Idea
This claim links the weakness of political life to the transformation of religion into an instrument in the hands of power. When free competition and public oversight are absent, religion is no longer left as an independent sphere for spiritual or moral expression; instead, it is invoked as a source of prestige and loyalty. At that point, talk about religion is no longer a search for meaning, but a means of persuading people that the ruler represents what they hold sacred.
Concise Formulation
Non-democratic political regimes nationalize religion and use it to secure legitimacy
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This statement appears at the heart of Arkoun’s critique of the relationship between power and religion in the modern Islamic context. He is not attacking religion itself; rather, he is showing how non-democratic regimes strip it of its independence when they place it in the service of political legitimacy. In this way, the claim becomes a bridge between a critique of authoritarianism and a critique of the use of religious symbols to consolidate rule.
Why It Matters
The importance of this claim becomes clear because it shows that the crisis of religion is inseparable from the crisis of politics. Understanding Arkoun here helps the reader see how the sacred is used to conceal the absence of freedom, and how faith is turned into an instrument of mobilization. Without this observation, it becomes difficult to understand why the book insists on a general critique of both power and religious discourse.
Brief Evidence
and uses it to channel religious sentiments in its favor and to seek legitimacy non-democratic political regimes nationalize religion and use it to channel religious sentiments
Reading Questions
- How does the absence of democracy change the way religion is present in the public sphere?
- What is the difference between religion as spiritual meaning and religion as an instrument of legitimacy?
Documentation Level
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.