Democracy and Islamic States

Democracy in its various forms, from direct (existing in pure form nowhere in the world) to representative, requires that the people have ultimate governing authority over themselves.

Afghanistan and Iraq have adopted a form of constitutional government, expressly subservient to Islam. For example, the Afghanistan constitution expressly states that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial and every other right stated in the constitution is subject to a higher authority, specifically "the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."

OK, but whose beliefs prevail? The case of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan Christian convert, illustrates the problem. The beliefs and provisions of Islam include the Hadith (the sayings of Mohammed), which proclaims death to any who convert from Islam to any other religion. The Afghan judge in Rahman's case, the prosecutor, and many Afghan clerics accordingly demanded death as the Islamic penalty for Mr. Rahman's apostasy.

But others outside Afghanistan differed. Islamonline.net called the death penalty for apostasy "absurd." Even the normally radical Islamic Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called Mr. Rahman's conversion "a personal matter" and called for his release.

So, who decides what the "beliefs and provisions" of Islam may be?

Although both the Afghan in Iraqi constitutions permit the people to vote for their leaders, neither really provides for a democracy. At best, both have a representative theocracy, because in case of a tie, someone's interpretation of the "beliefs and provisions of Islam" always trumps the will of the people.

In an Islamic state, the beliefs and provisions of Islam must legally control over the written constitution. That is not democracy at all.

And never will be.