Slouching Donkey, Lying Elephant: Islam and Democracy

Some critics of the neoconservative plan to democratize the Middle East have argued that Islam is incompatible with democracy--a notion which is often roundly denounced as "racist" or "bigoted" by folks across the board. Most of us on the left think that this is a profoundly silly idea, and I'm inclined to agree--the idea that Muslim are wired in some way which makes democracy impossible is demonstrably false.

Via Winds of Change, we find Amir Taheri tackling this subject in his essay, Islam and Democracy: The Impossible Union. Taheri is clearly very well-educated, a scholar of the subject matter about which he writes. He first argues from a linguistic standpoint:

To understand a civilisation it is important to comprehend the language that shapes it. There was no word in any of the Muslim languages for democracy until the 1890s. Even then the Greek word entered Muslim vocabulary with little change: democrasi in Persian, dimokraytiyah in Arabic, demokratio in Turkish.

Democracy is based on one fundamental principle: equality.

The Greek word isos is used in more than 200 compound nouns, including isoteos (equality), isologia (equal or free speech) and isonomia (equal treatment).

Again we find no equivalent in any of the Muslim languages. The words we have such as barabari in Persian and sawiyah in Arabic mean juxtaposition or separation.

But living languages are not static, and neither are the cultures which speak them. Taheri points out that the Arabic tongues only imported (and with little change) the word "democracy" as a loanword, and that it had no natural word for that--or for "equality", "politics", or "government". I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that Muslims are incapable of comprehending or participating in government or politics--why, then, assume that they are incapable of assimilating the no-longer-new concept of democracy?

Another example is puraibashii (プライバシー; privacy) for which there is no native word. In pre-modern Japan, when people lived in small intimate communities, there may not have been an overriding need for a word to describe an individual's right to freedom from other's interference. However, in modern, urban Japan where even the next door neighbour may be a stranger, a lexical gap developed which was filled by the English word "privacy".

But the bottom line is that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation. Islam divides human activities into five categories from the permitted to the sinful, leaving little room for human interpretation, let alone ethical innovations.

Not being an Islamic scholar, I won't deign to debate this point with him. Especially since from what I do know, I'm inclined to agree: theocracies are fundamentally undemocratic. At least, I'm assuming he's talking about theocracies, especially since he later makes the following point:

The fact that almost all Muslim states today can be rated as failures or, at least, underachievers, is not because they are Islamic but because they are ruled by corrupt and despotic elites that, even when they proclaim an Islamist ideology, are, in fact, secular dictators.

Muslims should not be duped into believing that they can have their cake and eat it. Muslims can build successful societies provided they treat Islam as a matter of personal, private belief and not as a political ideology that seeks to monopolise the public space shared by the whole of humanity and dictate every aspect of individual and community life. Islam is incompatible with democracy. [emphasis mine]

The degree to which religious doctrine and beliefs should have a place in government is a point of eternal contention in America. Some people believe that America was founded on Christian beliefs as a Christian nation, and that God has been wrongfully removed from the government. Most Americans believe that, to one degree or another, there ought to be a wall separating church and state.

Personally, I believe that the more influence religion is allowed to have over the laws and policies of a state, the further that state moves from the ideals of democratic equality. Doctrinal religions which preach the infallability of God's word and the absolute adherence to their tenets are not, shall we say, conducive to a healthy democratic debate over their merits as law. Taheri would no doubt be surprised to find that I agree with many of his arguments about Islam--I simply think they point at a different conclusion than his. It's not that Muslim societies are incompatible with democracy, it's that Islamic theocracies are--by dint of being theocracies, not by dint of being Islamic.

Oh I do love it when people make political arguments based on bad linguistics.

I hate to break this to Mr. Taheri, but the English word "democracy" democracy looks *real similar* to the Greek word "democracy" once you get past the funny letters.

I guess we Americans are doomed to never be capable of Democracy, too...

Posted by: Cunning Linguist at June 3, 2004 12:30 PM


	« Getting Pumped \| Main Page \| Imperialism is as... »


	May 28, 2004


	Islam and Democracy

	Some critics of the neoconservative plan to democratize the Middle East have argued that Islam is incompatible with democracy--a notion which is often roundly denounced as "racist" or "bigoted" by folks across the board. Most of us on the left think that this is a profoundly silly idea, and I'm inclined to agree--the idea that Muslim are wired in some way which makes democracy impossible is demonstrably false. Via Winds of Change, we find Amir Taheri tackling this subject in his essay, Islam and Democracy: The Impossible Union. Taheri is clearly very well-educated, a scholar of the subject matter about which he writes. He first argues from a linguistic standpoint: To understand a civilisation it is important to comprehend the language that shapes it. There was no word in any of the Muslim languages for democracy until the 1890s. Even then the Greek word entered Muslim vocabulary with little change: democrasi in Persian, dimokraytiyah in Arabic, demokratio in Turkish. Democracy is based on one fundamental principle: equality. The Greek word isos is used in more than 200 compound nouns, including isoteos (equality), isologia (equal or free speech) and isonomia (equal treatment). Again we find no equivalent in any of the Muslim languages. The words we have such as barabari in Persian and sawiyah in Arabic mean juxtaposition or separation. There is truth to what he says. A language is more than just a tool for communication, it is a fundamental building block of thought. It both reflects the social patterns of society and reinforces them--witness, for example, the elaborate layers of politeness and social status in Japanese, a language in which humble and honorific speech have their own pronouns and verb conjugations. But living languages are not static, and neither are the cultures which speak them. Taheri points out that the Arabic tongues only imported (and with little change) the word "democracy" as a loanword, and that it had no natural word for that--or for "equality", "politics", or "government". I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that Muslims are incapable of comprehending or participating in government or politics--why, then, assume that they are incapable of assimilating the no-longer-new concept of democracy? To take another example from Japanese loanwords: Another example is puraibashii (プライバシー; privacy) for which there is no native word. In pre-modern Japan, when people lived in small intimate communities, there may not have been an overriding need for a word to describe an individual's right to freedom from other's interference. However, in modern, urban Japan where even the next door neighbour may be a stranger, a lexical gap developed which was filled by the English word "privacy". Up until this point, Taheri seems to be arguing that Muslims cannot have a democractic government--among other reasons, because their language lacks the facility to adequately express democracy's fundamental underpinnings. Shortly thereafter, however, he comes to what seems to be his main point, and it's not quite as sweeping: But the bottom line is that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation. Islam divides human activities into five categories from the permitted to the sinful, leaving little room for human interpretation, let alone ethical innovations. This is more reasonable: his argument is not, as it appeared, that Muslims are incapable of democracy--an absurd notion for which he himself is a living rebuttal--but that an Islamic theocracy is incapable of being democratic. I'll take Stating the Obvious for $400, Alex. Not being an Islamic scholar, I won't deign to debate this point with him. Especially since from what I do know, I'm inclined to agree: theocracies are fundamentally undemocratic. At least, I'm assuming he's talking about theocracies, especially since he later makes the following point: The fact that almost all Muslim states today can be rated as failures or, at least, underachievers, is not because they are Islamic but because they are ruled by corrupt and despotic elites that, even when they proclaim an Islamist ideology, are, in fact, secular dictators. Taheri makes it further clear that the incompatibility is between theocracy and democracy, not between Islam and democracy, in his closing paragraph: Muslims should not be duped into believing that they can have their cake and eat it. Muslims can build successful societies provided they treat Islam as a matter of personal, private belief and not as a political ideology that seeks to monopolise the public space shared by the whole of humanity and dictate every aspect of individual and community life. Islam is incompatible with democracy. [emphasis mine] Note the passage I emphasize. Does this sound familiar to you? Ring any bells? Yes? No? Bueller? How about the separation of church and state? The degree to which religious doctrine and beliefs should have a place in government is a point of eternal contention in America. Some people believe that America was founded on Christian beliefs as a Christian nation, and that God has been wrongfully removed from the government. Most Americans believe that, to one degree or another, there ought to be a wall separating church and state. Personally, I believe that the more influence religion is allowed to have over the laws and policies of a state, the further that state moves from the ideals of democratic equality. Doctrinal religions which preach the infallability of God's word and the absolute adherence to their tenets are not, shall we say, conducive to a healthy democratic debate over their merits as law. Taheri would no doubt be surprised to find that I agree with many of his arguments about Islam--I simply think they point at a different conclusion than his. It's not that Muslim societies are incompatible with democracy, it's that Islamic theocracies are--by dint of being theocracies, not by dint of being Islamic. Posted by Catsy at 06:45 AM \| Comments (1) \| TrackBack (0) Comments: Oh I do love it when people make political arguments based on bad linguistics. I hate to break this to Mr. Taheri, but the English word "democracy" democracy looks real similar to the Greek word "democracy" once you get past the funny letters. I guess we Americans are doomed to never be capable of Democracy, too... Posted by: Cunning Linguist at June 3, 2004 12:30 PM Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? YesNo Comments: