Bridging Belief and Policy

Guest blogger Nabiha Mahmood explores the intersection of religion and politics, specifically Muslim and Jewish beliefs that are often ignored in the course of policy discourse.

Nabiha Mahmood (BS, Psychology; BA, Religious Studies, IUI 2025) conducted her interviews with several local rabbis and imams to learn how religious moral languages inform their views on major issues of the day. She wrote this blog-post during the fall 2024 course, “Power, Sex, and Money” (taught by Prof. David Craig).

When tasked with exploring the intersection of religion and politics in the context of US public debates, I chose to focus on two pressing issues: abortion laws and the ongoing conflict in Gaza. These topics embody the complex interplay between moral values and policy, both deeply intertwined with religious perspectives. My decision to interview two rabbis and two imams, representing both progressive and traditional viewpoints, was deliberate. I sought to capture the breadth of religious thought, recognizing the value of contrasting interpretations within Judaism and Islam. This approach allowed me to understand how faith informs moral reasoning on these contentious topics and provided a richer foundation for dialogue.

Lesson 1: Judgments About Sanctity of Life Are Nuanced, Not Absolute

One of the most profound realizations from these interviews was the complexity and nuance with which religious traditions approach the sanctity of life, particularly concerning abortion.

Rabbi 1 articulated, “The fetus is considered a ‘pursuer’ when it endangers the mother, making abortion not just permissible but necessary in such cases.” This perspective, grounded in Jewish law, highlights the precedence of the mother’s life over the fetus’s potentiality. Similarly, Rabbi 2 emphasized, “Jewish law prioritizes the mother’s autonomy and well-being over the fetus’s potential life.” From an Islamic perspective, Imam 1 explained, “Abortion is permissible before the first 40 days, as that is when the soul is believed to be breathed into the fetus.” Imam 2 added, “Islam emphasizes the principle of mercy, balancing the rights of the mother and the fetus while minimizing harm.”

These insights shattered any preconceived notions of a rigid stance within these faiths. The deeply contextual approach of both traditions demonstrated a moral calculus that is often missing from polarized public debates. By embracing this nuance, I learned how religious perspectives can foster greater empathy and understanding.

Lesson 2: Moral Language Shapes Public Discourse

Religious leaders rely heavily on moral language to frame their positions, shaping public understanding and debate. This became evident in discussions about abortion and the Gaza conflict.

Rabbi 1 framed abortion through the lens of “human life versus potential human life,” prioritizing the mother’s well-being. Similarly, Imam 2 invoked the principle of choosing the “lesser evil” to navigate moral dilemmas, emphasizing mercy and justice. Regarding the Gaza conflict, Rabbi 2 criticized the escalation of violence, stating, “The response has gone beyond moral boundaries.” Imam 1 and Imam 2 condemned actions targeting non-combatants, with Imam 1 asserting, “Justice must guide our response to suffering, even in times of war.”

Through these conversations, I realized how moral language not only informs decisions but also provides a shared framework for engaging in complex debates. The moral vocabulary used by these leaders underscored the potential of faith traditions to bridge divides in public discourse.

Lesson 3: Similarities Beyond Traditions and Differences Within Them

An intriguing takeaway from these interviews was observing how some viewpoints aligned more closely across traditions than within the same tradition. Rabbi 1 and Imam 1 shared a more traditional perspective, emphasizing strict interpretations and boundaries shaped by theological frameworks. On the other hand, Rabbi 2 and Imam 2 shared more progressive views, emphasizing autonomy, mercy, and the importance of balancing personal and societal considerations.

Rabbi 2 noted, “Judaism thrives in the ‘liminal spaces,’ where uncertainty exists, and that’s where its wisdom lies.” Imam 2 echoed this sentiment, stating, “Islam teaches us to approach everything with mercy, recognizing the complexity of human experiences.” This alignment between a rabbi and an imam was a fascinating discovery, underscoring how shared values can transcend religious boundaries, while differences within the same tradition highlight the richness of interpretation and diversity.

This observation challenged my initial assumption that religious leaders within the same faith would have more in common. It demonstrated that individual perspectives, influenced by theology, cultural context, and personal philosophy, are just as significant as the broader religious tradition.

Lesson 4: Shared Principles, Divergent Applications

While theological differences emerged in the interviews, shared moral commitments—such as the sanctity of life, justice, and compassion—were evident across traditions. Both Judaism and Islam prioritize the mother’s life in cases of abortion but differ on when personhood begins. Similarly, all interviewees condemned the loss of innocent lives in Gaza, yet they diverged on the justification and proportionality of military actions. Imam 2 noted, “War should always aim to restore justice and dignity, never for land or power,” highlighting Islam’s focus on ethical warfare.

These shared principles demonstrated the potential for interfaith collaboration. By focusing on common ethical ground, religious and secular communities can address moral challenges while respecting theological diversity.

Conclusion: Embracing Complexity in Public Debates

The most significant takeaway from these interviews is the richness and complexity of religious moral reasoning. As Rabbi 1 said, “Whoever tells you that Judaism says X is completely wrong. Judaism is incredibly multifaceted, reflecting the complexity of human life.” Similarly, Imam 1 emphasized, “Religion is the lens through which I see the entire world—it’s not something compartmentalized.”

These exchanges taught me that religious teachings are not rigid dogmas but dynamic frameworks engaging deeply with human experiences. Recognizing this complexity can transform public debates on issues like abortion and war, fostering inclusivity and empathy.

Moving forward, the challenge lies in navigating the intersection of religion and policy with respect and openness. By engaging with diverse moral perspectives, we can build a foundation for dialogue that prioritizes justice, compassion, and the common good.