As argued by Almond and Verba, there is a certain “‘civic culture’ [which] is necessary for the establishment of democracy, and […] this sort of culture is not easy transferable to non-Western cultures”[15]. The widespread acceptance of state authority and obedience towards civic duties defines the nature of Western culture: for example, the “obeying [of] the laws of the country, paying the taxes levied by the government [or] serving in a jury or as a witness in court”[16]. Almond and Verba argue the Western “mix of parochial passivity and modern participant activism”[17] is only compatible with certain cultures, and could be a factor fixing countries in non-democratic regimes. Some of the most likely explanations for this are likely to be historical religious influences, particularly the influence of Protestantism in the early 17th century in Western Europe. Steve Bruce argues that “Protestantism has contributed to modern democracy [by] pioneering a particularly effective combination of individualism and community spirit”[18], and the differing cultures of historically Islamic cultures are perhaps strengthening the likelihood of non-democratic regimes’ survivals today. As explained in the view of Sayyid Qutb, “Islam is irreconcilable with the main assumptions of democratic government, and therefore Islam and democracy are incompatible”[11]. This view is supported by Huntington, writing that “the nature of Islamic culture [is] inhospitable [to] democracy”[12], since “democracy clashes with the Islamic notion of the sovereignty of God [and means] taking power from the hands of its usurpers and restoring it to God alone”[11]. In this regard, we can see how Islamic countries may be less likely to democratise and thus be more rigidly stuck in an authoritarian regime; holding beliefs which perhaps do not align as well with democratic governments. It could be argued, for example, that Sharia Law can foster the unequal treatment of women, while it has made space for “a violent Islamic radical movement: Boko Haram, [which] proffers religious authoritarianism as an alternative to democracy”[13]. The extent to which this is true is, of course, debatable, particularly since “Sharia movements draw popular support, especially from lower and middle class Muslims, [since the movements support] social, economic and political reforms meant to provide economic and physical security and accountability”[13]. M. Steven Fish builds on this point, arguing that the “unusual degree of subordination of women in Muslim societies”[19] is not actually caused by an oppressive nature of the religion itself; rather, the position of women has been determined by the historically “kin-based political p>