M. A. Muqtedar Khan, ed., Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006. 271 pages.

M. A. Muqtedar Khan’s (ed.) Islamic Democratic Discourse: Theory, Debates, and Philosophical Perspectives examines how Muslim thinkers have and are trying to formulate systems for good and ethical self-governance and the necessity, therein, for political discourse. The debates in these essays, which span a wide range of subjects and periods, are held together by a common principle: political discourse has a long standing in the Muslim world. Given that the Muslim world’s conventional image is one in which autocratic regimes prevail, the significance of this argument, presented here from its theological, legal, and regional perspectives, is of great importance.

For political discourse to be meaningful – that is, for it to be an exercise in the clarification and exchange of ideas and to lead, in some instances, to action – requires that it take place both in the public and private sphere. The public sphere may be more readily recognized as the proper space for political discourse. However, the slippage of political discourse over to the private sphere is also of great value in that it indicates two things: first, political ideas are recognized as important to both a person’s collective and individual sensibilities and, second, while political discourse is expounded in the public sphere, its ideas are often first worked out and subsequently reflected upon in the private sphere.

The term public sphere itself may be understood differently by different people at different times. Which definition is employed – the public sphere as a venue: for the discourse of governments alone (and here we continue to focus on discourse rather than refer also to actions); for the discourse of groups; or for a discourse among governments, individuals, and groups – will significantly impinge upon our understanding of the term.

Is the concept of the space in which such discourse is possible differently configured by an Islamic sensibility as averse to a western sensibility? Such a question does not argue for the intrinsic difference of peoples, but merely for their different collective histories. And in our modern period, following the Muslim-majority countries’ intimate interaction with the West, does and can the principle of difference continue to hold? If the interaction has not produced a change in ideas and practices in these countries, can we say that it has, at the bare minimum level, produced a shift of expectation regarding the possibility of discourse? We see, then, that representations of space are not static, that they necessarily inform, and, one could argue, control what form of discourse a society deems permissible.

Islamic Democratic Discourse: Theory, Debates, and Philosophical Perspectives argues that there is a mental space between Islamic theocracy and western democracy. And it is here that ideas on an Islamic democratic discourse need to be developed. The creation of this space is preparatory to the creation of a social space, for as Khan says: “Once the idea exists, the form can follow” (p. 166).

This book provides a thorough analysis of the place of democratic discourse in Islamic history, in the section entitled “Classical Perspectives on Islam and Politics,” as well as its significance to our own times, in “Global Discourses on Islam and Democracy.” The book’s middle section, “Regional Debates on Islam and Democracy,” provides three area study papers: one on Malaysia, another on Turkey, and the third on Sudan. Such key terms as shari`ah, fiqh, ijtihad, and ulu al-amr, an understanding of which are requisite to any finer comprehension of the historical and existing debates, are clearly brought out in a number of papers. And although this book is the product of commissioned articles rather than papers submitted to a symposium, there is an underlying synchronicity in the authors’ approach to the study of political Islam.

• click for a full review in pdf