Islam & the Challenge of Democracy/Khaled Abou el Fadl et al.

Islam and the Challenge of Democracy by Khaled Abou el Fadl et al. This is a reprint of a special issue of the Boston Review, consisting of an opening essay by Abou el Fadl (an Islamic legal scholar whom I've mentioned before), a collection of responses to the essay from other scholars, and a closing essay responding to the responses. The central argument is:

Although Muslim jurists debated political systems, the Qur'an itself does not specify a particular form of government. But it does identify a set of social and political values that are central to a Muslim polity. Three values are of particular importance: pursuing justice through social cooperation and mutual assistance (49:13, 11:119); establishing a nonautocratic, consultative method of governance; and institutionalizing mercy and compassion in social interactions (6:12, 6:54, 21:107, 27:77, 29:51, 45:20). So, all else being equal, Muslims today ought to endorse the form of government that is most effective in helping them to promote those values.

Several considerations suggest that democracy--and especially a constitutional democracy that protects basic individual rights--is that form. My central argument (others will emerge later) is that democracy--by assigning equal rights of speech, association, and suffrage to all--offers the greatest potential for promoting justice and protecting human dignity, without making God responsible for injustice or the degradation of human beings. A fundamental Qur'anic idea is that God vested all of humanity with a kind of divinity by making every person the viceroy of God on this earth … [H]uman beings, as God's viceregents, are responsible for making the world more just. By assigning equal political rights to all adults, democracy expresses that special status of human beings in God's creation and enables them to discharge that responsibility.

Abou el Fadl then provides an historical account of how these concepts have been treated in Islamic jurisprudence up to this point, and how they can be integrated with the notion of both Shariah and popular sovereignty in a modern nation-state. The responses from other scholars range from interesting to irritating to soporific. (Why is John Esposito the biggest name in this field in the U.S.? Because he never upsets anyone by ever saying anything. This dubious talent is on full display here, nearly 10 pages of it.) The response to the responses is interesting, taking up some of the challenges about Western hegemony and Muslim authenticity posed by some interlocutors. In all a valuable and thought-provoking read.

Update: The complete contents of this book in its original form as a Boston Review issue are now available here.