Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between religion & politics
Islam And Democracy Essay
The relationship between religion & politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The relationship between religion & politics
For quite some time, a considerable discussion and debate has been going on whether or not there is compatibility between democracy and Islam. After the birth of Islam, the extensive spread of the Muslim population make this monotheistic, Abrahamic religion is the second largest in the world with over a billion followers. Throughout the passage of time, many have come to opinionate that liberal democracy can exist in the Muslim world as it has all the necessary elements that a modern democratic state and society requires. However, many still oppose to the compatibility of the two solely due to the belief that democratic principles desecrate and condemn the values of the religion of Islam.
Throughout history, enough arguments have been given for and against this proposition. I have had the chance of going through the two articles on the subject, namely “A Historical Overview” by Bernard Lewis and “Democracy & Islam” by Irfan Ahmad. Both the articles are informative from two different standpoints and the finest thing about them from a reader’s perspective is that they are not loaded with unnecessary and cumbersome details. Nevertheless, with due apology, the article by Ahmad mystifies the position at certain instances, but pointing them out would neither matter nor be relevant in any substantial way. The gist of the argument is that the birth of secularism and the spread of its principles uplift and enshrine democracy, while the very fundamental nature of Islam, as a religion, undermines the democratic movements in Muslim countries all around the globe.
Coming first to the article by Lewis, it can be seen that he tries to draw a line of distinction between Islam and liberal democracy. He shows his concern for the misuse of the ...
... middle of paper ...
...t has replaced the centuries old monarchal system of governance throughout the world. I do not mean to say that those who boast of having a democratic system in their countries should first look at their past, which is bleak all the way. The point is that the transformation of monarchy into th republic governance is only a recent phenomenon.
Works Cited:
1. Black, Antony. "The Idea of Monarchy under the Umayyads and 'Abbasids." History Of Islamic Political Thought: From The Prophet To The Present. S.l.: Edinburgh UP, 2001. 18-19. Print.
2. Irfan Ahmad (2011). Democracy and Islam. Philosophy & Social Criticism, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp. 459 – 470.
3. Lewis, Bernard (1996). Islam and Liberal Democracy: A Historical Overview. Journal of Democracy, Volume 7, Issue 2, 52-63.
4. The Qur'an: Translation. Trans. Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Elmhurst: Tahrike,
2000.
Ansary, Mir Tamim. Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through Islamic Eyes. New York: PublicAffairs, 2009. Print.
Ibn Munqidh, Usama. "From Memoirs." McNeill, William and Marilyn Robinson Waldman. The Islamic World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973. 184-206.
In today’s world, there are several types of governments that control their countries. There are democracies, dictatorships, republics, monarchies etc. Absolute monarchy was a very common form of government centuries ago. Throughout this time period, many leaders, dictators, monarchs made mistakes that the government looks at today. The abuse and misuse of power by absolute monarchs inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy. This is shown through leaders abusing their powers as absolute monarchs, the unreliability of monarchy, and corrupt governments.
Print. Doak, Robin. Empire of the Islamic World. Rev. ed.
Hilāl, ʻAlī Al-Dīn. Islamic Resurgence in the Arab World. New York, NY: Praeger, 1982. Print.
Alt, A. "The Monarchy in Kingdoms Israel and Judah", Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, Blackwell 1966. p.243.
Rahman, Fazlur. Islam & Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1982. Print.
Rippin A. 1990, Muslims, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices Volume 1: The Formative Period, Routledge, London and New York.
Robinson, B.A. (2002, October 14). Islam: Is it a religion of violence or of peace.
In both given articles, “The Roots of Muslim Rage” by Bernard Lewis, and “The Roots of Muslim Rage Revisited” by Nicolaas J.E. van der Zee, argue about the enhancement of the Muslim fundamentalism with different perspectives; however, I believe that Lewis’ view may be quiet misleading to the actual perception. Lewis indicates that Muslim fundamentalism is conceived through the Muslim community’s oppression and dissatisfaction with the West’s political involvement, as well as “Islam is a source of aggression” . In defiance of Lewis’ opinion, the word ‘Islam’ comes from the word peace as well as the will of submission to God. The notion of aggression and violence that Lewis conceptualizes to be the headline of Islam does not have any supporting
There is a strong belief that Islam and politics are directly tied. They are tied in the sense that the building blocks of the religion dictate how they ought to behave in the political environment. Through this mandatory follow up behavior that the religion delineates, many have come to believe that its teachings are a form of terrorism. Mandaville argues that what has challenged the Islamic link between politics and religion was the emergence of secularism, which went against the belief that politics and religion could go together. Islam has been a religion that has been accused of supporting terrorist activities in the world. Different assumptions have been brought up to understand better the linkages between what really lies behind the Islam religion and politics. Peter Mandaville argues that Islam is dynamic and that it has changed over time; situated within time and politics.
G. Esposito, John L (2002) Islam; What Everyone Should Know. New York. Oxford University Press Inc.
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years, having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that is largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
“Are political Islam and democracy compatible?” This question has been troubling both Muslims and non-Muslims living in East and West for a long time now. Contemporary Islamic political thought has become deeply influenced by attempts at reconciling Islam and democracy. Muslim thinkers who deal with political debates cannot disregard the significance of the democratic system, as it is the prevailing theme of modern western political thought. Hence, it is necessary for any alternative political system, whether it is religious or secular, to explore its position with regards to democratic government. In fact, a large literature and media publications have developed over the last century on this heated discourse of democracy versus Islam. While many argue that Islam has all the ingredients of modern state and democratic society, many other reject the phenomena “modernism” and “democracy” as a whole because of their “foreign nature”—alien to “Islamic values”. For Islamists and modernists, the motivation for such effort to either embrace or reject democracy often is to remove suspicion about the nature and goals of Islamic movements and Islamic revivalism or resurgence. But before diving into this discourse, one needs to understand the definition and origins of “democracy.” Although purely a Western ideology in its origin, there is no consensus on the definition of “democracy” as a political system. The Oxford English Dictionary describes democracy as: “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (“democracy, n.”). In my paper, I will examine whether or not democracy and Sunni political Islam are compatible through the eyes of three revolutionary Sun...