By
Rudy Barnes, Jr.
The
power of freedom over fear was a major theme in President Obama’s address to
the nation on December 5. He said:
“Let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let’s not forget that freedom is more
powerful than fear.” The problem is that
U.S. foreign policy does not reflect the priority of freedom. In Egypt the U.S. is providing $1.3 billion
in annual military aid to an authoritarian regime that uses apostasy and
blasphemy laws to stifle opposition. As
a result the U.S. has little credibility advocating freedom in a region where allies
like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan deny freedom with apostasy and blasphemy
laws.
Apostasy
and blasphemy laws are an integral part of ancient Islamic law known as
shari’a. While most Muslims in
libertarian democracies embrace the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech,
in Islamic cultures the authoritarian laws of shari’a remain the lifeblood of
fundamentalist Islam and are the ideals of Islamist terrorists. If and when most Muslims worldwide reject
apostasy and blasphemy laws and embrace the freedoms of religion and speech,
then radical Islamism will lose its legitimacy and Islamist terrorism will likely
wither and die. Promoting those freedoms
should be a primary objective of U.S. national security strategy.
The
President is right to condemn those who claim that we are at war with
Islam. Moderate Muslims are our most
important ally against Islamist terrorism, since they are in the vanguard of
the battle to define shari’a and Islamic standards of legitimacy. It is a battle between the authoritarian laws
of shari’a and the libertarian values of democracy, human rights and the
secular rule of law. Islamist terrorism
cannot survive in a political environment of libertarian values. While we must defend ourselves and others
against the violence of radical Islamist terrorism, we must also support
moderate Muslims and avoid religious polarization.
What
kind of strategy does this require?
First, we must support moderate Muslims in their battle of legitimacy with
Islamists for the heart and soul of Islam.
Second, we must fight radical Islamist terrorism where it festers and
grows overseas as well as here at home.
In the process we cannot let fear overcome our freedom; but unprincipled
politicians like Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz have tried to capitalize on
public fears by advocating that Muslims not be allowed to enter the U.S.
(Trump), and carpet bombing be carried out in territory held by ISIS
(Cruz)—measures calculated to inflame fears and cause further religious
polarization.
More
security measures will be required to protect against domestic terrorism, but if
they restrict our fundamental freedoms then ISIS can claim a victory of fear
over freedom. ISIS seeks to create a
theocratic state, or caliphate, in which the harsh laws of shari’a—including
apostasy and blasphemy laws—are brutally enforced to produce moral purity
through the fear of punishment. By way
of contrast, immorality is inevitable in libertarian democracies where morality
is governed by the voluntary standards of legitimacy promoted by religion, not
by coercive laws which remain the exclusive province of the state through democratic
processes.
The
teachings of Moses and Muhammad emphasized obedience to God’s law and the fear
of God’s wrath for disobedience. Jesus
emphasized love over law as
summarized in the greatest commandment
to love God and neighbor. For Jesus,
there was no fear in the love of God (see 1 John 4:16-21), while Moses and
Muhammad relied on the fear of God’s judgment to motivate obedience to religious
laws. The emphasis on freedom over
coercive religious law began with the Enlightenment, and at the outset of World
War II President Roosevelt said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Islamism has yet to accept that credo of
libertarian democracy and continues to emphasize the fear of God’s judgment
over the liberating power of God’s love.
The
future of Islam depends upon how it relates shari’a to freedom—whether it is considered
a voluntary code of moral standards for believers, or coercive laws to be
imposed on all. Islamism promotes the
latter view and uses the fear of punishment, both in this and the next life, to
subordinate individual freedom to God’s immutable laws. By way of contrast, religions in libertarian
democracies have embraced libertarian democracy and human rights as matters of
faith as well as law. If and when most
Muslims do the same, then Islam will deny legitimacy to Islamist terrorists and
religious reconciliation and peace will be possible—but not until then.
Notes
and References to Resources:
Previous blogs on related topics
are: 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; Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15,
2015; Religion and Human Rights,
February 22, 2015; A Fundamental Problem
with Religion, May 3, 2015; Religion,
Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015; Fear
and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom
and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Legitimacy
as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; A Containment Strategy to Defeat Islamist
Terrorism, November 1, 2015; Tough
Love and the Duty to Protect, November 8, 2015; and Faith, Hope and Love in a World of Fear, Suspicion and Hate,
December 5, 2015.
For the highpoints of President
Obama’s Oval Office speech on freedom
over fear, see
On how the repression of human
rights in Egypt aids Islamist terrorism, see
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/egypts-state-of-repression/2015/12/03/6fbf98dc-991c-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.
On the danger of ISIS polarizing
Muslims from those of other religious beliefs, see Fareed Zakaria at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-am-a-muslim-but-trumps-views-appall-me-because-i-am-an-american/2015/12/10/fcba9ea6-9f6d-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.
On the need for Muslims to deny
legitimacy to Islamists and ISIS, see Thomas L. Friedman at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/opinion/you-aint-no-american-bro.html?emc=eta1&_r=0.
In How Anti-Blasphemy Laws Engender Terrorism (Harvard Law Review, May 2015), Amjad Mahmood Khan has described how blasphemy laws in Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria support radical Islamist terrorism. See http://www.harvardilj.org/.../Antiblasphemy-Laws_0608.pdf.
In How Anti-Blasphemy Laws Engender Terrorism (Harvard Law Review, May 2015), Amjad Mahmood Khan has described how blasphemy laws in Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria support radical Islamist terrorism. See http://www.harvardilj.org/.../Antiblasphemy-Laws_0608.pdf.
On how Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has actually
helped clarify issues on religion and freedom, see http://www.thestate.com/opinion/op-ed/article48855990.html.
On the ISIS objective to create
an authoritarian theocracy (calipahte) based on shari’a and fear, see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/07/leaked-isis-document-reveals-plan-building-state-syria; also http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/1207/Understanding-ISIS-Leaked-document-reveals-nation-building-plans.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete