Search

I spent my summer in Washington, D.C., oscillating between LSAT logic games and an internship in the international religious freedom space. Hours on the metro were spent parsing necessary and sufficient conditions, training myself to identify logical fallacies. That discipline soon carried over into my work. Observing a range of governmental and nongovernmental religious freedom advocates, I became increasingly attentive to the arguments animating their efforts.

One fallacy, in particular, surfaced repeatedly: the use of false analogies. Among some American advocates of international religious freedom, a recurring analogy appears between domestic denominationalism and sectarianism abroad.

Drawing from the U.S.’ success in fostering religious freedom domestically, many advocates center their efforts around exporting the U.S. model to countries abroad, particularly in the Middle East. Admittedly, a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom provides an assurance of sorts that signals a greater commitment to religious minorities that, in spirit, addresses issues of sectarian intolerance. However, what American activists too often overlook are the drawbacks of using our own history as a template for what should be institutionalized in countries with starkly different socio, ethno-religious, and political conditions.

Besides the colonial threads that embroider that rhetoric, the tendency to urge the adoption of the U.S. model risks temporarily palliating a problem rather than solving it. Whereas the history of religious freedom in the U.S. reflects a context of an overwhelmingly Christian society with myriad denominational differences and individualistic, free-market assumptions, sectarian relations in the Middle East are more multidimensional and intersectional. Often interconnected to further issues of class, ethnicity, political autonomy, and access to education or other public institutions, sectarian relations are not always a question of irreconcilable religious dogma.

In fact, they more closely resemble the history of race rather than religious relations in the United States. Whereas the heathen/religious divide succeeded in subordinating Native Americans, early colonists resorted to visual markers of difference with enslaved Africans when they realized many of them were in fact religiously devout Muslims. Thus, the concept of race emerged to encapsulate power dynamics, irrespective of what religion an individual was subscribed to. This is why when race is talked about, it is discussed intersectionally— often tied to access to institutions or other social categories like socio-economic class that may affect someone’s experience in a society.

A useful parallel can be drawn to the contemporary United States, where wealth and class now function as the most salient social divider, yet remain deeply patterned along racial lines due to the historical legacies of slavery, segregation, and unequal access to institutions. While race itself does not determine economic capacity, it continues to serve as a socially legible proxy through which inequality is distributed and experienced. Similarly, in post-2003 Iraq, sectarian identity has functioned as a durable social marker through which access to political power, employment, and security is organized, even when theological belief is not the primary driver of division. In both contexts, historically produced identity categories persist as the architecture of inequality, shaping life chances irrespective of individual belief, practice, or intent.

The faulty analogy is clear: it assumes sectarian relations abroad resemble the denominational disputes that shaped U.S. religious freedom, when in fact they more closely mirror race relations throughout American history. This common fallacy is important for advocates to recognize as it may invite more creative approaches to address the multidimensionality of these issues.

Similar to how the abolition of slavery and clauses of equal citizenship and protection, though a great starting point, have shown to be insufficient in addressing issues of racial inequality, the adamancy of a strictly secular system or of free speech standards that completely mirror American standards may at best temporarily pacify sect-centric issues and at worst be perceived as an imperial threat by populations of the predominant faith.

Recognizing this, advocates can focus on organically rooted solutions, local to the predominant religions. In the case of Islam in the Middle East, future efforts can work within Islamic traditions of justice and communal responsibility, ensuring that advocacy resonates locally rather than echoing foreign models. One example is using ṣulḥ (reconciliation) and community-based mediation as the basis for training local government and religious leaders in conflict resolution. The goal of this is twofold: 1) to increase cognitive empathy as to allow leaders to understand populations closer to how populations understand themselves, and 2) to promote conflict resolution using Islam-centered methodologies, easily applicable both in professional and interpersonal settings. This way, advocacy extends beyond constitutional guarantees to additionally invite on-the-ground solutions that do not presuppose an inherited history but rather bridge theory with praxis.

Though many advocates seek immediate relief, the crux of sustainable advocacy is in informed advocacy. Religious freedom advocates, moving forward, could benefit from reading a brief historical survey of countries they are working with. Additionally, in shaping efforts, taking time to consult academics who specialize in Islamic law and social sciences might illicit creative solutions. Until we recognize that sectarian struggles abroad demand more than a copy of America’s religious freedom story, we risk continuously getting the answer wrong.

On my LSAT test, failing to identify a false analogy may cost me a point or two. In the real world of religious freedom and sectarian relations, the consequences of advocacy premised on false analogies will be much more serious.

Recommended Readings:
Understanding Sectarianism, by Fannar Haddad  – https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197510629.001.0001

Beyond Religious Freedom: The New Global Politics of Religion, by Elizabeth Hurd – https://press.princeton.edu/books/ebook/9781400873814/beyond-religious-freedom-pdf

[Image: Tyre/Sour, South Lebanon. RomanDeckert, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons]