Feb 22Liked by Berny Belvedere, Shikha Dalmia, Zahra Hassan
Thank you for sharing this essay.
Islamic history is replete with examples of the rich cultural contributions to art, science, literature, and architecture that advanced both eastern and western societies.
Every religion is susceptible to minority, extremist control. We saw it with Christianity innumerable times over millennia...the Spanish Civil War, the era of Stalin, the rise of Nazism.
No people should ever be defined by the extremists who use religion as a Trojan Horse to seize power.
Hmm. How about also “No religion can be properly understood based on its most liberal proponents.” Within the last decade, a *majority* of Muslims in Muslim majority countries have endorsed killing apostates. Capital punishment for apostates is the law of the land in 8 Muslim-majority countries. Solid majorities of Muslims believe Sharia is the revealed word of God.
If the interpretation of Islam in this article is the most true interpretation, then the authors have written to the wrong target audience. It is not Westerners that misunderstand Islam, it is the Arab world and other countries where Islam is ascendant.
I’m all for reformation within the Abrahamic religions, but the audience for that needs to be believers, not outsiders.
"... as Muslim reformer Shireen Qudosi phrased it in speaking of Islam’s desperate need of reformation, 'either Islam needs to evolve or it needs to die'."
"... philosopher Anthony Flew who justifiably concluded, in his review of Ibn Warraq’s 'Why I’m Not a Muslim', that 'Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state'. ...."
"[secular? Muslim] Mr. Salim Mansur (Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual): ... ' I would like members to note that I come before you as a practising Muslim who knows out of experience, from the inside, how volatile, how disruptive, how violent, how misogynistic is the culture of Islam today and has been during my lifetime, and how it greatly threatens our liberal democracy that I cherish, since I know what is its opposite' ..."
Odd piece. Would that it were so! But I'm afraid it isn't. Most notably, a religion that specifies the death penalty for those who renounce it cannot be considered liberal. And that's what Islam does.
Where are all the liberal Muslims? Why don't we hear from them? Are they deliberately ignored by the media? We only ever seem to hear from the extremists. Community leaders seem to toe the antisemitic, pro-terrorist line here in the UK. They try and fudge it by saying anti-Zionist but undercover reporting has exposed real hatred not just of Jews but of all non-Muslims.
Yet many Muslims are patriotic, tolerant and liberal. So why do we never hear their voices?
Where are the liberal Muslim online magazines and YouTube channels?
Is Islam compatible with the notion of secular law, and with a distinction between religion and the State? In that context, what is the meaning of the term "Caliphate," and does such a formation (a fusion of religious and political authority) reflect, not merely an historical anomaly, but an approach to values and statecraft at the core of Islam?
How does this work in Indonesia? Is the Indonesian model consistent with Islamic jurisprudence? Conversely, did the Ottoman "millet" system represent the sorts of challenges one encounters when trying to incorporate some semblance of pluralism within an Islamic superstructure?
I'm merely raising these questions as issues that the article doesn't clearly address. They remain legitimate questions (subject to a nuanced understanding, along with an unflinching recognition) even if Islam is OTHERWISE compatible with many liberal values.
This is probably why my Muslim friends were good friends with our local Rabbi and taught each other Hebrew/Arabic. Why oh why can’t we all just get along?
With respect, I cannot disagree that Islam, as a personal religion, is what the authors say it is for themselves and other believers. But in my opinion, when he says Islam " is liberal, because there is no inherently controlling or imposing facet to Islam." I must take an exception. Liberalism at its core is the belief that man, in the generic sense, has the inherent right and ability to determine his own personal rules of behavior without reliance on a higher authority for morality. Islam through its belief in divine laws as a guide to personal behavior may very well define virtues which match mankind's age-old discoveries of morals or virtues that lead to societal happiness and peace, and that is a great good for those who follow it as a personal guide to behavior. In this respect it may complement liberalism, but as a public morality it is not liberal nor should it be permitted to define society's morals, rules or laws writ large for the modern state.
The fundamental pillar of every religion is that their religion is the only correct one. As such, it's impossible for any religion to be "liberal". That's not an extremist interpretation. It's the normal, central interpretation of all religion.
Islam is a much more orthodox religion than Christianity. There is, and was ever, only one Quran. My understanding is the oldest copies date from the 7th century. Mohammed's public life spanned decades and his followers included literate people who wrote down things he said. These records were assembled into the Quran by a team of scholars who produced the single version of the Quran that has come down to the present just 20 years after Mohammed's death.
Christianity has as its oldest and most fundamental writings seven letters of Paul (who did not know Jesus in life) and the four Gospel accounts plus Acts that date from 40-70 years after Jesus's death. There also a number of second century writings, some who claim to have been written by Paul or one of the Apostles.
The resulting New Testament contains a large number of documents that say different, contradictory things. There is no true "orthodox" Christianity, just political/theological positions that claim to be orthodox. Thus, Christianity MUST be interpreted, which is why there are hundreds of different kinds of Christianity that say very different (and often contradictory) things.
This makes what Christians believe much more amenable to modification over time than Muslims. For example, Muslims can have a literalist take on the Quran without self-contradiction. Bibilical literalists cannot. Even a simple question like where were Mary and Joseph living when Mary got pregnant with Jesus produces two contradictory answers, Luke says Galilee and Mathew says Judea.
Islam is not liberal. Islam is not conservative. And it doesn’t have to be either. Why?
Because these ontological frames are social constructs created under the specific epistemic frameworks developed in the West. Islam doesn’t have to abide by either. It’s an independent system, with its own epistemological frame and its own concepts of state, society, law, justice, politics, economics.
There is absolutely no need to justify or show Islam as liberal. It is great injustice to Islam. Liberalism has produced the worst possible society in human history. With daily mass shootings, fentanyl and drug addictions, alcoholism, predatory finance, epistemic oppression, family values breakdown, and a total social collapse - why would a system as powerful as Islam sink itself low to the level of liberalism.
No, Islam has nothing to do with liberalism and that is Islam’s greatest strength. And that is why it remains as the last and only hope for human civilization to build a perfect society.
The need to somehow show compatibility and establish false equivalence between Islam and any western models, including liberalism, stems from a deeply rooted immigrant and minority desire to fit in. So people seek these patterns where none exist. The fact that someone has to explain Islam and author articles like this because people in the West view two billion people differently shows that liberalism is a failed model.
Nothing is compatible between the western values and Islam and it doesn’t have to be. Western liberalism can become more humane and more tolerant and more virtuous by adopting Islam. Islam can fix all that’s wrong with liberalism - which is pretty much everything.
For example, it is nothing but liberalism that’s enabling the genocide in Palestine.
This is a great read. Thank you for expanding my heart and mind.
Thank you for sharing this essay.
Islamic history is replete with examples of the rich cultural contributions to art, science, literature, and architecture that advanced both eastern and western societies.
Every religion is susceptible to minority, extremist control. We saw it with Christianity innumerable times over millennia...the Spanish Civil War, the era of Stalin, the rise of Nazism.
No people should ever be defined by the extremists who use religion as a Trojan Horse to seize power.
Hmm. How about also “No religion can be properly understood based on its most liberal proponents.” Within the last decade, a *majority* of Muslims in Muslim majority countries have endorsed killing apostates. Capital punishment for apostates is the law of the land in 8 Muslim-majority countries. Solid majorities of Muslims believe Sharia is the revealed word of God.
If the interpretation of Islam in this article is the most true interpretation, then the authors have written to the wrong target audience. It is not Westerners that misunderstand Islam, it is the Arab world and other countries where Islam is ascendant.
I’m all for reformation within the Abrahamic religions, but the audience for that needs to be believers, not outsiders.
Advancements in astronomy and chemistry are not proof of Liberalism. This is an empty argument.
"Contrary to Western Understanding, Islam Is a Liberal Faith" 😂🤣
https://web.archive.org/web/20180405214735/https://www.thepostmillennial.com/islam-sharia-secular-democracy/
"... as Muslim reformer Shireen Qudosi phrased it in speaking of Islam’s desperate need of reformation, 'either Islam needs to evolve or it needs to die'."
"... philosopher Anthony Flew who justifiably concluded, in his review of Ibn Warraq’s 'Why I’m Not a Muslim', that 'Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state'. ...."
"[secular? Muslim] Mr. Salim Mansur (Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual): ... ' I would like members to note that I come before you as a practising Muslim who knows out of experience, from the inside, how volatile, how disruptive, how violent, how misogynistic is the culture of Islam today and has been during my lifetime, and how it greatly threatens our liberal democracy that I cherish, since I know what is its opposite' ..."
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/CIMM/meeting-51/evidence#Int-7696927
Odd piece. Would that it were so! But I'm afraid it isn't. Most notably, a religion that specifies the death penalty for those who renounce it cannot be considered liberal. And that's what Islam does.
Where are all the liberal Muslims? Why don't we hear from them? Are they deliberately ignored by the media? We only ever seem to hear from the extremists. Community leaders seem to toe the antisemitic, pro-terrorist line here in the UK. They try and fudge it by saying anti-Zionist but undercover reporting has exposed real hatred not just of Jews but of all non-Muslims.
Yet many Muslims are patriotic, tolerant and liberal. So why do we never hear their voices?
Where are the liberal Muslim online magazines and YouTube channels?
Is Islam compatible with the notion of secular law, and with a distinction between religion and the State? In that context, what is the meaning of the term "Caliphate," and does such a formation (a fusion of religious and political authority) reflect, not merely an historical anomaly, but an approach to values and statecraft at the core of Islam?
How does this work in Indonesia? Is the Indonesian model consistent with Islamic jurisprudence? Conversely, did the Ottoman "millet" system represent the sorts of challenges one encounters when trying to incorporate some semblance of pluralism within an Islamic superstructure?
I'm merely raising these questions as issues that the article doesn't clearly address. They remain legitimate questions (subject to a nuanced understanding, along with an unflinching recognition) even if Islam is OTHERWISE compatible with many liberal values.
This is probably why my Muslim friends were good friends with our local Rabbi and taught each other Hebrew/Arabic. Why oh why can’t we all just get along?
With respect, I cannot disagree that Islam, as a personal religion, is what the authors say it is for themselves and other believers. But in my opinion, when he says Islam " is liberal, because there is no inherently controlling or imposing facet to Islam." I must take an exception. Liberalism at its core is the belief that man, in the generic sense, has the inherent right and ability to determine his own personal rules of behavior without reliance on a higher authority for morality. Islam through its belief in divine laws as a guide to personal behavior may very well define virtues which match mankind's age-old discoveries of morals or virtues that lead to societal happiness and peace, and that is a great good for those who follow it as a personal guide to behavior. In this respect it may complement liberalism, but as a public morality it is not liberal nor should it be permitted to define society's morals, rules or laws writ large for the modern state.
The fundamental pillar of every religion is that their religion is the only correct one. As such, it's impossible for any religion to be "liberal". That's not an extremist interpretation. It's the normal, central interpretation of all religion.
Islam is a much more orthodox religion than Christianity. There is, and was ever, only one Quran. My understanding is the oldest copies date from the 7th century. Mohammed's public life spanned decades and his followers included literate people who wrote down things he said. These records were assembled into the Quran by a team of scholars who produced the single version of the Quran that has come down to the present just 20 years after Mohammed's death.
Christianity has as its oldest and most fundamental writings seven letters of Paul (who did not know Jesus in life) and the four Gospel accounts plus Acts that date from 40-70 years after Jesus's death. There also a number of second century writings, some who claim to have been written by Paul or one of the Apostles.
The resulting New Testament contains a large number of documents that say different, contradictory things. There is no true "orthodox" Christianity, just political/theological positions that claim to be orthodox. Thus, Christianity MUST be interpreted, which is why there are hundreds of different kinds of Christianity that say very different (and often contradictory) things.
This makes what Christians believe much more amenable to modification over time than Muslims. For example, Muslims can have a literalist take on the Quran without self-contradiction. Bibilical literalists cannot. Even a simple question like where were Mary and Joseph living when Mary got pregnant with Jesus produces two contradictory answers, Luke says Galilee and Mathew says Judea.
Islam is not liberal. Islam is not conservative. And it doesn’t have to be either. Why?
Because these ontological frames are social constructs created under the specific epistemic frameworks developed in the West. Islam doesn’t have to abide by either. It’s an independent system, with its own epistemological frame and its own concepts of state, society, law, justice, politics, economics.
There is absolutely no need to justify or show Islam as liberal. It is great injustice to Islam. Liberalism has produced the worst possible society in human history. With daily mass shootings, fentanyl and drug addictions, alcoholism, predatory finance, epistemic oppression, family values breakdown, and a total social collapse - why would a system as powerful as Islam sink itself low to the level of liberalism.
No, Islam has nothing to do with liberalism and that is Islam’s greatest strength. And that is why it remains as the last and only hope for human civilization to build a perfect society.
The need to somehow show compatibility and establish false equivalence between Islam and any western models, including liberalism, stems from a deeply rooted immigrant and minority desire to fit in. So people seek these patterns where none exist. The fact that someone has to explain Islam and author articles like this because people in the West view two billion people differently shows that liberalism is a failed model.
Nothing is compatible between the western values and Islam and it doesn’t have to be. Western liberalism can become more humane and more tolerant and more virtuous by adopting Islam. Islam can fix all that’s wrong with liberalism - which is pretty much everything.
For example, it is nothing but liberalism that’s enabling the genocide in Palestine.