After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy

_After Jihad_ by Noah Feldman is focused on answering one crucial question facing American foreign policymakers today; can democracy flourish in Muslim countries? Feldman wrote that the attacks of Al-Qaeda and others are the "last, desperate gasp" of a tendency towards violence that has lost widespread support in Islamic lands. Many Muslims stand ready to embrace democracy; it is only their governments and to some extent Western policy that stands in the way. Violent jihad has failed, with revolutionary states having only been achieved in Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan and the only other places where such jihadists enjoy any real popular support is in areas seen as fighting wars of liberation (such as in Chechnya and Kashmir). Washington policymakers have shied away from pressing for democratic reforms in the Muslim world for a variety of reasons, notably for a need to rely on existing Muslim allies in the war on terror, the risks of instability that democratization may pose, particularly as it might affect oil prices, and the fear that free and fair elections in several countries will bring to power violent, anti-American Islamist groups. The author argued that this sort of thinking is flawed, that support of dictators may be of benefit in the short-term but is not beneficial in the long-term. In addition, Islam and democracy are both more flexible than is generally thought; that they are what he called "mobile ideas," ideas that can appeal to and be adapted by diverse peoples living in very different countries and societies. Any fear that Islamists may rise to power is realized when those groups are repressed, as reversing the democratic success of Islamic groups in Algeria for instance produced a civil war and similar actions could serve to alienate Islamic groups in Morocco, Pakistan, and Turkey, groups that worked within the system but repression of which runs the risk of turning them into a violent opposition. Feldman divided the book into three parts. In part one he sought to show how Islam and democracy are much more compatible than many think. He felt it was a false dichotomy to say that the only options in the Muslim world are either a secular state or an Islamist state; a range of options are possible; a pure Islamist state relying only on classical Islamic law is only one possibility, and even if it did rely on shari'a law could still be considered democratic if shari'a law was chosen by the majority in that country and the basic rights of non-Muslims were respected. Too often to stay in power and gain the support of secular people in their own country and of the West autocrats have emphasized that they are the only alternative to Islamist rule, and again, this is a false dichotomy. Even if Islamists do come to power there is reason to show - by the example of Iran - that many people after a few cycles of Islamic government might start to look for something more secular. Also, Islamic groups are not by definition anti-Ameri

As far as I'm concerned, Noah Feldman has written one of the most important books of the post-9/11 era. This books deals with the question of Islamic democracy, and why Feldman thinks its possible. This book can be divided into three sections. The first deals with broad discussions of the Muslim faith and of democracy. In this section, Feldman gives a plethora reasons why he thinks Islam and democracy are compatible. He doesn't say that the two fit together perfectly, or that it will be easy to merge the two, but he presents a well-reasoned, well-researched argument. The second section of the book deals with specific case studies of Islamic countries (mostly from the Middle East). He discusses the climate in each of these countries as it relates to democracy and to Islam. Some countries appear more hopefull than others, but Feldman does a fantastic job at identifying what will have to happen in these countries for democracy to emerge. The final section of the book deals with American policy specifically and what the U.S. should do to encourage Islamic democracy. I think a very convincing argument is presented here that the U.S. needs a new way of thinking about foreign policy if our long term interests are to be served. This is one of my new favorite political books. I'm going to assign it for all my current world problem classes at Ohio University. It's well written, the language is clear, and I think that it presents what is ultimately the right course of action for the U.S. Feldman should be the next Secretary of State.

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 demo

This book is excellent, both scholarly and accessible, handling difficult analysis with sophistication and common sense. It seems that the U.S. is now committed to fostering democracy in the Middle East in the aftermath of the war in Iraq. This is the rare book that shows some realism about the role that Islam will inevitably play in the process of democratization. Feldman's unusual message is that if we want democracy in the region -- and the U.S. at this point clearly does -- we must open our eyes to Islam's democratic potential and encourage its cooptation into the democratic process rather than have Islam coopt democracy. Many people will find the book's message difficult to accept, but there is no point to killing the messenger. Furthermore, the book is proving to be a blueprint for U.S. policy for democracy in Iraq, and it is fascinating for that reason.

Noah Feldman in his book After Jihad, America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, takes a difficult subject and puts together a readable work. In After Jihad, Feldman establishes a framework for the proposition that Islam and Democracy can co-exist in the same country. While reading this sentence and the dust cover describing the book's contents will likely make most on-lookers think the book is a remedy for sleepless nights, the book is not just about the proposition. In After Jihad, Feldman provides a timely and interesting historical perspective of the Middle East, which assists the reader in understanding how a tragic event like September 11th could have come about. In one sense a reader can come away with the idea that Feldman, a professor of law at New York University, presents an 'ivory tower' approach to how Islam and Democracy can co-exist. In another, a reader can come away with the belief that Feldman obviously has a great depth of knowledge of the subject and, at least, presents a realistic, plausible and defensible structure for this combination of ideas. Given this background, Feldman, who was recently made head of the Constitutional team with the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance ('ORHA') in Iraq, appears uniquely qualified to serve in the effort to reconstruct Iraq into a Democratic regime.Feldman's observation that the need for Islam and Democracy to co-exist is reaching a 'new juncture in the politics of the Muslim world' makes practical sense. The autocrats are aging and are unlikely to be able to translate power to their sons, public reaction to the attack on the World Trade Center and the on-going violence in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Feldman argues, presents a realistic view that Middle East as we know it is changing. In addition, the emergence of democracy in small countries like Bahrain, Feldman posits, makes a practical case for a 'no time like the present position' to see if there is a way to meld the concepts of Islam and Democracy in the Middle Eastern countries. After highlighting this need, Feldman argues that the idea of Islam and Democracy can co-exist because each concept individually is universal, flexible and simple. Feldman then puts forth why this is true. Democracy is universal because everyone has the right to vote; Islam is universal because it believes God makes the same demands on all people whom he created equal. Democracy is flexible, argues Feldman, because it has shown it is adaptable to a variety of contexts; Islam is flexible because it has maintained it's core beliefs while adapting to a variety of languages and family structures around the world. Democracy is simple because it chooses leaders and makes political decisions on the basis of competition for people's votes; Islam is simple because, according to Feldman, there is no god but God, and Muhammad is his Prophet. One of the difficult questions a reader inevitable will ask is how can a country that promotes one r