Athens, the birthplace of democracy, had a state religion. Socrates was tried and condemned to death on the charges of corrupting the youth. He basically questioned the establishment and encouraged his "students " to do the same. He was charged that he was speaking not only against the government but also against the gods.There were other factors, such as , slavery, a strong class system that didn't quite fit the paradigm of democracy. Plato's Republic constructs a society with a philosopher king, eugenics, marriages arranged by the State, a "caste" system......quite an absolutist vision. However, this vision of a society remained an idea and an ideal. I think, it is mainly because Athens at that time was a "marketplace" of ideas. The competing schools of philosophy and the flow of ideas, kept it an open society which is essential for any form of evolution. An open society is essential for an open government, a government where general public can participate. As soon as a country adopts a religious law or a religious scripture as a blueprint for its constitution, it closes the door for an open society and for a government in which people could truly participate. This is the case with Islamic republics. Therefore, a term like Islamic democracy is an oxymoron. An Islamic country cannot be a democracy. However, a country with a predominantly muslim population can be. Therefore, I think, to answer the question, Why has democracy failed to take root in muslim countries, we have to take hostorical factors into consideration. If the question is posed differently, Why has democracy failed to take root in Islamic countries, then we could say it is because of the religion.