Religious freedom advocacy at its core is an expression of love. It operationalizes the sense of passionate justice we owe each other. Rooted in principle rather than kinship, religious freedom advocacy protects the rich tapestry of communities that have ornated civilizations. The Coptic Church exists as a persisting emblem of Egyptian pride. However, attending various religious freedom events and eager to demonstrate the camaraderie of a Muslim to her fellow neighbors living under repressive policies in various Middle Eastern countries, I sigh at the instrumentalization of yet another struggle, co-opted to frame Egypt within a narrative of Christian persecution that justifies the advancement of a broader imperial interest. Advancing religious freedom on the world stage, it becomes a political instrument and an extension of U.S. foreign policy post-1991 that functions to advance liberal hegemony through couching islamophobia in pleas of solidarity.
Understanding why this instrumentalization persists requires stepping back into the geopolitical architecture that enables it. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the international stage transformed from a bipolar to a unipolar world wherein the U.S. stood unopposed as the sole world power. Famously quoted by political scientist Francis Fukuyama, we approached “the end of history” [1] The United States employed a strategy of liberal hegemony where the focus was on preserving dominance through globalizing liberalism [2]. Liberalism meant freedom, placing individualism at the heart of governance and the pinnacle of intellectual thought. What that implies is that for it to be employed globally, it must tolerate all but ideas that challenge its assumptions, irrespective of the predominant local traditions of the communities it is imposing itself on. At best, it served as an ideology to be engaged with in intellectual discourse, and at worst, an imperial tool that advanced subordination through assimilation.
Monopolizing the idea of freedom, anything that withstood liberalism was constructed apophatically, characterized by what it is not. Islam fell prey to this. Sharia law is often criticized for its “repressive nature” [3] Proponents of this view rely on instances of female oppression, extremism, and religious persecution as proof of its inherent incompatibility with coexistence. Irrespective of the rich history and theory of Islamic jurisprudence, neglect for human life became a facet of Sharia instead of instances of its bastardization [4]. In doing so, liberal hegemony instrumentalizes ideas of freedom of religion less out of genuine concern for violations and more to maintain global dominance. Violations of religious freedom matter insofar as they do not jeopardize bolstering the U.S’ economic and political position on the world stage.
The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act placed religious freedom as a national priority in foreign policy [5]. However, in a U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report, “the repeated use of sanctions waivers backed by vague justifications and the repurposed application of preexisting sanctions dilute the effectiveness of the CPC (Country of Particular Concern) designation” [6]. Through its track record, one can see that U.S. selective advocacy imposes sanctions on countries that have violations of religious freedom insofar as those countries are not existing allies. Sanctions on Iran and Syria were magnified, while waivers were given to India and Saudi Arabia despite similar concerns. The refusal of the State Department to designate Nigeria as a country of particular concern despite USCIRF recommendations, and overlooking France despite policies that disproportionately discriminate against certain religious groups, reflect religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy as a symbolic commitment.
In the Muslim world, liberal hegemony is imposed by couching islamophobia in pleas of solidarity. Under the guise of solidarity, islamophobia becomes a repertoire. Its monopoly on freedom capitalizes on instances of oppression by characterizing them as inherent to Islam. The universalist nature of liberal hegemony requires the othering of other ideologies, such as Islam. If the goal is to “attain” liberalism, any other predominant ideology must remain in the past. The Sharia is said to be unchanging, and thus incompatible, even backwards. Speakers during various religious freedom events characterize Sharia as “the problem” and Muslims as the “perpetrators of it.”
Projecting the West’s history on predominantly Muslim countries, Sharia is seen to be inherently intolerant. The jizya tax is often used to demonstrate this idea of intolerance, overlooking the additional taxes Muslims paid under Zakat, the role the jizya tax played as a social welfare system, and the military service exemption it gave non-Muslims [7]. Taking advantage of many communities’ misunderstanding of Islam and Muslim history, liberal hegemony promotes a reductionist view that is difficult to challenge.
The instrumentalization of religious freedom as an extension of U.S. liberal hegemony invites a more critical examination of working groups’ efforts. Perhaps, instead of concerting efforts toward U.S. policy, working groups can focus on grassroots efforts. One example is Sisters in Islam in Malaysia. Evidently, advocacy efforts become critical players in cultivating creative solutions and in inhibiting the reproduction of imperial empires in the name of liberty and freedom for all.
