United Liberty
Why the Islamic Religion is Not “Totalitarian”
Sat, 03/14/2009 - 7:11am | posted by Alina Stefanescu Coryell
The trend of labeling the Islamic religion as “totalitarian” is far too provocative to leave unanswered. Those who argue that Islam, or the Muslim faith, is by its very nature totalitarian turn a semantic gaffe into a pejorative and hostile dogma which, in turn, becomes an article of faith for the avid fans of Fox News. Given the social cost of mobilizing a large segment of the population to fear and abhor Muslims, this error must be addressed.
What do we mean when we use the world “totalitarian”? In her famous book on the topic, Hannah Arendt used the word “totalitarian” to describe the new regimes in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia which had surpassed the expanse of past tyrannies, thus calling for a new term to mark this distinction.
What made these two regimes so mind-boggling and unprecedented was their success in the total domination of a country through a combination of political ideology and constant terror. Arguments attempting to demonstrate how totalitarianism evolves are complicated by the fact that totalitarianism does not appeal to traditional laws or political conventions. Instead, a totalitarian system remains the servant of a higher power— for Hitler, this was the Law of Nature while for Stalin this was historical materialism.
In his essay, “The Anti-Totalitarian Revolution”, Edgar Morin provides a very useful and detailed description of totalitarianism. In his words:
“It is a system based on the monopoly of a party which is unique not only because it is the only party allowed to exist and to have power at its disposal, but because it is a most unusual sort of party. It is a party in which all spiritual and temporal powers are concentrated in the apparatus which governs, controls, and administers. This apparatus can do anything and knows everything. It is a disciplinarian, an activist, a scholar, a soldier, a director, and a policeman, all rolled up into one. At the same time, it is the sacred bearer of an absolute truth which has two grounds for its self-assurance. The first of these is the clear and visible scientific basis which is the knowledge of all truth concerning the world, especially the laws of history. The other is the deep hidden basis of religious conviction with its promise of earthly salvation revealed by these laws of history.”
What distinguishes a totalitarian system from a tyranny or a nondemocratic regime is this all-encompassing scientific creed which dictates everything from the number of widgets that must be produced to the greetings and salutations used in the everyday life of its citizens.
One, of course, could use the term “totalitarian” flippantly to describe an all-encompassing worldview. If one used the term in this inaccurate, generalized sense, then Islam is certainly totalitarian. In fact, Christianity, Judaism, and even Buddhism would have to be considered totalitarian for the very nature of religion is to provide an all-encompassing worldview that governs every aspect of one’s life. Religions are systems of belief which allow access to Truth in its most powerful, important, and divine sense. Being a Christian, much like being a Muslim, is not intended to be little flourish on one’s resume, a weekend hobby, or an occasional dabbling. Instead, it is meant to be the sole venue of Truth and self-government.
Islamist governments, like Christian governments, are totalitarian (in this broad sense) to the extent that they enforce religious views. But Islamist and Christian governments, properly construed, are based on the recognition of a god or deity as the state’s supreme civil ruler. Since this god is supernatural, the state is usually governed by officials who are considered to have access to divine guidance (i.e. a mullah, the Pope, the divine right of kings, etc.).
There is actually a very appropriate term for such governments— they are called “theocracies”. Unlike totalitarian systems, theocracies do not base their government on access to a scientific truth. Instead, they base their governments on a relationship to the will of God; this is their source of legitimacy. While history reveals that most theocracies are authoritarian regimes that limit human freedom, to call them “totalitarian” is a nihilistic approach to meaning that falsely elevates equivocation. It helps to recall that equivocation makes for nasty bedfellows; one of it’s best practitioners was Stalin, who constantly described the Soviet Union as a bastion of “freedom”.
Equivocations and passionate orations aside, we should agree to use words in a manner which dignifies meaning. In her most beautiful book, Between Past and Future, Hannah Arendt warns against the costs of wishy-washy word-tossing:
“There exists, however, a silent agreement in most discussions among political and social scientists that we can ignore distinctions and proceed on the assumption that everything can eventually be called anything else, and that distinctions are meaningful only to the extent that each of us has the right to ‘define his terms’. Yet does not this curious right, which we have come to grant as soon as we deal with matters of importance— as though it were actually the same as the right to one’s own opinion— already indicate that such terms as ‘tyranny’, ‘authority’, ‘totalitarianism’ have simply lost their common meaning, or that we have ceased to live in a common world where the words we have in common possess an unquestionable meaningfulness, so that, short of being condemned to live verbally in an altogether meaningless world, we grant each other the right to retreat into our own worlds of meaning, and demand only that each of us remain consistent within his own private terminology?”
Rather than abandon a shared world of meaning in which words can be said to function as designators of ideas or reality, we should work harder to use words in a meaningful fashion. Surely that is not such an insurmountable task. The worst that might happen in an attempt to use language with integrity would be to discover that our language lacks a proper term. Then, as David Brooks so aptly demonstrates, you can feel free to coin a new term.
[Cross-posted at totalitarianism today.]
The main body of the article, though, does not address the promise of the headline. Since some theocracies can be non-totalitarian, describing islamic fundamentalist governments as totalitarian and equating Khomeini with Hitler or Stalin (or Pinochet, to mention one of the US best-loved dictators) is a precise usage of the term. The revolution police cutting away on the street the lips of women with lipstick who inadvertently let the veil move and show their mouths is “terror” in its essence.
Unfortunately, the articles fails to put through any semblance of reason on why Islamic governments should be spared being described as totalitarian, just that the writer would like them not to be.
I agree. The Islamic regimes in power today fit Edgar Morin’s definition of totalitarian regimes. Islam is not the peaceful loving religion Muslims want us to believe. It is a hate-filled religion bent on world domination. Don’t believe me? Read the unholy qu’uran yourself.
When you combine religion and state into a theocracy, which is in the case of all Muslim countries, and where the religious laws are base on a book of god. totalitarianism starts at the point of censorship begins. any government or state that enforced censorship is by self definition a totalitarian state. meaning only one view ‘totalitarian’ to say that Muslim religions are not totalitarian is lucid in any practical viewpoint.
The author fails to see the truth behind Islam it is both a religion and a political system. I am Catholic, and I live in America. The Church as most Christian Churches have a thing called Canon Law. It rules the life inside the religion. Consitutional Law is Superior to it. In Islamic countries Iran,Iraq,Saudi Arabia,Lybia,and Afganistan, Shira law thrumps Consitutional law. I will take Afganistan as the best example since we are spilling American blood for a band of savages. In 2006 an Afgani was found guilty and was going to be put to death. What was his Crime? He converted to Christianity from Islam. Such a forward country. Wearing a Cross even under your shirt and get you beat in Saudi Arabia. Just this week an Afgani man was sentenced to 20 Years for supporting Equal right for Woman. Totalitarian maybe not Tyrannical YES Islam has an inferiority issue. They as a Culture have not advanced since the 1500 when their military expansion slowed. You have to ask the values of a society when 90% of your best and brightest study only one Text
Very well, Islam is not “Totalitarian”.
However…
Muslim MEN can be polygamous. Muslim WOMEN can NOT.
Only a Muslim MAN can be considered a witness to a crime. If 500 Muslim WOMEN witness a crime, their testimony is invalid. (Thus, the rape rate in Pakistan is at a sickening all-time high.)
Anyone can “re-vert” to Islam from another faith, as everyone is considered originally Islamic. However, anyone who converts to another religion FROM Islam is a heretic that any Muslim has a license to kill.
Through “Jihad”, Muslims also have a theocratic license to kill any non-Muslim, although most Muslims will claim “Jihad” means a ‘mental/spiritual’ struggle. Still, the Quran says that “A day of fighting is better than a month of fasting” and “Paradise lies in the shadow of swords”.
Moreover, the GNP of all Islamic-led countries combined is less than that of Spain.
Alina, Alina, Alina, you’re not wearing your burka in your photo.
Wow… so I guess the consensus is that Islam is “totalitarian” and “totalitarian” just means that it takes over your whole life and tells you how to do your hair and doesn’t leave time to watch American Idol. So totalitarian means yucky or gross or something to do with the Middle East.
Look guys, many Middle Eastern governments are absolutely reprehensible in the way they treat their citizens. Sadly enough, our government has bankrolled quite a few of these religious extremists (i.e. Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, etc. etc.) with money taken from your bank accounts. So if you don’t like the authoritarian dictators running countries in the Middle East, tell your government to stop supporting them.
As for Catholicism, if we lived in a country in which the Pope was the President (and still remained the Pope) then we would live in a theocracy. Girls might go to jail for taking birth control or using condoms, and the Pope’s encyclicals might be enforced as law. Then a new Pope might turn out to be a fan of pre-Vatican II doctrine. Imagine that this more extremist pope decides that he wants to see some Catholic fundamentalism in action. So we ladies would cover our heads in public and so.
Any religious extremist ruling a country is going to make life miserable for its citizens— I don’t care which religion he takes to an extreme. My point was not that authoritarian theocracies as currently run in the Middle East aren’t bad; my point was that they are not “totalitarian” in the correct usage of the term. I stand by that point. And I encourage you to learn more about the way in which Islamic rulers, say, under the Ottoman Empire, treated their citizens and subjects. You might be surprised to note that Islamic governments used to be much friendlier.
About that burka, I am so grateful to live in a country that has moved far enough away from patriarchy to let me go burka-free. I love my country, no doubt about it. On the other hand, I think our pornography-gobbling gentlemen don’t give American women the most honorable form of freedom or respect either.
Islamic tolalitarian! Come on. You know thats not true. And if you continue to propogate such trash, the Muslims will just have to take a Chinese AK and guide you back to reality.
Hold on a minute! People love to stick it to the religious nature of the middle-east, but they live in conditions that make America’s ghettos look like the Hilton. They are poor countries with poor products to sell except for oil and who sees the proceeds of that oil (and that’s not all of the countries either). They have harsh laws because life is harsh: Stealing was punishable with amputation because food and water were so scarce.
My view is not one of hatred, but sorry that nature can drive an intelligent species to such deprivation. That still does not change my view on the whole affair that we should leave them to it. How can people think democracy will work when people are paid for a week’s work what most of us get in an hour.
I detest violence towards women, but it is just like anything else; it’s been there for so long, they believe it part of the natural process that everything and everyone should be suffering. From a non-religious, natural point of view, they have their qualities as a species, but they don’t really fit into the western way of life. This is not vastly resourceful China; the likes of Afghanistan have heroine as one of, if not unofficially the biggest, export they have and has been taken away immediately and they replace with, wait for it, pomegranates! Wow! they’ll be a world power in a few years then.
At first you might think: “Yeah, well, they are the biggest selling exotic fruit on the world market!” But unfortunately, we have to take into account the people running these institutions we call government work by a swarm philosophy. Their make work philosophy forces them to flood any market that produces profit when the actual workers are paid a few cents and doesn’t create an economy at all, it just looks good.
When studied a little further, we actually find that they are trying to grow pomegranate in every poor hot country in the world (and believe me folks, there are many). So sad though it is, we cannot help these people because we cannot give them the richness of life that we have, but we are willing to stick our political system right in the middle of it when we should leave it well alone, and that goes for Israel, Africa (we are barely keeping them in suffering; that’s worth it then) and any other country that simply doesn’t have the natural resources to live with us. Otherwise, good business becomes manipulative internationally (that’s happening right now with every crap product we don’t want to make ourselves), yet we would never allow that kind of manipulation internally, would we? Totalitarianism exists in many individuals, and incredibly, on paper is actually quite sophisticated in design and theoretically plausible, that does not make it moral; this is the ideal world of any government because all the people do exactly what they are told (some very respectable people back this, it’s just they know we will not have it so they bring it in slowly). The Muslim faith has varied supporters from top to bottom, like any other; totalitarianism is not a middle-eastern ideal, it’s been around for a lot longer than any of us and is a government’s form of keeping control in an environment far more hostile than ours will ever be; it just does not fit to world thinking.
I think democracy will work in the Middle East, Elysiumboy, if we get our guns and military out of there and let the Middle Eastern people establish their OWN democracies. I am SO glad that the US never invaded Eastern Europe or Russia to get rid of communism because it would have been a disaster. Instead, they allowed the Eastern Europeans and Russians to have their own revolutions and set up their own democracies. So far, so good.
Don’t get me wrong Alina; I have no problem with them, just that there is such a gap between rich and poor that it’s hard to see enough of the people going for a long term improvement plan. You see, I go to the point again; Russia has huge natural resources and Eastern Europeans are far from happy I can tell you, especially when the afore mentioned cuts off the gas supply or shall we talk about Greece at the moment? They are just like any other country; they vote for the rubbish put in front of them because there is no other choice. Third party voices rarely reach beyond the local news and it has nothing to do with popularity. That’s why Ron Paul interests me so much; the bloke talks sense, although Obama hasn’t created disaster yet.
It’s all well and good pulling the troops out, but what of the weapons we’ve been selling them for the last seventy years; Israel is just over 7 million strong and it has an arsenal that half the world is frightened of and they are caught negotiating with the Chinese so they aren’t reliable. Iran might look stable enough, but if these nations are so stable, why do they keep building bombs that can wipe out entire countries (I include that to all countries)?
Clear something up for me please. I have seen middle-east and I have seen Middle East; which is the trueform? I always thought it was the latter, being a name, but have recently seen it in the other form and thought I had it wrong, that’s all, thanks for the English lesson!
Alina, like many lunatics on the left, likes to live in a fantasy world and write about social political fiction. In pretty much all of her examples of how Christianity, COULD BE this and could be that, under the right dire circumstances - she seams oblivious to the fact the Islam is actually doing all the terrible things she speaks of.
Splitting the social political hair, as to whether Islam is totalitarian in its ideology is a waste of time. Their are better things she could be doing with her writing skills than being a Muslim apologist. Like getting a clue and a real job.
I agree with Alina that whenever a country is ruled by a particular religious group, life is often made miserable for any non-members. The history of European Christianity over the last several hundred years gives testimony to this observation. Very often whichever Christian group was in power would violently persecute other Christian groups whom they saw as threats to their beliefs. When it comes to intolerance of dissent, the current Muslim rulers do not hold a monopoly. I agree that the parts of the Quran I have seen posted on the Internet, can sound pretty violent in places, and someone with an ax to grind could certainly use those words written centuries ago to justify their power trip. But even the Bible, especially the Old Testament, could be read in such a way as to justify genocide. Remember, Germany was a professed Christian country in the 1930’s and 40’s when it tried to annihilate the Jewish population. We are the fortunate heirs of hundreds of years of religious and secular disputes that have resulted in the more enlightened idea that religions are to operate separately from the operations of the State. If our ancestors had not come to an agreement that, through bitter experience, it was better not to have any one religious group running the country, we might still be in the same place politically that the Middle-East is in today. Fortunately, we have about four hundred years of European political, social and religious historical experience to inform us.
Post new comment