Democracy and the Islamic world

In February 2004, the Bush Administration put forward an ambitious initiative to promote freedom and democracy in the "Greater Middle East." Along with key European Allies, the United States will call on Arab and South Asian governments to adopt major political and economic reforms and be held accountable for human rights abuses. Details of the plan will be given out in stages, beginning this summer at the summit of the Group of Eight nations. 

What is most interesting--and most heartening--about this "Greater Middle East Initiative" is that the proposal seeks to avoid creating committees to monitor progress and issue report cards according to U.S. officials. It also seeks to avoid appearing to dictate to the Islamic world and say, in the words of a senior Administration official, "This is how the West thinks you guys should live." I support in broad terms such an initiative, as freedom and democracy are long overdue in the Middle East in particular and the Muslim world in general. 

It seems, however, that L. Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Occupied Iraq, does not think such an approach can work in Iraq. Speaking at an inauguration ceremony of a women's center in the southern Iraqi city of Karbala, Bremer suggested he would use his veto if Iraqi leaders wrote into the constitution Islamic Sharia as the principal basis of law in Iraq. "Our position is clear," said Bremer. "It can't be law until I sign it." Any measure passed by the U.S. appointed Iraqi Governing Council must be signed by Bremer in order for it to become law. 

Bremer said that the current draft of the constitution would make Islam the state religion of Iraq and "a source of inspiration"--as opposed to the "principal basis"--for the law. Quite interesting. Is this not dictating to the Iraqi people "how the West [namely, the United States] thinks you guys should live"? Should it not be left up to the people of Iraq whether or not to make Islamic law the basis of their constitution? Wouldn't Paul Bremer's suggestion that he would veto Islamic law be anti-democratic? 

It definitely would. If the Iraqi people want Islamic law to be the "principle basis" for the law of the land, then that should be their right and prerogative. It should not left up to the whims of Paul Bremer to determine the ultimate form of the new Iraqi constitution. Democracy is a very fluid and malleable organism, and although Iraqi democracy, Islamic law and all, may not look like America's version--something Bremer himself admitted--it still would be legitimate. To continually push for more democracy in the Middle East, but then turn around and deny the Iraqi people that very same thing is disingenuous at best. 

Yet, there is a caveat to that statement. When Bremer suggested he would veto Islamic law, to what concept of "Islamic law" did he refer? Does he see "Islamic Law" through the lens of some misguided applications of Islamic law by some groups? Is he thinking about an "Islamic law" that stones only women to death based on circumstantial evidence? or does he perceive an "Islamic law" that denies women the right to an education and political participation?

This question is extremely important. In many parts of the Islamic world, Sharia law is grossly misinterpreted and ignorantly applied, leading to horrible injustices done to people and in particular to women in the name of Islam. An example of this is the case of Amina Lawal in Nigeria where she was condemned to death, by stoning, for allegedly committing adultery. At the same time the alleged father of her baby daughter - was released on the basis that there was insufficient evidence against him.

Misapplication of Islamic law serves to perpetuate the image of Sharia as a backward, barbaric system of law, which it is not. Perhaps it was this image of Sharia that Bremer had in his mind when he made his comments about vetoing Islamic law.

The Sharia is a just system of law that can work in today's world. It was an Islamic court citing Islamic law, in fact, that freed Amina Lawal from her sentence of death by stoning. Islamic law and democracy are miscible substances. Rather than "vetoing" any form of Islamic law, Bremer and others in the Bush Administration should work with all those in the Islamic world who are struggling to establish democracy, including those who advocate establishing Islamic law. This will go a long way in fostering understanding and cooperation between the West and the Islamic world, something that is still heretofore desperately needed. 

Hesham A. Hassaballa is a Chicago physician and writer. He is author of "Why I Love the Ten Commandments," published in the book Taking Back Islam: American Muslims Reclaim Their Faith (Rodale Press), winner of the prestigious Wilbur Award for 2003 Best Religion Book of the Year by the Religion Communicators Council.