I've given this a lot of thought. I would say that, in the United States, we inherited a legacy of law and order from our mother country, England. In Europe, the kings were considered to be placed in authority by God. Indeed many of them trace their lineages back to David and the royal lines of Israel. Under divine right, to oppose the king's authority was to oppose God, who placed the king there. Sedition was likewise a form of heresy or apostasy.
Christian churches taught Biblical teachings that instructed them to honor the king and to uphold the law as citizens of whatever empire they were subject to. The king was believed to be the servant of God.
The American model of government designed by the founders rejected the formation of a national or state Church. Christian principles informed the new nation's moral backbone. Respect for law and order was part and parcel of that legacy.
In Muslim nations, obedience to law has always been enforced by the sword. The people have no internal moral compass because compulsion and force are at the heart of any obedience rendered. Take away the sword, and there is no internal mechanism that encourages obedience.
Today, in the USA, the Christian influence is waning as society becomes more secular. Churches have abandoned preaching repentance and obedience in favor of potentially less offensive messages of self-esteem and prosperity. The end result is that modern American Christians don't fear God's judgment. Without fear of judgment, they can justify almost any behavior and expect that a confession of faith will save them from hellfire. Hence, you get the mass lawlessness of New Orleans after Katrina.
For a people to successfully govern themselves, they need an internal moral compass that accepts responsibility for the outcome and expects God's approbation or punishment for choices and actions. When a nation rejects God or worships a false one, the rule of law becomes dependent solely on the threat of ruthlessness and force. Genuinely free people derive liberty from their willing obedience to true principles.
If we were to compare New Orleans after Katrina and Baghdad after the fall of the Ba'ath regime, I would say that the Iraqis performed far more admirably. Post-Katrina, the parasites of New Orleans looted from shops and neighbors. When Baghdad fell, the people looted from the palaces of their former dictator. Most of the "looting" that we were ordered to get under control was the underclass stripping wires and other raw materials from buildings that we had already bombed. Incidents of citizens stealing from other citizens were not the norm.
In Katrina, parasites were stealing Air Jordan sneakers and swiping hotel appliances. Many far-sighted citizens in Baghdad went so far as to band together with what weapons they could gather and guard schools, hospitals, and intact government buildings against the minority of individuals who were looting. Most of the looting was done by well-organized pros. For example, bank robberies were done in the dead of night with expertly applied explosives.
I agree that a moral compass is necessary, but I do not think that the majority of Muslims lack a moral compass. Wahhabis and well-placed religious clerics of all stripes - that's another story.
"Churches have abandoned preaching repentance and obedience in favor of potentially less offensive messages of self-esteem and prosperity. The end result is that modern American Christians don't fear God's judgment. Without fear of judgment, they can justify almost any behavior and expect that a confession of faith will save them from hellfire. Hence, you get the mass lawlessness of New Orleans after Katrina."
I used to be very critical of the churches but the fact of the matter is that they cannot compete against free rent and cheap grace.