Given the West's exposure to the Middle East over the past decade and a half, there has been a lot of dialogue over whether or not Islam is compatible with democracy. Many critics in the West decry the humans rights abuses and autocratic government of many gulf countries as the result of Islam's precepts. Additionally, they point to jihadist groups' hardline interpretation of Islam as additional proof of the incompatibility between Islam and democracy. However, they erroneously equate Islam as a whole and Islamic fundamentalism, and conclude that there is no place for Islam in democracy just as there is no place for democracy in Islam. I argue that Islam and Islamic fundamentalism are not the same, and that while Islamic fundamentalism is not compatible with democracy, Islam itself most certainly is.

Islam as a religion is founded on the Quran (the text of highest authority) followed by the Hadeeth (the text of second highest authority). How one interprets these texts however, is something that not all Muslims agree upon. Thus, when talking about Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), there are four Sunni schools thought (madhab), four Shia madhabs and one "other" madhab totaling for nine schools of thought within the entirety of Islam.

Just as there is a diversity of thought on jurisprudence, there is also a diversity of thought in the way Muslims interpret Islam in general. Some Muslims have a liberal interpretation and others have a more conservative interpretation of it. Within the conservative interpretation of Islam, there is a movement called the Salafist movement which is an ultra-conservative reform movement that calls for a fundamentalist approach to Islam. Salafists can be further divided into the politics-averse quietists, the politically vocal activists and the infamously violent jihadists. It is the fundamentalist groups like the Salafists that play a role in hindering democracy in the Middle East.

The problem with a fundamentalist approach to Islam is that they are not willing to accept innovation (or bida). They believe that all bida runs contrary to the Sacred Law put forth by Allah through Muhammad, and that a strict interpretation of the Quran and Sunna is the only correct way to go about practicing Islam. Because they do not accept innovation, they are unwilling to change their world view. In the political arena, this translates into far-right Islamist factions seeking to impose a seventh century ways of thinking in a 21st century world. While the West has advanced their way of of thinking about things such as governance and human rights, the fundamentalist factions have not, and therefore democracy just simply isn't in the vocabulary of a fundamentalist that thinks the way a seventh century Arabian would. Additionally, a key concept of democracy is compromise, and since Islamic fundamentalists are adamant in their religious convictions and unreceptive to compromise, they are therefore unable to function in a democracy. An autocratic way of governance is much easier for fundamentalism to thrive in because autocracy requires little compromise.

Conversely, interpretations of Islam that do support bida, are much more conducive to democracy because they are innovative and are more receptive to compromise. They are willing to change their thinking in a way that both recognizes, values and is overall compatible with democracy. Allowing innovation to be present in one's interpretation of Islam (or any religion) allows for comprise to be available, and that allows for a compatibility with democracy.

Let's take what I've written above and compare the cases of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Turkey's Islamist faction, while Islamically oriented, is not one that is fundamentalist due to a variety of factors (namely the Turkish military's historical track record of keeping a tight leash on fundamentalism) and therefore is open to innovation and compromise and the existence of a democratic form of governance. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is led by a kingship that has had a history of cooperation with Islamic clerics that subscribe to a fundamentalist movement called Wahhabism. By supporting the Wahhabi establishment with the resources of the state, the Wahhabi establishment supports the king by stifling innovation and therefore any potential democratic movements that might emerge out of Islamic movements that are more receptive towards bida.

Bringing things full circle, Islam is in fact compatible with democracy, as is any other religion. What isn't compatible with democracy is a fundamentalist interpretation of a particular religion, because it promotes a provincial way of thinking by frowning upon innovation and has natural abhorrence towards compromise. By understanding the individual case of Islam and democracy, we can perhaps apply what we've learned to religion in general's compatibility with democracy and factor that into the calculus of the promotion of democracy abroad.