In Defence of Islam [Contra Bentham's Bulldog]

I. “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas.” — Sam Harris

I’ve noticed that Islam seems to have a reputation problem. Humam Ahmed Tariq Aziz O’da Al Ruba’ee, you might respond, of course Islam has a reputation problem! Besides all the terrorism, civil war, and autocracy are… many other bad things.

So, yes, we Muslims have a public relations problem. Frankly, I do not fault anybody for attributing the plight of Muslim countries to Islam or Islamic values. Many of the most ostensibly Muslim states are theocracies; many Islamic terrorist groups are fighting a religious war. To blame Islam is not bigotry as much as it is ignorance and good pattern recognition.

The other day, while leafing through Bentham’s Newsletter, I came across this quote:

“Additionally, while Christianity brought about a profound moral transformation, Islam has likely had a negative effect on the world. Muslim nations are more repressive, less tolerant, and less liberal than Christian nations.”

As a not-incredibly devout Muslim, a respecter of Mr. Bulldog, and an enjoyer of well-reasoned claims, this disappointed me. Surely such a sweeping claim cannot be cloaked by one measly “likely.” My brother in Christ Allah, at least make the effort to hyperlink a source!

Let’s examine this claim in more depth.

II. Are Islamic nations worse than Christian ones?

1. A T Test

My intuition says no. Muslim nations are no worse than Christian nations. The levels of repression, tolerance, and liberalism are likely dominated by variables like geography, GDP per capita, and histories of colonialism. For every underdeveloped Muslim country, we can find a similarly underdeveloped Christian one.

I tried to systematize this comparison by sampling some low-income nations and comparing them on press freedom, democratic strength, criminality, homicide, and domestic violence rates. Not surprisingly, after running a T-test, there was no significant difference between the two samples.

This is a flawed model. My samples are relatively limited, I have no non-religious control, and notably, I have not compared wealthy nations to each other. Nonetheless, I hope this data illustrates how, at least in similarly poor economic conditions, there is no significant difference between religions in the relevant variables.

2. Country for Country

Let's control for geography and zoom in on Southeast Asia. The Philippines and Indonesia serve as a good case study. The Philippines is the 5th largest Christian country, with approximately 90% of its 115 million population identifying as Christians. Indonesia is the largest Islamic country, with approximately 87% of its 244 million population self-identifying as Muslims.

For all their differences, these countries are quite alike. They are both archipelagic countries in Southeast Asia, their climates are similar, and they were both colonized (Indonesia by the Dutch, the Philippines by the Spanish). They are both presidential republics with a recent history of autocracy, and even their infrastructure per 1000 inhabitants rate is similar. One key difference is in GDP: Indonesia has a higher real GDP per capita (PPP adjusted), with $15.4 thousand to the Philippines' $11 thousand.

With such similarities, we can more clearly examine how the stark religious difference influences these nations on repression, tolerance, and liberalism, among other variables.

The Philippines has slightly better rights for LGBTQ individuals—both countries do not recognize same-sex marriage, but the Philippines has more measures in place to prevent hate crimes.

On global freedom, the Philippines (58/100) and Indonesia (56/100) are very similar. Both nations are “partly free,” and the Philippines has a slight edge—which makes sense considering that the Philippines has had a 12-year headstart on Democracy, post-Marcos in 1986 (whereas Indonesia’s Suharto lost power in 1998). On Press freedom, Indonesia is ranked at 111th (51.15) compared to the Philippines at 134th place (43.36).

According to the World Bank Index, Indonesia ranks slightly to considerably better than the Philippines on all of the following metrics: political stability, Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. Clearly, Islam has endowed Indonesia with superior guidance. Most likely, these discrepancies can be explained away by GDP or differences in current administrations.

This was predictably boring, yet telling. These nations have radically divergent religious views—the leadership, institutions, and millions of voters have all deeply internalized two different scriptures. If it were true that there was a meaningful difference between these religions, that “Islam has likely done more harm for the world,” we should expect to see a considerable difference between these nations, but we do not.

3. Rich countries

One of the biggest holes in this essay is that I have not compared wealthy nations. It could be the case that, among underdeveloped nations, instability, history of colonialism, or health are better determinants of things like crime or repression. Comparing more stable, wealthy countries would likely improve this comparison.

However, most analyses of rich Muslim nations would be confounded by factors like colonialism or the resource curse. All of the rich Muslim nations are rich primarily due to oil reserves, which reduces the necessity for leaders to set up inclusive institutions. Leaders in these nations can easily enrich themselves through extraction; thus, robust economic institutions are stunted, and political capital remains concentrated among a handful of wealthy elites.

In any case, we can comb through the history books: for every atrocity committed by rich ostensibly Muslim nations, we can match it to another atrocity committed by a rich ostensibly Christian nation.

As much as I hate to prove Godwin's law, we can use Nazi Germany, which was rich, and overwhelmingly Christian, as an example. Yes, Hitler “detested [Christianity]'s ethics,” but so do the Saudi Royal family. Regardless, a predominantly Christian Nazi Germany committed atrocities. Is this an indictment of Christianity? Most historians would say no—they correctly believe that the rise of Nazism was a product of tensions post WW1, not a consequence of a deficiency in the Bible, or a Christian tendency towards imperialism.

Conversely, many perfectly respectable people are happy to blame Islam for the specific actions of governments, where they would have extended the benefit of the doubt or viewed things more charitably from a Christian lens.

Leaders will pander, and lie, and justify their actions through any means necessary; whether that be Putin, freeing Ukraine from Nazis, or Trump, achieving “complete and total victory over these sadistic monsters.” Populists will find a way to weaponize emotion to gain power. That religion is the political poison of choice in the Middle East is not enough justification to make a blanket value judgment on Islam, nor is it sufficient evidence to prove Islam is any worse than peer religions.

III. Responding to powerful arguments

Here I have compiled two arguments that I appreciate. Both point to Islam as a relatively worse religion than others. I outline each argument and then respond. None of these arguments is perfect, nor are my responses.

1. “A profound moral transformation”

The first argument compares Islam to Christianity. Christianity has ushered in unprecedented moral progress. I agree, to some extent. After reading the Quran and the New Testament, I concede that the New Testament is a more inspiring and enjoyable piece of scripture. What I took away from the Quran was a warning for non-believers, a promise of eternal reward for the faithful, and a general basket of lessons, praise for god, and moral frameworks. Conversely, my experience reading the Bible was coloured by the adventures of the ultimate protagonist, Jesus Christ. What I took away was that nothing matters much aside from faith in God and love for your fellow human.

My counterargument is that the vast majority of people do not follow religious texts to the letter.

Even if the Bible is better than the Quran, people only engage with religion insofar as it is socially valuable or convenient. The Bible and the Quran both include relatively good and bad things. What adherents opt to follow is primarily a function of their conditions. A trivial example of this is that most Christians do not give away a significant portion of their income, even though Christ tells us to: “go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. If you do this, you will have treasure in heaven.” Similarly, Muslims in American colleges report drinking at high rates (46.6%). This suggests that it is culture and socioeconomic conditions, rather than religion, that primarily influence how individuals act. Friend of the author and Blog, Theo, argues a similar point in his excellent article “Hamas Could Have Moderated.”

Secondly, most people default to easy heuristics, which are generally equal across religions. People do not follow the Quran to the letter for many reasons: it is hard to remember everything, there is scholarly debate about rules, and people must often prioritize other aspects of their lives. Rather, most Muslims adhere to the five pillars of Fasting, Prayer, Hajj, Charity, and the Shahada, while trying to be a “good person.” A good person, in Islam, is someone kind, charitable, honest, and virtuous in many of the most intuitive ways. It makes sense, then, that a kind Muslim has just as much incentive and capacity for goodness as a kind Christian.

2. “Islam leaves no room for legislation, for the law has already been created by God.”

I take this argument from “Culture, Institutions, and Social Equilibria” by Acemoglu and Robinson, particularly from section 5.3: Benefits and Costs of Islamic Hardwiring. The argument is simple. The Quran is read as the direct word of God and defines a significant portion of legislation. The power of the Quran reduces the role of legislators and dampens the incentives to set up inclusive political institutions. In the early stages of Islam, this was useful because the Quran helped unite Arabia and establish the rule of law and other useful institutions, such as private property rights. However, over time, the rules such as those on inheritance and usury and a general lack of adaptability, slowed Islam's economic progression. This argument can be cross-applied to Islam’s lack of social progress.

My first counterargument concerns the empirical outcomes. There has been an incredibly diverse set of Islamic governance structures. Many Muslim countries implement varying sets of legal systems derived from the same Quran, or they are secular (the best option). The diversity of governance in the Muslim world should cast doubt on the belief that the Quran has as much legislative monopoly as Acemoglu and Robinson push.

To be sure, the Quran is believed to be the word of god; however, much of Islam is open to interpretation and adaptation. The diversity of schools of thought within Islam easily illustrates this point. There are differences between sects (Sunnis and Shia) and within sects (Hanafi and Shafi'i interpretations within Sunni Islam). There is an established precedent for interpretation—“Ijtihad” is a practice of scholarly interpretation and reasoning through the Quran. There are different experiences, demographics, and ethnicities represented throughout Islam, all of which colour unique understandings of the religion.

One example of this adaptation is Islamic banking. Charging interest (usury) is not permitted, so banks charge a markup to account for the risk to the lender. Interest is haram, markups are halal. Where there is the incentive to reinterpret rules, rules are reinterpreted.

IV. Concluding Remarks

I am Muslim and I am Arab. My name is long and difficult to pronounce. The kids in class called my lunch smelly. My understanding of Islam is refracted through the lens of my experience and adaptation to life in the West. That refraction—an Islamic rainbow, of sorts—equips me with hope for a diverse and cooperative future.

Is Islam less morally relevant than Christianity? Perhaps, on the margins. However, it is deeply unclear whether textual differences have a significant influence on the political, economic, or social realities within countries. Comparing nations, histories, and institutions demonstrates how weak religion is as an explanatory factor.

I hope that with this essay, I have set the bar. If you want to argue that Islam has “had a negative effect on the world,” I welcome your perspective—but make sure to come armed with more than just assertions.