Doesn’t Archbishop Rowan Williams have the strangest eyebrows and the swankiest beard ever? That’s facial hair to rival a mullah.

Poor guy, getting stick for proposing a new idea. Balls of steel though, why the head of the Anglican Church would talk about the possibility of Shariah incorporation is beyond me. If only he didn’t talk so metaphysically, and well, knew more of what he was talking about.

The Archbishop’s comments were a little myopic to say the least, but hardly “untimely” with the swirling of democracy everywhere. Which is where we start to get a good overview.

Ah, democracy. I’m truly tiring of the word. Democracy this, democracy that, democracy owns, democracy kicks ass, democracy is absolute, democracy=freedom, democracy equals human rights, etcetera, etcetera etcetera. And of course the endless debate (or rant) of whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Hoo boy.

First off, let me start by stating that Islam has never had a problem with adopting democracy. I can’t remember the exact quote in the Qur’an, but it goes something like,

“Oh you who believe! We have created you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Verily the best among you are those who are pious.”

Or something to that effect. The point is that Islam demands equality, that in the sight of God all are naked and alike, irregardless if religion, race or creed. Equality also contains The Rule of Law, where all are equal before the law, that all are accountable. This funny concept, strangely enough, is fundamental in democracy, and even stranger, is present in Islamic teaching.

During the fasting month, Muslims can opt to pray an extra prayer, which I usually attend at the mosque. There we stand, or bow, or prostrate as a single unit, shoulder to shoulder. Even the bigot of a deputy prime minister prays amongst us, morphing into a mortal.
Whether all that is a political ploy I refuse to speculate.

There are plenty of other examples that a scholar could better present. My point is, that there is no reason for Islam not to be compatible with democracy, or vice-versa. It’s worth noting that democracy is adopted with other government forms existing before. As far as history goes, Muslims have yet to adopt a democracy that self-proclaimed democrats can be satisfied with.

The world is not ready for democracy.

It was an idea conceived by men who envisioned a completely enlightened society. Democracy is meant to give the power of decision to the people, provided they can make an informed one. Freedom of speech is meant to give voice to the people, provided they speak and argue intelligibly. What was supposed to stimulate discourse, ideas and productivity has only caused the rapid degradation of society. Democracy is for a utopia, not for the real world.

But its purportedly the best available, so we can excuse the sciolism.

You can draw your own conclusions, but one can summarise the reasons for the ideological rift between Islam and democracy, which boils down to a few points.

1) Failure of Islam to adopt a democratic government system - This boils down to sheer ignorance and illiteracy, where the polarisation of religious knowledge and everything else has created an unwillingness of Muslim leaders to accept a “western” idea. What’s so wrong in borrowing something good, especially one which compliments Islam and gives growth to its understanding? Democracy is knowledge, knowledge is the way to understand the world, and God keeps it spinning.

2) Failure (or unwillingness) of “democracy” to accept Islam as democratic - Algeria 1992, Hamas elections in Palestine 2006. Hey, they were elected democratically!

3) Failure of Muslims to be good citizens of their country (Islamic or not) as well as good Muslims. Noone said the two are impossible. You live in Britain, you play by their rules.

4) Incompetence in the actual aspects of law, civil and Shariah alike.

This is where we return to Mr. Williams.

Civil Law - the principles of a defining document (generally a constitution) embodied in legislation to ensure its enforcement as well as its safeguard.

Shariah Law - the principles of a defining document (The Qur’an, Hadith) embodied in legislation to ensure its enforcement as well as its safeguard.

Same principle.
What’s the difference?
Nothing, well other than the fact that one can be amended.

Generally speaking, the principles of the relevant document remain unchanged. It is however, our understanding of the principles with the continual development of our psyche, the implementation of the principles with accordance to the ever changing nature of the social, economic and political climate and the drafting of legislation based on those factors which are subject to the sands of time.

There is much hullabaloo about Shariah law, simply because those bleating don’t understand law themselves, as well as the lateness of the due amendments in Shariah legislation. When i say amendments here, I mean the kinks that should have been worked out ages ago now that feudalism and absolute monarchy have been filed under “superannuated”.

Maybe the Archbishop in stating his case, should have presented it from a “Islam is compatible with democracy” angle, instead of the “We should incorporate Islam into our democracy” line. In essence the two are one in the same, but the vagaries of language give birth to Islamophobic nuances. I figure his point must have been that a government should take care of its citizens, culturally even, with neither him nor the rest of the world aware of the similarities that already exist. I’m no Shariah or civil law expert, but this whole issue was a lot of hot air.

In many ways the utopia of Islam and democracy are similar. Both are meant for enlightened societies where every problem has its discussion, where every problem has its practical solution, where education and ingenuity runs riot in a society that demands it in excess, where enlightenment rids society of its diseases.