/>Are religion and democracy incompatible?
With the Pope visiting Britain, amidst a sea of controversy, last night seemed an apt time for the Young Fabians to stage a debate on religion and democracy, in this case a debate on Islam and democracy, at the Embassy of the most populous Muslim democracy in the world – Indonesia.
A fascinating country, with a rich and diverse history, Indonesia has made the transition from Dutch colonoy, post-war independence, the regimes of Sukarno and Soeharto to modern democracy – in some respects more modern, some may contend, than ourselves. Just over a decade since emerging from dictatorship, the proportion of women elected to Indonsia’s parliament is 27.3 per cent; in Britain, the figure is only 21 per cent.
As Young Fabian Claire French writes in last week’s Tribune Magazine:
“… 47% of Swedish Members of Parliament are female … in Rwanda … 56 per cent of legislators are women.
“Britain’s measly 21 per cent ranks 41st out of 184 lower chambers, in terms of representation of women.”
So that’s one myth about a Muslim nation and democracy knocked down. Another, that of Islam subsuming all other religions and driving them out, is neatly dispelled by the map below, which shows the breadth and spread of religions in Indonesia:
For the record, the figures are 86.1 per cent Muslim, 8.7 per cent Christian, 3 per cent Hindu, 1.8 per cent Buddhist or other.
In the debate, the speakers were Dr Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford and trustee of the board of British Muslims for secular democracy and Dr Sukma, a leading Indonesian academic in this field who is visiting the UK, with Dr Hargey quoting chapters from the Qur’an to make the case for why Islam is perfectly compatible both with other religions and democracy, hitting out at extremist Wahhabi preachers in east London.
As we were reminded by a question from the floor, the effect of these preachers can be corrosive, a primary school teacher from Newham telling the story of a Muslim boy in his class who’d been told it was irreligious to bow to non-believers – this, coming from a British-born child in London 2010.
Hi. Interesting piece, but regrettably simplistic in many regards. Two points just: first, there are approx 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, with as much variation in belief and outlook as there is among the Christians in the world. To think you can break it down into “modernist” and “traditional”, and try to promote one over the other, is ridiculous.
Secondly, some basic knowledge and respect of cultural and religious differences is essential. Not everything that Muslims do differently is necessarily objectionable or evidence of extremism. Sometimes is is just a difference of outlook that we should be interested in and accept, without reading too much into it.
Eg: the example of a Muslim boy by not wanting to bow to a non-Muslim is not a case of Wahhabi extremism, it is an expression of Islamic egalitarianism. Muslims are taught (or are supposed to be taught) to treat elders and others with respect, but express that in different ways to how we traditionally do in the West. The teaching is that no human should ever bow to another, Muslim or non-Muslim; bowing is reserved for God alone.
I would expect a teacher in Newham,a place with a high Muslim population to know that and to adjust his expectations accordingly. Or, if he doesn’t know it already, at least to be open-minded enough not to read too much into the boy’s behaviour, which I would regard as no more offensive than a vegetarian declining to accept a beef sandwich. I doubt very much whether either of the speakers at yesterday’s meeting would have been comfortable bowing to anyone else.
After all — would we, when we visit India, be happy to kiss people’s feet as a mark of respect? Or would we expect people there to understand that that is not how we do things and to be satisfied with a respectful nod, a polite smile and a handshake?
If we were all open-minded enough to offer others the sort of consideration and understanding we expect from others, we may find it a lot easier to get on.
As the teacher mentioned above, I though I might give a bit of context and reply to Iqbal’s initial response. The incident, if it’s not melodramatic to refer to to it thus, occurred in a classroom of Year 3 children, of the ages of 7 and 8. Approximately two thirds of the children in the school in which I teach and that particular class are Muslims.
We were studying the Tudors and had learned about traditional Tudor dancing, during which the male bows to the female, who performs a curtsy in response. Of all the children in the class, two thirds of whom were Muslims, only one boy raised any objection, citing the fact that his father had told him that Muslims do not bow to non-Muslims. As he was partnered with a non-Muslim, this was obviously a problem for him.
Just a little further context: the boys were required to bow to a roughly 45 degree angle, not to prostrate themsleves. I would never ask any child, Muslim or otherwise, to prostrate themselves in that is only normally seen in temples and mosques. Had I done this, any objection, religious or otherwise, would be valid in terms of self respect. As it was, bowing was in no a sign of inferiority to anyone else, and nor could it have been construed as such.
Iqbal, you have said that it would be bizarre for Indians to expect Westerners to kiss someone’s feet as a sign of respect, due to the differing contexts, and I agree. However, to use such an example as related to the incident described above is utterly without justification.
Firstly, the boy who objected IS Western, and therefore as much subject to the norms of British society as he is subject to those of his parents’ culture (they are first generation Pakistani immigrants) and his own religious observances. To deny this is simply a lie. To hold one interpretation as valid for use and no others is hypocritical.
Secondly, in that no other Muslim child objected to performing that part of the dance, it is clear that he was not expressing anything other than his fathers’ personal preference. Iqbal, you in fact said it best when you opened with ‘there are approx 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, with as much variation in belief and outlook as there is among the Christians in the world’. This was no more than a personal perference, dressed up in non-negotiable religious clothing. Had many of the other Muslim children similarly objected I may have had to rethink things. They did not. Had either of my two Muslim teaching assistants supported the boy’s interpretation, I may have had to rethink things. They did not.
It was simply a dance that 7 and 8 year olds were learning in order to perform to the rest of the school, and the fact that one boy had been limited in what he felt he was allowed to do because of his own father’s personal preferences within his own faith was saddening. That it was dressed up as religious objection, was not surprising but worrying nonetheless. The boy is blameless, his father less so.
The vegetarian comparison holds no grounds as I did not ask the boy to worship another god, nor did I ask him to eat anything haram. My concerns and insistence that the boy take part were backed up by all of the Muslim staff I have spoken to at my school, as well as the professor at the Indonesian Embassy event. I think I have shown ample amounts of open-mindedness and would ask you not to question my appreciation of its importance in my job again.
[...] to today’s modern democracy an “extraordinary journey”, one which sees Indonesia with a higher proportion of female politicians (27.3 per cent) than Britain (21 per [...]