Upon reading
this NY Times Op-Ed by Irshad Manji, I was struck by a thought. The piece is basically about the necessity that Muslims around the world seize the responsibility for reining in Muslim extremists and opportunists; that for them or for us to expect non-Muslims to fulfill that role is not only wrong, but can not succeed.
Well, of course she's right, there's no question about that. But my thought went into a more abstract direction: why do so many Muslims appear to be waiting for someone else to stop the extremists? In effect, many mainstream Muslims are denying that there is a need for them to act, and an affirmation that their leaders, who are usually Muslims and in many cases connected to, or of, the clergy, will solve their problems. And if that fails, then God will solve all problems in the end.
In other words, even when a so-called "Muslim state" is technically or officially secular, many of its citizens apparently think of themselves, in their identities as Muslims, as citizens of a theocracy. When there is a conjunction between God, the religious hierarchy, and the mundane government, one's world view changes immensely. One doesn't solve one's problems by direct action, because that is impossible. Instead, if one lives a godly life, then God's will will be done, so to speak.
Under this analysis, that many Muslims have a kind of "theocratic mentality" because of how they view themselves in relation to their religion and their governments, it is not that Muslims are expecting Westerners to rein in their extremists, as Manji wrote in her Op-Ed, but rather that they are waiting for God (or the religious leadership) to do it.
This is much more insidious as a world problem, because if Westerners intervene, even solely as peacemakers, there is a genuine danger that they will be seen as interfering with God's plan, or as trying to subvert Islam (and convert Muslims) to the Western (i.e., non-theocratic) point of view.
Now, it is interesting to note that many Americans also appear to have a very similar theocratic mentality. That is, what they seem to want for the US is the same kind of conjunction of God, the religious hierarchy, and government. This has been true since the birth of our nation, in spite of the clear danger, and in spite of the "wall of separation". It has never been more true than in the past couple of decades.
One of the manifestations of the theocratic mentality is IOKIYAR. I've often wondered why this principle seems to come up so often. After all, people are all loyal, in varying degree, to groups to which they are affiliated: why is it so much more marked in recent years with Republicans? Why, for example, does the non-existence of WMD in Iraq bother so many Americans much less than Bill Clinton's blowjob?
I think it's because of theocratic mentality, and that this mentality is more common among the conservative Republicans who are currently running the country. What Clinton did endangered us all by breaking God's law. To the theocrat, this is infinitely more dangerous than engaging in a Crusade against God's enemies, no matter what the excuse.
I hasten to mention that there have been, and still are, many people who are quite religious, even godly, who are not captives of the theocratic mindset. There is nothing inherently incompatible between being in control of one's own destiny and being religious. However, the theocratic mindset is quite contagious, especially if adopted by religious and/or political leaders. This infection, if you will, has spread widely in America and other largely Christian enclaves, and also within Islam, in largely Muslim regions around the world.
So, what we have is two large groups of strangers, living on the same planet, who in large numbers share the point of view that there should be a close relationship between God, their religious hierarchy, and their government. Yet, they differ in so many other ways: in the name and dogma of their religion, in language and culture, and in their level of economic and technological development. In addition, there is a very long tradition of enmity between the two religions and their associated cultures. The two groups seem inevitably to be heading for a collision, and yet, the masses within each group seem to be sitting passively, or approvingly, as their mutual destruction approaches. What is going on here?
I believe that it is the theocratic mindset of the people that is preventing them from seizing control of their own destinies from those who are bringing them to the brink. Because they believe that God will solve all problems, and that their governments or leaders have a special connection to God, they remain passive, even supportive, in the face of violence perpetuated by their leaders.
I think that some of our Founders understood this theocratic mindset, and they understood that it was incompatible with the concept of a democratic republic. It is the most fundamental reason why the "wall of separation" has existed in the US tradition. Yet, even the Founders were not capable of creating a governmental system that could protect us against this danger in any absolute way. They knew then, as Irshad Manji's Op-Ed hints, and as I have sketched in this diary, that it is up to the People--Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or whatever--to awaken, to abandon their godly passivity, and to take matters into their own hands. Only then can we have democracy and true freedom.
Greg Shenaut