The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves has been recognized as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  Last week we asked, Who is my neighbor?  This week we ask: How do we love our neighbors as ourselves? And specifically, how does that moral imperative of our faith relate to our politics?

            Sheikh Ali Gomaa is a former grand mufti of Egypt who was a proponent of a common word and who is now an influential cleric at Al Azhar University.  He has condemned those protesting Egypt’s state of repression under President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi as “putrid people” and riffraff” and praised police and military leaders, saying “The angels are supporting you from heaven.”  That kind of politics doesn’t reflect how we love God and our neighbors as ourselves.

            This past week Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty University, a self-proclaimed “Christian” school, endorsed Donald Trump as the GOP nominee for President and said of Trump, “In my opinion, Donald Trump lives a life of loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the great commandment.”  If that’s the way Falwell and “Christian” evangelicals understand the greatest commandment, then their hypocrisy is even worse than that of Sheikh Gomaa and other Islamist scholars who offered the greatest commandment as a common word of faith.

            Trump’s outlandish and self-centered lifestyle and his arrogant, xenophobic and mean-spirited campaign represent the antithesis of loving God and our neighbors as ourselves—at least according to the teachings of Jesus.  That’s a no-brainer for anyone who has read the Gospel accounts, but it appears that the “Christian” evangelicals who support Trump don’t put much stock in the teachings of Jesus.  They follow instead the distorted doctrines of evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell, Jr. and his deceased father, who founded the “Moral Majority.”

            At the other end of the political spectrum on religion and politics in the U.S. are those obsessed with avoiding Islamophobia.  Their efforts to avoid any criticism of Islam are in stark contrast with politicians like Trump and Senator Ted Cruz—and their fellow-travelling right-wing evangelicals—who purposely foment Islamophobia to promote their political aspirations.           

           

            Islamophobia has been defined as “…a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social, and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve “civilizational rehab” of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise).  Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.”

            To characterize Islam as a religion of hate and violence is an example of Islamophobia, but it is not Islamophobic to oppose radical Islamism.  Like Christian fundamentalists, Islamists are exclusivists who believe that their religion is the one true faith and that God condemns all unbelievers to eternal damnation.  Such religious exclusivism contradicts the moral imperative to love our unbelieving neighbors as ourselves and encourages religious hate and violence.

            Advocates against Islamophobia have emphasized avoiding “…combative language (i.e. attack, battle, battleground, fight, etc.)”  and using “…the word ‘harmlessness’—a positive word to express the consciousness behind this initiative—connoting a recognition of the oneness or interrelatedness of all life and an unwillingness to harm even perceived enemies.”  Karen Armstrong has described the history of fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam as a Battle For God.   Radical Islamism is a fundamentalist form of Islam that motivates Islamist terrorism, so that to discourage criticism of Islamism as Islamophobia plays into the hands of Islamist terrorists.

            Both Islam and Christianity are diverse religions with fundamentalist believers who deserve criticism for how they mix their religion and politics.  The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves—especially our unbelieving neighbors—is the best test for the politics of Jews, Christians and Muslims.  It requires countering Islamist terrorism with force while supporting progressive Muslims who are seeking to undermine radical Islamism with libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law; and that requires criticizing fundamentalist religions, including Islamism, while avoiding Islamophobia.            

    

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; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today?, January 25, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 21, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015; The Muslim Stranger: A Good Neighbor or a Threat?, October 25, 2015; Faith, Hope and Love in a World of Fear, Suspicion and Hate, December 5, 2015; and Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016.

On Sheikh Ali Gomaa’s praise for President al-Sissi’s oppressive policies in Egypt.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/world/middleeast/egypt-abdel-fattah-el-sisi-islam.html.

On how U.S. support for al-Sissi’s repressive regime has undermined democracy, legitimacy and the ultimate stability of Egyptian politics, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-rescue-egypt/2016/01/28/183fc432-c3a7-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions. 

See also, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/5-years-after-a-revolution-egypts-regime-is-far-from-restoring-democracy/2016/01/25/cb18a75e-c389-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

On Jerry Falwell’s praise for Donald Trump as exemplifying the greatest commandment, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/26/evangelical-leader-jerry-falwell-jr-endorses-trump/?tid=a_inl. 

On The gospel according to Donald Trump, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gospel-according-to-trump/2016/01/19/b63977b4-bef7-11e5-83d4-42e3bceea902_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

On What Is Islamophobia?, see http://theinterfaithobserver.org/journal-articles/2016/1/13/what-is-islamophobia.html.

John Esposito has been an advocate for libertarian values in Islam and linked U.S. politicians like Trump to Islamophobia; and Esposito has asked, Why have we normalized Islamophobia? See http://blog.oup.com/2015/12/oiso-islamophobia/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=oupblog.

Who Is My Neighbor?

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr., January 23, 2016

            The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves has been recognized as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  But it begs the question: Who is my neighbor?      

           

            A Jew posed that question to Jesus, and in Luke’s account of the greatest commandment Jesus answered it with the parable of the good Samaritan.  In that story it was an apostate Samaritan—and Samaritans were hated by the Jews—who was a good neighbor to a wounded Jew since he showed mercy on him. (Luke 10:25-37)  If Jews, Christians and Muslims were to follow this example and be good neighbors to apostate unbelievers, then religious suspicion, bigotry, hatred and violence could be resolved with religious reconciliation and peace.

            Easier said than done; but there is hope along with skepticism.  In 2007 a distinguished group of Islamic scholars embraced the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Muslims as well as Jews and Christians.  Most of those scholars are from Islamic nations that have retained shari’a as a sacred rule of law, and it precludes libertarian human rights, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech.  Many of those scholars are from Egypt which is considered the bellwether of Sunni religious doctrine.  It is where President (and former Army General) Abdel Fatah al-Sissi has turned to religion to bolster his authority.

            President al-Sissi has orchestrated a state of repression in Egypt by arresting and jailing those critical of his regime.  Like other Islamic leaders, Sissi has used shari’a with its apostasy and blasphemy laws to repress the freedoms of religion and speech.  Sheikh Ali Gomaa is a former Grand Mufti of Egypt who is now a senior cleric at Al Azhar University, “the 1,000 year old bastion of Sunni Muslim scholarship in Cairo.”  Gomaa is a principle sponsor of a common word with its mandate to love God and neighbor, but he has supported the repressive policies of President Sissi and defended the legitimacy of sharia’s apostasy and blasphemy laws. 

            Sheikh Gomaa is not alone.  Few, if any, of the Islamic scholars who were sponsors of a common word have questioned provisions in the Qur’an that condemn unbelievers (e.g. 2:23, 2:24, 2:39, 2:126, 2:257, 3:10, 3:12,4:161, 5:17, 5:72-5:75, 9:30, 30:15, 30:16, 47:8); nor have they advocated repeal of apostasy and blasphemy laws.  Such religious laws deny the freedoms of religion and speech and foster religious hatred and violence in a world of increasing religious diversity.  It is not enough for Christians, Jews and Muslims to love like-minded believers.  They must also love unbelievers, and that requires abolishing apostasy and blasphemy laws and supporting the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech.

 

            There is no separation of religion and politics in Islam.  The Islamic scholars who sponsored a common word are as influential in politics as they are in religion.  For there to be any credibility in their assertion that Islam embraces the love of one’s unbelieving neighbors, Muslim leaders must challenge provisions of the Qur’an that condemn unbelievers, seek to abolish apostasy and blasphemy laws and promote the freedoms of religion and speech.  There is reason to be skeptical of that happening anytime soon.

            Judaism, like Islam, began with an emphasis on the obedience to sacred law; but unlike Islam and like Christianity, Judaism evolved into a diverse religion compatible with libertarian democracy and human rights.  Judaism and Christianity were transformed by the advances in knowledge and reason of the Enlightenment and they conformed their religious doctrines to the libertarian principles of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  That required recognizing the secular rule of law and making their sacred standards of legitimacy (laws that defined what was right and wrong) voluntary moral standards of faith rather than coercive laws.

            Fundamentalist Jews and Christians, like their Islamist counterparts, continue to believe their holy books are the inerrant and infallible word of God, and that their religion is the one true faith and that all unbelievers are condemned.  Such intolerant beliefs foster religious hatred and violence.  If and when believers embrace the greatest command to love their unbelieving neighbors as themselves and do not seek to impose their religious standards of legitimacy and law on others, they will open the door to religious reconciliation and peace.  That is the hope.  

         

Notes and References to Resources:          

Previous blogs on related topics are: Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion and New Beginnings, Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, January 4, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Promoting Religion Through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness?, February 8, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today?, January 25, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 21, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Legitimacy as a Catalyst and a Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015; The Muslim Stranger: A Good Neighbor or a Threat?, October 25, 2015; and Faith, Hope and Love in a World of Fear, Suspicion and Hate, December 5, 2015.

     

The greatest commandment is derived from two commands in the Hebrew Bible, the first being the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 and the second is from Leviticus 19:18.  It is also found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke; and the Apostle Paul affirmed that “…love is the fulfillment of the [Jewish] law” in Romans 13:10.

Those provisions of the Qur’an referenced above that condemn unbelievers can be found in the Appendices to The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, at pp 470-485.  It is a study guide posted in the Resources of this website.

The editorial Board of the Washington Post has condemned Egypt’s state of repression.  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.

Declan Walsh has commented on Egypt’s President Turns to Religion to Bolster His Authority in the New York Times and Sheikh Ali Gomaa’s support of the President’s oppressive policies.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/world/middleeast/egypt-abdel-fattah-el-sisi-islam.html.

Religion, Politics and Public Expectations

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr., January 16, 2016

            Public expectations drive politics, and those expectations are shaped by religious beliefs.  Today many middle-class white Americans feel insecure and threatened by events beyond their control, and their fear and anger has produced the likes of Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz whose campaigns have stoked public fears into anger, hate and hysteria.

    

            It is ironic that many of those supporting Trump and Cruz claim to be Christians, but that should be no surprise given the populist rhetoric of Christian evangelists who ignore the teachings of Jesus and pander to public expectations.  After all, the worldly power of religion has always been based on its popularity, and evangelical Christianity has produced some of history’s most notorious (and popular) religious charlatans, such as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. 

            In their competition for converts, exclusivist religions like Christianity and Islam appeal to public expectations—especially their fears—much like competing GOP campaigns.  That is reflected in the “hellfire and damnation” and “prosperity gospel” themes of fundamentalist Christianity, as well as the hateful rhetoric and terrorism of fundamentalist Islamists like those of ISIS and al-Qaeda.  It is typical of all religions that assert belief in their religion is the only means to salvation, and that all unbelievers are condemned by God to eternal damnation.  

            Fareed Zakaria has noted the connection between the insecurity, fear and anger of many white people in America and the popularity of Donald Trump.  Many middle-class whites feel their expectations for social, economic and political well-being are in jeopardy, and they have good reason to feel that way.  Many of them are fundamentalist evangelical Christians who consider themselves God’s chosen people living in the new Promise Land, and they feel threatened by immigrants—especially Muslims—who represent a threat to their political dominance in American politics.

            This paranoid view of the future is motivated by divisive religious and political beliefs that favor the faithful and condemn all others.  Both fundamentalist Christians and Muslims (known as Islamists) share the same salvation/condemnation dichotomy and the same insecurity and fear; and they expect God/Allah—and his chosen leaders—to save them from perdition and to destroy their enemies, with a little help from the faithful.  It is an apocalyptic scenario, and one that attracts demagogues who exploit religion and politics to promote their power, whether among fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. or Islamists in the Middle East and Africa.

            Zakaria cited Carolyn Rouse who suggested that blacks have done a better job of coping with pessimistic expectations than whites, relying on a different perspective of Christian faith.

 

Other groups might not expect that their income, standard of living and social status are destined to steadily improve. They don’t have the same confidence that if they work hard, they will surely get ahead.  She said that after hundreds of years of slavery, segregation and racism, blacks have developed ways to cope with disappointment and the unfairness of life: through family, art, protest speech and, above all, religion.

“You have been the veterans of creative suffering,” Martin Luther King Jr. told African Americans in his “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963: “Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.” Writing in 1960, King explained the issue in personal terms: “As my sufferings mounted I soon realized that there were two ways that I could respond to my situation: either to react with bitterness or seek to transform the suffering into a creative force. . . . So like the Apostle Paul I can now humbly yet proudly say, ‘I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.’ ” The Hispanic and immigrant experiences in the United States are different, of course. But again, few in these groups have believed that their place in society is assured. Minorities, by definition, are on the margins. They do not assume that the system is set up for them. They try hard and hope to succeed, but they do not expect it as the norm.

            Zakaria concluded:

The United States is going through a great power shift. Working-class whites don’t think of themselves as an elite group.  But, in a sense, they have been, certainly compared with blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and most immigrants.  They were central to America’s economy, its society, indeed its very identity.  They are not anymore.  Donald Trump has promised that he will change this and make them win again.  But he can’t.  No one can.  And deep down, they know it.

                  

            For good or for bad, religion will continue to shape public expectations and politics, both in libertarian democracies like the U.S. as well as in Islamic cultures.  It is incumbent upon Jews, Christians and Muslims to insure that the influence of their religions on future generations is for good rather than bad.  That requires that they put love over law and embrace the greatest commandment to love God and their neighbors as themselves—including their unbelieving neighbors—as a common word of faith.  If that happens, competing religions can be reconciled and demagogues like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz will lose their legitimacy with Christians—as will Islamist terrorists with Muslims—and the world will be a safer and better place.     

Notes and References to Resources:          

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Promoting Religion Through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness?, February 8, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today?, January 25, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 21, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, December 12, 2015; and Resettling Refugees: Multiculturalism or Assimilation?, December 26, 2015.

See Fareed Zakaria’s commentary on America’s self-destructive whites at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-self-destructive-whites/2015/12/31/5017f958-afdc-11e5-9ab0-884d1cc4b33e_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

In an ugly incident at a Trump rally in Rock Hill on January 8, 2016, a Muslim woman wearing a hijab was escorted out of Donald Trump's campaign event by police after she stood up in silent protest during Trump's speech.  See http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/donald-trump-muslim-woman-protesting-ejected/.

In his last State of the Union address on January 12, 2016, President Obama acknowledged the fear and anger contaminating the political process, and Governor Nikki Haley acknowledged that GOP contenders for Obama’s job, like Trump and Cruz, were contributing to the malaise.  See E. J. Dionne, Jr., Obama and Nikki Haley fight the GOP faithful’s fury, January 13, 2016, Washington Post at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-and-nikki-haley-fight-the-gop-faithfuls-fury/2016/01/13/dd601128-ba28-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.  See also, Kathleen Parker’s commentary on Governor Haley’s equanimity in a volatile political climate—her courageous attempt to counter the demagogues who are seeking to take over the Republican Party, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nikki-haleys-righteous-gamble/2016/01/15/3038fdfc-bbcc-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

The Four Freedoms, Faith and Human Rights

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            On January 6, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke of “four essential freedoms” in his annual State of the Union address.  They were the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear.  The freedom from want related to the economic deprivations of the Great Depression and the freedom from fear related to Hitler’s threat to Europe.  The freedoms of religion and speech were the timeless freedoms protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would later be made universal human rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

            The freedoms of religion and speech should be distinguished from the freedoms from want and fear.  The freedoms of religion and speech can be enforced as civil and human rights under domestic and international law, but the freedoms from want and fear are beyond the protection of law.  Most nations provide social welfare programs that address essential human needs (as distinguished from wants), but how those needs are defined by law must be left to each nation.  Even so, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) treats social welfare entitlements as international human rights.

            Providing economic assistance to the needy cannot be made an obligation of international law, but it is a requirement of economic justice and an obligation of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims according to their scriptures.  By way of contrast, those ancient scriptures say nothing about protecting the freedoms of religion and speech.  They did not become obligations of faith until after they were recognized as secular human rights following the Enlightenment; and even today the freedoms of religion and speech are not recognized as obligations of law or faith in many Islamic cultures. 

            There are similar distinctions in the priorities of FDR’s four freedoms in U.S. politics.  Republicans have traditionally favored individual rights, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech, often at the expense of social welfare programs, while Democrats have traditionally favored social welfare programs.  A healthy democratic government must balance the individual rights defined by the ICCPR with providing for the common good, which includes providing those social welfare “rights” defined by the ICESCR. 

            Islamic democracies like Turkey and Indonesia provide fundamental human rights and provide for the common good, but most other Islamic nations deny fundamental human rights.  That is because the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam subjects human rights to Islamic law (shari’a), which includes apostasy and blasphemy laws that prevent any freedom of religion or speech.  Many Islamic nations also deny women and non-Muslims equal protection of the law.

            In order to balance individual rights with providing for the common good, Islamic nations need to eliminate apostasy and blasphemy laws and provide other fundamental freedoms enumerated in the ICCPR that conflict with the mandates of shari’a.  Conversely, the U.S. needs to balance its emphasis on individual rights with collective obligations to provide for the common good, including those social welfare “rights” included in the ICESCR.

            Human rights must be distinguished from political aspirations like those in the ICESCR that defy a universal standard needed for enforcement.  If “rights” to economic and social welfare assistance cannot be enforced, it brings disrespect to the rule of law.  Using similar logic, religious standards of behavior should be voluntary and not imposed as coercive laws like those that make apostasy and blasphemy crimes and preclude the freedoms of religion or speech.

            The four freedoms of FDR, the moral obligations of faith, and the laws that define and protect human rights are closely related, but they must be distinguished if human rights are to be enforced by domestic and international law; and without law to enforce them, human rights are meaningless.  While the freedoms of religion and speech are enforceable as civil and human rights, the freedoms from fear and from want are beyond the purview of the law—but they are obligations of faith.  So long as people of faith live by the greatest commandment to love God and their neighbors as themselves, they will be free from want; and as long as they believe that God is love and that there is no fear in love, they will be free of fear. (see I John 4:16-21).

Notes and References to Resources:          

Previous blogs on related topics are: Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Wealth, Politics Religion and Economic Justice, March 8, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; and The Power of Freedom over Fear, December 12, 2015.

On FDR’s four freedoms, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-freedoms-under-assault/2016/01/05/87ec12d4-b32d-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

On how religion shapes concepts of democracy, human rights and the rule of law and for a comparison of human rights under The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, and The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, see Religion Legitimacy and the Law at pages 7 and 8 and notes 13-20 in Resources at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-bW93ODlnNXpKc00/view;

Craig A. Stern has contrasted social and economic rights or entitlements such as those protected under the International Covenant of Social and Economic Rights (which Stern refers to as positive rights) with those fundamental freedoms such as those of religion and speech that are protected under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (which Stern refers to as negative rights), and concluded that treating positive rights as human rights undermines the rule of law.  See Craig A. Stern, Human Rights or the Rule of Law—The Choice for East Africa, March 6, 2015, SSRN, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2574823.

Amjad Mahmood Khan has written on How Anti-Blasphemy Laws Engender Terrorism.  See http://www.harvardilj.org/.../Antiblasphemy-Laws_0608.pdf.

God in Three Concepts

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Noah Feldman has asked:

            “Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

The debate is a throwback to the days when evangelical Protestants and Catholics were deeply at odds on a range of theological questions.  But the debate is also a major issue for Jewish-Christian relations.  If Christians and Muslims don’t worship the same God, then neither do Christians and Jews.

The fascinating philosophical-theological question…depends on what we mean by the word “same.”

            There are many similarities in the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, but also many differences.  The God of Moses (Yahweh) is a God of law and judgment that provides rewards and punishments to Jews based on obedience to Mosaic Law.  The Christian God is incarnated in Jesus who taught the primacy of love over law.  The God of Muhammad (Allah) is a God of law and judgment like that of Moses, but provides rewards and punishments in the next life—either eternal paradise for believers or eternal damnation for unbelievers.

           

            There are two flawed concepts of God that give rise to religious conflict and violence.  First, the concept of a God that condemns unbelievers; and second, of a God that seeks to impose certain standards of legitimacy (what is right and wrong) on all people as sacred law.  Both of these flawed concepts of God can be remedied by a common word of faith.  It is the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves—including neighbors of other faiths.

            Moses, Jesus and Muhammad each revealed God in their ancient language and vernacular, but since then advances in knowledge and reason have produced concepts of libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law that have debunked concepts of sacred law and of one true faith.  But fundamentalists have resisted any addition or change to their ancient scriptures, and radical Muslim fundamentalists known as Islamists have resorted to violence to enforce their ancient Islamic law, or shari’a.  These conflicting concepts of legitimacy must be reconciled for Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together in peace.

            To reconcile such conflicting concepts of legitimacy, all religious rules or laws should be considered voluntary moral standards rather than coercive laws, with obligatory laws made by elected representatives, not God.  That necessarily allows immorality, but is essential to true faith which is based on what believers voluntarily choose to do, not on what they are coerced to do by law.  True faith can flourish only where there is both freedom in politics and free will in religion.

            The Enlightenment brought freedom in politics in the West with concepts of libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law, but that did not happen in the Islamic East, where most Muslims continue to believe that shari’a preempts libertarian human rights and secular law.  That must change for Islam to become compatible with progress and modernity; and when that happens, radical Islamism will lose its legitimacy among most Muslims.

            Religious violence lacks legitimacy and is a crime in libertarian democracies where Jews, Christians and Muslims share a commitment to the freedoms of religion and speech.  Religious violence can flourish only in conditions of anarchy or in nations where apostasy and blasphemy laws preclude libertarian human rights.  While those human rights were never mentioned by Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, they should be embraced by all Jews, Christians and Muslims as essential to the concept of love over law as expressed in the greatest commandment. 

           

            All religions must reject the exclusivism that condemns those of other religions as well as the obligation to impose their religious laws on others, but Muslims have the biggest challenge today.  Most Muslims believe the Qur’an is the perfect and immutable word of God, and it emphasizes Islamic law and repeatedly condemns unbelievers to eternal damnation.  While it says that Jews and Christians, like Muslims, are people of the Book, it condemns those who believe that God had a son—a key tenet of the Christian faith—as blasphemers and unbelievers. 

           

            While the radical Islamism that opposes fundamental freedoms with violence in the name of God should be condemned, Christians should never forget their Crusades and Inquisitions. And even in America the Puritans once denied religious freedom with blasphemy laws.  It is the nature of humankind to shape concepts of God as exclusivist, authoritarian and oppressive; but those are not the characteristics of a loving and merciful God.

            Jesus was a Jew who never intended to initiate a new and exclusivist religion.  It is time that the universal God of love and mercy revealed by Jesus is liberated from the exclusivist bondage of the Christian religion and shared with those of other religions as well as those of no religious preference (the nones).  That does not require a new syncretic religion—only that God in three concepts does not favor any one religion over others and puts love over law. 

            Reconciling conflicting concepts of God requires that Jews, Christians and Muslims embrace a God of love and mercy rather than a God of law and judgment.  Belief in a God who saves only those of one religion and condemns all others and who seeks to impose sacred law on everyone is a false belief promoted by Satan, who does a convincing imitation of God and does some of his best work in the synagogue, church and mosque.  Remember, God seeks to reconcile and redeem, while Satan seeks to divide and conquer. 

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; Promoting Religion Through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness, February 8, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Jesus: A Prophet, God’s only Son or the Logos, April 19, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 21, 2015; Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; The European Refugee Crisis and Radical Islam, September 6, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, December 12, 2015; and Resettling Refugees: Multiculturalism or Assimilation?, December 26, 2015.

On Noah Feldman’s commentary on One God for Christians and Muslims? Good Question, see    http://www.thestate.com/opinion/op-ed/article51328635.html.

For provisions of the Qur’an on God’s rewards and punishment, see The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, posted in Resources at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/p/1.html at pp 470-485; as to Jews and Christians, see pp 476-485.  On provisions from Jewish (Mosaic) Law on blasphemy, obedience/rewards/blessings and disobedience/punishment/curses, see above at pp 548-557.

On the conflicting views of Islamic scholars on concepts of justice under Islam and shari’a, see Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights, posted in Resources at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/p/1.html at pp 10-17.

    

On why Muslims should begin a deep self-examination of their religion, and how that relates to  assimilation and multiculturalism in the refugee crisis, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/it-is-time-for-muslims-to-begin-a-deep-self-examination/2015/12/30/24320e5e-adb2-11e5-b820-eea4d64be2a1_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

On irja as a Muslim concept of postponing judgment on those of other religions by leaving that judgment to God, as a means of producing a noncoercive pluralistic form of Islam (a heresy to Islamists), see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/21/opinion/a-medieval-antidote-to-isis.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0.

On Universalism as a form of Christianity that sought to move beyond exclusivism and ultimately merged with the Unitarian faith, see Universalism: A Theology for the 21^st Century, at http://www.uuworld.org/articles/universalism-theology-the-21st-century.

 

On two progressive, critical and non-exclusivist interpretations of Christianity, see The Eight Points of Progressive Christianity at http://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/ and Charting the New Reformation: the Twelve Theses, by Bishop John Shelby Spong, at https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=mm#inbox/151af63e55c73a80.

A recent poll indicates that some “Christians” believe that religious freedom should be restricted to Christians, which, of course, is not religious freedom at all.  Even in a democracy that kind of exclusivist “freedom” can create a tyranny of the majority, as can be seen in those Islamic democracies that have retained apostasy and blasphemy laws.  And history has shown that there is no tyranny worse than a religious tyranny.  See http://m.heraldtimesonline.com/wire/religion/ap-norc-poll-christian-muslim-split-on-religious-freedom/article_62cdacfb-389b-5dae-9710-d2deb29f1764.html?mode=jqm.

Resettling Refugees: Multiculturalism or Assimilation?

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Germany has been the bellwether for refugee resettlement in Europe, but Chancellor Angela Merkel may have surprised her supporters recently when she said:  "Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ ” or a sham, before adding that Germany may be reaching its limits in terms of accepting more refugees. "The challenge is immense," she said. "We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably."

            This was not the first time that Merkel had questioned multiculturalism as a paradigm for settling refugees in Germany.  In 2010 she said: "Of course the tendency had been to say, 'Let's adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other.' But this concept has failed, and failed utterly."

            Multiculturalism and assimilation are two contrasting approaches to resettling refugees.  Multiculturalism allows immigrants to maintain their unique ethnic and religious cultural traditions, while assimilation requires immigrants to conform to the laws, language and values of the nation in which they are being resettled and minimize their ethnic and religious differences.

            In The Failure of Multiculturalism Kenan Malik has argued that the multicultural policies of Germany and Great Britain and the assimilationist policies of France have all failed.  The politics of political ideology have been replaced by a politics of identity, producing “fragmented societies, alienated minorities, and resentful citizenries.”  It is only when immigrants see themselves as citizens and an integral part of a country’s political culture rather than as isolated ethnic and religious minorities that they can truly be assimilated.

   

            To avoid “fragmented societies, alienated minorities, and resentful citizenries” refugees must accept prevailing concepts of legitimacy (perceptions of what is right and wrong) wherever they are resettled, and religions can create conflicting concepts of legitimacy.  In many Islamic cultures Islamic law, or shari’a, prevails over secular law and there is no separation of politics from religion, while in libertarian democracies human rights and the secular rule of law prevail and government cannot promote religion.  These are politically divisive issues, as evidenced by the mean-spirited rhetoric of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, and they go to the heart of the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves, questioning whether our neighbors include those of other religions.

            In matters of politics, Muslim refugees coming to the U.S. should accept libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  As for religious matters, if Muslims consider the love of God and their neighbors—including their unbelieving neighbors—as a common word of faith, then other religious issues are secondary.

            Ramesh Ponnuru has compared Muslim immigrants to Catholic immigrants of the 19^th century who had trouble assimilating to U.S. values.  He noted Donald Trump’s call for ‘complete, total shutdown’ of Muslim immigration, and recalled that Americans once had similar anxieties about Catholics; but that America changed them rather than them changing America.

“Many Muslims don’t believe in religious liberty. In the 19th century, nativists directed such fears at Catholic immigrants. Although these worries were mixed with bigotry, they weren’t baseless: The Catholic Church really was hostile to freedom of religion. Yet Catholic immigration to the United States didn’t end up subverting American liberalism so much as it liberalized Catholicism. It had this effect because Americans lived out their commitment to toleration. A ban on Catholic immigrants would’ve been an enormous mistake, denying us the talents of tens of millions of people and retarding the spread of our principles.” 

            The last national debate over whether Catholicism was a threat to American values was during the presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy in 1960.  Just as American libertarian values changed Catholicism, they could also change Islam so that it conforms to democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  Like the Jews and Christians before them, Muslims who resettle in libertarian democracies are likely to embrace the political values of their adopted country.  That could reform Islam into a religion compatible with progress and modernity, promote religious reconciliation and undermine the legitimacy of radical Islamist terrorism.

      

Notes and References to Resources:          

Previous blogs on related topics are: 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? Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; The European Refugee Crisis and Radical Islam, September 6, 2015; and The Muslim Stranger: A Good Neighbor or a Threat, October 25, 2015.

On Angela Merkel referring to multiculturalism as a sham, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14/angela-merkel-multiculturalism-is-a-sham/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_evening.

On Kenan Malik’s The Failure of Multiculturalism, see   https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/western-europe/failure-multiculturalism.

On Ramesh Ponnuru’s comparison of Muslim immigrants to Catholics of the 19^th century, see http://www.thestate.com/opinion/op-ed/article48855990.html.

Muslim refugees being resettled in the U.S. should be encouraged to participate in an interfaith dialogue group to better understand U.S. values.  At the outset they should acknowledge the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves—even our unbelieving neighbors—as a common word of faith, and then agree to a concept of justice based on human rights and secular law, affirming that people of all faiths are responsible for maintaining the good order of society through democratic government and secular laws that protect fundamental human rights (including the freedoms of religion and expression), deter violence and promote peace and equal justice under law.  For a model of an interfaith dialogue group that promotes these objectives, see Interfaith Fellowship: Seeking Reconciliation through a Common Word of Faith at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-RFhMaTRYOTZIVm8/view.

Taking Lives and Liberty in the Name of God

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Throughout history religion has motivated the taking of lives and liberty in the name of God.  Examples abound in the Hebrew Bible, the Qur’an and in Church directives that mandated the Crusades and Inquisitions.  Today radical Islamists cite the Qur’an as they murder unbelievers in the name of God.  Religion continues to motivate abominations of justice, and the reason is simple: For believers, ancient religious laws define standards of right and wrong and the justice of a vengeful God. 

            People have been killed and oppressed over the years based on the sacred dictates of holy books and religious doctrines.  Countering those holy mandates are the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that came with the Enlightenment, and today in libertarian democracies no person’s life or liberty can be taken without due process of law.  But the protection of human or civil rights and the due process of law are not available in Islamic regimes where Islamic law (shari’a) subordinates the secular rule of law to God’s law.

            Modern justice requires that religious laws be subordinated to libertarian human rights and the due process of a secular rule of law, but fundamentalist Muslims (Islamists) do not recognize the primacy of human rights and secular law over shari’a.  While there are fundamentalist Jews and Christians in libertarian democracies who, like Islamists, consider their holy scriptures to be the inerrant and infallible word of God, they accept the primacy of libertarian human rights and due process of secular law over the dictates of religious law. 

            Democracy by itself cannot provide justice.  There will be tyrannies of the majority in Islamic cultures where the majority makes shari’a the supreme law of the land, as is evident where apostasy and blasphemy laws deny the freedoms of religion and speech.  Only the secular rule of law based on a foundation of human rights beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech can provide true justice.  That requires that religious laws be considered voluntary standards of legitimacy for believers and are never imposed as coercive laws of the state.

            There can be no justice where there is no freedom of religion or speech.  Apostasy and blasphemy laws are an integral part of shari’a and reflect the seamless integration of religion and politics in Islam.  Such laws allow authoritarian Islamic governments to use their coercive powers to stifle political criticism, and that provides undeserved legitimacy to radical Islamist groups like ISIS.  They are devoutly religious fundamentalist believers (Islamists) who consider themselves true Muslims, and the failure to acknowledge that is an obstacle to reform.  

            The legitimacy of radical Islamism depends upon the supremacy of shari’a over libertarian human rights, and that oppressive form of Islam cannot be challenged until Muslims can openly discuss how to conform shari’a with the libertarian standards of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  The freedoms of religion and speech can undermine the legitimacy of radical Islam with the recognition that justice and citizenship in the modern world require the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to take precedence over oppressive religious laws that allow the taking of lives and liberty in the name of God.

            It is true that secular law and due process allow the taking of lives and liberty—whether in self-defense or the defense of others, as a matter of military necessity in wartime, or in capital punishment; and due process allows liberty to be denied those convicted of crime.  But those deprivations of life and liberty are governed by secular laws made through democratic processes and subject to fundamental human rights.  Unlike ancient religious mandates, they meet the requirements of due process and justice.

            It is wrong to consider all Muslims culpable for the crimes of radical Islamists, but it is also wrong to deny that those crimes were motivated by religion.  They were acts of devoutly religious people who claimed to be true Muslims.  Only Muslims can effectively challenge the legitimacy of radical Islamists and their standards of legitimacy, and they should begin with the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves which was proposed by Islamic scholars as a common word of faith in 2007.  And who is our neighbor?  Jesus answered that question with the story of the good Samaritan.  Once Jews, Christians and Muslims consider apostate unbelievers to be their neighbors, they can begin the process of religious reconciliation.

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; 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; Dualism: Satan’s Evil Versus God’s Goodness, posted November 22, 2015; and Faith, Hope and Love in a World of Fear, Suspicion and Hate, December 5, 2015.

An example of Mosaic Law that mandates killing non-Hebrews in the name of God is at Deuteronomy 20:16, 17 (the ban), and there are comparable mandates in the Qur’an, the most notable being the sword verse at Sura 9:5.  For references in the Qur’an on punishments for unbelievers and killing unbelievers in Jihad, see pages 470-475 and 498-502 in the Index to The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, in the Resources for this website; for comparable mandates in the Hebrew Bible for taking life and liberty for the violation of Mosaic Law and in holy war, see pages 548-557 and 585-592.  It should be noted that Mosaic Law emphasizes God’s rewards and punishments in this world, while in the Qur’an the emphasis is on rewards and punishments in the next world.      

The relationship of Islamic religious obligations to citizenship is emphasized by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim in Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari’a (Harvard University Press, 2008).     

At an interfaith town meeting in Columbia, S.C., on December 7, 2015, a local Imam said that massacre in San Bernardino was not violence “coming from Muslims,” but “It is coming from a group that is dealing in politics.”  Mohamad Dahoudi, Imam for the Islamic Center in Augusta, GA, said that the Islamic State (ISIS) is a political, not a religious organization, and “They are radicals, terrorists, extremists.  There is nothing there about faith.”  It is understandable that Muslims wish to disassociate the violence of radical Islamism from their beliefs, but denying that ISIS terrorism is motivated by devout religious beliefs is an obstacle to understanding and countering such violence. See From: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article48557935.html.

On Islam as a seamless religious and political system that promotes theocracy, see http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/islam_not_just_a_religion.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.

Paul Waldman has characterized the discussion over whether to use the words “radical Islam” or Islam in referring to Islamist terrorism as a “silly, distracting” debate.  See   https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/11/15/the-silly-distracting-debate-over-whether-to-use-the-words-radical-islam/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.  But it is important to recognize that the Islamist terrorism taking lives and liberty in the name of God is motivated by an extremist form of Islam.  Fareed Zakaria has pointed out that “…the enemy is radical Islam, an ideology that has spread over the past four decades…and now infects alienated young men and women across the Muslim world.  The fight against it must at its core be against the ideology itself.  And that can be done only by Muslims—they alone can purge their faith of this extremism.”  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/saying-radical-islam-has-nothing-to-do-with-defeating-terrorism/2015/12/17/d47cc82c-a4f6-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

In the battle against ISIS and Islamist terrorism, experts have agreed that it will take religious reform within Islam to defeat Islamist terrorism.  Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist, has criticized those who say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam as disingenuous.  It will require establishing legitimate governments in Islamist cultures which provide “fair justice” (based on libertarian human rights, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech).  See  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/world/middleeast/envisioning-how-global-powers-can-smash-isis.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0.  

Saudi Arabia recently launched an “Islamic military alliance” to combat radical Islamist terrorism that would “confront the ideology of extremism that promotes killing of the innocent, which is contrary to every religion, particularly the Islamic faith.”  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/saudi-arabia-launches-islamic-military-alliance-to-combat-terrorism/2015/12/15/ad568a1c-a361-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.  But that initiative has been met with skepticism.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/17/saudi-arabias-islamic-military-alliance-against-terrorism-makes-no-sense/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_evening.