Islam compatible with and essential to democracy

Sheik Dia al-Shakarchi, Project Syndicate

Mahmoud Abbas's election in Palestine and the forthcoming vote in Iraq on Jan. 30 have pushed the question of Islam's compatibility with democracy to the center of the world's agenda. Sheik Dia al-Shakarchi, a leading Shi'ite theologian, argues that democracy is not only compatible with Islam, but is essential to it.

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 in radicalism and terror. Both Muslims and non-Muslims have not always agreed on the extent to which this is compatible with genuine Islam.

How Islam is understood varies widely among devout, moderately religious, and non-observant 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: A peaceful Islam, which is ready for dialogue and coexistence, and a fundamentalist Islam, which is 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 also whether Islam is capable with peace and moderation. But, based on more than a decade of study and debate, I am convinced of the compatibility between Islam and democracy. Indeed, in my view, 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 particular path of action, that path itself is no longer a matter of choice. It also becomes a religious rule. Thus, if we can establish that democracy is the means to realize the strong 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 laws in Islam, according to which minor evils -- even if religiously impermissible or not recommended at first -- become permissible, recommended, and 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: Arab and Kurd, Sunni and Shi'ite, not to mention minorities of other religions and ethnic groups. Moreover, not all Muslims practice Islam, nor do those who practice do so in the same way.

So religion cannot be imposed; individuals must practice it according to their own decisions. Any enforcement of religious practice only creates hostility toward religion. Thus, I believe that a political system that best serves free choice -- including the choice of people to be practicing Muslims -- 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 unacceptable; 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, 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 Islam with unjust rule and creating enemies for Islam.

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 full participation. Likewise, an Islamic democracy with restrictions on non-religious parties would be a mockery of democracy and harmful to Islam. This would also be unrealistic, because in the current age of globalization, any claims to democracy would be exposed as obviously 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, never from outside, the democratic process itself.

We must recognize that democracy has proved its worth around the world. It is the best way of organizing a society based on reality and not ideals. Why shouldn't Iraqis benefit from the proven experience of other peoples?

The writer is a Shi'ite theologian living in Baghdad.