Islam and Democracyааааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

 

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

 

 

Strange as it may seem, various Muslim writers contend that Islam is democratic.а Which reminds me of apologetic Jews--even of some orthodox rabbis--who insist that Judaism is democratic.а

The Muslim apologist argues as follows.а "It is acknowledged throughout the democratic world that the will or opinion of the majority is to be followed and acted upon.а Now, if 95 percent of the people of a particular country are Muslims and want Islam to be the religion of the state, it follows that Iran, Syria, Libya, etc., should be classified as democracies."

 

To this the Western democratic skeptic might reply:а "Majority rule--or the principle of equality on which it is based--is only one principle of democracy.а But what of personal and political freedom, which are lacking in Islam?"

 

The Muslim might respond:а "In the West, personal freedom means 'living as you please,' a form of egoism that enslaves you to your whims and passions.а As for your political freedom, every few years you elect a president or prime minister and then relapse into servitude.а So you wait another few years and choose another mediocrity with whom you also become disgusted."

 

The Western democrat could counter by saying:а "I prefer our mediocrities to your tyrants."а If he were well-informed he could add:а "Your historians portray the four Caliphs who succeeded Muhammad as models of human excellence.а But all this is Arab myth-making."

 

Historian 'Abdallah Laroui--very rare in the Muslim world--would agree (perhaps because he's Moroccan, studied in Paris, and admired Montesquieu, the great French philosopher.)а In his L'ideologie arabe contemporaine [Contemporary Arab Ideology], Laroui admits that "the Caliph, even in the brilliant periods of Muslim empire, governed according to his own good pleasure; conquered people were persecuted; the state had no end other than the exploitation of subject populations.... The Muslim empire was a reign of violence, fear, the unlimited power of one, and the slavery of all." (pp. 19-28).

 

Freedom, as understood in the West, is foreign to Islam, both in theory and in practice.а In fact, the word "Islam" means subjection.а This has profound consequences.

 

Because he lacks political freedom, the ordinary Muslim is unconcerned about public affairs.а Indeed, Islamic education, says von Grunebaum, "lacks any element of civic virtue."а (This may partly explain why Israeli Arabs fail to convey a disciplined readiness to obey the laws of the Knesset, even though they are represented therein by Arab members.)аа

 

"The individual believer [von Grunebaum continues] is not responsible for state and society so long and insofar as there exists a government that, in spite of sinful or lawless acts, sustains the framework in which the correct life can be lived.а It is left to the canon lawyers and the saints to see to it that the government does not deviate too far from the essential demands of Islamic norms" ( Modern Islam, p. 64).

Consistent therewith, Islamic literature does not portray man as a dramatis persona.а Again von Grunebaum:а "In the mind of the orthodox masses, and of their theologians, man lacked the power to make an authentic decision, locked as he was in the cage of predestination, forever guided and never the guide, a prisoner to whom complete acceptance of the rules allowed only the illusion of free movement" (ibid., p. 65).

 

Like others, von Grunebaum exaggerates Islamic fatalism.а The notion of jihad, which means "to strive, struggle" (to realize Allah's will) is hardly a fatalistic concept.а Here I am reminded of Marxism:а on the one hand a doctrine of determinism, on the other a doctrine of revolution.а What is politically more significant, however, is the doctrine of revolution or of jihad.

 

Some Muslim modernists oppose the identification of jihad with "holy war."а They would limit the term to moral striving.а Although support for such a view will be found in various chapters of the Koran, the dominant spirit of the text is bellicose.а No less than Winston Churchill described the Koran as "the Mein Kampf of war."

 

Militancy renders the democratization of Islam almost impossible.а Since democracy involves government by the consent of the governed, it logically entails a foreign policy of peace as opposed to conquest (except in cases of self-defense).а Hence, unless Islamic leaders (imams and ulamas) renounce jihadЧwhich has brought colonels like Saddam, Assad, and Khadaffi to political preeminence--democracy in the Muslim world is not to be expected.а Nor is abiding or genuine peace.

 

Even if a few Muslim modernists would like to reform Islam in the direction of peace and democracy, their number and influence render them politically irrelevant.а Hence it would be sheer folly for Israel to base its policy toward Arab-Islamic regimes on the remote possibility of some fundamental metamorphosis of Islam.

 

Indeed, in a future article I shall show that even certain Muslim modernists are committed to Israel's destruction.

 

 

Сайт управляется системой uCoz