(Islam and the Challenge of Democracy,50) Furthermore, Hashimi realizes the contribution that Abou El Fadl made in refuting a widely held thesis that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Hashimi calls to focus on what Muslims wants rather on what islam theoretically decreed. He disagrees with Western intervention in promoting democracy. Instead Hashimi believes that Muslims should overcome the challenges of creating a democracy and make it a practical reality for themselves by their own efforts. Any Western intervention will make the situation worse.(Islam and the Challenge of Democracy,52) If the West does not intervene with Muslims forming a democratic government, then according to Hashemi, they should achieve a practical solution to democracy on their own. I tend to support that opinion. Democracy in the West wasn't achieved in a day and night, rather the West had to go through years of trials and tribulations in order to achieve the democracy we are mindful of nowadays. That could be the case for Muslims as well, its not all "sunshine and rainbows" when there is an attempt on reconstructing societal order. Mistakes are going to be made in the effort of flourishing change in a mostly static and unchanging society. And given the legacy of Western intervention in the Middle East, it is better off for Muslims to form a democratic government in the absence of Western intervention. .
Noah Feldman's section, called The Best Hope, is cautious but hopeful about the possibilities of Islam and democracy. although both Islam and democracy can work together in theory, Feldman states that it doesn't necessarily mean that both can coincide together in practice. As he states, "Islamic democracy will not emerge spontaneously or as a historical inevitability. But it can emerge as a product of self-conscious efforts by Muslims and others to produce a synthesis that is true to both of its elements.
