Final Blog

One of the topics that really stood out to me during our in class discussions was the idea of a truly perfect theocracy. During class, we established that there was a definite distinction between having a true theocracy, with a religion clearly stated in its constitution, and a country simply influenced by the morals and ethics of a certain faith or faiths. I think it's vital to look at this idea from both sides. Naureen mentioned that there have been some truly great theocratic empires in the past, including the Ottomans, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and so many more. Yes, all these empires thrived at one point or another and were able to supposedly maintain pluralistic ideals (Christians and Jews were not persecuted). Those empires would fail in the modern era, however, because they throve due to dhimmis, or taxes on non-Muslim citizens, which would cause an outcry if it was even thought about.

The idea of a theocratic country is possible, it's just not probable. Ramadan tells us that Shar'ia law is "a call for social justice" that aims to protect "the rights of children, women, and men to education" and other non-negative things (Ramadan 113). The theory itself is almost flawless. In practicality, human nature=greed. Greed in government=Arab spring part II.