When Islam becomes Democracy’s Worst EnemyIn trying to understand why democracy failed in the Middle East and the Islamic world, various explanations have been proposed by many scholars. When asking the question of what hinders the development of democracy, there are two main factors to consider as one answer this question: politics and culture. When it comes to the Arab world, it seems that many scholars tend to consider the cultural factor, particularly religion, as they seek to explain the absence of democracy in the region. What is puzzling though is the fact that religion has been compatible with politics for thousands of years, and the concept of God and the state is not a new one. Many philosophers throughout the history saw that only through God’s knowledge will one realize the ultimate truth, and thus the higher laws of God are the only ones by which a states should be governed. As a matter of fact, if one is to study the history of political theory, he will soon realize that democracy and political intuitions of the Western world today are to a far extent based on the teachings of Christianity. Still no one can effectively argue that democracy in the West is hindered by religion.This implies that scholars’ concern is not with religion itself, rather with the specific nature of Islam being an obstacle to the creation of democracy. Francis Fukuyama, for instance, argued that “there does seem to be something about Islam, or at least the fundamentalist version of Islam that have been dominant in recent years, that makes Muslim societies particularly resistant to modernity” (Islam and Democracy: An Obscure Relationship, Al-Samak). The evidence that many scholars, including Huntington, relied on is that “of the forty-six sovereign states that make up the international Islamic Conference, only one, the Turkish Republic, can be described as a democracy in Western terms” (Lewis, 1993) and thus these facts give a strong explanation for scholars like Huntington to conclude that “Muslim countries are infertile ground for democratic development and, for democracy” (Islam and Democracy: An Obscure Relationship, Al-Samak). I think using such a broad evidence is not only problematic and risky, but also naïve and petty for it will, and did, lead to faulty explanations, unprecise conclusions, and hasty generalizations. In order for one to study the impact of Islam in the region and thus on democracy, one might have a strong understating not only of Islam, but also of Muslims and their practice to Islam.
Why Islam Cannot be Studied as it?
First, it is foolish to undermine and ignore all the other aspects of these countries, label them as the “Islamic world”, and study them accordingly. Not only that each of these countries is unique with its own culture, language, political system, etc., it is also unique with its understating and practicing of Islam because not all Muslims are the same. In fact, there are several different sects and different schools of thought within each sect: The Shiites differ from Sunnis, which differ from Ismaelis, Sufis, Alawis, etc. (Islam and Democracy: An Obscure Relationship, Al-Samak). In addition, it is important to understand that there is a significant cultural and geographical differences between Arab and non-Arab, Gulf, non-Gulf Muslims, or Middle Eastern Muslims: For example, “Iranian Muslims practice and implement the teachings of Islam differently from Saudi, Bangladeshi, Iraqi, or Turkish Muslims: (Islam and Democracy: An Obscure Relationship, Al-Samak). Second, when referring to political Islam, it is important to understand that there are no specific guidelines as for how a state or a political system ought to look like. The thing that not many scholars seem to get is the fact that Islam cannot be understood literally and in one form. Islam is based on three concepts shura (consultation), Ijma (consensus), and ijtihad (independent reasoning) (Islam and Democracy: An Obscure Relationship, Al-Samak).In Islam there is also what is known as Thwabit (things are constant) and motageirat (things that change over time). When it comes to the social, economic, and political affairs, Islam thus leaves it to Muslims’ ijtihad to decide how to manage them since such matters do change over time (motageirat). This, however, does not mean such affairs can be managed by the arbitrary decisions of few Muslims because Islam does oblige shura (consultation); this requires Muslims to consult one another about their affairs, and unless there is Ijma (consensus) by the majority of Muslims on a particular social or political issue, no one has the authority to force the rest of the Muslims to abide by that issue. A very prominent and distinguished Muslim scholar, Imam Mohammad Al-Shirazi, writes in his book Shura in Islam, “shura is of two kinds: the first is the Muslim governor's consultation of the Muslims about affairs concerning them, and the second is the consultation among Muslims about how to administer their affairs. Therefore, it is a duty on both of the governor and the governed” (Islam and Democracy: An Obscure Relationship, Al-Samak).
It might be reasonable to take a moment here to think about politics; So with governments as arbitrary and brutal as those in the Middle East that suppress their people, in every way shape, and form, how could one with, a full reason, except Muslims to consult, consent, or manage ANY of their own affairs. When the social, economic, political, and even spiritual life is restrained with countless political policies, how could Muslims in this case make their own decisions? Well, they cannot. This means that most Muslims of the Middle East do not get to practice their Islam freely on the personal level, much less on the political level. So, as scholars argue that Islam obstructs democracy in the Middle East, I will argue that if the three concepts of Islam mentioned above were implemented purely and fairly, democracy in the Middle East would have been established years ago. The fact that many scholars do not, but should, realize is that Islam is the Arab dictatorships’ worst nightmare and Islam does not play the role that many think it does in hardly any of the political affairs in the Middle East. Even counties governed by the Sharia Law like Saudi Arabia tend to politicize Islam and take it to the extreme to justify their policies. While countries like Egypt and Syria use the “Muslim Brotherhood phenomena” to justify their brutal, harsh laws in the name of fighting terrorism and saving the nation form the “extremist Islamic movements.” Thus, if Islam is to be considered at all in studying democracy, the question to be addressed is: to what extents are Arab leaders politicizing Islam and using it as a tool to prevent democracy in the region?
Works Cited
Al-Samak, Fatima. "Islam and Democracy: An Obscure Relationship." Al Islam.org. N.p., n.d. http://www.al-islam.org/articles/islam-and-democracy-an-obscure-relationship-fatima-al-samak. Web. 25 Sept. 2015. LEWIS, BERNARD. "Islam and Liberal Democracy." The Atlantic. N.p., Feb. 1993.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/02/islam-and-liberal-democracy/308509/. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.
Women and Politica in Middle East
There is no doubt that being a woman and growing up in the Middle East is an experience that most would probably prefer not to have. I don’t think any person, with a full reason, can deny or argue against the gigantic notions of gender inequality and women right abuses that exist in the Middle East today; nor would anyone be able to pretend as if the Arab society is not a male-dominated one, because in fact it is. Men in the Middle East are no doubt preferable over women. I, for one, was taken out of school at the age of 14 because it was “socially problematic” for me to precede my education since I am a woman. I got married at the age of 18 because it was “socially elegant” for me to do so since I am a woman. Because I am a woman, I had to abide by the very precise social rules that are claimed to be compatible with me being a woman, if I wanted to be socially accepted. So, no, I didn’t have equal opportunities as those of men; I wasn’t given the luxury to think for myself or make any decisions on my behalf for I was taught the self-worth of a women never lies within herself, but within the man who she associates herself with. I was often asked whose daughter I was, and then whose wife I became, and almost never once I was asked what my true self was; my ambitions, my dreams, what I wanted to do with my life, what do I want to study—were questions that I hardly heard as if my identity, being a mere woman, was never enough to be acknowledged alone. I was told of the many, many things that I couldn’t do because of my gender, and I had to overcome all of these challenges and break many rules to be where I am now and the person who I managed to become. Despite my personal experiences with what being a woman in the Middle East is like, I think the understating of this topic, like many other issues related to the region, is still somewhat extorted, misinterpreted, and overly stated.
Women between Fiction and Reality
First, I think that women of the Middle East are not as many portrayed them to be; their presence is not disregarded to the degree that many think they are. Yes, there are much more rules for women to follow, but I think as time goes women are more able to break these rules, overcome barriers, and show greater existence in the society. I think the role of women in the Middle East today is by far better than what it was ten or twenty years ago even though it is nowhere near where it should be. While this might seem as if I am contradicting my previous argument about the miserable conditions of a woman growing up in the Middle East, it is not. I don’t, for example, take the permission of my husband before I speak, I don’t fear looking him in the eye, nor do I spend my entire day cooking his food and cleaning his house, as many would think. I think the point that I want to make is that people tend to see only the poor, oppressed Middle Eastern woman while totally ignore the other brighter side of her life, of her power, resistance, and influence. The second misconception about women in the Middle East is that women are oppressed because of Islam. This becomes even more evident among some Arabs and Muslims themselves. I think many Arabs tend to interpret Islam in the way that suites their unique mindset and fulfills their social traditions. It is easier, as they assume, to enforce certain ideas by associating them with religion, the most sacred and precious source of influence to many in the Middle East. They accordingly seem to focus on one specific verse of the Quran and interpret it in a way that justifies their backwards, twisted minds. Some Arabs are often good at arguing how Allah obligates women to cover their bodies, never to reveal their hair or leave home without their husband permission, and always be obedient to their supposes; Arabs are alos often very good at following the path of Islam when it comes to marring four wives, but what about the rest of Islam’s teachings? What about the Islam that forbids female infanticide, that instructs Muslims to educate daughters as well as sons; the Islam that insists that women have the right to refuse a prospective husband! Why many Arabs tend to ignore the part of Islam that gives women rights if they are divorced by their husband, and gives them the right to own and inherit property? (What Factors Determine the Changing Role of Women in the Middle East and Islamic Societies? 2002).
Works Cited
"What Factors Determine the Changing Role of Women in the Middle East and Islamic Societies? ." PBS.com. N.p., 2002. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/women/. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.