Daniel Pipes On Islam and Democracy

15 Responses to “Daniel Pipes On Islam and Democracy”

1. Nobody on May 5th, 2008 9:25 pm

   I like Pipes. Though I think that he is too optimistic about Islam. From the beginning Islamic civilization displayed a very clear tendency to extreme absolutism or despotism. It was actually more mellow when tribalism was more important and Islam was still largely the national religion of Arabs. From the moment Islam has taken its current form of the universal religion it was only getting worse.

2. Zaki on May 6th, 2008 2:54 am

   Nobody,
   I agree with you about Pipes. I think he is a very good analyst. I totally agree with him about Islam and Democracy. I agree he is a bit optimist, but if one is not, what is there to do about this extremism?

   There were times in Islam under the Abassid Empire (the years of higher civilization for which all Muslims take pride so much of, but do not understand quite fully the extent to which other minorities and ethnic groups have contributed to the flowering of sciences, arts, literature, poetry (the best), medicine, astronomy). I mean persians, jewish, Christains, Armenians, greeks you name it. All of this because all groups were welcome to practice their religions and there were genuine outlook toward the outside for ideas, technology. Whether this was a democracy, it remains to be proven, because democracy was non-existent at the time. However, it showed that some islamic rulers during the Abbasid Empire were capable of bringing beliefs, cultures and ideas together in terms of allowing non-arab ideas to flourish and combine with local knowledge to create new syntheses and discoveries. These rulers even welcomed critical thinkers and philosophers who by the standars of today would seem heritical. Of course there were others who disagree with this and had find the time to emerge as force to influence a new ruler who came to power afterwards. According to historians the length of time for which these new discoveries in sciences, arts and astronomy lasted only around 70-80 years. After that it was a downfall spiral. And it is related to an outward looking civilization and not inwardly driven by moral codes and dhimmitude. If those golden years in islam were not the results of the fusion of culture as a “democracy” none of the discoveries would have been made.

   That’s history, now it is completely different context.

3. Connie on May 6th, 2008 5:19 am

   Actually, Pipes and Spencer are not that far apart in their thinking. Pipes simply wants to believe that Islam can reform and Spencer is more realistic. The fact remains that they both acknowledge severe problems in Islam. As long as the Qur’an is thought to be the word of God, rather than the ramblings of Muhammad, I would have to agree with Spencer’s stance.

4. Nobody on May 6th, 2008 7:42 am

   Zaki on May 6th, 2008 2:54 am

   Nobody,
   I agree with you about Pipes. I think he is a very good analyst. I totally agree with him about Islam and Democracy. I agree he is a bit optimist, but if one is not, what is there to do about this extremism?

   There were times in Islam under the Abassid Empire (the years of higher civilization for which all Muslims take pride so much of, but do not understand quite fully the extent to which other minorities and ethnic groups have contributed to the flowering of sciences, arts, literature, poetry (the best), medicine, astronomy). I mean persians, jewish, Christains, Armenians, greeks you name it. All of this because all groups were welcome to practice their religions and there were genuine outlook toward the outside for ideas, technology. Whether this was a democracy, it remains to be proven, because democracy was non-existent at the time.

   Democracy it sure was not. And neither equality as in Islam the status of Dhimmis is that of second class members of society. I would say that Islam has a very developed concept of tolerance of submission. Once other monotheists accepted their reduced and inferior position within Islamic states, they could usually count on being left alone. But I would not call it fusion or something. It’s just that: the tolerance of submission.

   On the other hand the Mongols practiced a very similar concept. It may be something shared by empires established by nomadic people which without doubt is what the Islamic Caliphate was, at least at the beginning.

5. Ahmad al-Safawi on May 6th, 2008 12:17 pm

   It is funny how some people - depending on context - bring forth some points of history, while leaving others out. If one seeks to proove that the Abbasid Empire acted otherwise than the neo-islamistic movements of today (thus the neo-islamists are wrong), they will bring forward xamples of tolerance during the Abbasid Empire - however, very often the very same person will argue how barbaric the very same empire was, thus demonizing the caliphate it self.

   Not that i accuse any of the people who have posted the comments here of this. I excuse many of your historical mistakes with lack of knowledge.

   “There were times in Islam under the Abassid Empire (the years of higher civilization for which all Muslims take pride so much of, but do not understand quite fully the extent to which other minorities and ethnic groups have contributed to the flowering of sciences, arts, literature, poetry (the best), medicine, astronomy). I mean persians, jewish, Christains, Armenians, greeks you name it. All of this because all groups were welcome to practice their religions and there were genuine outlook toward the outside for ideas, technology. ”
   - First of all, the way you portray things here sounds very rose-red. The conditions during the Abbas Empire were not always like that, the policy often changes from ruler to ruler, from epoch to epoch. Non-arabs have always been among the foremost of the people in the islamic sciences, before and after the seizure of power by the Bani Abbas. Salman al-Farsi (ra), one of the greatest of the Sahaba were persian. Bilal al-Habashi (ra), the muezzin, were ethiopian. The “Imam al-A’zem”, Abu Haneefah (rh), were persian. The most famous hadith scholar, Imam Bukhari (rh) were persian. The great historian, Ibn al-Athir, were kurdish, and i could continue this way by mentioning very great religious and scientific scholars in the muslim empires who were not arabs. The point is that the Muslim Empires of all times often did not make the big deal out of your heritage is not something that came along with the Abbasids - even though the Arab Supremacist policy existed in the Marwanid times. Regarding religious tolerance, it was not always quite like you portray it, which i will point out later.

   “These rulers even welcomed critical thinkers and philosophers who by the standars of today would seem heritical”
   - In many cases, not only did they tolerate it, there rulers actually FOLLOWED philosophies why by the standard of the vast majority of Muslims today and in the past is seen as heretical! The very same rulers often prosecuted muslim scholars who remained loyal to the islam of the Salaf. Imam Ahmad (ra) who refused to submit to the state sanctioned Mu’tazilite philosophy was arrested by the ruler Al-Ma’mun, flogged by the ruler Almu’tasim and banished from Baghdad by the ruler Alwathek.

   They did not always just tolerate newly invented philosophies. Rather they followed the newly invented theology, and prosecuted those who did’nt. But by just focusing of their accept of Ahl al-I3tizal, one can with ease make things seem like they were “oh so tolerant” against foreign ideas, as the I3tizal were build on greek logic and rationalism.

   “On the other hand the Mongols practiced a very similar concept. It may be something shared by empires established by nomadic people which without doubt is what the Islamic Caliphate was, at least at the beginning.”
   - This is also wrong, if not “iftiraa”. The first islamic caliph, Abu Bakr (ra), have never been a nomad, neither have his successors. The Bani Umayya at first traced their lineage through Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (ra), who was a meccan, not a nomad. The Bani Abbas traced their linage through Al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, a meccan son of a meccan son of a meccan, never a nomad. A google search would have revealed this.

6. Nobody on May 6th, 2008 1:03 pm

   # Ahmad al-Safawi on May 6th, 2008 12:17 pm

   . . .

   “On the other hand the Mongols practiced a very similar concept. It may be something shared by empires established by nomadic people which without doubt is what the Islamic Caliphate was, at least at the beginning.”
   - This is also wrong, if not “iftiraa”. The first islamic caliph, Abu Bakr (ra), have never been a nomad, neither have his successors. The Bani Umayya at first traced their lineage through Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (ra), who was a meccan, not a nomad. The Bani Abbas traced their linage through Al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, a meccan son of a meccan son of a meccan, never a nomad. A google search would have revealed this.
   

   But I bet that the majority of tribal forces who took part in these military campaigns were nomads. You may be right about the elite but then Mecca did not exist in isolation. It very much belonged to the culture and the mentality which was predominantly practiced by nomadic tribes. That here and there some tribes were settled or semi nomadic does not change the fundamental fact that (at least as far as I know) the majority of the population of the peninsula at that time, maybe with the exception of some parts of Yemen, were nomads.

7. Zaki on May 6th, 2008 1:28 pm

   Alsafawi,
   I did not want to go into the details of each rulers to see if there were changes in the attitudes of Islam toward “democracy” as we were trying to debate.

   Remember we all need to stay focus on the theme of the blog: which is to TRY (I really mean TRY, because it is very complex issue) to understand if Islam and democracy are compatible. Going and trying to secure points by naming persons that or that is not going to advance our debate. You are right that Abbassid Empire for all its duration was not as stable as I made it to be. There is not point in auguing about this fact. The fact remains that at some point Baghdad was the higher prized city in the word, riveling Alexandria in the time of Ptelomy Egypt. I am making the point that at one time, during the Abbaside empire, there was some form of “democracy” if one can called “Tolerance” so be it. One cannot make advances in technology, the arts and science when the masses and the minorities are under the gun. My point is simple and clear to understand AND IT REFERS TO THE MAIN POINT OF THIS BLOG.

   Retracing the various vendattas and power struggles between the “illustrious” rulers of Islam is not adding nothing to the THEME of the blog (Which is islam and Democracy). You are deviating from the purpose of the blog. What is your claim on this issue?

   By the way, you are mistaken about the caliph Almu’tassim being an adherent of Mutazilita doctrine. You seem to imply this in your reply, perhaps you did not mean to do so. In fact, he tried to undo violenty the influence of the Mutazilita mouvement in his courts and the empire which has spread from the previous ruler.

8. Drima on May 6th, 2008 1:33 pm

   Nobody, Pipes too optimistic? If anything he’s not optimistic enough.

   Calling the golden age of Islam a democracy is of course silly. The notion of democracy is a fairly recent one. However the Islamic Civilization at its peak was very pluralistic and tolerant of diverse ideas, many of which would be heretical in today’s rotten reality filled with man-made dogmatic nonsense. This - the relatively free market place of ideas of the time - is what made the civilization great and gave rise to Islamic science. Such things bear a lot of similarities to what democracy espouses.

   As for the whole dhimmi thing, you’re certainly right. There was no such thing as people living as equals like you have today. In spite of that, if you look back then during that context, the treatment minorities - including Jews - received under the Islamic Empire was a lot better that what many had to endure elsewhere. So of course, the whole dhimma thing is abhorrent when seen in today’s context as it should be. However, back then given the reality of the time and conditions outside the Islamic Empire, it wasn’t really so. You’re being simplistic about it. Human rights, equality before the law, democracy, constitutionalism, the nation state etc… these are all new and recent notions. You can’t use these standards to judge the conditions present in those days.

   It seems to me that you’re being selective in the portions of Muslim history you’re picking. It wasn’t all rosy, that’s for sure. But it wasn’t mainly oppressive and bloody like how you paint it to be either.

   Zaki, leaving aside some details, I generally agree with your overall point.

   Connie, how lovely. Yes, that’s right. Islam will never be reformed. There is no way it can ever be in comfort with democracy. Just exactly like how Judaism and Christianity remained rigid throughout their entire existence.

   Please.

   It’s not all black and white dear. Ever heard of Turkey? Malaysia? Indonesia? The first three are democracies. Are they perfect? Do they function as how democracies should? Certainly not but they disprove the notion that Islam and democracy cannot coexist.

   As for Spencer, I’ve stopped taking him seriously quite a while ago. In his eyes, al-Qaeda and their like-minded folks represent what Islam truly is. He refuses to see the diversity of interpretations available choosing only to focus his time and energy on those which satisfy his agenda.

   Listen, the guy has legitimate concerns and *gasp* I even agree with him on a number of points. However, I consider him a bigot no different from Geert Wilders because anybody pushing the idea that Islam is a monolith and is inherently evil *is* a bigot, or at best, simply ignorant.

9. Drima on May 6th, 2008 1:42 pm

   … anyways, thanks Zaki for reminding us to stick to the topic which is ‘Islam and Democracy’

   To keep it short, the Islamic Civilization had many qualities that democracies possess. Moreover, today countries like Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia - while certainly far from perfect - disprove the point that Islam is incompatible with democracy.

   To add to the aforementioned, in most ways, it is not Islam that stands in the way of democracy but culture disguised as Islam.

10. Andrew Brehm on May 6th, 2008 2:40 pm

    “To add to the aforementioned, in most ways, it is not Islam that stands in the way of democracy but culture disguised as Islam.”

    True.

    That is why “religious leaders” claim that elections are heretical (unless the voters are “religious leaders”, of course).

    Those same “religious leaders” believe in a god so weak that he needs human supervisors to make sure his creation does not vote for the wrong people.

11. Nobody on May 6th, 2008 3:32 pm

    Drima on May 6th, 2008 1:33 pm

    Nobody, Pipes too optimistic? If anything he’s not optimistic enough.

    What i was saying is that Pipes is wrong when he thinks that Islam is just like other religions, namely Christianity in this sense. It’s not. Christianity is less political at its basis. I know that many people will argue about it, but in my view Christianity as an organized religion is really more like an aberration of the original message.

    Islam is nothing like this. It started with a state that Muhammad personally established and ruled and which almost immediately grew into an empire while Christianity has spent its formative years as a persecuted and outlawed sect.

    So of course, the whole dhimma thing is abhorrent when seen in today’s context as it should be. However, back then given the reality of the time and conditions outside the Islamic Empire, it wasn’t really so. You’re being simplistic about it. Human rights, equality before the law, democracy, constitutionalism, the nation state etc… these are all new and recent notions. You can’t use these standards to judge the conditions present in those days.

    I did not use any standards. I was just replying to Zaki and whether there was a democracy in the Abassid Caliphate. On the other hand the famous Islamic tolerance is apparent only when compared to Christianity of the time. But Christian Europe of the Middle Ages was a very savage and backward place. When compared to other civilizations there was hardly anything particularly tolerant about the early Islam.

    Even when compared to other monotheistic religions. Not all of them were seeing themselves in competition with the rest. It was a Persian emperor who ordered to rebuild the second temple. That’s why what we have today on the temple mount is a mosque and not some Zoroastrian temple.

12. Nobody on May 6th, 2008 4:10 pm

    Having said this I won’t insist that there can be no normal Islam that separates religion and state and all the stuff. But Pipes is wrong when he says that Islam is just like any other religion in this sense. Islam plainly has it more difficult than others.

    As far as I can get the Shiites should have found it easier as there is some isolationist unworldly streak about Shia Islam. But after Iran …

13. Don Cox on May 6th, 2008 7:23 pm

    “the ramblings of Muhammad”

    I think that is unfair. What we have is not verbatim transcripts of the Prophet’s talks to his followers, but rough and fragmentary notes, like typical students’ notes of lectures. I think it is quite likely that Mohammed had a more organised set of doctrines, mainly compiled from ideas current in Judaism and Christianity, than appears from the Quran.

    Whether it was literally a direct message from God, delivered by an angel, is another matter. Many religious thinkers have sincerely felt that their ideas were directly inspired by God. It is instructive to study William Blake.

14. Zaki on May 6th, 2008 8:17 pm

    Colleagues,

    I think the problem with the debate regarding the connection between Islam and Democracy is prone to various errouneous claims due the simple comparative method that most people try to use. I beleieve that one cannot compare Christanity and Islam when debating the idea of Democracy. However when debating the dogmas, the beliefs, the ideologies and so on.. I think it is warranted and even necessary to make some judgement about the foundations of the faiths.

    Christainity (and for that matter all religions) when viewed in its untattered state (I hate to use “pure” or “fundamental”, it cannot be compatible with the principles democracy. Democracy means a balance of power relations, not the usual one man one vote bla bla reductionist discourse.

    The other problematic is that we do not have example of a disctinct nation that is trully democratic and at the same time religious to make comparisons. What I mean by “religious” is not that most poeple go to church and beleive that or that, I mean the religion is the foundation of EVERYTHING. I mean culture, the economy, the family, the education… you understand where I am heading now…

    Is France a Christian nation now? I think not, because the laws it has are secular and NOT christians sort of laws. French government does not turn to the vatican for ideas on how to run the country. I think France was only founded on the christain faith. Ask Charlemagne, and it was far from democratitic in fact it was a theocratic bloody state, no wonder the pope of the time named Charlemagne the king of the holy roman empire.

    Is America a Christian nation? Some would want us to beleive that it is, but there is a problem with the idea. First, the founding fathers made is abundantly clear that the seperation of state and church, And in the constitution they made it clear of the free exercice of all religions. The naive argument that America was first settled by religeous refugees fleeing religous intolerance, is absurd to point out the Christian basis of America. All the so called “democratic” nation states are secular. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL POEPLE ARE SECULAR. Their social institutions are secular.

    We should not fall into the trap of making claims that if the majority of the population of a given country adhere to a particular faith then the country is religiously based on that faith. Remember that this rule should apply to all cases, but it does not. Italy’s majority are Roman Catholic yet I do not believe that it is a Christian county in its social institutions. Italy has now the lowest fertility rate in the World. Either the Italians are not fucking or they are becoming less religious. Pardon the silly words, but I could not make it clearer than this. The answer is clear. Italian women are using all sort devise for birth control. This shows that poeple are not adhering to the “true” tenets of their religious faith yet they consider themselves christians to the core. Their institutions are secular. Next door is the Vatican go figure??? I do not see for what reasons Tunisia or Morocco cannot be that way. There would not be a total loss of faith in a secular society. I think people are so fucked up to realize this in these troubled times.

    Well, my point is that if Turkey is democratic it is not because it is muslim country (now wait do not go on think that I am nut here, recall by point earlier, hold on now let me finish) [Turkey has a predominantly muslim population, regardless] it is mostly is it has instituted laws that are secular in nature (civil laws) to safeguard its emerging democratic principles, WITHOUT undermining the religious faith of its mostly muslim population. Why the muslims extremists think it is the end of their world, is beyond me.

    As Drima pointed out Malaysia is a good exmple of this. If one wants to call Malaysia a muslim country, it is ok but one may not forget that they are many Christians as well as a large numbers of Chinese boudhists. The secular consitution of the country garanties the free exercice of religion for all faiths, although one may say that it is run by muslims at the head of state, which is a sorry argument, because the chinese also control the economy if one may use this sort of counter argument. Such claims are silly, because if all the religious persons in Malaysia consider themselves MALAY than that’s what matter most and not the religion. That’s the true nature of political, social and economic pluralism.

    Therefore it is erroneous to suggest that islam is incompatible with democracry. Because if at was so, then all other religions are incompatible (see my comments above). It goes without saying that Democracy (or pluralism) needs secular laws to flourish without undermining its religious culture and it should not. Am I saying that religion should an individual matter rather then a collective matter? Maybe.

    My point is if one tries to impose some faith based laws based on one’s own religious extremism and fanaticism it does not matter whether it is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, then we can say good by to pluralism and say hello to tyranny with a human face.

15. Ahmad al-Safawi on May 9th, 2008 11:37 am

    Dear Zaki,
    i can very well understand that you ask for the propose of me writing what i wrote. Allow me to point that out:

    Both you and Drima point out the “tolerance” of the Abbasid empire towards foreign ideologies - that today (note how Drima use the phrase “man-made”!) would be seen as heretical. But in many of the cases that is often higlighted as an example, the rulers did not ACCEPT these philosophies, rather they FOLLOWED these philosophies and prosecuted the people who opposed it! People will often point to how greek logic influenced the Mu’tazilite & Qadarite movements, and then be like: “Hey! The Abbasids tolerated these movements, and these movements are seen as heretical today by the new man-made standards among the muslims”, but hey! Some of the Abbasid rulers FOLLOWED the Mu’tazilite movement, so we should not look at their treatment of this movement, rather, we should look on how they trated their opposition. The Orthodox muslims. And it is well known that Al-Ma’mun, Al-Mu’tasim and Alwathiq all prosecuted Imam Ahmad and his fellow conservatives - they even flogged them.

    Regarding Al-Mu’tasim, i did not mean to say he followed the I’tizal, but in fact i’ve always learned that he was a Mu’tazili, and how could he have fought the mu’tazilah in his courts when his Qadi was Ahmad ibn Dawood, a famous mu’tazili?
    Refer to Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, by Al-Hafiz ibn Kathir, vol 10 p. 322.

    Also:
    قضى المعتصم نحبه و خلفه ابنه الواثق ( 223 ـ 227هـ ) (3) وكان للمعتزلة في عصره قوّة و قدرة و نشاط و سيطرة
    This is from Almilal w Alnihal of Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, vol. 5 p. 451.

    So it is not wrong to say that the Mu’tazilah had deeply influenced the state itself in this period.

    I hope my point is clear now. You cannot judge the Abbasids by their treatments towards minority groups when the leaders sometimes followed the thoughts of these minorities.

    Overall, i do acknowledge that the Abbasid glory was partly due to the relative tolerance towards foreign ideas, but then again, i see the Abbasids as a muslim state rather than a state that is precedence for Muslims. There were many muslim states through history, and just being an ancient muslim state does not do anything in my eyes. But i wrote on whether i see democracy as kufr over at my blog. Forgive me for by bad english by the way.

    And Drima:
    From where do you get that our standards for labbeling certain groups heretical comes out of Man-made judgement? I do not intend to argue on that (and if i will, i’ll do so on my blog so be there), just to hear.

    Nobody:
    “But I bet that the majority of tribal forces who took part in these military campaigns were nomads. You may be right about the elite but then Mecca did not exist in isolation. It very much belonged to the culture and the mentality which was predominantly practiced by nomadic tribes. That here and there some tribes were settled or semi nomadic does not change the fundamental fact that (at least as far as I know) the majority of the population of the peninsula at that time, maybe with the exception of some parts of Yemen, were nomads.”
    - But the idea of Jizya existed before these military conquestes. Also yes, there were nomads in the Arabian peninsula, but that one was not isolated either - there existed a great deal of contact with various parts of the world at that time to such a point where i refuse to give the “Nomad influence” any greater influence than the other cultural influences, such as that of the persians. I’ve even heard that the very word “deen” is of persian origin, so is “jund” (army).

Leave a Reply