Iraqis know that democracy is a Muslim's duty | February 03, 2005

In keeping with the mission of the IRFWP to publish opinion and commentary, we offer this important essagy from Baghdad theologian Dia Al-Sharkarchi, which first appeared in The Daily Star

By Dia Al-Sharkarchi

Saturday, January 29, 2005

During the last 25 years, Islam has played an increasingly influential role in politics (and not only in the Islamic world), with political Islam frequently expressing itself through radicalism and terror. Both Muslims and non-Muslims have not always agreed on the extent to which such behavior is compatible with genuine Islam.

How Islam is understood varies widely among devout, moderately religious, and nonobservant Muslims, as well as among Islamic scholars, political parties and organizations. Even Western experts and critics of Islam hold different views. Overall, there are two conflicting images of Islam: one that sees it as a peaceful religion ready for dialogue and coexistence; and one that sees Islam as largely fundamentalist, militant and even terrorist.

There is a widespread misperception that Islam's holy texts are written in a way that can justify both interpretations. But, in my opinion, the reason for different - and frequently contradictory - interpretations is an incompetent and incomplete approach that detaches individual texts from their context and construes them without a thorough understanding of the true spirit of the Koran.

This approach to Islamic texts - coming from both secular and religiously oriented Muslims, as well as from non-Muslims with an interest in the subject - calls into question the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and its ability to embrace peace and moderation. Based on more than a decade of study and debate, I am convinced of the compatibility between Islam and democracy. Indeed, democracy is not only permitted by Islam, but can be regarded as a religious rule.

My understanding is drawn from a principle contained by the basic Islamic theory of legal reasoning, which asserts that when strong religious interests can be realized only through a specific path of action, that path becomes no longer merely a matter of choice but a religious rule. Thus, if we can establish that democracy is the means to achieving the best interests of the Muslim community - and I believe we can do this - then democracy may be declared a religious duty in Islam.

Even if democracy might be viewed primarily as an evil from an Islamic point of view, there is another principle of interpretation of religious law in Islam according to which minor evils (even if religiously impermissible or not recommended at first) become permissible, even mandatory, if they alone can prevent major evils.

The Muslim interest in democracy is best understood through a clear perception of the reality of how Muslims live. A country like Iraq, for example, is home to a diverse and varied population: It includes Arabs and Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, as well as minorities of other religions and ethnic groups. Moreover, not all Muslims practice Islam, nor do those who practice it do so in the same way.

So religion cannot be imposed; individuals must practice it according to their own choices. Any enforcement of religious practice only creates hostility toward religion. Thus, I believe that a political system that best permits free choice - including the choice to be a practicing Muslim - is the best system for Islam.

Of course, the problem of Islam's compatibility with democracy may be analyzed from different points of view. One possible approach is purely practical, comparing democracy with all other conceivable alternatives. In my opinion, there are only five conceivable alternatives in a Muslim country.

The first is secular dictatorship. This is unacceptable for two reasons.

First, dictatorship itself is ugly and deplorable; second, secular dictatorship excludes Islamic parties from participating normally in the political system. We have considerable experience of this in the Middle East.

Of course, the second option, an Islamic dictatorship, is also possible.

But this, too, is unacceptable. As with a secular dictatorship, Islamic dictatorship is ugly and destructive. Such a dictatorship would damage Islam by associating the religion with unjust rule and would create enemies to the religion. A third alternative is democracy, but with secular restrictions on religious parties. In fact, this would be a pseudo-democracy and would infringe on the rights of religious people to fully participate in politics. Likewise, an Islamic democracy with restrictions on nonreligious parties would be a mockery of democracy and be harmful to Islam. This would also be unrealistic, because in the current age of globalization, any false claims to democracy can be easily exposed as false.

So, in my view, true democracy is the only alternative, because it is realistic and promotes peace. Call this ideology-free democracy: a political system that tolerates restrictions imposed only from within, but never from outside, the democratic process itself. We must recognize that democracy has proven its worth around the world. It is the best way of organizing a society based on reality, not ideals. Why shouldn't Iraqis, who will be voting this Sunday, benefit from the proven experience of other peoples?

Dia al-Shakarchi is a Shiite theologian living in Baghdad. This commentary is published in collaboration with Project Syndicate

Taken from The Daily Star

Posted by admin at February 3, 2005 10:44 AM