{"title":"人民主权、伊斯兰教和民主》(2003 年)*","authors":"Glenn E. Perry","doi":"10.35632/ajis.v41i1.3421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the idea that Islam’s rejection of popularsovereignty makes it incompatible with democracy. I showinstead that sovereignty (“absolute despotic power,” popular orotherwise) is a sterile, pedantic, abstruse, formalistic, and legalisticconcept, and that democracy should be seen as involving“popular control” rather than “popular sovereignty.” Divinesovereignty would be inconsistent with democracy only if thatmeant unlike in Islam rule by persons claiming to be God orHis infallible representatives. A body of divine law that humanscannot change would be incompatible with democracy only if itwere so comprehensive as to leave no room for political decisions.\n*This article was first published in the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 20, no. 3&4(2003): 125-139","PeriodicalId":34866,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Islam and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Popular Sovereignty, Islam, and Democracy (2003)*\",\"authors\":\"Glenn E. Perry\",\"doi\":\"10.35632/ajis.v41i1.3421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the idea that Islam’s rejection of popularsovereignty makes it incompatible with democracy. I showinstead that sovereignty (“absolute despotic power,” popular orotherwise) is a sterile, pedantic, abstruse, formalistic, and legalisticconcept, and that democracy should be seen as involving“popular control” rather than “popular sovereignty.” Divinesovereignty would be inconsistent with democracy only if thatmeant unlike in Islam rule by persons claiming to be God orHis infallible representatives. A body of divine law that humanscannot change would be incompatible with democracy only if itwere so comprehensive as to leave no room for political decisions.\\n*This article was first published in the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 20, no. 3&4(2003): 125-139\",\"PeriodicalId\":34866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Islam and Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Islam and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v41i1.3421\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Islam and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v41i1.3421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the idea that Islam’s rejection of popularsovereignty makes it incompatible with democracy. I showinstead that sovereignty (“absolute despotic power,” popular orotherwise) is a sterile, pedantic, abstruse, formalistic, and legalisticconcept, and that democracy should be seen as involving“popular control” rather than “popular sovereignty.” Divinesovereignty would be inconsistent with democracy only if thatmeant unlike in Islam rule by persons claiming to be God orHis infallible representatives. A body of divine law that humanscannot change would be incompatible with democracy only if itwere so comprehensive as to leave no room for political decisions.
*This article was first published in the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 20, no. 3&4(2003): 125-139