Is the Islamic caliphate compatible with some type of electoral democracy in the Arab world?

Question

What if it were more of a religious and ceremonial role than a political one?

Answer 1

No.  It is more like the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church in that the Caliph is elected from Islamic leaders.  The Caliph's job is to protect Islam from dissention and distortion.  The Caliph is not a political leader, he is a religious leader, but in some ways holds much more power than the government of an Islamic state.

Answer 2

No. In democracy everybody's vote is equal whereas islamic rulers will always put Koran first, in which muslim men have more rights than women, and more rights than non-muslims.

Secondly, it is blasphemy for muslims to doubt the holy text; which was intented as a law. That's where Sharya comes from: religious laws. For muslims, religious laws will always have more validity than laws that are 'made by people'. And this is conflicting with democracy, in which people can vote for leaders who want to change laws.

Of course, some people want to make a change. Check the work of Zuhdi Jasser, a devote American muslim who strongly believes in democracy. But it's extremely difficult, because for most muslims, the holiness of the ancient texts always comes in.

edit.

What if the majority votes for Shariah law? It will still be anti-democratic because it doesn't allow the muslim to change his/her mind about the basic thing, being a muslim. Voting against Shariah next time would be impossible under Shariah law. This is against the nature of democracy.  

There are less rights for non-muslims and women under Shariah law, and no rights for apostates. Prophet may have said that you should consult 'the people', but he explicitly warned that it's a sin bigger than murder to listen to false prophets. Anybody with a different point of view was in danger where the islam was spreading back then.

Zudhi Jasser, a devote muslim himself, tries to explain muslims over and over again that democracy for muslims doesn't mean implementing Shariah law. The reason he gives is that islam is about the personal relation between the muslim and the God. Any kind of law that people follow in whatever state should be secular and strictly kept separate from religion - which is always a personal matter. He has a hard time convincing muslims because, although separation of church and state is common in the West, this goes against the ideas of the prophet himself about laws.

Answer 3

well, first of all the caliphate has not been in exsistance for hundreds of years.  But to answer your question, yes it is. Muhammed told his successors that before they make any decisions they should consult the people. If this is not a democracy then I do not know what is.

What so many people overlook, is that ALL governments are corrupt whether they be democratic, socialist, monarchies, dictatorships, or theocracies. The problem with politics is many, not all, muslim countries is not Islam. The problem is the effect of power on the governing body. Therefore the religion gets distorted in order to fulfill the government's agenda. The same thing occurs here in the states with the Constitution. It gets twisted to serve the purposes of the powers that be.

If you gave muslims the choice, most of them would want to live under a caliphate and shariah law.  somebody said that  shariah law overrules the people and therefore they have no say, but one can not make that distinction when the people agree with and promote the law. shariah law coincides with what the people want.

however, don't get caught up in what these "muslim" leaders profess to be shariah- 9 times out of 10 it is not legit!!!

Answer 4

no. Islam only admits viscous dictatorships

Answer 5

Religious power hierarchies are incompatible with electoral democracy.  Their "traditional authority" model would not hold up to the light of "rational-legal authority" model inherent in democracy.  Religious power hierarchies can survive / thrive ONLY in the absence of democracy.

Answer 6

No, absolutely not. Quite the opposite as it is dreamed of by extremists who want a resurrection of the cruellest and most vicious period in Islamic history.