Acton’s director of research Samuel Gregg tackles the question of religious liberty in Islamic states this morning, over at The American Spectator. In a piece titled “The Arab Spring’s Forgotten Freedom,” Gregg describes the tensions between Christians seeking religious freedom in the Middle East and the Islamic states they inhabit, and then looks hopefully to the source of a resolution.

For at least one group of Middle-Easterners, the Arab Spring is turning out to be a decidedly wintery affair. And if confirmation was ever needed, just consider the escalation of naked violence against Christians throughout the region. The recent instance of Egyptian army vehicles crushing and killing Coptic Christians protesting against a church burning was merely one of numerous incidents that must make Middle-Eastern Christians wonder about their future under the emerging new regimes.

These trends appear to confirm that despite all the current freedom-and-democracy talk, much of the Islamic world continues to suffer from one particularly severe blind spot when it comes to human liberty. And that concerns the acceptance and protection of authentic religious freedom.

Gregg points out that the Christian population of the Middle East has plummeted since 1900 (when it was about 20 percent) for ethnic and for political reasons.

Islam confronts two specific dilemmas that raise questions about its ability to accept a robust conception of religious liberty.

First, from its very beginning, Islam was intimately associated with political power. That’s one reason why there is no church-state distinction in Islam that limits (at least theoretically) the state’s capacity to coerce religious belief or unreasonably inhibit religious-shaped choices.

Second, since approximately the 13th century, the dominant theological understanding of God’s nature within Islam has been one of Voluntas (Divine Will) rather than Logos (Divine Reason). And this matters because if you believe in a God that can, on a mere whim, act unreasonably, then it isn’t so problematic for such a Divinity’s adherents to engage in plainly unreasonable practices such as killing apostates.

If, however, God is Logos, the case for religious liberty is much easier to make insofar as a reasonable God would never demand compulsion in religion. Why? Because as St. Augustine wrote long ago, “If there is no assent, there is no faith, for without assent one does not really believe.”

Gregg sees hope, however, in thinkers like Turkish journalist and devout Muslim Mustafa Akyol, whose recent book Islam Without Extremes makes the Islamic case for religious freedom. Though most Western religious thinkers do little to plead the cause of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians, Gregg thinks the central cause of the persecution, and thus the ultimate solution, is to be found in Islamic thought.

In the end, non-Muslims can’t resolve Islam’s religious liberty challenge. Only theologically educated, historically informed and believing Muslims can do that. In the meantime, those reading the Arab Spring as a uniformly-positive event might like to consider that it appears to be doing little to secure the freedom, if not the very existence, of ancient Christian churches, many of which were founded by people who in all likelihood knew Christ or his first disciples. The loss of such a civilizational and religious heritage would be immeasurable — and not just for Christianity, but for the future of liberty within the Islamic world itself.

Mustafa Akyol happens to be speaking today at a luncheon hosted by the Cato Institute. Acton’s executive director Kris Mauren will be providing commentary. If you are in Washington, D.C., you won’t want to miss it!

  • Pingback: The Arab Spring's Forgotten Freedom – American Spectator - Israeliblue™

  • Roger McKinney

    If you read histories of Islam, such as Bernard Lewis or Bat
    Ye’or, you’ll notice that Islam has always had a tiny minority who promoted
    peace with other religions, another tiny minority of terrorists and a vast
    majority who were focused only on scratching out a living. Everyone tolerated
    the terrorists out of fear for their own lives and because killing Christians and
    Jews didn’t affect them personally. Through most of Islam’s history, Muslim
    mobs attacked Christians and Jews because they lived by commerce and became
    wealthy so Muslims wanted to steal their wealth. Since 1900 Christians and Jews
    have been the poorest people and the attacks have been religious and
    politically based. I don’t see anything stopping the trend until all Christians
    have left Muslim countries, just as almost all Jews have done since 1948.

  • zindagi zindagi

    Why do western secular liberal democracies still allow immigration from countries with Islamist regimes who suppress other religions and practise religious apartheid? There should be a boycott of regimes which have not aligned their constitutions with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are plenty of well deserving immigration seekers from secular and liberal regimes in the world who want to integrate in the western liberal democracies. The problem with allowing people who are indoctrinated with the Islamist views is that it will create conflict in the existing societies as is being seen already.

  • Anubhav Bhargava

    I completely agree with this. If we want to achieve a stable solution it has to come from within Islam and its liberal minded believers.