Islam, Muslims and Democracy

In what started out as a public challenge to the right over their stance on the subject, the resulting arguments have turned into a crystallization of terms. I think Esmay was just frustrated and used Michelle as a jumping off point because she's very visible and vocal. You can follow the links to get to the beggining of the story, but there are a couple of things that stood out in the ensuing arguments, that I think are very important.

First, Donald Sensing notes how Esmay isn't framing the argument properly. Islam is a religion and not a race or nationality - a mistake many make. Further he notes:

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.

It's important to note that he equates "Islam" not being compatible with democracy as "Nazism" is not and not that Muslims are incompatible with democracy. There is a huge difference.

Tom points out this comment from Esmay's site.

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.

That to me is the crux of the matter. It is Islam that dictates this and to the degree that Muslims practice Islam, that is what determines how much democracy can be compatible. What I think we are seeing today are fundementalist Muslims pushing for Islam to become more "Islamic" and less democratic. In addition, some Muslim leaders are using this Islamization to become more like Nazis. No one knows this better than a Muslim.

In the House of Islam, you cannot have a principle other than that of the community. Every thing you do is referred to Islam. The mantra is "that's stupid BUT...But we cannot do this because we are Muslims." One hears this expression ad nauseam. In the Islamic world you cease to be a human being. You become only a Muslim, whatever that entails.

You are not allowed to be a person with vices and virtues, you cannot follow your own reasoning, and you cannot be unpopular or defend an unpopular idea. You cannot go out of the circle. To express yourself freely means to risk death. And death indeed if you change your faith. Invention itself is considered as an act of blasphemy.

Substitute Nazism and Nazi and the result is the same, isn't it?

Donald goes on to note the influence the Nazis and democracy had on Muslim countries. The "blend" has produced some undesired effects.

Where does all this leave us? Here, I think, as Tom puts it:

Prior to the Reformation and the Enlightenment there was a serious question as to whether Christianity was compatible with democracy. Now, Western societies have struck a balance amongst religion, art, science, politics, and the law. However, many have noted that Islam has not undergone a similar transformation - does Dean allow for a discussion of the implications of this? Max Boot follows the Pope into that very minefield and is optimistic about islam.

Minefield indeed! For Islam to reform, Muslims will have to admit that the Koran is not the very word of God. That, like all religions, the words have been interperted and written down by man - an imperfect creature to be sure.