If democracy is simply government "of the people, by the people, for the people" then the early Islamic society evinced some of these characteristics.  The successor of the prophet was appointed through mutual consultation and members of the community validated the choice through a handshake. This was democracy in a rudimentary form. 

Islamic law was supreme in the land. Again this is a characteristic of a democracy because of the principle of the "rule of law". Even the caliph was not above the law.The early Islamic society was also pluralistic based on verse 2:_256 of the Quran which says "there is no compulsion in religion" What this meant in practical terms was that Jews, Christians and other Non Muslim communities living inside of the Muslim state were not bound by Quranic edicts. 

Thus a rudimentary theoretical and practical framework of an Islamic democracy came into existence in the fledgling Muslim state. 

The book entitled "After Jihad " by Noah Feldman elucidates various models of Islamic democracies which he asserts can be deemed compatible with Western liberal democracies.   One of his main premises is that militant Jihad has failed and a greater number of Islamists are now resorting to democratic means to further their agenda. It is the Islamists themselves who are pushing for greater democracy therefore and this appears to be a dangerous trend. 

Noah Feldman also draws a parallel between Islamic democracy and Western liberal democracies as catering to the demands and wishes of the majority.  It is the majority for instance in Canada, which formulates the law therefore the Muslim majority in a Muslim state will do the same, 

However in my very humble view there are certain snags in drawing such a perfect analogy.  

Firstly, the majority in a Muslim State will always remain the majority. Any system established on a strictly religious ideology, in this case Islamic, will prevent the minority from ever becoming the majority whereas in Western liberal democracies minorities often turn into majorities.  

Secondly, if Islamic law is to be considered supreme, then the law has the potential of remaining static.   The role of the legislature in this case would be extremely limited, its main function reduced to overseeing that any proposed  law is in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah. 

IN my view there are fundamental conceptual differences between Islamic democracies or theo-democracies and Western liberal democracies which uphold secularism as the only means by which to deliver equality to all citizens. 

I thank you all for coming today and special thanks to the learned panel  You've made a tremendous contribution to this very important subject and I hope people will continue to benefit from these learned essays for a very long time.