Our Islamic Brothers and Sisters

Though I really should be thinking more about the "labor/split the middle class into public workers versus private workers so that the wealthy can divide and conquer/end the right to unionize" battle going on in Wisconsin and Indiana and..., but another issue has been gnawing at me: the events in the Middle East and North Africa.

I'm sure you all know the details. Tunisia starting the ball rolling (maybe I should use "domino" here, what with its deep past as a meme of US foreign policy, e.g. Vietnam) in December after a street vendor (Khaled Saeed) burnt himself to death to protest corruption. Then Egypt, along with Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and a number of other countries. What strikes me as an interesting issue, especially for those of us who are religious in the West, is how little religious rhetoric has played in these overtly political and socio-economic revolutions. Yes, religious figures were/are involved. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood issued a call for Mubarak to resign and supported military intervention when the protests turned violent. The Imams from the Al-Azhar Mosque, a leading authority in the Sunni Islam world and the heart of the Sunni community in Egypt, joined the protests as well. Ironically, the Coptic Christian community in Egypt, because of tensions with Islam, asked Christians to stay away from the protests. (I also think it is interesting how the Copts were not really mentioned in any of the news reporting that I came across, even if they represent somewhere between 10-20% of the population. Of course, it is hard to generalize and prognosticate when you make Egypt out to be religiously diverse....)

These events are quite different from the Iranian revolution in which the Shi'a Ayatollah was the leading voice of protest against the Shah, a case that has informed much thinking about Middle Eastern revolution. But in the current mass of revolutions, unlike the Iranian revolution, religion has not been the leading voice for change in these countries. Rather, it is a broader, more amorphic desire amongst a wide variety of people for greater freedoms, greater economic opportunities and an attack upon the ingrained culture of corruption that supports many of these regimes. They also have used technology (esp. Facebook) as the means to coordinate and focus popular anger at the unjust policies of a regime, most notably the lack of freedoms and the authority of a secret police, rather than mosques.

Part of the reason, at least in my view, is that like Christianity, Islam does not have one simple idea of a "true" Islamic state (much to the chagrin I suppose on both counts to Evangelical Christians who think Islam and Christianity both promote theocracies). The Qu'ran itself does not specify a certain form of political state, instead talking about pursuing justice through social cooperation, institutionalizing compassion in social interactions and a nonautocratic method of governance (according to Khaled Abou El Fadl in Islam and the Challenge of Democracy). He also argues that the idea of having an Islamic Caliph, which deliciously delusional Glenn Beck argues was the real point behind the Egyptian uprising, was debated and contested as Islamic reasoning developed, largely over what degree the Caliph was responsible to his people. This view suggests that there are a diversity of opinions about the connection between being a good Muslim and being a good Egyptian or Libyan. And these diverse populations are largely united then by socio-economic and political concerns rather than by one theology or Islamic doctrine or charismatic religious figure.
 
Maybe a helpful further point is for Christians to compare Christian views of faith and citizenship with Islamic ones. Even when overly-simplified, Islam, Christianity and the political have some similarity in the tension and ambiguity they have regarding the proper connection between being a believer and being a good citizen. If anything, Christianity might have less ambiguity, especially if you subscribe to the primacy of the Bible as a political text. In Samuel, God, somewhat reluctantly, agrees to allow for the creation of an anointed (the Hebrew here is Messiah) king. In Romans, Paul tells the Romans that they should obey the ruling authorities as they are ordained by God, thereby suggesting that the Roman Caesar has authority from God. Using Paul in particular, theologians like Luther see government primarily as the means to ensure peace in order to protect the church and its sacramental mission. Catholic thought gives the authority to a variety of political forms as long as these adhere to God's eternal law that directly connects the political with God. So within a diversity of Christian views, there is no one form of nation-state, no one divinely inscribed way to set up the political. And as a result, there is no one way to think about one's duties as a citizen in relationship to one's duties to God,

So how might we who call ourselves Christians see the revolutions in the Middle East? For one, we should recognize these events as full of tensions that are not reducible to simple answers. For example, what will the role of Islam be in a country like Egypt? Well, a similar question we could ask ourselves: What role will Christianity be in a country like the US? Granted, the US is a nation that adheres to the rule of law much more strongly than in a country like Egypt (i.e. corruption). But the point is that these countries, because of media and globalization and their own diversity are beginning a process of reflection and action about what type of political state they want to be. We in the US are further down such a road, yet we are still debating the role of faith in politics. We should hope that they are also able to find ways to do so in a manner that is open, fair and equal for all (which arguably we are losing in states like Wisconsin).

Having spent time in Egypt, Turkey and Morocco, in my experience (obviously limited), these regions are (mostly) full of people concerned with things like having good jobs, keeping their family safe and wondering about being faithful to their God and wanting a more just country. Yes, just like in this country, there will be zealots focused on using the instability to re-focus a nation on holiness and being more like God. But the vast majority are more interested in universal features of human life: relationships, safety, health, opportunity, hope, an end to fear. This brings up a second point: that religion may very well unite many in these countries by providing an ethical worldview that helps people understand these universal concerns. The revolutions are then not about theocracy or the attempt to re-invigorate Islam or create a "jihadist" state (itself a debated term), but attempts to secure such Maslowian actualization, and live a life made meaningful because of its connection to Allah.

And for this reality, we can support our Islamic Brothers and Sisters. May they find just and compassionate ways to live the tension between submitting to Allah and to the political. May they see and hear and read about our support in ways that emboldens constructive dialogue about just and compassionate political solutions for all. May they find ways to create a world that opens up each person to the possibility of developing their capabilities as a child of God.