Is Islam a Totalitarian Ideology?

[Puppycow]

To consider this question, first we should establish what totalitarianism means.
For purposes of this thread, I referred to the Wikipedia article on Totalitarianism and extracted the following:

Totalitarianism is a term employed by some scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.
[snip]
Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer argues that mass movements like Communism, Fascism and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too pleasure-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious, yet imaginary, future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual existence. Individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and "fact-proof screens from reality" are established.[3]

It seems to me that at least two Islamic states where Sharia is the official law, Saudi Arabia and Iran, are in fact Totalitarian in nature, although in practice the control may not always be absolute, however it aspires to be (note that Iranian president Ahmadinejad denies the existence of homosexuality in Iran). Other Middle-eastern states may also be similar, but for simplicity, I'll limit my discussion here to these two.

Please forgive the ad hoc nature of my argument here, but I'll just sort of make a (non-exhaustive) list of the things about Islam as practiced in these states that I perceive to be indicative of totalitarianism:

1) The very word Islam means "submission"
2) Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence, and religious police assert social compliance. (source)
3) Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of Muhammad. Such criticism is considered blasphemy against Muhammad. Many Muslims believe that if there is no freedom of speech, or if freedom of speech is very limited then people will learn to control what comes out of their mouths.

The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The Judgment of the unbeliever is that he is killed. [...] There is a difference between ... harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgment against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe -- the death penalty.

(source)

4) Apostasy likewise is punishable by death.

5) The European Court of Human Rights determined that "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy":

[T]he Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. […] It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

6) Less than 1% of the people in Saudi Arabia say that they don't believe in God (read this in an article, sorry but I don't remember the link). To me this indicates that they aren't allowed any access to alternative viewpoints.

7) Practicing the religion seems to be a full-time job. With 5 prayers a day and rules against reading un-Islamic information, it seems like the faithful are kept too busy and protected to think freely.

 

[Puppycow]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Muslim brotherhood aside, what about Saudi Arabia and Iran? What if you had to live onder those rules? Would that be acceptable to you?

 

[Oliver]

Muslim brotherhood aside, what about Saudi Arabia and Iran? What if you had to live onder those rules? Would that be acceptable to you?

Quite frankly. No. But that is a process which has to be solved
by their own people and friendly diplomacy.

 

[Puppycow]

Quite frankly. No. But that is a process which has to be solved
by their own people and friendly diplomacy.

I agree with that in principle, but I am concerned with the lack of reciprocity. In the west we have freedom of religion, so muslims are free to preach their religion in western countries, but to put up walls to isolate their own members from secular society. But western missionaries cannot go preach in Saudi Arabia or Iran. I see the religious mind-control as being nearly inpenetrable. We are not able to reach them with our messages, while they are able to reach us with theirs because our society is open and allows freedom of speech and religion.

 

[Oliver]

I agree with that in principle, but I am concerned with the lack of reciprocity. In the west we have freedom of religion, so muslims are free to preach their religion in western countries, but to put up walls to isolate their own members from secular society. But western missionaries cannot go preach in Saudi Arabia or Iran. I see the religious mind-control as being nearly inpenetrable. We are not able to reach them with our messages, while they are able to reach us with theirs because our society is open and allows freedom of speech and religion.

Well, it needs time for a society to get to the point of freedoms.
And this also is true for America in many ways - compared to places
like Amsterdam, for example.

Concerning Iran the West did everything that they could for Iranians
to have a reason to distrust us.

And let's face it: divorcing, corrupt family values, pornography and
such things are surely no advertisement for western societies. So
I also would like to see a society like Turkey within Iran - but it
needs time. The best we could do is to reach out our Hands and
show them that we have good intentions. And you might agree that
Iraq looked exactly the opposite way from their point of view.

After all we have to show the rest of the world that we're on the
right way for all of humanity - and I have no Idea why western
people in the 21 century still didn't learn that.

There is an old saying over here and it basically goes like this:
"Find yourself - and then go out and find others". And there is
much truth to it - even on federal or even global level.

But what do you personally think how to make this place a
better one for the next generations - or for us?

 

[Puppycow]

Well, it needs time for a society to get to the point of freedoms.
And this also is true for America in many ways - compared to places
like Amsterdam, for example.

Yeah, but America is much closer to Holland in most important respects such as freedom of speech and democracy.

Concerning Iran the West did everything that they could for Iranians
to have a reason to distrust us.

This unfortunately may be true. But the west today is much different from the colonial period.

And let's face it: divorcing, corrupt family values, pornography and
such things are surely no advertisement for western societies.

What? You think we should outlaw divorce and pornography and enforce strict traditional family values to impress primitive societies like Iran and Saudi Arabia?

So I also would like to see a society like Turkey within Iran - but it
needs time. The best we could do is to reach out our Hands and
show them that we have good intentions.

I hope you are right, but I'm not sure it always works. Neville Chamberlain tried it with Hitler. Maybe it will work this time, but it's not certain that it will work.

And you might agree that
Iraq looked exactly the opposite way from their point of view.

After all we have to show the rest of the world that we're on the
right way for all of humanity - and I have no Idea why western
people in the 21 century still didn't learn that.

There is an old saying over here and it basically goes like this:
"Find yourself - and then go out and find others". And there is
much truth to it - even on federal or even global level.

But what do you personally think how to make this place a
better one for the next generations - or for us?

I would like to stop intervening with military forces and instead use soft power.
But I am not certain that it will work in every situation. You don't know when the next Hitler will rise to power. Saddam was like Hitler, but of a less powerful country. It would have been harder to deter him if he had nukes. It's a difficult problem and I can see both sides of the question. I think I prefer a "contain and deter" strategy with unfriendly, uncooperative regimes rather than an "invade and regime change" approach. But if they attack us, then of course we may respond like we did with the Taliban. For cooperative regimes like Saudi Arabia, I prefer an engagement approach. I think we should use friendly pressure to get them to allow more freedom of speech and religion in their country.

 

[egslim]

I think we should use friendly pressure to get them to allow more freedom of speech and religion in their country.

Internet makes a major difference. It allows ordinary people to see what the outside world is really like. And they will begin to demand changes, and eventually succeed. But they will appreciate it more and it'll save us a heap of trouble if we allow them to do it themselves.

Economic sanctions may work to put pressure on a regime for short term changes, but they isolate the people from contact with and hence learning about the outside world.

And of course changes like democratization take time. 10, 20 or even 50 years. But consider that in many Western countries it took over 50 years from the first elections to suffrage for women and ex-slaves.

 

[Lonewulf]

What? You think we should outlaw divorce and pornography and enforce strict traditional family values to impress primitive societies like Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Oliver never said that, and I'm not sure if he meant that we should ban it or not. But, let's be honest here; they really aren't good advertisement to a culture that despises those things in our society. That does not mean we should ban it, just realize that fact.

And I'm actually very surprised at the responses Oliver's giving in this thread. Congrats, Oliver, you moved my respect for you a notch. You have a ways to go, but not bad, regardless.

I don't think that military action can force Islam to change it's rules, laws, and social mores. If it does anything, it reinforces them, and we come off as invaders, not negotiators.

However, are Islamic countries like Iraq "totalitarian"? Oh yeah, you betcha.

 

[Lonewulf]

Internet makes a major difference. It allows ordinary people to see what the outside world is really like.

Unfortunately, as the examples in China show, the internet is surprisingly easy to censor. All you need to do, as a government, is to regulate and restrict the available ISPs from allowing you to view certain things (or most of anything, even; just "approved-by-government" sites).

 

[egslim]

Unfortunately, as the examples in China show, the internet is surprisingly easy to censor.

Actually, reading Wolfman's posts about his experiences in China, the government's attempts to censor the internet are very ineffective in keeping information from its citizens. And the changes in China over the past 10 years have been dramatic.

 

[Darth Rotor]

To consider this question, first we should establish what totalitarianism means.

FWIW, Islam imbedded into a political system tends toward authoritarian, and in the special case of the Islamic Republic, toward totalitarian, if it can work as intended. Iran is a yet to be perfected Islamic Republic, just as the USSR was a yet to be perfected communist state.

Your comparison of Saudi Arabia and Iran is a bit of apples and oranges in nature. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a republic, so even the forms of a totalitarian state are substantially different. Family relationships are formally established as part of the power base. Iran does not have that formal structure.

Both are authoritarian, Iran in the case of the "last word" from the Mullahs, Saudi Arabia in terms of the king. It is in the king's interest that his people come from a common frame of cultural reference, it seems, from the standpoint of ruling them, but the dirty little secret is that Saudi Arabia has a substantial proportion of citizens who are not Arabian, and are considered by many to be second class citizens. These would be the guest workers from south and southeast Asia. Those who are not Muslim are stuck somewhat in the trap of dhimitude, and those who are have a different relationship to the state than the "native" citizens. Their status would tend to support your idea of Saudi Arabia as authoritarian in practice. They are Orwell's prols, after a fashion.

Iran is a far more pluralistic society, in terms of variations in demographic, cultural, and ethnic make up, which the structure of a republic takes into account. A Kurd can be as solid a citizen of Iran as any Persian, likewise an Azeri.

Insofar as the societal structure, the Saud family is more like a "divine right of kings" style of ruler, family wise, whereas the leading Mullah's (Khameni at the moment) are a "divine right of the Imam club" style of ruler, wisdom/peer/maneuvering approval wise.

The difference is perhaps not profound enough to impact on your general idea.

The use of the Sharia as a legal code is not in an of itself evidence of totalitarianism, but its elements are a problem for a society in terms of equal protection under the law. That is a relatively recent idea, in implementation, and one I heartily agree with. If you operate under the assumption of equal protection under the law for all citizens, universal suffrage, and equality of legal status of all citizens, the Sharia is a defunct model.

Iran's leaders would like to have the control of a totalitarian regime: that is the model that the Ayatollah Khomeni and his compatriots had in mind as a design for an Islamic Republic. The reality is that Iran exists in the real world, and owing to geography and commerce, is unable to filter out "impure" influences from the rest of the world. This leads, of course, to the problem of "the big lie" and cognative dissonence for the citizens of Iran, problems that the citizens of the Soviet Union dealt with on a daily basis.

Of the two, I'd offer Saudi Arabia as a better example of a totalitarian system in practice, based on the close relationship between royal family and mosque, while the Islamic Republic itself corrupts a purer theocracy by inclusion of forms based on secular republics. The key difference in form is the matter of clan/tribe affiliation in Saudi Arabia, and the more varied affiliations in Iran.

One can argue that due to having elections, Iran cannot be a totalitarian state, whereas in Saudi Arabia, due to clan/tribal authority lines, Saudi Arabia can be. In theory, the Islamic Republic attempts to apply the totalitarian form that communist states tended to attempt, with the State as the final arbiter of all matters in life, but in practice, there are considerable imperfections against the ideal.

If Iran undertook to become a hermit kingdom, like North Korea or Burma, it might have more success in implementing a purer form of totalitarian blend of the Islamic society and the secular model.

DR

 

[Puppycow]

Thank you DR. I have time to read now, but not respond yet.

 

[plumjam]

Sure, why not?
After the fall of Communism there's a vacancy for the Boogeyman.

So let's start labeling Islam as a totalitarian ideology. Let's create a new term: "Islamo-Fascism", and bandy it about as though it isn't in fact nonsense.
Let's sagely pronounce on the "irrationality of middle eastern politics".
Let's liken anyone questioning the wisdom of unprovoked war against Muslim nations to Neville Chamberlain when appeasing Hitler.
Let's demonise. Let's propagandise our stupid apathetic populace.
Let's pretend we give a damn about Muslim women. (Remember all the wailing and gnashing of teeth before the invasion of Afghanistan about them having to wear Burqas?.. Well there they are again, back in their burqas.. only now they have to worry about being bombed too.)
Let's start a "public debate" about whether Muslim women in western societies should be allowed to wear the hijab. Let's try to argue that they can't communicate properly with their faces covered. Let's "protect" Muslim women by trying to prevent them working as teachers while wearing the veil.
Let's accuse them of not assimilating.
Let's install and prop up nasty and compliant dictators in Muslim nations so we can exploit their countries natural resources. Let's then criticise the Muslim world for not wanting democracy. Let's call them backward.

Folks, please listen. It's total bulls**t, and it's politically motivated.
And I'm sorry, but anyone who can't see through it all is an IDIOT

Rant over.

 

[Puppycow]

Plumjam: Rant noted.
I hope you are right that it isn't really any more than a bogeyman.
I wish I could have the same level of certainty as you, but the fact is that I can see both sides of the issue. I don't think it is as clear-cut as you claim.
Aren't you concerned that you might be seeing the situation through the lens of confirmation bias?

 

[Oliver]

Sure, why not?
After the fall of Communism there's a vacancy for the Boogeyman.

So let's start labeling Islam as a totalitarian ideology. Let's create a new term: "Islamo-Fascism", and bandy it about as though it isn't in fact nonsense.
Let's sagely pronounce on the "irrationality of middle eastern politics".
Let's liken anyone questioning the wisdom of unprovoked war against Muslim nations to Neville Chamberlain when appeasing Hitler.
Let's demonise. Let's propagandise our stupid apathetic populace.
Let's pretend we give a damn about Muslim women. (Remember all the wailing and gnashing of teeth before the invasion of Afghanistan about them having to wear Burqas?.. Well there they are again, back in their burqas.. only now they have to worry about being bombed too.)
Let's start a "public debate" about whether Muslim women in western societies should be allowed to wear the hijab. Let's try to argue that they can't communicate properly with their faces covered. Let's "protect" Muslim women by trying to prevent them working as teachers while wearing the veil.
Let's accuse them of not assimilating.
Let's install and prop up nasty and compliant dictators in Muslim nations so we can exploit their countries natural resources. Let's then criticise the Muslim world for not wanting democracy. Let's call them backward.

Folks, please listen. It's total bulls**t, and it's politically motivated.
And I'm sorry, but anyone who can't see through it all is an IDIOT

Rant over.

What rant? All of that is fact. And if you feel this way, call
my Avatar an Idiot to "release some steam".

I might add that not everyone who can't see through it all is
an IDIOT - you forgot about the Hypocrites. They are every-
where.

 

[plumjam]

Plumjam: Rant noted.
I hope you are right that it isn't really any more than a bogeyman.
I wish I could have the same level of certainty as you, but the fact is that I can see both sides of the issue. I don't think it is as clear-cut as you claim.
Aren't you concerned that you might be seeing the situation through the lens of confirmation bias?

Well yes, essentially it's a boogeyman (not sure if boogeyman has two o's or just one, being english )
Any system of religion/politics/ideology that encompasses over a billion people and 30-odd nations is going to have its problems, its peculiarities, and a fringe of fanatics.
throughout my lifetime (i'm 35), Islam was never much of a problem was it? didn't feature much on the news... bit of a problem in palestine/israel/lebanon.. iranian hostages... but not a lot to speak of.
then there are a few acts of terrorism against western interests and suddenly Islam is the new boogeyman to replace Communism.
It isn't that this might be the work of some fanatics biting the hand that fed it, no... goes the narrative. Now the problem is Islam itself. Here in the UK the reason for the 7/7 bombings wasn't (as the bombers stated) the invasion of Iraq. No, it was due to some internal problem in the British Muslim community. Blair and others put pressure on the British Muslim community to get its house in order.. the community leaders must 'reach out' to their disaffected youth. All the while no mention of Iraq.
Subsequently all kind of media stories about the veil, oppression of women in Islam, demonising of imams and political groups, questions about whether a multicultural society is a good idea or not, why aren't they assimilating, extension of periods of detention without charge to 28 days (they wanted 90 days) to detain members of we all know which community.. etc... it just goes on and on.

you might suspect it's confirmation bias on my part, but as i've said elsewhere it's kind of a meaningless tactic in debate, because I could equally accuse you or anyone else of it too... and like accusations of racism or being a witch it's impossible to disprove.

So no. I see this going on around me. It's propaganda, and I just hope people can see through it.

 

[plumjam]

What rant? All of that is fact. And if you feel this way, call
my Avatar an Idiot to "release some steam".

I might add that not everyone who can't see through it all is
an IDIOT - you forgot about the Hypocrites. They are every-
where.

thanks Oliver, Avatar duly called idiot
yeah, I forgot those pesky hypocrites.. even worse than the idiots

 

[bob_kark]

Islam is simply the vehicle with which to drive a Totalitarian Ideology. It's an old theme with a new-ish face. I think the Islamic Golden Age shows that Islam need not be an oppressive influence on its followers. However, when faced with a population that is kept misinformed, undereducated, and forced to inequality via a host of biases; racial, religious, sexual, and caste, Islam is ideal method to communicate a particular ideology. When it comes down to it, is there any message you can't communicate via religion if you're the one teaching it to your followers?

 

[corplinx]

Folks, please listen. It's total bulls**t, and it's politically motivated.

You found us out. We're all running for public office and trying to create boogeymen to give our voters something to fear.

You win the forum!

 

[Puppycow]

Islam is simply the vehicle with which to drive a Totalitarian Ideology. It's an old theme with a new-ish face. I think the Islamic Golden Age shows that Islam need not be an oppressive influence on its followers. However, when faced with a population that is kept misinformed, undereducated, and forced to inequality via a host of biases; racial, religious, sexual, and caste, Islam is ideal method to communicate a particular ideology. When it comes down to it, is there any message you can't communicate via religion if you're the one teaching it to your followers?

Good point.