Andrew McCarthy sheds some interesting light on the ever-present debate over Islam and sharia. In a well formulated editorial, McCarthy outlines the need for continued focus and discussion on sharia's interaction with the state and the tensions between secularism, moderate Islam, and Islamism (eg. radical Islam). He argues that it is fair to critique radical interpretations of sharia in order to support moderate Muslim ideology. He writes:
The hope, of course, is that between Muslim reformers who embrace our liberty culture, and the millions of Muslims who are peaceful, moderate people regardless of what their scriptures may literally command, alternative constructions of sharia will eventually discredit and marginalize the Islamist interpretation. It is a tough row to hoe.... But it is not impossible.
McCarthy develops his argument by poignantly, although admittedly imperfectly, contrasting modern Islam's trials to those experienced in the West's own history. He outlines a few instances where the West had to move past strict interpretations of religion and reject the commingling of religion and state.
Government [in the US colonies] was based on God’s law, loyalty oaths were mandatory, Sabbath observance was strictly enforced, and brutal corporal punishments were carried out: Philip Radcliffe, for example, was whipped and had both ears cut off for “invectives against our church and government.” Others were executed, usually by hanging, for what, in effect, was the preaching of novel religious doctrines.
Nor would we today recognize the original Virginia settlements as consonant with what we think of as our way of life. In Jamestown, too, religious duty blended seamlessly with civil law. We need not belabor the centrality of slavery to the developing agricultural economy. But for a time, a bachelor in Virginia was permitted to purchase a wife from among the young, unmarried women sent from England in order to make the colony more attractive. The price was 125 pounds of tobacco.
His conclusion is one of cautious optimism. Islam has the ability to rise above the backwards, anti-liberal ways that are practiced in so many Muslim countries and preached by many fundamentalist scholars. But this is only achievable if moderate Muslim voices join with those in the West to challenge and criticize the Islamist perspective.
It took a very long time to find the right balance between the sacred and the secular [in the West], and there is good reason to believe that our most serious problems today are caused by too much suppression of faith, not too little. But Islam has to be given a fair chance to strike this balance. We can’t tolerate jihadist atrocities, and we must fight Islamist efforts to erode our freedoms. But it will not do to smirk and say that Muslims have already had 14 centuries to get it together. How would we have done under that test?
We have had to come a very long way to arrive at what we are rightly proud to call Western culture and American civil liberties. Our current battle is about preserving that inheritance for ourselves and making sure the Muslims in America who want it are free to have it. In factoring sharia into that battle, we need to be as humble as we are forceful.
New Jersey's Republican Governor, Chris Christie, has come forward with a powerful and, like usual, robust defense of a recent appointment of a Muslim judge, Sohail Mohammed. When questioned whether his appointment could lead to sharia law in New Jersey courts, Christie went on the attack, declaring that "Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammed.... Sharia Law has nothing to do with this at all, it’s crazy!" He went on to exclaim that he is "tired of dealing with the crazies." (See video clip at 2:47.)
Once again Chris Christie manages to impress with his demeanor and no-BS style. His honesty, candor, and ability to avoid the mudslinging of politics, is laudable - characteristics that other politicians should try to emulate.
But, not only is Christie's response commendable, his argument is dead-on. Far too many Americans are too willing to denigrate good Muslim-Americans just because of their religious beliefs. Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is one of the most recent examples. This sort of religious stigmatization is completely un-American. As a nation, we are supposed to be committed to freedom of religion and acknowledge that an individual's private beliefs do not automatically disqualify him from holding public office. But even worse, such rampant vitriol against Muslims distracts from real threats and creates false "lines-in-the-sand". Radical Islamists threaten this country, not all Muslims. America should be wise to make allies with good Muslim-Americans, not engage in counterproductive fear-mongering and stereotyping.
Herman Cain should be ashamed. In a weekend interview with Fox's Chris Wallace, the Republican presidential candidate argued that communities have a right to ban the construction of mosques. Cain argued that
[o]ur Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.
Cain's interpretation of the First Amendment is undeniably erroneous. The separation of church and state is meant to both protect religious institutions from undue influence from the government and protect individuals from undue influence from a state religion. It was never meant to be used as a weapon by communities to persecute or restrict those of another faith.
Even if one assumes that Cain's understanding of Islam is correct - namely that as a religion it is unable to separate its religious doctrines from its conceptualization of the rule of law - his remedy is far from appropriate. Religions or other groups that profess ideologies that run counter to precepts in the constitution are not to be repressed due to their beliefs. Every Muslim may want to turn the United States into an Islamic state (most assuredly do not), yet that would not warrant preventing them from practicing or even preaching their ideas.
Instead, it is the responsibility of the state to disallow violations of the constitution. The courts, for instance, should strike down laws and regulations that violate the precept of separation of church and state, whether such laws are based in sharia, Christian or Jewish law. If such checks function properly (and they largely do), from the perspective of the First Amendment there should be little reason to interfere with the religious practices of any group in America.
Protection of minority religions is precisely why the concept of separation of church and state is necessary. Muslim-Americans should be protected by it not persecuted under it. Whatever their beliefs may be, as long as they stay within the community and are not being forced upon others they should have the right to worship as they see fit. Only when such forms of worship cross the line and lead to religiously-based law should the state step-in to prevent such behavior. A mosque in Tennessee is absolutely acceptable; a law requiring the donning of burqas is not.
Cain's understanding of the constitution and his comments are an embarrassment to all Republicans. Not that this long-shot candidate was every taken seriously, but his perspective is unfortunately damaging to legitimate Republican candidates who have been unfairly linked to this Islamophobic mentality. Republicans need to disavow such candidates and rhetoric if they hope to be taken seriously amongst the pivotal independent voters.
