Islam and Democracyааааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
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.