Islam compatible with and essential to democracy

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.