The lack of democracy in many Muslim nations around the world gained
greater public attention in the West following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
As a result, some individuals have come to the conclusion that Islam and
democracy are essentially incompatible. What is your view?
 |
|
|
 |
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan
Director
of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. |
|
|
 |
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes
Director of the Middle East Forum |
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: The debate about the
compatibility of Islam and democracy is much older. We established
the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in 1998 for the
explicit purpose of showing the compatibility of Islam and
democracy. According to recent Pew Research studies and a survey
by Pippa Norris (Harvard) and Ron Inglehart (University of
Michigan), an overwhelming majority of Muslims everywhere would
like to have democracy. Today, many Muslim countries are in
various stages of democratization, for example, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Bangladesh, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan. Nearly 800
million out of 1.4 billion Muslims live in democracies, and unlike
the U.S., four Muslim nations have or had women heads of
government. Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan have
elected women to power, and Iran has a woman vice president. I am
convinced that it is just a matter of time before the entire
Muslim world democratizes.
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal:
Unfortunately, Professor Khan has ducked the question, which is
whether Islam and democracy are essentially incompatible, not
whether Muslims prefer democracy.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: History is full of surprises.
As late as 1892, the German was described as an "obscure and
impractical dreamer."1 As late as the 1960s, it
was said that "Jews do not fight."2
Confucianism was long thought to be inimical to economic growth.
In other words, just because something seems obvious today does
not mean it will be true tomorrow. Muslims today groan under
dictatorships, but one day could be model democrats. Further,
Islam can be interpreted many ways, and there is nothing about it
that immutably contradicts democracy. That said, deep and
extensive changes will have to precede such changes.
1. Otto Pfleiderer, "The National
Traits of the Germans as Seen in Their Religion,"
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS 3 (1892-93): 20.
2. Walter Laqueur, THE ROAD TO JERUSALEM: THE ORIGINS OF THE
ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT, 1967 (New York: MacMillan, 1968), p. 230.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I
agree there will have to be deep and extensive changes within the
Muslim world and in U.S. relations with the Muslim world. What we
can do to hasten this process is to ensure that our government
stops supporting, financing, and legitimizing dictatorships and
monarchies in the Muslim world. We will also have to recognize
that democracy in the Muslim world will mean that we will have to
contend with Muslim public opinion more seriously.
Democracratization will probably mean that Muslim governments will
be more interested in advancing the wishes of their own people (as
in the case of Turkey and its reluctance to support the U.S. in
the war against Iraq), but we should be ready to accept this as a
necessary consequence of democracy. As we know, the alternative is
extremely undesirable to all.
|
|
|
|
In Muslim nations advocates for the implementation of Sharia (Islamic) law
believe it will establish a more just society, where crime would be
nonexistent given the harsh punishments that the law imposes, including
flogging, amputation, and stoning. Is it possible to give primacy to
Sharia law and still have a democratic society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan
Director
of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes
Director of the Middle East Forum |
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Most non-Muslim critics and
often ignorant Muslim advocates of the Sharia (the Islamic Way)
equate the Sharia to Hudud laws, the stringent punishments for
fornication (flogging), theft (amputation), and adultery
(stoning). The maqasid (objectives) of the Sharia is to establish
social justice, equality, tolerance, and freedom of religion in
societies. The Hudud laws are a tiny part of the Sharia. Some of
these laws are not even Qur'anic; they are taken from the Old
Testament, such as stoning the adulterer (Deuteronomy 22:24). Yes,
I believe that when the Sharia is interpreted and implemented by
educated, enlightened, and compassionate people it will establish
social justice and coexist harmoniously with a democratic polity.
But if uneducated, angry, and bigoted people take the law in their
hands and presume to speak on behalf of God, then tyranny is the
most likely outcome.
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal:
Professor Khan confidently tells us that the Sharia as he
understands it will "establish social justice and coexist
harmoniously with a democratic polity." But this is argument
by assertion. He has not provided any basis for this optimism. So
far, the record in countries where the Sharia is applied -- Saudi
Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan -- is less than encouraging.
In this and several other answers, Professor Khan forwards the
reformist interpretation of Islam that once was ascendant but now
[is] little heard from. I wrote at length about this and the other
two main interpretations (secularist, Islamist) in my book, IN
THE PATH OF GOD: ISLAM AND POLITICAL POWER. Here is a brief
description of reformist Islam, from a 2000 article
of mine:
"Whereas secularism forthrightly calls for learning from the
West, reformism selectively appropriates from it. The reformist
says, 'Look, Islam is basically compatible with Western ways. It's
just that we lost track of our own achievements, which the West
exploited. We must now go back to our own ways by adopting those
of the West.' To reach this conclusion, reformers reread the
Islamic scriptures in a Western light." ...
"In case after case, and with varying degrees of credibility,
reformists appropriate Western ways under the guise of drawing on
their own heritage. The aim of the reformists, then, is to imitate
the West without acknowledging as much. Though intellectually
bankrupt, reformism functions well as a political strategy." |
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: No: the Sharia harks back to a
decidedly antidemocratic sensibility in everything from its
emphasis on God's will (not popular sovereignty) to its
privileging of Muslims over non-Muslims. For Muslims to develop
functioning democracies requires that they put aside the Sharia or
transmute it into something quite different from what it is
understood to be today.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: Dr.
Pipes seems to contradict himself. First he says that there is
nothing in Islam that contradicts democracy and then insists that
Sharia is antidemocratic. Sharia is the essence of Islam. The
Sharia is decidedly democratic. The reason for Islam's great
record of tolerance and pluralism in the past is the correct
understanding and application of the Sharia. Unfortunately, the
recent examples set by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Taliban,
and others are against the letter and the spirit of the Sharia and
have given it a bad name. The Sharia is elicited from the Qur'an
and the Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Qur'an
advocates consultative governance and the practice of the Prophet,
as enshrined in the Compact of Medina, treats minorities equally,
and he governed by consent and consultation. Unfortunately, the
underdevelopment of the Muslim world also includes a widespread
ignorance of Islam -- even among those who claim to speak for it
-- and this severing of Muslims from Islam is partially a result
of colonialism. The key really is who, the ignorant or the
knowledgeable, defines and interprets the Sharia.
|
|
|
In the United States the separation of church and state is one of the
nation's founding principles set forth in the Constitution. Can democracy
only succeed in a nation where there is a separation of religion and
state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan
Director
of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes
Director of the Middle East Forum |
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Secularism may be a
desirable, but not a necessary precondition in order to foster
state neutrality in a multireligious society. Consider the U.K.,
which is formally a theocratic democracy. The monarch is head of
the church as well as head of the government. Changes in the
doctrines of the Church of England are a matter for the British
Parliament. While England is a theocratic democracy, India is a
secular democracy; in England the government remains neutral,
whereas in India government takes sides in communal violence.
Recently, in Gujarat in March 2002, the Hindu ruling party, BJP [Bharatiya
Janata Party], was implicated in the massacre of Muslims.
According to Human Rights Watch, the Gujarat government had
ordered the police not to protect minorities. The key issue is
whether states realize religious freedom and religious equality
and not constitutional secularity.
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: We
generally agree on this one.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: The United States is the most
secular and the most democratic society, suggesting a correlation
between the two; but there are plenty of examples of countries
with established religions, starting with the United Kingdom and
ending with Israel, that also have fully functioning democracies.
So, no, secularism is not a prerequisite.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I am
not sure whether the U.S. is more secular than, say, France and
Canada or even Iraq under Saddam; after all, we have a president
who believes in "faith-based initiatives" and has Bible
sessions in the White House. We have also had Christian mullahs
running for president (Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson). The
federal government employs thousands of chaplains and actually
provides religious services. America is a very religious state,
and the Christian Right is a major political force and Christian
values (on, say, abortion, gay unions) do shape the political
landscape. American politics is not entirely secular. But yes,
there are constitutional limits imposed by a Jeffersonian reading
of the First Amendment on the fraternity of state and religion.
Having said that, I agree with Dr. Pipes that secularism is not a
necessary condition for democracy. |
|
|
In a western democracy such as the United States, government is instituted
in order to protect individual rights. Does Islam support values and
structures that are incompatible with safeguarding individual rights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan
Director
of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes
Director of the Middle East Forum |
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Islamic legal systems were
articulated in the Middle Ages before the advent of the
all-powerful centralized state, which necessitates constitutional
protection of rights from state power. Modern Islamic law can
derive individual rights (see the Universal Declaration of Islamic
Human Rights) from Islamic sources. For example, the Qur'anic
verse "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) can
function as the Islamic equivalent of the American First
Amendment. M. H. Kamali, in two brilliant books, FREEDOM, EQUALITY
AND JUSTICE IN ISLAM (ITS, 2002) and THE DIGNITY OF MAN: AN
ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE (ITS, 2002) demonstrates how individual rights
inhere in Islamic sources. The focus of the Sharia is on social
justice, and Muslim thinkers need to advance contemporary
understanding of social justice that includes individual rights
and guarantees equality, including gender parity.
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal:
Professor Khan says that the Universal Declaration of Islamic
Human Rights can be derived from Islamic sources, but in fact they
deeply and extensively contradict each other -- for details, see
Ann Elizabeth Mayer, ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS: TRADITION AND
POLITICS (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991). The Qur'anic verse
"there is no compulsion in religion" has nothing in
common with the First Amendment: to take just one point, the
Qur'an imposes the death penalty on apostates from Islam,
something, last I checked, the U.S. Constitution does not do. This
is the reformist apologetic for Islam (saying that it's just the
same as what the West believes in) and it is unconvincing as it is
intellectually fraudulent.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: The question assumes that
Islam is an unchanging entity; but it has been evolving for
fourteen centuries and will continue to do so. Islam as understood
today tends not to be compatible with safeguarding individual
rights, but that can change if Muslims are willing and able to
rethink some premises of their religion.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I
agree. It is problematic to treat Islam as a nondynamic concept
and also to treat its civilizational manifestations as monolithic.
Islamic law itself is very diverse and Islamic practices are
kaleidoscopic. Nothing, including the understanding of what
constitutes the Sharia, is frozen or static. Today, the Muslim
world suffers from a deep sense of insecurity, largely from the
West, which it rightly or wrongly sees as a force determined to
separate Muslims from Islam. We have seen how insecurity can
immediately undermine the protection of rights. Even the U.S.,
when insecure, severely limits individual rights. The passage of
the Patriot Act in the U.S. -- the most powerful and the most
democratic state -- undermines many rights guaranteed under the
Bill of Rights. When Muslim societies will feel safer and will be
assured that the West is not seeking to recolonize them or destroy
their faith, I am confident they too will become more democratic
and protective of individual rights. Recent Pew studies confirm
that Muslims deeply fear the U.S., and this fear is heightened by
the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike. When more secure, Muslim
understanding of their faith becomes more liberal, as in Islamic
Spain, and when insecure, Muslim interpretation of their faith
becomes more conservative, as in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
|
|
|
Although the government of the United States helps to promote democracy
throughout the world, it has also continued to support repressive and
undemocratic regimes in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Has this
support hindered democracy from taking root in these Muslim nations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan
Director
of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes
Director of the Middle East Forum |
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: There are internal as well as
external barriers to democracy in some parts of the Muslim world.
Much of the Muslim world was under colonial occupation. It has yet
to recover from the debilitating impact of exploitative foreign
occupation. However, a large part of the Muslim world is
democratizing now except for most of the Middle East. This region
has become politically authoritarian and will need systematic
reforms to trigger democratization. Muslim democrats must work
towards reform and elimination of internal barriers. Until now the
U.S. was a major external barrier to democracy in the Middle East.
For example, in 1953 a CIA coup transformed a democratic Iran into
an oppressive monarchy that resulted in the revolution of 1979.
The U.S. has also supported monarchs and dictators, including
Saddam Hussein, in the name of stability and freedom of access to
oil. Yes, the U.S. has obstructed the flowering of freedom in the
Muslim world.
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Ah, the
familiar colonialism-made-me-do-it gambit. Professor Khan states
that the Muslim world has "yet to recover from the
debilitating impact of exploitative foreign occupation," but
Nigeria won its independence 43 years ago, Morocco 47 years ago,
Egypt 51 years ago, Pakistan 56 years ago, and Turkey and Saudi
Arabia never experienced imperial control from Europe. For how
much longer will the colonialism excuse be played? And then
there's the Saddam Hussein canard: perhaps the good professor
confuses the United States with France, Germany, and Russia? Their
governments, not the American one, sold weapons to Baghdad.
Professor Khan's reply, in brief, is laced with apologetics and
inaccuracy.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: This raises the matter of
so-called Middle
Eastern exceptionalism. I believe the key difference here is
an American one. Unlike other regions of the world -- Latin
America, Eastern Europe, Africa, East Asia come to mind --
successive U.S. governments have been leery about promoting
democracy in the Middle East, fearful of a hostile vox populi. The
deposing of Saddam Hussein could initiate a new era in which
Washington approaches the Middle East more in synchrony with its
policies elsewhere.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: Dr.
Pipes is completely correct, and I appreciate his candor in
acknowledging partial U.S. responsibility for the absence of
democracy in the Muslim world. I am also hopeful that if Iraq were
to be reconstructed, and if Iraq quickly established an indigenous
and democratic government, even an Islamic democracy, it would
trigger a strong impulse for democratization in the region.
Already countries like Qatar and Bahrain are moving towards
political liberalization, and even key members of the House of
Saud have made appropriate noises about reform. Washington must
not fail Iraq. A failure in Iraq will jeopardize the prospects of
democracy and will increase anti-Americanism and further
radicalize and destabilize the region. An Islamic democracy in
Iraq will signal to the Muslim world that the U.S. is
pro-democracy without being anti-Islam.
|
|
|
Some scholars have argued that Christianity and Judaism have essentially
come to terms with modernity, as represented by western pluralistic
societies such as the United States, and don't view modernity as a threat.
Is Islam opposed to modernity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan
Director
of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes
Director of the Middle East Forum |
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: This is a dubious claim. Do
these scholars include Orthodox Jewish practices in Israel and the
role of religion in Israeli laws such as citizenship when they
make this claim? Do these scholars also show how the beliefs of
the coming Armageddon and creationism are compatible with
modernity? Modernity had repressed Christianity and to some extent
Judaism through reformation, but Christianity is experiencing
resurgence in the Americas and Africa. Modernity helped Europe
colonize the Muslim world, but it did not defeat or repress Islam,
and therein lies the difference. I believe that Islam is
incompatible with modernity, inasmuch as modernity is opposed to
religion. However, Islam has a built-in tradition of Ijtihad
(independent thinking), which facilitates reform and
reinterpretation. If encouraged, Ijtihad can help modernize and
revitalize Islamic societies. Let us not assume that everything
about modernity is good; the Holocaust, the two world wars,
nuclear weapons, and environmental degradation are some of the
consequences of modernity. Terrorism too is a modern phenomenon.
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: That
Professor Khan denies that Christianity and Judaism have come to
terms with modernity, while Islam has not, again bespeaks that
reformist apologetic. One striking difference in the religions
concerns the "higher criticism" that Christianity and
Judaism had to contend with in the late 19th century; this was a
no-holds-barred scholarly inquiry into their origins, history, and
sacred texts. As I have written elsewhere,
"those two faiths survived the experience -- though they
changed profoundly in the process"; in contrast, as a similar
inquiry into Islam gains steam, the main Muslim strategy until now
has been "one of neglect -- hoping that revisionism, like a
toothache, will just go away." It won't.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: No, Islam is not opposed to
modernity. Rather, it has not yet (with rare exceptions, such as
the Daudi
Bohras) begun the process of modernization. Here's how I put
it in a recent article:
"Five hundred years ago, Jews, Christians and Muslims agreed
that owning slaves was acceptable but paying interest on money was
not. After bitter, protracted debates, Jews and Christians changed
their minds. Today, no Jewish or Christian body endorses slavery
or has religious qualms about paying reasonable interest.
Muslims, in contrast, still think the old way. Slavery still
exists in a host of majority-Muslim countries (especially Sudan
and Mauritania, also Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and it is a taboo
subject. To enable pious Muslims to avoid interest, an Islamic
financial industry worth an estimated $150 billion has developed.
The challenge ahead is clear: Muslims must emulate their fellow
monotheists by modernizing their religion with regard to slavery,
interest and much else. No more fighting jihad to impose Muslim
rule. No more endorsement of suicide terrorism. No more
second-class citizenship for non-Muslims. No more death penalty
for adultery or 'honor' killings of women. No more death sentences
for blasphemy or apostasy."
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I
think Dr. Pipes's conception of what "modernity" means
is a bit unusual. First of all, slavery, as was practiced in
America as an industry and as an economic strategy, was a modern
phenomenon. Sweatshops and sex slavery, both are modern forms of
slavery, and still benefit western consumers. Yes, slavery is
terrible, but it is not just a traditional institution, it is also
a modern one. Also, the allegation that slavery is practiced in
many Muslim countries is an overgeneralization of a vestigial
practice in remote and backward regions of the world. Most Muslims
do recognize that the Muslim world has not fully modernized. As
far as interest is concerned, many western economists also
maintain that interest-free economies can be extremely salutary.
Interest-free banking is an experiment in Islamic modernization
and not antimodernism. The fact that Islamic banks are now worth
$150 billion attests to their modern viability. I do not think
that just because some Jews and Christians are abandoning their
faith for material gains, so should Muslims.
The use of terrorism by some is abhorrent, but struggling for
freedom in Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, and fighting against
genocide in Bosnia is, I think, a good thing. Dr. Pipes seems to
suggest that Muslims should give up the struggle for justice and
the Wilsonian ideals of self-determination. |
|
|
In a discussion about Islam presented on the PBS series NOW WITH BILL
MOYERS, author Fareed Zakaria noted that religious texts cannot be used as
"blueprints for organizing modern society." Would you agree or
disagree? Within a modern Islamic society, can religious texts be used
selectively?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan
Director
of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes
Director of the Middle East Forum |
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: I agree with Fareed Zakaria.
Religious texts are not blueprints for any society; they are
essentially answers to existential questions and articulate
general universal principles of ethics. Unlike some contemporary
Islamists who insist that the Qur'an is the constitution of the
Islamic state, the Prophet Muhammad himself governed Medina by a
social contract called the Compact of Medina. The compact did
reflect Islamic as well as Judeo-Christian principles. Indeed,
Islam is itself a Judeo-Christian tradition. The U.S. Constitution
is an embodiment of Judeo-Christian values and the U.S. has
eventually evolved into a secular, multicultural, and pluralistic
society in 220 years, without doing much violence to that
tradition. Can we have an Islamic society where barbaric
punishments are not enforced? Most certainly. Stable and secure
Muslim societies will not feel the need for identity politics --
demands for Hudud implementation is an exercise in identity
manifestation -- and will work towards public good, and for that
we need democracy in the Muslim world as soon as possible.
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: I am
impressed with this answer and especially with the statement that
"Islam is itself a Judeo-Christian tradition," which is
quite at variance with the Qur'anic assertion that Islam preceded
all other religions, and that Judaism and Christianity are
distorted versions of that ur-religion. I also endorse the
condemnation of hudud punishments and the appreciation of the
United States.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: I agree with Zakaria that
religious texts can inspire, counsel, and guide on a personal
level, but they cannot provide the specifics for figuring out how
to modernize. Further, those texts that reduce the rights of women
and non-Muslims can be reinterpreted. For example, as I explained
in 1983,
one group, the Republican Brothers of the Sudan,
"distinguished between those passages of the Qur'an that
Muhammad received before he became a political leader (the Meccan
verses) and those that followed his ascent to power (the Medinan
verses). In this group's view, the former defined the eternally
valid principles of Islam whereas the latter were intended only
for Muhammad's own instruction and therefore do not serve as a
model for subsequent Muslim life. As nearly all the Qur'an's
precepts are contained in the Medinan verses, this reasoning
virtually eliminates the Qur'an as a source of commands."
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: While
I agree that religious texts are not blueprints for building
societies, they are the fountainheads of values and principles and
not structures and processes. Before we start doctoring texts, we
must understand what we are talking about. The Qur'an, for
Muslims, is the revealed word of God. If we believe that the
entire Qur'an is a revelation, one cannot follow it piecemeal.
Islam is a profound form of worship through submission of the
human self to the will of God. Submission by definition is not
selective or conditional. Islam brought equality and dignity to
all, including women, and that is undisputed. The problems are the
current postcolonial hodgepodge of Muslim practices guided by
widespread ignorance of Islamic principles in an environment of
insecurity. The solution is Islamic educational reform, not
deformation of Islam. Nevertheless, American Muslims have shown
that Islam and modernity, Islam and democracy, Islam and pluralism
are completely compatible. Yes, Muslims need to reform their
understanding of their faith, but out of fidelity to Islam and not
because Islam itself is anachronistic.
|
|
|
In the West, the image of the veiled Muslim woman has come to symbolize
Islam's oppression of women. Do women hold an inferior position in Muslim
society? Can equality for women only be fostered in societies governed by
secular laws as opposed to Islamic law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan
Director
of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes
Director of the Middle East Forum |
|
|
|
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: In some Muslim societies,
women's liberation is associated with sexual promiscuity and hence
rejected. These societies have used the veil, specially the chador
in Iran after the revolution, to reject modernity, assert Islam,
and defend the traditional notion of family and family values. In
the process, Muslim women have been deprived of the opportunities
that women enjoy in most places. Islam came as a liberating force
and women in early Islam had more rights than ever before. But
evolving patriarchic structures have eroded the influence of
Islam, and today women in many Muslim societies suffer as a
result. But we must be careful not to generalize; Muslim women are
indeed playing a prominent role in Pakistan, in the West, in Iran
and Turkey, and in South and East Asia. Women continue to fight
glass ceilings even in secular societies, and in that sense, the
struggle for women's emancipation is a universal project.
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Whether
or not women's liberation is desirable; whether or not Islam
liberated women in 17th-century Arabia; the symbolic role of the
chador in Iran -- however interesting these topics, they are
unrelated to the question at hand, which is whether or not women
hold an inferior position vis-à-vis men in Muslim society.
Professor Khan would seem to lard his answer with such
irrelevancies as a tactic to avoid having to acknowledge what is
only too plain to see, namely that women do hold an inferior
position in Muslim society.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: Of course, women hold an
inferior position in Muslim society, as indicated by their lesser
legal status, the power of males to make key decisions in their
lives (whom to marry, permission to travel, etc.), their
humiliating wearing of face and body covers, and much else. Two
reflections: as with the democracy and individual rights
questions, this can change. And there is a fascinating sort of
Stockholm syndrome at work here, whereby Islamist women against
all evidence insist that their religion empowers them more than
their western counterparts.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: Yes,
women in Muslim societies are suffering from the patriarchic
structures of traditional cultures. But it might be erroneous to
blame Islam for this sorry state. Patriarchy is a universal
phenomenon; millions of Hindu women in India live under similar
conditions as Muslim women do. Until a few years ago, women in the
West too were living under similar conditions. The present
backward state of Muslim women is commensurate with the general
underdevelopment of Muslim societies. Where Muslims live in a
developed environment -- Malaysia, India, Europe, and America --
Muslim women do much better than their sisters in the Muslim
heartland. Democracy in the Muslim world will ensure that along
with political tyrants, theological tyrants too will not have the
power to impose their narrow views on Muslim men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
