Debate: Islam is Incompatible with Democracy

THE MUSLIM WEEKLY 2004
A fresh and what some would describe as necessary debating society has emerged over the last few months, conducted by Intelligence Squared in association with the London Evening Standard and for this particular debate involving Georgetown University Washington DC. A Full House with c.700 people in attendance and chaired by Anne McElvoy (Editor of the London Evening Standard) swarmed together at the Royal Geographic Society in South Kensington on Tuesday.

The format took shape in the form of three debaters on each side of the motion alternating in turns, each being given 10 minutes on the podium followed by the debate extending to the floor, taking in questions/comments that may influence the outcome of the motion.

Polling was conducted before and at the end of the motion with the following standing at the outset:

For: 218
Against:203
Don't Know:281

For the Motion:
David Pryce-Jones (Editor of the National Review)
Raphael Israeli (Professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese History at Hebrew University in Jerusalem)
Amir Taheri (Former Middle East editor of The Sunday Times)

Against the Motion:
Andrew Wharton (Director of Publishing Studies at Stirling University)
Sarah Joseph (Editor of Emel Magazine)
Professor John Esposito: (Georgetown University)

Kicking off with Mr. Pryce-Jones who deemed Muslims not having civil societies and being in denial of reality making it difficult to instill democratic values in them. As the rule of law was Shariah in Islam, it being the highest authority, Muslims could not accept an alternative, giving the example of the title 'Commander of Faithful' as being considered above ideals of nation and state.

He considered Christendom as being historically similar to Islam, highlighting 'Saudi/Wahabism' as aiming to proselotyse others.

Classical Islam had 3 categories:

1) Believer/Non-Believer
2) Master/Slave
3) Man/Woman

Therefore, ridding the notion of equality in a democratic society.

Many ills were attributable to Islam, including honour killings, where Shariah Law would be stretched to exonerate perpetrators. In the previous century, Shah Pahlavi in Iran and earlier Ataturk in Turkey tried their best to rid their populations of Islam because they understood democracy, human rights and rule of law needed to be rid of religious influence.

Mr.Wheatcroft immediately differed with the notion that religion and democracy were akin to oil and water. There were 16-17 million Muslims in Western democracies, many of whom, regularly participated in democratic activity. However, Turkey's attempts to join the EU and particularly G'Estaing's (Former French Prime Minister) retort that 'Turkey's entry would ruin us' has not helped. Christianity and Islam in his opinion, were moving towards a single common purpose.

The Freedom House in New York (A democracy monitoring organisation for 60 years) made 3 categories of countries, those that were:
1)Free
2)Partly free
3)Not free

Making the inference that the more civil liberties people enjoyed was a consequence of how much democracy they had implemented. Importantly, Mr. Wheatcroft felt that there was a new energy for participation in democracy in the Muslim World.

His speech was followed by that of Raphael Israeli who wanted to make clear that value judging was not his domain, not for whether Islam is good or bad or whether democracy is better than other forms of government as he put it.
"We mean different things, everybody thinks they are right. To Arabs, Bush, Blair and Sharon are tyrants." He emphasized the need to take culture into context. "You should be able to choose what you wear, an Arab Gown or Western shorts, it's your prerogative".

He frowned upon the word democratize, begging for it's meaning. Democracy cannot enter Islam as sovereignty to the people is akin to blasphemy with
the Quran (word of Allah) being the ultimate criterion. With there being 57 Muslim countries and no democracy in any of them, how could they be compatible? An analogy befitted the occasion in his opinion of the blind man going into a dark room, looking for a black cat, which was not there!

With a seemingly hard act to upstage, Sarah Joseph came to the podium and with a determined glance at the audience, questioned whether the above was sufficient to go against the motion? Not enough, was her assertion. With the foundations of democracy being rooted in slavery coupled with modern collective punishment, people were confounded as to what democracy means and stands for.

Although the West had failed the Muslims on many occasions, that did not negate the principles of democracy. Taking her Islamic teachings into account, she took the Civic society concept a bit further by describing every human being as a custodian of the world. There was no place for social apathy, social cohesion was a must as was holding rulers to account, giving the example of the first caliph of Islam Abu Bakr (RA) calling on the people to help him govern correctly.

She compared the Islamic concept of Shura (all affairs conducted by mutual consent) to democratic values. However, what was disturbing was that Shariah Law was denounced by Western media and academia alike, suggesting that we maybe afraid of what rights Muslims ask for. I want an Islamically inspired democracy, this would curb the clash of civilization thesis, she demanded.

The last person to argue for the motion was Amir Taheri, who argued that there was no discussion in the Arab world about democracy until 20-30 years ago. In order to understand the Muslim world's ambivalence we had to delve back in history.
The Greeks were obsessed with government and politics unlike Muslims who concentrated on other aspects of society. Indeed, Aristotle's politics was not translated into Arabic until recently, he asserted.

Muslims had stages of hierarchy existing even among animals and plants let alone humans. Therefore, we just had to accept that democracy and Islam were two different phenomena and that we all had to accept that rather than bicker over it. Islam has its own civilization and method of conducting issues. Furthermore, that chaos ensued when man is left to his own devices.

This led us to the final speaker for the evening, Professor Esposito who acknowledged that colonial rule had a legacy in present day Muslim countries, characterized by artificial boundaries and military dictators. He for some reason cited the proverb 'we reap what we sow' in the same sentence as Mubarak of Egypt.
Democracy was a process, the USA and France didn't become democracies in one day. Thus, in the case of the Muslim world, the struggle was ongoing. However, progress was being made, noting that in the late 1980's, Islamic parties been come to prominence in Indonesia and Turkey etc.

What was of alarming concern was that post 9/11, there was increased political activism in the Middle East and South Asia. 'Jihaadi' groups had undermined democratic efforts, motivated by political power, not religion, he thought. Islam as a religion was fine, however, he warned against getting into confusing issues such as interpretation and change within Islam. Muslims have to grapple with this, as their attitude towards Islam can be divisive at times.

Questions/comments in the house ranged from, Islam being a belligerent religion telling believers to kill non-believers, Quranic Laws being against democracy, the issue of private and public belief and the importance of avoiding singling out Muslims for behaviour that is prevalent throughout the world.
I leave the last words to my freshly acqaunted friend Lance who spoke from the audience: We went from Christendom to Enlightenment to democracy, If Muslims follow a similar path to democracy, they will end up with democracy but they wont have Islam.

End of Debate Poll:
For:404
Against:267
Don’t know:28