The concept of legitimacy provides both a context for understanding religious conflict and a paradigm to resolve it. Religions provide standards of legitimacy—what is right and wrong—and conflicting standards of legitimacy are the primary cause of religious conflict.
Legitimacy includes both voluntary moral standards and the obligatory standards of law. Progressive believers reject religious law in favor of secular law and accept advances in knowledge and reason in shaping their moral standards, while fundamentalists reject any challenge to the truth of their ancient scriptural doctrines and laws. That contentious conflict must be resolved in order to find lasting peace in a world of increasing religiosity.
There is little religious conflict when religious standards of legitimacy are considered voluntary moral standards and not coercive laws, but apostasy and blasphemy laws are criminal offenses under both Jewish Mosaic Law and Islamic Law (shari’a). Those coercive religious laws suppress the freedoms of religion and speech that are first among the fundamental freedoms of libertarian democracy.
The freedoms of religion and speech have been accepted as matters of faith as well as law by religions in libertarian democracies, even though they are not mentioned in the ancient scriptures. Those freedoms provide religious tolerance, which is the reason why religious fundamentalists are a minority in libertarian democracies; but fundamentalists are a majority in Islamic nations where apostasy and blasphemy laws foster religious conflict and violence.
Religious conflict and violence would decrease in Islamic cultures if shari’a were considered a voluntary code of moral standards rather than enforced as a code of laws; and if the freedoms of religion and speech were human rights, militant Islamist fundamentalists like ISIS would be denied their legitimacy since it depends upon apostasy and blasphemy laws. Justice and law and order require more than criminal laws that protect against violence; they also require human rights that protect individuals from the oppressive powers of government.
Devout Christians and Muslims believe the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on law and morality are the word of God and the heart of legitimacy. Jesus taught principles based on love over law and the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor—even one’s unbelieving neighbors—that were echoed by Muhammad before he became a political leader and warrior. The teachings of Muhammad, like those of Moses, included laws that may have been appropriate for their ancient time and place but that are not appropriate for our time and place.
The teachings of Jesus were universal and timeless moral standards that were consistent with the teachings of other Jewish patriarchs and prophets, and even Muhammad—until he assumed political and military power. In ancient times the legitimacy of those powers depended upon the divine right to rule and divine law. But if Moses and Muhammad exercised worldly power today they would likely be more like other progressive modern leaders than religious fundamentalists, and accept advances in knowledge, reason and libertarian values as improvements in standards of legitimacy that are consistent with the greatest commandment.
Religious fundamentalism is based on the false assumption that the ancient scriptures are the last word of God for humankind. God’s standards of legitimacy are not frozen in ancient and immutable scriptures, but accept advances in knowledge, reason and the libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law so long as they comport with the moral imperative to love others. God has never favored any one religion over others. All religions have been a source of good and evil. The final accounting must be left to God’s judgment.
God has given humanity the free will to determine its own fate, for good or bad. Even though political freedom is not mentioned in the ancient scriptures, it is like the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It allows humankind to determine its own destiny, either to liberate the oppressed or to allow the powerful to oppress the vulnerable. The challenge for people of faith in libertarian democracies today is to learn how to balance individual freedom with providing for the common good, and to promote freedom as a means to liberate the oppressed.
How can ISIS attract young Muslims from libertarian democracies with its distorted ideals? Ebrahim Moosa is an Islamic scholar who has described ISIS as a toxic version of political Islam on steroids, but has acknowledged that …today Islamic orthodoxy is in serious need of a makeover. Mainstream theologians…are unable to address…the meaning of sharia in a modern nation…because theological education is steeped in ancient texts with little attention to reinterpretation. The ISIS ideal of a caliphate that imposes religious laws that are hideously illegitimate will ultimately fail, but not without causing more violence and suffering.
The majority of Muslims, not ISIS, will determine the future of Islam; and when Muslims interpret shari’a in the light of advances in knowledge and reason, then Islam will become compatible with democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law. The concept of legitimacy provides both a context and paradigm to do that by establishing the primacy of love over law; and it is expressed in the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Like Judaism and Christianity before it, Islam will over time evolve into a religion that accepts the freedoms of religion and speech as a matter of faith and law, and will embrace those libertarian values and standards of legitimacy that are essential to world peace.
Notes and References to Resources:
Previous blogs on related topics
are: Religion and Reason, December 8,
2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15,
2014; The Greatest Commandment,
January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A
Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word
of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Religion as a Source of Good and Evil, February
1, 2015; Religion and Human Rights,
February 22, 2015; God and Country:
Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law,
April 12, 2015; A Fundamental Problem
with Religion, May 3, 2015; De Oppresso
Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2,
2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and
Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015.
The Introduction to TheTeachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy
explains how the concept of legitimacy is related to the teachings of Jesus and
Muhammad, with an emphasis on love over
law and the greatest commandment
as a common word of faith for Jews,
Christians and Muslims alike (see pages 10-15, 25-30 and 31-38).
Roger Cohen has asked: How does ISIS attract young Muslims from
libertarian democracies? (See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/opinion/roger-cohen-why-isis-trumps-freedom.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0.). Ebrahim Moosa is an Islamic scholar who has joined
Cohen in responding to that question: How
could this have happened? Islamic orthodoxy, which controls mosques and
institutions worldwide, is out of step with the world in which the majority of
Muslims live. In few places is orthodox Islam independent of the state; it is
often a political tool used by authoritarian regimes, which explains why the
Muslim intelligentsia does not respect it. Its hallmark is archaism in theology
and ethics, and its reach covers most of the global community of faith. Once a
robust intellectual tradition, today Islamic orthodoxy is in serious need of a
makeover. Mainstream theologians who cater to the majority of lay Muslims, both
Sunni and Shiite, are unable to address such critical moral and theological
challenges as evolution, gender and sexuality, or the role and meaning of
sharia in a modern nation. That’s because theological education is steeped in
ancient texts with little attention to reinterpretation. Moosa says, …thankfully, some orthodox elements are prepared to rethink issues. Sadly, they are a minority. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-madrassa-classmate-hated-politics-then-joined-the-islamic-state/2015/08/21/b8ebe826-4769-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_popns.)
I am dissecting the latest blog and have a few quarrels with some of the passages. Although I am not trying to be contrarian, I simply do not fully accept some of the claims made in the J&M Topic #39 posted as of 08.23.15. To begin, I take issue with the following passage:
ReplyDeleteReligious conflict and violence would decrease in Islamic cultures if shari’a were considered a voluntary code of moral standards rather than enforced as a code of laws; and if the freedoms of religion and speech were human rights, militant Islamist fundamentalists like ISIS would be denied their legitimacy since it depends upon apostasy and blasphemy laws.
As odd as it may seem, there may be instances of a majority of fundamentalist believers within a Muslim society that support the application of shari'a law as the actual code of law rather than simply as a moral code voluntarily accepted. These fundamentalist believers may support violence as a means to an end not so much to enforce shari'a but to achieve independence from an oppressive external force. While violence and conflict between different groups of people may be cloaked in religion, religion may simply be a frontispiece rather than the actual cause. Admittedly, my argument here is mostly conjecture; I am thinking of pre-revolutionary (1979) Iran. Was the Iranian Revolution as much about religious freedom as it was an overthrow of an imperialist-sponsored authoritarian regime?
Copied below is another excerpt of material from which I find reason to quibble:
The teachings of Jesus were universal and timeless moral standards that were consistent with the teachings of other Jewish patriarchs and prophets, and even Muhammad—until he assumed political and military power. In ancient times the legitimacy of those powers depended upon the divine right to rule and divine law. But if Moses and Muhammad exercised worldly power today they would likely be more like other progressive modern leaders than religious fundamentalists, and accept advances in knowledge, reason and libertarian values as improvements in standards of legitimacy that are consistent with the greatest commandment.
I am not convinced that a Moses or a Muhammad, if alive and in possession of super or worldly power in the twenty-first century, would be more likely to embrace progressive libertarian ideals of freedom of speech and religion. What forces at large in our post-industrial, highly integrated and technologically infiltrated world would necessarily tilt a leader of a nation to embrace freedom of religion and/or speech especially if those freedoms are perceived by the Moses or Muhammad to be harbingers of the elimination of the ruler's power base? Who is to say that Hugo Chavez was not a Jesus or Moses or Muhammad to the hoi polloi of Venezuela? His party opposed neoliberalism and engaged in some of the same freedom-limiting activities as his comrades in Cuba. The whole concept of libertarian democracy is fraught with tension: bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/01/the-uneasy-marriage-of-liberty-and-democracy/
My last query and associated excerpt is copied below.
How can ISIS attract young Muslims from libertarian democracies with its distorted ideals?
I want to believe in the notion of "legitimacy" as a workable prism in which to examine religious conflict, separating and distilling facts, perceptions, and beliefs into a universal truth, a truth that continues to elude us. I would like to believe that the United States serves as a worldwide model of a liberal democracy. Further, I hope that the religious freedoms conferred to Americans are not taken for granted. However, given that most US citizens enjoy comparatively unfettered freedoms of religion and speech how is it remotely possible that ISIS can and does attract Americans to its cause? Is it simply because in the universe of possibilities there are always anomalies and outliers? Or, is the alternative of ISIS so much more compelling than all of the contradictions embodied in what the United States has become?
Thanks for your comments, Tracie. Your points are well taken.
ReplyDeleteOn the first point, you question my assertion that the freedoms of religion and speech could prevent the violent sectarian conflict now plaguing the Middle East and Africa. My assertion is based on the experience of religious pluralism in Western libertarian democracies, and the Islamic cultures in question are not so pluralistic and the people don’t seem to value individual freedom as much as those in Western cultures. Even so, where people can choose their own religion and discuss it critically it seems self-evident that there will be less religious conflict than where those in power can promote their religious preferences and punish unbelievers. The Puritans came to colonial America seeking the freedom of religion and promptly denied it to those who chose to live among them, but the Bill of Rights corrected that injustice and insured that the Puritan theocracy in America was relatively short-lived.
Remember that human rights, beginning with the freedom of religion and speech, protect individuals from government oppression. Criminal laws are essential to protect individuals from the violence of others. Both are needed to provide law and order and the essentials of justice.
My belief that Moses and Muhammad would embrace democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law if they were living today is based on the assumption that they were good (and Godly) leaders who were primarily concerned with the protection and welfare of their people, not promoting their own power. The circumstances of their ancient time and place justified their ancient laws and punishments, just as modern circumstances justify the libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law as essential components of justice.
Since Jesus never sought nor held political power, he did not have the problems of Moses and Muhammad that required both divine law and the divine right to rule.
Of course, if Moses and/or Muhammad were like most of those seeking political power today—especially those seeking that power in the name of God—they would not be expected to promote libertarian values and justice. On the positive side, there have been modern leaders at all levels who have exemplified the concepts of love over law and the greatest commandment in a modern context of politics, although we might disagree over their objectives and methods.
Legitimacy is just another term for our concepts of right and wrong. It includes both voluntary moral standards and the coercive standards of law, and making that distinction can resolve religious conflict. So long as religious rules/laws are voluntary moral standards rather than coercive laws and the freedoms of religion and speech are protected, there will be minimum religious conflict, and enforcing basic criminal laws should be sufficient to protect one’s person and property from religious extremists.
I hope the above addresses your points, although I must defer to the commentary of Roger Cohen and Ebrahim Moosa on the lure of young people from Western democracies to the distorted idealism of ISIS.