Product Description

A lucid and compelling case for a new American stance toward the Islamic world.

What comes after jihad? Outside the headlines, believing Muslims are increasingly calling for democratic politics in their undemocratic countries. But can Islam and democracy successfully be combined? Surveying the intellectual and geopolitical terrain of the contemporary Muslim world, Noah Feldman proposes that Islamic democracy is indeed viable and desirable, and that the West, particularly the United States, should work to bring it about, not suppress it.

Encouraging democracy among Muslims threatens America's autocratic Muslim allies, and raises the specter of a new security threat to the West if fundamentalists are elected. But in the long term, the greater threat lies in continuing to support repressive regimes that have lost the confidence of their citizens. By siding with Islamic democrats rather than the regimes that repress them, the United States can bind them to the democratic principles they say they support, reducing anti-Americanism and promoting a durable peace in the Middle East.

After Jihad gives the context for understanding how the many Muslims who reject religious violence see the world after the globalization of democracy. It is also an argument about how American self-interest can be understood to include a foreign policy consistent with the deeply held democratic values that make America what it is. At a time when the encounter with Islam has become the dominant issue of U.S. foreign policy, After Jihad provides a road map for making democracy work in a region where the need for it is especially urgent.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1138561 in Books
• Published on: 2003-04-15
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 272 pages

From Publishers Weekly
Feldman is careful to distinguish his first book from some of the spate of recent works with the word "jihad" in the title, which contend that anti-Western, violent brands of Islam are growing in strength and bravado. Feldman argues, on the contrary, that September 11 and more recent sporadic attacks mark "the last, desperate gasp of a tendency to violence that has lost most of its popular support." Violent jihad, or struggle, he asserts, has lost its luster in the Muslim world except in cases of self-defense, and most Muslims find both Islamic ideals and democratic values appealing. The question then becomes, "Would democratically elected Islamic governments be good or bad for Western interests?" His answer is that we shouldn't fear the worst. Feldman, a professor at New York University's School of Law with a doctorate in Islamic thought from Oxford, notes that both Islam and democracy are based on human equality and are highly flexible, and disputes claims that they are incompatible. About a third of the book is taken up with overviews of Islam and democratic development in specific countries and regions, such as Iran and Indonesia; these chapters cover well-hashed territory, but make useful summaries for nonexperts. Diehard proponents of a separation between mosque and state may remain unconvinced that elected Islamic governments would support such liberal notions as women's rights or religious freedom. But the strength of Feldman's work lies in his consistent and simple reminder that the emergence of democracy in some countries will not necessarily bring about Islamist rule, and that suppressing it would itself be downright undemocratic.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
An NYU law professor with a doctoral degree in Islamic studies considers whether Islamic nations can also be democratic.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
Feldman, an NYU professor with a doctorate in Islamic thought, wonders if democracy "can be made to flourish in the lands where Islam prevails?" The answer, according to the author, is a resounding yes. Furthermore, he argues convincingly that the West in general and the U.S. in particular must encourage democratic growth even at the expense of existing relations with autocratic Islamic regimes viewed as our traditional allies. Attempting to prove that democratic ideals are not necessarily incompatible with Islamic thought and culture, he delves into the fascinating history and religion of a largely misunderstood region. Certain to spur debate, this thought-provoking discourse couldn't be published at a more appropriate time.

Margaret Flanagan
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Customer Reviews

Islamic democracy is the only solution to Islamist violence
The negative reviewers here have not read this book. In response to some of their claims: Other than Saudi Arabia, all Muslim nations allow churches/synagogues/temples for their minority faiths. Don't judge all Muslim nations by the behavior of the Saudi Wahabis. In Bangladesh, which is a Muslim democracy, Christmas is a public holiday, even though Christians make up less than 1 percent of the population. In the United Arab Emirates many malls display Christmas decorations and play Christmas carols. Christians also conquered, massacred and oppressed other peoples. Look at the treatment of natives in US, Canadian, South American and Australian history.

But now to the book. Feldman says that the West should not fear democracy in Muslim nations because even if Islamic parties come to power (they usually don't) the people will soon get tired of them because they won't deliver on basics, such as education, infrastructure and jobs. Islamic parties tend to promise Utopia if they get elected but will always fail to deliver on their promises. There is a lot of evidence to support Feldman's argument. You only have to look at Iran to see how quickly most people tired of Islamic rule. Muslims in Northern Nigeria are already starting to grumble about Islamic rule. In Pakistan, an Islamic party recently won power in one state (only because of outrage over the then impending US invasion of Iraq). Many now say that they regret their vote for this party and feel that crackdowns on freedoms and women's (already limited) rights have gone too far. In Malaysia Islamists recently lost control of one state they controlled.

Feldman also claims that Islamic Law can exist alongside democracy. Islamic Law is not actually Islamic. It did not exist in Muhammad's lifetime and was first implemented in the Ottoman Empire about 1000 years after the founding of Islam. Islamic Law only became widespread in the last 50 or so years. However, most Muslims do not know this, they falsely believe that Islamic Law is divine, and will therefore insist on some form of Islamic Law. In many Muslim nations Islamic Law exists alongside secular law. For example, family law tends to come from Islamic Law but criminal or business law is secular. I agree with Feldman that Islamic and secular law can coexist in a democratic society (it already does), and I also agree with Feldman when he says that this will make women and non-Muslims second-class citizens. But Feldman also believes, and I agree, that these societies will evolve and that women and minorities will fight for equal rights as has happened in the West. Keep in mind that in America Christianity was used to justify slavery and women's inequality. And keep in mind, that in America, women and minorities have had to struggle for the rights they have today. It's unreasonable to expect Islamic nations to become bastions of equality and justice overnight. This will be a long slow process.

Feldman is right that we in the West should not fear democracy in Islamic nations. About 40 percent of Muslims currently live in democratic countries, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, France and the US, so Islam and democracy are obviously compatible. For too long the West supported and propped up dictators in Muslim nations and look what happened. America was hit on 9 11 and we and the Europeans will be fighting extremist Islamists for years to come. Giving Muslims the freedom to control their own destinies is the only answer to this problem.

Disappointing
Noah Feldman's book amounts to a restatement of arguments made in the '90s by one of his apparent mentors, John Esposito, who argues thatIslamists should be allowed to win elections. The trouble is, most Muslims in the Arab Middle East disagree with them, particularly women, who stand to suffer the most under the rule of clerics. Although I disagree with Feldman's argument, my main gripe with the book is its striking lack of originality. One might as well go to the source and read books by Esposito and Akbar Ahmed.

Rosy Prediction on Prospects for Islamic Democracy
Feldman propounds a solution to a crucial problem of U.S. policy toward the Middle East: the fact that almost all the Arab regimes we support have scant legitimacy in the eyes of their people. The thrust of his argument is that things are so bad now that the U.S. doesn't have much to lose in supporting Arab democracies, even those that would be anti-American. As it stands, he believes that Arab governments are able to stifle freedom of thought and speech and manipulate public opinion against Israel and the U.S., to deflect attention away from their own fragile legitimacy. Why not, he proposes, just withdraw U.S. support for these regimes and truly support open political systems. Even if Islamists take over, the necessities of rule and the realities of power would force them to moderate their rhetoric. Arabs would have a channel to vent their political frustrations, and would no longer have any reason to attack the U.S. to get at their own regimes, as was the case in 9/11. Feldman also assumes that in open political systems, Arabs would pay more attention to their own local concerns and that the Palestinian-Israeli dispute would become less important.

Feldman's internal logic is consistent and he argues well, but how realistic are his assumptions? Are Islam and democracy as compatible as he believes?

His views are important because he was among the drafters of the interim Iraqi constitution.