Freedom for Saudi Arabia & Iran?
by Bret Shugrue
Growing up in New Jersey my introduction to other cultures and thinking other than America is great, America is grand was rather limited. My schooling never introduced me to the Middle East; we never even talked about the region except for occasional mentions of the Fertile Crescent. As I became older my desire to learn about the rest of the world grew nearly daily. Reading the New York Times and watching CNN was the start of my introduction to the big, bad, scary world. Unfortunately those two sources of news and information didn’t quite quench my desire for knowledge about the world, I wanted more. I started to read or watch almost anything that had to do with news, governments or anything at least somewhat political science related. I was watching Ross Perot on Larry King Live when I was in Junior High School while my friends were reading the sports section. Ever since that time I’ve become passionate about all sorts of things that go on in the world.
Growing up in this nation you get spoon fed the wonders
of democracy. Well if it’s so grand why doesn’t it exist everywhere?
A quick look at the Middle East will show you that almost none of the nations
in that region are
democracies. The blue-collar types I grew up with would naively tell
you “those
Muslims can never live in a democracy”. That can’t possibly
be true; Muslims live in this country and are free. I’m hardly
naive enough to think that Democracy is a cure all, but it has to be
better than having the basic freedoms
that we should all have repressed by an overbearing regime. Saudi Arabia
and Iran are both nations that have some of the largest oil reserves
in the world.
Why are the leaders of the nation building palaces while more and more
of both nations’ populaces are out of work? Saudi Arabia and Iran
are two nations that have had ties to America for years; the former had
great
relations with
America until the Shah was overthrown in 1979 and the prior has been
strategic ally since FDR was president (cdi.org Jan 23, 2002). The governments
of these
two nations are not looking out for the best interests of their subjects,
the way of rule should change and they both should be democracies.
Why democracy? Democracy is the only form of government
that allows the people to choose who govern them; democracy keeps the powers
of
rulers in check;
democracy protects all people.Democracy
is simply the most humane form of government on
the earth (islam-democracy.org May, 16, 2003). Anyone that
live in America understands that even though some of the rights granted
to others
seem
ridiculous or in some
cases obscene it is the job of the government to stand up
for them. The Klu-Klux-Klan, one of the most hated groups in this
nation has the
right
to organize and
to protest about whatever they want as long as they don’t
harm anyone. Even though most people in this country find
their ideals disgusting,
they have the
right to speak about anything they want as long as they don’t
infringe on the rights of others. In his book, Politics,
Administration and Development
Ahmed Hassan Dahlan explains how democracy even has it roots
in Islam:
Social, economic and political equality has been one
of Islam’s
principle goals. Mohammed the messenger was not only instructed to
treat people equally
regardless of their race, color or sex, but was also to consult with
them and have them participate in community decisions. (pg 132)
A simple look at the Medina Charter, the constitution
that
was drafted by the outlining the basic rights of the multi-religious citizens
of Medina, show you
that Mohammad did grant Muslims and non- Muslims most
of the same basic rights. Drafted in 622 A.D. the Medina
Charter is the first Constitution
ever. ( http://www.19.org/english/articles/kassim2.htm)
It is an absolute fact that by granting equal rights,
Mohammad believed
in democracy.
Now that it has been established that Mohammad
drafted
the first constitution in the history of man and that Islam began respecting
the
rights
of all people. Are the people of Saudi Arabia and Iran ready to become
full-fledged
democracies?
First we must look outside the Middle East and at the rest
of the world.
In his book, The Future of Freedom Fareed Zakaria
points out that 62% of the countries
in the world are democracies. (pg13) It could be argued
that they are not all what the west would consider democracies,
which is true,
but
they are
are closer
to democracy Saudi Arabia. Countries in the Middle East
including
Iran and Saudi Arabia haven’t historically jumped on
the bandwagon towards modernity, but the fact that the world
is becoming more democratic
is
a good way for
the process to begin.
Leaders in the Middle East are starting to extol the
virtues of Democracy. Qatar’s
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al-Thani
recently in an interview with Mideastinsight.org explained that Qatar
is halfway through
preparing a constitution of its own (mideastinsight.org/7_01/democracy/html).
Before the democratization of the Middle East was part of White House
policy, Prince Hassan of Jordan said in 2000:
The Muslim world does not lack the ability to achieve more inclusive
political process as man countries as far apart as Indonesia and Jordan have
already
shown. The prospects for more representative government elsewhere in the
Muslim world
look very bright - indeed very promising. (jordanembassy.org Feb. 15,
2000)
Both Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s neighbor Kuwait now has
parliamentary elections. Even though the parliament is still under
the control
of Emir Sabah, the members of parliament challenge
the Emir on various issues,
this type of
free speech did not exist in the country before.
Women still do not have the right to vote, but this first step of
having an elected parliament
is one step
towards democratization. In 1980, one of the
nations of the Arabian Peninsula
Bahrain vehemently protested the closing of parliament
by Sheikh Khalifa. In Oman, Sultan Qaboos has allowed some of the
members of his
advisory
committee to be elected by the people that they
represent. In Yemen there is more free
speech than ever before, and even Iran has become
more democratic than it was
before 1979. (Jericho pg8-9)Even though the country
is essentially led by one man, there are many different parts of
the democratic process
woven into
the
fabric of the government, even if those parts
of democratic government have become somewhat perverted by the Supreme
Ruler.
Society in Saudi Arabia and Iran is becoming
more westernized. It is well known that many
Saudi’s leave Saudi Arabia to get a
western education and then return to their countries
with new western ways of
thinking. All
of the Middle
East is becoming westernized. In his book After Jihad,
Noah Feldman succinctly explains the modernization
of the Islamic world
by saying:
In the last two decades the Muslim world has undergone extraordinary ferment
and change. Visit a medium-sized town in almost any Arab country: where
the outside world once arrived through an occasional newspaper read aloud
to neighbors, there
are now satellite dishes carrying not one, but half a dozen Arabic-language
channels into even relatively modest homes. In Muslim cities from Kuala Lumpur
to Casablanca,
the well-off carry the same mobile telephones popular in Helsinki and
San Francisco, complete with instant text messaging in local languages. (pg
11)
Since the societies of both nations are becoming more westernized
and are getting more information about the rest of
the world than ever before,
it
seems only
natural that people from both nations would
want to have the same rights as many of the other free people of the
world
that they see on
the news everyday.
Sure,
detractors to the infiltration of Arab Media
into homes
would properly point out that this news and information
often paints the west as evil,
and quite frankly
they are right. I think it is safe to assume
that members of both nations can cut through the particular feelings
of the
reporter and get
the facts
of the
story, just like the way that Americans everyday
get
their news from either a liberal or conservative
news sources and have to really listen
to what the reporter
is saying to get the facts.
Even though Saudi
Arabia’s
neighbor on the Arabian Peninsula Qatar is slowly democratizing and
both Saudi Arabia’s
and Iran’s
neighbor Iraq is supposedly going
to become a democracy, is there an example of
a democracy
in
the region. Yes, Turkey is that
democracy. Turkey has been a democratic nation since
1923 when Ataturk,
an officer in
the army who
led a
revolution to create
a modern nation out of the defeated
Ottoman Empire after World War I (mail.list.ucsb.edu).
Almost the
entire population
is Muslim,
yet they
have been a democracy for
80 years.
Turkey’s growth
as a democracy has not been perfect, but America’s
hasn’t been either.
The military has removed
the democratically
elected
government three times
since 1950,
they did this because
they though the
administration in office
at the time was not adhering
to the
constitution,
but returned power
to a new elected government
each time. It is worth noting
that in each case the military
took control of the government
bloodlessly.
(nationalreview.com)
The constitution
of 1982, this constitution was drafted after
the
final military takeover of 1980, gives equal
rights to all, divides the power of state among
the three branches of
government; the judicial, legislature and executive.
(Turkey a country study:
pg 237-238) This is generally what is accepted by the west as
a democratic government.
The idea of three branches of government is exactly what America has and
equal rights
for all is one of the
basic
tenets of a
democracy. Even though
almost all of Turkey’s populace
is Muslim everyone has
the same rights, the country that has more Muslims than
any other country in
the world and it is a thriving
democracy. There is no reason that Islam and democracy cannot co-exist.
(http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=184232)
Despite the rise
of a third political party that is Islamic
and has won many local elections
most
people do not want
a nation that is
based on
Islam.
In a survey conducted
by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies foundation
they found
that 67.2 percent
of Turks do not want religion to interfere with government.
Only 21.2 percent
of the
nation supports
the formation
of an Islamic
state based on Sharia
and only 10.7 percent of the populace wants a change to the
present
civil code. The younger
generation of Islamic politicians has expressed a commitment
to
democracy and has
acknowledged that the extremism
will get
them nowhere. (Howe
pgs 247 & pg
250) These statistics
seem
to suggest
that most Turks
are fairly content
with the way things
are and
that the nation is
not likely
to fall into
a revolution like
Iran did
in 1979.
During the
spring of 2003 the Turkey proved how far it has
come
as a democracy. The United States government offered Turkey
6 billion dollars to use the
nation as a launching
point for the war in Iraq. The parliament voted
that the United
States government
could not use the nation for the war, despite desperately needing the money.
This vote
not
only
gave the people what they wanted,
94% of those
polled did not
want Turkey being used as a base during the war, but it was the first
time in the
nations
80
year history that there was bi-partisan
support
for anything.
Bi-partisan support for anything in this country is often mentioned
on the news by
members of
congress, but is rarely actually seen in voting. Turkey’s
ability to demonstrate
that they are a functioning democracy, even though
the no vote was
not to the liking of the supposed
beacon of democracy
America it
was one of the
best demonstrations of how the democratic process could work
in the Middle
East.
What type
of democracy? A question that despite my endless reading I have yet to
find an answer
to. You
could
say that maybe it should be a socialist
democracy,
hanging on
to the basic tenets of socialism and spreading the wealth around to all
of the citizens.
Rather
than the governments of both nations
essentially
owning the
oil companies,
the people
would. But that type of dependence on oil
for everyone’s
livelihood
doesn’t
solve the
problem of
both countries,
non oil
generated
revenue.
It’s
a trite old
saying, but
the only
two things
that the
Middle East
exports are
oil and
terrorism.
It’s
a hard point
to argue
against,
so
keeping
both nations
dependant
on oil and
spreading
the
wealth may
not be the
best thing
to
do in the
long run
for either
country.
If they
both continue
to rely on
oil revenue,
what
happens
if the use
of oil drops?
Maybe
in 20 years
there will
be a
solar powered
home, or
the hydrogen
powered car
becomes a
reality and
then
these two
virginal
democracies
would fall
into
economic
despair and
become
another Afghanistan;
two new
breeding
grounds for
terror with
no ties to
the western
world.
Then clearly
we must make
these
two nations
stop relying
on oil as
there
only form
of income,
that’s
why I think
both nations
should
become full
fledged capitalistic
republican
democracies,
much
like this
country
but hopefully
with
better business
etiquette.
The complete
nationalism of Saudi Oil and the
nationalism of many large oil firms after
the
revolution
of 1979 have left the oil
in the hands
of the
government.
Unlike
Saudi Arabia, Iran has at least an agriculture industry, which account
for 22%
of all
the
jobs in the country
according to a 1991 census. (economist.com
8/6/2001)
Both nations need to be allowed to develop the countries internally.
Take
for example tourism.
Right
now no one in there right mind would
take
a trip to either Iran or Saudi Arabia unless they had to go to the latter
for business.
The nations
both are so rich in history that anyone who is interested in
the world and
thinks
that
a vacation
should
be more than lying around at
Disney
World would want
to see where Islam was born or take in the legendary Tehran. If both markets
were
free,
and safe
there
could be foreign investment in both
nations
would.
The Holiday Inn of Tehran would supply
good
jobs, a
name that people
of the
west would trust
to stay
in and all of
the little shops and restaurants,
etc.
would get
the extra
business from
the people of the west that were visiting.
A
democratic
state
would ease the
reluctance
for companies to invest
in both nations. Currently
in Saudi Arabia Saudi’s
have left the nation
for entertainment; this
has
cost
their economy 8 billion US dollars a year (tradepartners.gov.uk).
Assuming
that the
nation’s
economy
was free and since the
populace
is
so young
and is
becoming more
westernized
why wouldn’t
western
companies want to invest
in Saudi
Arabia.
The
western presence in Saudi
Arabia
is the
major
issue Osama Bin Laden
has
with
the House of Saud and
of course
the problem
with
the Wahabbi’s,
the strict
form of Sunni Islam,
would
have
to be overcome.
But,
imagine new movie
theatres in Medina or
an arcade
in Mecca.
I’m
not proposing
that
we strip away the
history of either of
these
nations, or cheapen
there historical landmarks.
I in
know way want
to see
something
similar
to what has happened
with
the Pyramid’s
in Egypt,
there is no reason
a KFC
needs to
be next
to the Mosque
of Omar, but the
nation
would be able
to stay
true
to its rich
traditions and enter
modernity
if they were to
embrace
republican capitalism.
When I mention republican democracy, I want these two nations to have the opportunity to chose the leaders that will make there laws and serve in there best interests. My earlier example of Turkey fits into this category also. The members of parliament are elected by the people to make the best possible choices and if the public does not like those choices they vote them out of office. When the citizens are represented from all of the different regions in both nations this could help to prevent the radicalism that exists in both nations, a diverse membership of parliament could prevent the radical Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia and the radical Islam preaching of Iran to have too much of a say in politics. They will have a vote much like everyone else, and if the members of parliament do not represent the wishes of their people they will be voted out. This will ensure that the will of the people is done. Before any of this can happen the process must start by the establishing of laws that protect the rights of everyone. Sociologist Sami Zubaida explained the process perfectly when he said:
A first step on the road to democracy must be the establishment
of a legal and institutional framework which specifies and protects rights
and procedures,
which
cannot be violated even by an elected government. Democracy can only
make sense as part of a law state. (Zubaida, pg xxii)
The slow installation of a democracy much like Kuwait and in some respects
even Iran will lead both of these nations towards a democratic form of government.
All democratic governments
have laws that assure the rights
of everyone. What happens when the government has a set of laws that give
more rights to a man
than a woman? What happens when in a court of law considers
the word of a man vastly more important than the word of a woman? Both Saudi
Arabia
and
Iran’s
laws are based on Sharia, the ancient code of law based
on the Koran. Surely a code of law that gives one more
person
more rights because of
there sex is
not democratic. Well that is true, but the United States
granted equal rights to all but didn’t allow women
to vote, enslaved an entire race, etc. during its growth
as a democracy. Completely getting rid of
Sharia may not be necessary.
First, in Iran the laws of Sharia have been adjusted
to give women equal rights. Women do not have all of
the freedoms
afforded to women here
in America, but
the laws are more fair than the rights of women in Saudi
Arabia. In 1999 a woman in Iran was stoned to death for
committing adultery and her lover
was put to
death for killing the husband. Even though most people
in the west would consider death a strong price to pay
for adultery,
an act that even American
presidents
have engaged in, capital punishment exists in America
and the lover of the woman was put to death for murdering
the
husband, which in the very
least demonstrates
equal rights under the law. Both a man and a woman were
punished accordingly for their crimes, this is more fair
than Saudi
Arabia, a country that
during an interview with Fred Pike, a man who lived in
the nation for five years, explained
to me that not only can’t women vote, but they
can’t
drive. The application of Saudi Arabian Sharia is much
stricter than Iranian
Sharia. But the question
is if equal rights were granted to all, could Sharia
be a functional democratic basis for laws. Noah Feldman
points
out that Islamic law only
applies to a handful
of laws and that the burden of proof for the strictest
of these laws, the hudud, the laws that require a thief
to lose
his hand, etc., is remarkably
high. There
must be two eyewitnesses to a crime, these eyewitnesses
must be of good morale standing and for the crime of
adultery
there must be four witnesses.
This is
nearly impossible to have. He goes on later to explain
that if the laws are applied correctly it is very unlikely
that
anyone would be punished
under these laws
because the burden of proof is so high. (Feldman, pg
71) Sharia than can exist in a fully democratic society.
Application
of laws must be
met, but the law makers
in these nations must remember that democratic process
were part of Mohammad’s
many ideals and to not have a society that is truly based
on these ideals is in fact shunning the true teachings
of Islam,
which is
what both governments
are doing right now, especially Saudi Arabia. This does
not mean that Muslims need to shun their religion in
order to
become more
democratic,
they simply
need
to adhere to the true teaching of the faith.
For the people
to thrive under capitalism they will need to take out various loans to promote
growth in their businesses, get a mortgage on a new, larger home, etc. Islam
has historically has prohibited modern banking techniques, and the prophet is
quoted in the Koran (2:276) saying, “Allah has permitted trade and forbidden
usury” (lending money and charging interest) and in 2:278 he says, “O
ye who believe, keep your duty to Allah and relinquish what remains (due) from
interest, if you are believers." The idea of interest free mortgages first
started in 1975 by a group of Muslims living in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
(another country that is free yet Muslims live). The way that the mortgage works
is slightly more difficult, but a basic comparison of both types of mortgages
would show the subtle differences and how it is the Islamic mortgage system
is not only in compliance with Islamic law but is rather easy.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/02/business_islamic_mortgage_system/html/1.stm)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/02/business_islamic_mortgage_system/img/2.jpg)
Even though this different type of lending is slightly more difficult than western
style lending, there has been a tremendous response to Islamic banking in the
Muslim community and even American companies such as Citibank now have Islamic
banking departments. With the ability to invest in real estate and businesses,
Muslims in both countries now have the opportunity to make their businesses
larger, which will employ more people, which will create a better way of life
for everyone, which can only happen if Iran and Saudi Arabia are allowed to
fully democratize.
The question that many will ask after having read the preceding pages is, “What can America do?” Since I’m reminded almost daily that America is the world’s only super power and President Bush came out with his road map to peace in the Middle East in 2003, can America help the process and if so does it have to involve invasion or “regime change”. The answer to those two points is an emphatic, NO! The time spent theorizing how Iran could become a democracy may be wasted if the Supreme Leader allows the Iranian pursuit for nuclear weapons to continue. If the leaders of the nation continue to pursue the nuclear option than an international force may change the regime of the country, but I hope that seriously does not happen and in all cases war should be an absolute last resort. Assuming that national or world security is not put at risk by the mullahs an invading force should not change the government; the proud people of Iran should be allowed to push for change. Until 1979, Iran lived under a monarchy for nearly 2,000 years; the slow step towards true freedom may have already begun. America should continue its support of the Iranian students; it was only 24 years that the people of Iran hated America referring to the nation as the “Great Satan”, now according to a recent survey by Iranian controlled National Institute of Opinion polls, 74 percent of the Iranians in Tehran support re-establishment with the United States. But what does America get out of supporting a nation that not so long ago hated this country? Fereydoun Hoveyda, former Iranian ambassador to the UN prior to the revolution of 1979 explains, “The coming demise of theocracy in Iran will substantially weaken all militant Islamic movements in the world.” Mr Hoveyda also feels that the United States should stop supporting the reformist movement that is being lead by President Khatami and should support the student movement for democracy. The same students that publicly supported the United States by shouting about how they love America after September 11th, Iran was the only nation in the Middle East to have pro-American rallies following the events of 9-11. (cdi.org/ca/2002-11-04-shtml) The reason My Hoveyda believes that the students should be supported makes sense, he feels that President Khatami, who still is under the authority of Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, wants to make some reforms in order to keep him or whoever is president in office and not be tossed out by the Supreme Leader. The job of the United States government should be to assist the students anyway they can as they try to have there government changed. If that means that they must supply the revolutionaries with weapons than they should, financial funding should be an option that America considers, the government of the United States has an opportunity to change a government without sending 250,000 troops to a nation, they can support and let the brave people that want to stage a coup, stage it and stand on the sidelines and help anyway they can. When the government is changed they can then provide any type of support that the nation requires, as long as the leaders of the revolution do not wish to once again return the government to a theocracy, the United States should provide financial help, advice, food, etc. The U.S. should supply anything that will not let Iran become once again ruled by an oppressive regime. Once the Iranian market was open again, foreign companies can help to develop the under producing oil fields, which would be able to pump more crude per day, which of course would create a larger amount of income for the country and of course jobs. It is not a dramatic idea, nor is the idea of helping foster democracy in another nation it is something that has been done in the past as Saliba Sarsar, a professor in political science and the associate vice president for Academic Program Initiatives at Monmouth University explained in March 2000 in the pages of Middle East Quarterly:
Democracies should assist the Arab countries by initiating serious
dialogues with them and then taking steps to sustain the democratization
process. This includes promoting democratic principles and practices and
giving electoral
assistance.
If democracy is assaulted anywhere, democracies should join forces
to impose punitive measures on aggressors. President Jimmy Carter's human
rights campaign
and its role in U.S. foreign policy served to undermine several
authoritarian regimes. President Ronald Reagan's focus on both democracy and
human
rights exerted pressure on and made crumble not only dictatorships
in Latin
American, South
America, and Asia, but also totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe
and the Soviet Union. The momentum that created the international military
coalition against
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in the early 1990s can perhaps be recaptured
to build an international peace coalition for promoting and sustaining
democracy
(http://www.meforum.org/article/40).
The American government
must make it a priority to support democracy around the world, the more
democracies
there
are the less war
and terrorism there
will be.
It’s a fact that historically democracies
have not gone to war with other democracies.
Also, if the people of a nation were happy with
there government
and not offended by the support of its auto-cratic
rule, the problem
with Al-Qaeda might not exist today. If the Saudi’s
were free, there would be much less discontent
in their nation. If
Iran was
free, their government
would
no longer
be supporting terrorism around the world; democracy
spreading to two new nations would absolutely
curb terrorism.
In Saudi Arabia the Untied States government
must simply apply pressure, much like the pressures
applied
in Latin
America, South
America and
Eastern Europe.
The pressures may have to be applied over the
next 20 years, asking the Saudi’s
for more governmental reforms and allowing the
nation to have elections for a parliament much
like Kuwait’s. The parliament would only
be an advisory panel at first, but over time
would actually have power to draft laws, etc.
The
government may still have a king at the top,
but over time he would become more like a permanent
President, with many of the similar powers to
any
democratic
president. Finally there would be open elections
for all members of parliament and the office
of President. There will never be a president
in Saudi
Arabia as long as the United States government
continues to support the monarchy because
of there ample supply of oil. The Untied States
can continue its support of Saudi Arabia only
if they start to reform there government, this
will
take a long time
and it should, the country should slowly democratize.
A sudden government change would result in a
global economic catastrophe, the world’s
economy is based on cheap oil and if the prices
shot up the world economy would
fall apart. Supporting
democracy in Saudi Arabia is supporting a more
stable form of government, one that is less susceptible
to a revolt. Slowly
the Saudi Arabia
should become a
democracy.
A democracy does
not have to forget its history. Every year millions of Muslims travel
to
Saudi
Arabia for the
Hajj. A big worry among
many may be whether
a democratic nation can assure that the traditions
of the past continue unimpeded not only during
the nations
slow steps towards
democratization
but once that
nation becomes a full blown democracy. This
is a tricky proposition; a professor of mine recently
reminded me
that it was Plato who
once said that monarchies
are best suited for carrying on tradition.
This may
true, but personal rights should not be restricted
because
a democratic
government may
not be as historically
able to carry out tradition. The Hajj is
obviously very important to all of the
1.2 billion Muslims alive today, it is not
only of great significance to them but it also a requirement.
The traditions
of the past
can easily be
protected
by the constitution. The traditions of both
nations should be protected as long as those traditions
are
embraced by the
people. Saudi Arabia
and Iran
can keep
many of there Muslim traditions and still
be democratic. In America Christmas is a
national
holiday, the nation
is comprised of a
large majority of
Christians but also the observance of this
holiday is an American tradition even though
many do not celebrate and the American Constitution
calls for a complete separation of Church
and
State. America
has been able
to thrive as
a democracy by making
allowances for the traditions and beliefs
of the individual. There is a way for a democratic
government to be adapted to fit
the needs
of the
citizens
of both
Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is very easy for
the
naysayer to find reasons for a nation to
not become democratic, bit the current
repression
of the citizens
of
both nations doesn’t benefit anyone
except the very few that rule both nations.
Democracy has its flaws, but allowing the people of a nation such as Saudi Arabia or Iran to make those mistakes themselves can only make those nations stronger. Currently only very few people in either nation have a voice in government. The will of the people is not being carried out in either nation. This is why the people of these two proud nations must be free to do what they want. They should be allowed to vote for the person representing them in office, they should even be allowed to vote for the use of Sharia in a new government. The research going on currently at the University of Cairo will allow for DNA evidence to be submitted as evidence in cases that are subject to Sharia law. The Middle East is becoming more modern everyday; modernity should not be considered a western ideal; it should be considered natural human progress; and democracy should no longer be considered a western ideal; it was the Prophet Mohammad that wrote the first constitution ever. Islam was at the forefront of democracy much like it used to be the leader in science. When Europe was throwing its waste out the window the Egyptians had an intricate plumbing system. It is once again time for Islam to move to the forefront of thought, and what a better place to start then Saudi Arabia and Iran. Two nations that have well educated populaces and a glut of young people. If they were free to say and do whatever they wanted, they could create a democracy better than the west has ever known. If they keep the status quo they are destined to waste the opportunities that their education should afford them. It is no longer a question of whether democracy and Islam can co-exist. The real question is why aren’t all Muslims free to govern themselves.
Bibliography
Feldman, Noah. After Jihad New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003
Abders, Jericho. Saudi Arabia: Outside Global Law and Order, Great Britain:
Curzib Press, 1997
Zakaria, Fareed The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy At Home and Abroad,
New York, New York: Norton, 2002
Dahlan, Ahmad Hassan. Politics, Administration and Development, Brentwood,
Md: Amana, 1990
Metz, Helen Chapin. Turkey: A Country Study Washington D.C.: Department of
the
Army, 1996
Howe, Marvin. Turkey Today: A Nation Devided Over Islam’s Revival Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press, 2000
Zubaida, Sami. Islam, The People, and the State: Polotical Ideas and Movements
In the Middle East London: I.B. Tauris 1993
Ahari, Ehsan Saudi Arabia and The United States: parting Ways: Cdi.org Terrorism
project, January 23,2002 http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/Saudi-us-pr.cfm
Mazrui, Ali A Islamocracy: In Search of a Muslim Path to Democracy Center
For
The Study of Islam & Democracy, May 16,2002 www.islam-democracy.org/4th_Annual_Conference-Mazrui_address.asp
Ahmad, Kassim A Short Note On The Medina Charter http://www.19.org/english/articles/kassim2.htm
Kessler, Jonathon S It Is Important To Build Democracy In All Arab Countries-Interview
with Qatar’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr
Al-Thani, Mideastinght.org, 7/01/2003 www.mideastinsight.org/7_01/democracy.html
Jordan Times, Tuesday, February 15,2000 accessed via Jordanembassyus.org
Excerpts
from a speech by Jordan Prince Hassan, http://www.jordanembassyus.org/021520000004.htm
Lerner, B. Why is Turkey The Only Muslim democracy In The Middle East accessed
via mail.lsit.ucsb.edu, originally posted Nov 5, 2002 https://mail.lsit.ucsb.edu/pipermail/gordon-newspost/2002-november/003741.html
Lerner, Barbara Why Is Turkey the only Muslim democracy in the Mideast? The
Secret of Turkish Democracy: A Lone Model National Review.com, Nov 4,
2002 www.nationalreview.com/comment-lerner110402.asp
Answers.google.com citing facts from the CIA World Fact Book http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=184232
Economist.com Economic Structure of Iran August 6, 2001 < http://www.economist.com/countries/Iran/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Structure>
Leisure & Tourism Market in Saudi Arabia tradepartners.gov.uk www.tradepartners.gov.uk/recreation/saudi_arabia/profile/overview.shtml
Casciani, Dominic Chart Taken from BBC Story titled Case Study: Islamic
Mortgages 11/29/2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2525635.stm
chart can be accessed
via (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/02/business_islamic_mortgage_system/html/1.stm)
Casciani, Dominic Chart Taken from BBC Story titled Case Study: Islamic
Mortgages 11/29/2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2525635.stm
chart can be accessed
via http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/02/business_islamic_mortgage_system/img/2.jpg
Moore, Art Iran Ripe For Revolution appeared on Worldnet Daily 11/04/2002
accessed via http://www.c-d-i.org/ca/2002-11-04.shtml
Sarsar, Saliba Can democracy Prevail? Middle East Quarterly, March
2000, accessed via www.meforum.org/pf.php?id-40
Pike, Fred Telephone Interview July 12, 2003