In my pervious discussions I learnt many useful points in this weblog. I enjoy reading the notes of an open-minded American Blogger. Anyway, “Sharia and the Future” is challenging issue. I am Iranian and live in an Islamic country. It is worth mentioning that Islam has two major sects. Shiah and Sunii. (you can read a summary about this issue here ) Majority of Shiah live in Iran and also in the south of Iraq (you probably know them since during the Gulf War, 1991 the US encouraged revolts against Saddam but they did not support Iraqis later and Saddam could easily kill about 200,000 Shiah).
After revolution, Mullahs took power in Iran and called their regiment as “ Islamic republic”. Since 24 years ago, and many scholars have scrutinized this theory “ Islam and democracy”.
There are three groups in iran:
1-Conservatives who have the same opinion about Islam and West as Sayyed Qutb “Islam is is the last hope for survival”. But because of some obvious political reasons, they do not fight against west directly but they have supported terrorists like Hezbollah a Shiah militia in Lebanon.
2-Orthodox reformists like president Khatami and some scholars like Mohsen Kadiver (who was visiting professor in Harvard University last year). Though they believe that Islam is the last survive, but they say this is not our duty to liberate other Muslim and fighting against west. They say that western societies are developed and modernized and we should learn many things. Therefore, we should open our society for more communications and try to keep our Islamic values as well. They believe that we cannot encourage western people to follow Islam when we do not have a liberal society. They have offered the theory of “Islamic democracy”.
3-This group believe that Islam did not offer any specific program concerning our life and what prophet Mohammad recommended (which is considered as Sunah or Shariah) was useful 1400 years ago. Indeed, Islam and democracy are incompatible as political system. So they believe that there is just one way: “Secular democracy”. They say that Islam should be considered as a private issue and Islamic groups participate in election like other parties in a democratic atmosphere. A well known scholar( of course for Iranian) is Dr Soroush who is visiting professor in Harvard since he is not allowed to teach in Iran. He has expanded on theory of “religious pluralism in Islam”. He was in second group 20 years ago but it seems that he follows the third thought.
Iranians have reached to this point after 24 years living under a regiment that it was claimed as “ Islamic republic”.

Unfortunately, many Islamic countries have dictator regimens like Saudi Arabia. They believe that they are really a Islamic state since they follow what exactly Prophet Mohammad did in 1400 years ago. It has two consequences: In these dictator states, people do not have access to information and this strengthens radical and fundamental thoughts. Islamic groups cannot take power and try their theory. They only draw a Utopia in their mind when they are in jail!!. One of the reasons that you can see such development in Iran is that Mullah failed to establish an capable system. So radical Islamists all the time claim that Islam is the best way and you cannot reject their claims. It is not important that you as an American reject it. In fact, Muslim who live in these countries should realized that many of these Islamists use Islam as a political tool to take power.

I agree with Arnold that “ one cannot have a free society at all without having developed an appropriate social philosophy rooted in the primacy of private personal and property rights over any collective, government or priesthood
But I do not know how you can find it possible that US install, say inject!!, democracy in Iraq. We should remember
1- Baath party is (better to say was) a secular regiment
2- Iraqis have a strong tribal system and still Sheikhs decide what other do.
3- There are many extremists in Iraq who tell Iraqis that our Islamic formula is the best one.
4- 55% of Iraqis are Shiah. Mr. Mohammad Bagher Hakim is a chief of one Saddam oppositions that may have considerable effect on Iraq political system in future. Hakim has been in Iran during last 2 decades and is supported by Iran.

According to the above important points, I do not know how it is realistic that one says, the possibility of helping to remold an entire Islamic society into a constitutional republic with equal rights for peoples of all religions, with protection for property rights and individual liberties, with a stable political system not dominated by army generals and gangsters -- is this not the only way we can turn the world of Islam around
Here there are two challenging points:
You say constitutional republic with equal rights: 1- Iraq does not have the infrastructure for democracy because of tribal system. 2- if people have the same right, what happen if Islamists try to use their right to participate in elections? So it seems that establishing a democracy in Iraq would be unlikely it is will be a huge philosophical blow to the Islamists. It's one of the main reasons I've always backed this notion of taking out Saddam. Maybe you suggest a system like what is going in Algeria. It is not democracy.
You say that Defense of the liberal ideals of the West has been ongoing in many political publications, and of course in the blogosphere. Where else can it be made? . But you know in many Islamic countries people are poor and cannot think about anything but their primary needs. Many cannot read these books; many do not have access to Internet. Moreover, the level of. Illiteracy is high.
Another worth noticing point is that you think “Democratizing Iraq” is the US primary reason for going to war. I am not politician but as an ordinary person think the primary reason is something else as Bush administration says it clearly. “For national interest and security”. Of course, it may be said that a liberal Iraq will bring us national security. But it is not convincing!!
I have written some things about radicalism in Islamic world here it may clear my position.

Iman from Iran

Iman, I would very much like to see your comments on this discussion of Islam. Please read it and leave your comments, if you are so inclined.

As for Iraq: there are many who agree with you that the task of democracy for Iraq is hopeless. But there are many, many Iraqis who believe you are wrong. Salam Pax is one of them. So are the many Iraqis involved in the Iraqi Democracy movement, which have received very warm reception and cooperation from the Bush administration.

In the Arab world, Iraq has a very high rate of literacy and higher education. Parts of Iraq, particularly Northern Iraq (under U.S. and British protection!) have developed pluralist democracies. The notion that this task is hopeless is wrong. We may fail, but it must be tried, for the security of all peoples. Or so I believe, and so I also believe the Bush administration believes.

Of course, this democracy may be different from others. It may have to be some sort of federalized system, with different states. Compromises between and within tribes may have to be reached. But such things have been done in the past. And if you say that it is impossible, then truly what you are doing is dooming the Iraqis to forever be ruled by brutality and violent conflict. You are saying that only a mass murderer like Saddam can rule in such a place. Do you really believe it is so hopeless?

As for the U.S. betrayals of those who revolted against Saddam: I note again that we have been protecting and aiding the people in Northern and Southern Iraq in fulfillment of that very promise--so our "betrayal" was not such a simple thing. We perhaps did not do enough to help all of Iraq in their revolt. But one of the reasons was very substantial pressure from the Arab nations not to help them too much!

America has a history of creating democracies, and doing it successfully. We have done it because we have believed it is in our own best interests to do so. I do not claim the mantle of universal saviour of the world for America. Like any nation, our history is complex, and mixed. In our war with Saddam, we are acting in our own self interest. But to say we would simply install another brutal dictator: how can this be in our interests in the long run? No, some form of better governnment for the Iraqi people is in our interests.

We may fail, but we must try. The more help we have from reformers in the Islamic world, the better!