Thursday, July 14, 2005
Does Islam Need a Pope?
One of the more interesting divides that appears to have surfaced is between the Khomeinist ideology which unifies islam and governance into theocracy and the Sistani "quietist" ideology which separates governance and politics from worship. The former philosophy is ultimately tyrannical, the latter pluralist.
Instinct suggests to me that the Sistani ideology would resonate among a majority (granted, a western perspective which could be dead wrong) and is consistent with notions of human freedom and democracy. But I think Islam needs a Sistani as Pope, who embraces the Public Square and the Pulpit.
While Wretchard and many others correctly argue that Islam and Middle Eastern Society and governance must reform from within, I have seen little to suggest a process by which this can happen. The Bully Pulpit, from which mass communication can take place, and the reins of power currently belong to tyrants, fascists and terrorists. The Silent, or Quietest, Majority (a bold, unproven leap, no question) has no Public Representative to speak on its behalf.
It's high time Sistani, or somebody like him, did that. Perhaps the new political leadership of Iraq should consider creating that role in Najaf. But it will take a charismatic exponent of a pluralistic philosophy to express himself to the entire Muslim community -- and see if the people follow. Practically speaking, it will also be a dangerous job, and require enormous security to protect that person from the extremists who reject pluralism.
4 Comments:
By 
Myrtus, at
Thu Jul 14, 11:23:00 AM:
"Instinct suggests to me that the Sistani ideology would resonate among a majority"
I personally don't think that would happen, because 1. Sistani is a Shiite and the majority of Muslims are Sunis. Shiites are mainly in the Middle East. They practice a list of "religious" customs that Sunis find unacceptable, self-mutilation is high on that list...I'm sure you've seen those bloody images once a year in the news, with people banging their heads with stones and slash themselve with whips till they bleed.
2. I personally think Sistani is biding his time. If the situation in Iraq were favorable right now for him to pursue his own personal political agenda you'd see a different Sistani altogether...he's already proven to be a powerful leader while maintaining the middle of the road amongst the chaos. He'll have have no problem gaining followers if the conflict in Iraq were to be resolved at this time, but I think his political pull will be limited to the Middle East.
I do agree with you, the Muslim world does need a leader to stand out to appeal to all Muslims, condemn terrorism and preach peace and understanding amongst all the people of the earth. The only two people I see capable filling that role are King Mohammed of Morocco and PM Abdullah of Malaysia. Both have already been pursuing that path to a certain extent, but you don't read about it much in western media.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Jul 14, 03:43:00 PM:
Thanks for your questions and comments. I am not on firm ground when talking about specific ideas as to who might be the right symbolic and vocal leader for a pluralistic and modern muslim leader. Sistani may be a terrible idea. But the global muslim community needs something around which to rally which can help them integrate into a pluralistic, free and modern world.
By Presley Bennett, at
Thu Jul 14, 11:53:00 PM:
I'm not sure Muslims need a Pope; most religions don't have one (all of the non-Catholic Christian faiths for example, at least I don't think any have a figure quite like the Pope). I think it's possible the fact that there are so many differing interpretations of Islam practiced by Muslims throughout the world also works in the non-Muslim world's favor, considering what might happen if they ALL rallied around the murderous form of Islam adopted by the terrorists (current Muslim population worldwide being 1.3 billion).
By cakreiz, at
Sun Jul 17, 06:29:00 AM:
"... I have seen little to suggest a process by which this can happen."
This is so true. From the outside peering in, I see nothing suggesting that Islam will reform or self-examine. Regarding terrorism as a political tool, Islamic reaction seems to be "yes [it's bad] but ..." Usually the "but" is followed by a Palestinian or Iraqi reference, thereby excusing the need to condemn Islamic terror. While Islam seems to have many divergent parts, there's monolithic tacit support of terrorism.
