While we may now appear weak, irresolute and divided, so too did the British in 1938.
The proper alternatives are either we bring them freedom or we destroy them.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:42 am
[…] for publication, under your byline, on this site. I argued yesterday that democracy was not incompatible with Islam, qua Islam, but that the way Islam is practi […]
September 29th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Thinking outside the box again, eh, Richard?
September 30th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Laurence Iannaccone has a paper called “The Market for Martyrs” that sheds a good bit of light on this issue. He is an economist who specializes in the study of religion. Sociologists have been collecting information on religion for centuries. The formal doctrines of a religion are not nearly as important as the political and social environments in which they operate. Violent young people are common, but what is weird is a socio-political environment in which they are encouraged.
Note also that neither Islam nor Christianity is monolithic. Is Rev. Sensing really the same religion as Matthew Fox? Pat Buchanan? All three claim the same book as their source, but you have the letter vs. the spirit.
http://www.religionomics.com/erel/S2-Archives/Iannaccone - Market for Martyrs.pdf
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pm
[…] An Emancpitation Proclamation for Women and Islam, By Ayaan Hirsi Ali …. (aei.org) MUSLIMS and democracy, by Donald Sensing …. (donaldsensing) MEL […]