Department of Usuluddin and Comparative Religion

Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences

International Islamic University Malaysia

Western Scholarship in Comparative Religion (RKUD 7230)

Section 1

AN ARTICLE REVIEW ON:

FREEDOM FOR ME AND, PERHAPS, YOU – BUT SURELY
NOT THEM? ATTITUDES TO NEW RELIGIONS IN
CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACIES BY EILEEN BARKER

Prepared by: Khaleeda binti Zahri (G1922286)

Prepared for: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fatmir Shehu
The article was chosen based on a few reasons. On top of that, the author discussed a topic that

is very familiar to any adherent of religion, religious pluralism. At the same time, the topic was

discussed within the concept of freedom of religion as a human right. It appears to be interesting

to note issues or problems within the frameworks of religious freedom by the response of an

adherent of a major religion, a community, or even a state that believes in diversity and values

within the religion itself and yet, is against the emergence of new religions through

discrimination. Hence, the objectives of this review are to comprehend the perspectives of

members of new religious movements as well as their problems in the issue of freedom as

aroused by the author. At the same time, it encourages the reviewer to critically analyse the

responses of state, society and culture mentioned in this article within the perspective and

values of Islam. This would be important in developing mature thinking and views towards

other religions, which would then produce mature behaviour and responses. In this review, two

topics of this article will be reviewed: State reactions to minority religions as well as social and

cultural reactions.

The chosen article is an article written by Eileen Barker entitled, ‘Freedom for me and,

perhaps, you – but surely not them? Attitudes to New Religions in Contemporary

Democracies’. The article was, in fact, a chapter from a book entitled ‘Religious Pluralism: A

Resource Book’, which consists of three chapters of articles that are related to each other but

written by different authors. The one written by Barker was under the second chapter of the

book, ‘Pluralism and the Freedom of Religion’. The book was published by the European

University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, ReligioWest in 2015. It

was wholly edited by four editors: Aurelia Bardon, Maria Birnbaum, Lois Lee and Kristina

Stoeckl with 158 pages, of which Barker’s writing was paged from 68 to 75.

As mentioned, the main topic of the article was mainly on pluralism and freedom. In

the introduction of this article, the author mentioned how the members of new religious

2
movements were somehow unwelcome and treated unfairly compared to those of the majority

religions. The author specified the issue within societies that belonged to democracy. Barker

then gave an example of how certain states such as Saudi Arabia who acted exclusively in the

matter of religion by only prioritizing their religion to be the one and should be the only

religion. This was further explained when the author gave another example from Northern

Nigeria, Sri Lanka or Myanmar where adherents of the main religion became terrorists and

used violence to eliminate other religions than their own. If not through violence, the act of

disliking other religions could be seen when there were limitations or restrictions on rights. To

discuss the topic in advanced, the author divided it into two headlines, state reactions to

minority religions as well as social and cultural reactions.

The author asserts how the notion of religious freedom was pleasingly introduced and

welcomed especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. That, however, did not last long

after the Orthodox and Catholic churches in Europe complained about the rise of foreign

religions. This, as according to the Christians, the religion that has been long existed throughout

the centuries is functioned to protect the culture and traditions of the society. Hence, those

states are forced to enact legislation limiting the spread of foreign religions. As stated by the

author, a clear example could be seen when France, despite declaring itself to separate state

and church as well as to treat all religions equally, however, was biased towards the members

of sectarian movements. Such discrimination includes job loss, the inability of their children to

be admitted to schools, or the inability to rent public accommodations for personal events. In

fact, these people were on the radar of the organisation founded by France regardless of

anything. In relation, there are two approaches of different states on pluralism, as discussed by

the author. One, is to declare every members of foreign religions as ‘guilty’ and had a special

law towards their movement before any harm done. The other, is to assume the members are

innocent until they are proven guilty, then would be punished accordingly.

3
 Furthermore, the author as well stated the difficulty of new religious movements

registering as a recognized religion and becoming a part of the community. This then

contributed to that religion's inability to receive special benefits such as tax exemption or

function as a religion in the country. The process of registration, though, as the author asserted,

was biased and inconsistent. Barker gave the example of Buddhism, which would be accepted

as a religion despite the fact that the main criterion for a religion is to believe in God.

Meanwhile, under the social and cultural reactions in the article, Barker provided several

examples of society's biased reactions to members of new religious movements. Such could be

seen in the US, where the members faced difficulties whenever they asked for help. Moreover,

Barker highlighted the role of what so-called interfaith organizations with a vision of equal

treatment for all religions but only offered exclusively to the majority religions. The reason as

affirmed by the author, was for the sake of protecting the whole organization from collapse.

In a highlight, the author mentioned that the biggest rejection of new religious

movements being accepted as a part of the community actually came from the majority

religions themselves. Barker gave examples such as Ahmadiyya that may be rejected by other

Muslims or Soka Gakkai by some other Buddhists. Another example was when the Archbishop

of Canterbury in the United Kingdom stated that while dialogue with members of new religious

movements might be possible, it would be unwise. Towards the end of the article, Barker

asserted that the new religious movements were not fully understood and accepted by the

community, as they had been generalized with the violent and dangerous movements. As stated

by Barker too, the media portrayed a negative side from the irresponsible religious movements

to society, which all members of new religious movements in general do not deserve. In

relation, this, according to Barker, will have an impact on the innocent children of new religious

movements in order for them to integrate into the community's life.

4
 It is without doubt that new religious movements have received a lot of objections from

the community of well-established religions such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or

Hinduism. From the article, Barker mentioned “It is possible that a new movement’s claim to

be Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic or Christian is seen as a threat to the boundaries of what is

considered by mainstream traditions to be, respectively, ‘real’ Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam or

Christianity in a way that NRMs from other traditions would not be so seen.”1 This, however,

should be understood from the religions’ perspectives, and Barker did not provide any

reasonable explanation of the rejection. A movement that is derived from the original religion

itself is indeed different and distinct from the main teachings and doctrines of that particular

religion. For example, Barker mentioned the movement of Ahmadiyya which derived from

Islam and may be rejected by some Muslims.2 From the perspective of Islam, this is due to its

main idea, which is considered to be deviant.

Even so, Ahmadiyya itself is divided into two types, Qadiani and Idrisiyyah. The

former’s beliefs are clearly misleading and transgressing the main teachings of the two core

sources in Islam, the al-Quran and the Sunnah.3 As a result, Muslims should reject it because

it has the potential to mislead Muslims and the general public about the nature of

Islam. Meanwhile, the latter is accepted as the beliefs and practises upheld by the movement

do not transgress the creeds and practises of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jama’ah. 4 Therefore, one should

notice that the reason the well-established religion rejected the new religious movements was

merely unrelated to limiting the freedom of religion but the movement was clearly disturbing

1
Eileen Barker, “Freedom from Me and, Perhaps, You – but Surely Not Them? Attitudes to New Religions in
Contemporary Democracies,” in Religious Pluralism: A Resource Book, ed. Aurelia Bardon et al. (Italy: European
University Institute, 2015), p. 71.
2
Ibid.
3
Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, Fatwa Ahmadiyyah, accessed December 2, 2022.
https://www.muis.gov.sg/officeofthemufti/Fatwa/English---Fatwa-Ahmadiyah.
4
Selangor Mufti Department, Tarekat Ahmadiyyah Idrisiyyah: Kajian Perkembangan dan Amalannya di
Malaysia, accessed December 2, 2022. https://www.muftiselangor.gov.my/en/fatwa-personalisation/yearly-
fatwa/result/2016/686-tarekat-ahmadiyyah-idrisiyyah-kajian-perkembangan-dan-amalannya-di-malaysia.

5
and could affect other adherents of that particular religion. As a result, Barker's argument that

the majority religions did not celebrate or welcome new religious movements despite teaching

religious freedom is perhaps, inaccurate or unfair. Moreover, it would be inappropriate for the

new movement, which derived from the ‘original religion’ and carried deviant teachings, to

call itself as a new religion, not to mention for it to be registered as one.

In relation, the term new religious movement or NRM should also be understood in a

proper manner. Generally, NRM is defined as the alternative or the innovative form of a

particular religion in response to the circumstances of the modern world. 5 As a matter of fact,

these NRMs also integrated freely the doctrines and practices from various sources of religions

to form their own belief system.6 For instance, Mormonism considered fasting, ritual

cleansings, or even marrying four wives as their practice, which is similar to Islam, but

considered themselves as Christians and embraced the Christian Bible as one of their four

texts.7 However, the adherents of Christianity did not recognize the Mormons as one of their

accepted or official sects due to the differences in the practices and beliefs of the Mormons.

Hence, it explained why Mormonism and Ahmadiyya (particularly Qadiani) as a new religious

movement are considered a “threat” to some Christians and Muslims, respectively, as

mentioned by Barker in this article.

Another statement by Barker to be examined in this review concerns the role of the

media. Clearly, media is a platform for connecting people all over the world and

acknowledging about what is happening in a particular place. In this article, Barker stated

“Analyses of reports in newspapers and magazines, on radio and television indicate that the

5
Murray Rubinstein, New Religious Movement, accessed December 3, 2022.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/new-religious-movement.
6
Ibid.
7
History.com Editors, Mormons, accessed December 3, 2022.
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/mormons#:~:text=Mormons%20consider%20themselves%20Christians
%2C%20but,more%20prophets%20after%20Jesus's%20death.

6
media rarely present balanced accounts of NRMs, preferring instead to attract the interest of

their audiences with the more lurid, bizarre or sensational reports, thereby confirming the

‘conventional wisdom’ that NRMs in general do not deserve the respect that can be afforded

older, more established religions.”8 What is more, the media refused to use the terms "belief"

or "faith" to refer to these new religious movements, instead using them to refer to well-

established religions.9 It is also found that “strong, negative descriptive words”10 are used to

discuss or refer to these new religious movements. This demonstrated a biased description of

the movements generally, inviting scepticism or the imposition of a stereotype among the

community. Eventually, this will lead and encourage people to react violently against members

of these new religious movements, or, in a subtle way, to disregard their citizen rights.

Relatedly, it is agreeable that the media, despite its pivotal role in influencing people,

does not accurately portray what occurred within a new religious movement in general. If a

movement such as Ahmadiyya (Qadiani) or Mormonism, as discussed above, is presented, the

media will generalize about the religions themselves. This will not only create a negative

perception of the religion but will also create a misunderstanding within the community about

the religion itself. In which, as has been discussed since the first statement, there are justified

reasons why the religions refused to accept a particular new religious movement that derived

from them. Such could be seen when the media used the term “Muslims” to refer to the

members of Ahmadiyya (Qadiani), whereas the members believed that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

(the founder) was a prophet.11 However, it was stated in the two most important Islamic

sources, the al-Quran and the Sunnah, that Muhammad was the last and final prophet. As a

8
Barker, “Freedom from Me and, Perhaps, You – but Surely Not Them? Attitudes to New Religions in
Contemporary Democracies,” p. 72.
9
Hope Burmeister, “The representation of cults new religious movements in the media,” Research Gate,
(September 2020), p. 16.
10
Ibid.
11
Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ahmadiyyah, accessed December 5, 2022.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ahmadiyyah.

7
result, the media should provide the community with a fair and profound understanding of new

religious movements, as well as their objectives and principles, in order for the community to

differentiate them from other religions and avoid generalizing.

To conclude, through this article, Barker highlighted the problems faced by the

members of new religious movements from two main aspects, the response of the state as well

as the society. Throughout the discussion, it was undeniable that the members deserved to have

their rights respected and fulfilled. What is given to members of well-established religions

should be given to those of new religious movements too, especially in terms of human rights.

It is also important to note that the media should not generalise all new religious movements

and should portray them fairly. However, what is happening around the world is what one could

call a "double standard" kind of treatment between new religious movements as well as the

older religions, and Barker highlighted the point clearly for the readers to ponder.

Even so, the community deserves adequate understanding of those movements in order

to evaluate the nature of the movements and also, to have a clear distinction between a religion

and a movement. Having said that, one should know that not all movements were rejected by

a particular religion, and the rejection could not be merely interpreted as limiting the principles

of religious freedom as referring to the justified reasons. In fine, one must wisely evaluate the

chosen response to be given to new religious movements with a proper and profound

understanding of a movement, whether in general or in a specific religion.