Islam and Democracy

Submitted by Vijay Dandapani (United States), Jul 18, 2003 at 15:24

Regrettably Dr. Khan takes needless cheap shots at the two largest functioning democracies in the world, India and the United States in a specious defense of the many failings of Muslim countries. However, when it comes to separating church from state, Dr. Pipes resorts to form and not substance in advancing examples in support of the notion that supposedly non-secular countries are capably of being democracies. Quite obviously Israel and the United Kingdom are democracies and while they are nominally not secular, it is inconceivable that either Shas or the Islamic Party of Britain can compel legislation in either the Knesset or Parliament any more than George Bush with his Bible sessions can issue a fiat in the name of Christ. The relevant point is that in all three nations there is freedom to practice one's faith without the state impinging on faith or vice-versa.

The question of whether Islam is compatible with democracy is as relevant as whether the monarchy in the UK is compatible with democracy. Quite clearly the latter is the case and the principal reason for that is that the monarch is a figurehead. Should that come about in Islamic lands, proponents of the notion that Islam is not at odds with modernity will also acknowledge the implict dynamism required of their religion. While there is no empirical evidence that a real theocracy is compatible with democracy there are two clear instances of secular democratic nations - India and the US. Iran, often touted for its putative democratic process, does not allow for the people to choose its president. Khatami was part of a slate nominated by the clerics.

On India, Dr. Khan indulges in an egregious travesty of its remarkable history premised on one admittedly heinous instance of local government complicity in communal violence. In nearly 56 years India has been the only country outside the developed world where liberal democracy as the civilized world knows it has prevailed, largely untramelled, despite enduring poverty stemming from wretched economic policies.

As an Indian by birth, Dr. Khan is well aware that India today has a Muslim head of state (for the third time in post-Independent history) and that, even today, India is the largest (over 30 million) recepient of Muslim refugees (from Bangladesh). Despite several instances of inter-religious riots and killings in five decades, in two recent polls, one by MORI of Britain and the other by Asian Age Nielsen, of the Muslim majority state of Jammu and Kashmir, most residents expressed a clear preference to stay with the India union and not secede or merge with the Islamic state of Pakistan. Dr. Khan also knows that the Indian ethos of largely inter-religious harmony stretches back to the time of the Mughal empire when Emperor Akbar relied on a Hindu counselor, Birbal, for running the affairs of state. It is in fact the interplay between religious communities that allowed for one of the most tolerant versions of Islam, Sufism, to flourish in the Kashmir valley while its diaspora in other lands such as Egypt, Mesopotamia and, indeed, Pakistan are all but extinct.

In fact, it would not be a preposterous assertion to state that outside of India, Israel, the US and the UK, Muslims do not enjoy the fruits of liberal democracy while having the absolute freedom to practice their faith. If that seems absurd consider the lot of Shias in Pakistan, Iraq (till recently) and Saudi Arabia to name a few Muslim countries. What is worse is when Muslim intellectuals like Dr. Khan limit their meter despite the benefits they derive from liberal democracy and fail to acknowledge that some of the worst pogroms against Muslims were committed by Muslims. General Yahya Khan of Pakistan decimated over 2 million Muslims in erstwhile East Pakistan while the self-styled Saladin of Iraq gassed and killed nearly two million of his own during the 8 year Iran-Iraq war and in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Of course, it is always possible to blame the US for both those genocides.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".