I spent some time this weekend to read a bit more about “Islam liberal”. The more I read about them (from their own sources), the more I ask what is so liberal about them?
In fact, I think the “Islam liberal” people are not liberal at all. If they are, they are certainly trying – albeit failing – to redefine liberalism.
Classical liberalism is about market solutions, personal choice and responsibility, rule of law and small state.
Classical liberalism is not just about choice. It certainly is not about choice without responsibility or morality. Great classical liberals like Seldon and Friedman wrote extensively about capitalism and morality. The Libertarian Reader edited by David Boaz of Cato Institute begins its very first chapter with a direct quote from The Bible (I Samuel 8). Morality is central to liberalism, only that it is not the role of the state to impose morality.
It seems to me that the “Islam liberal” people are only focusing on personal choice. They hardly touch on any other tenets of liberalism. If anything, they are just rebels who have “stolen” two terms – “Islam” and “liberal” – to describe themselves. It is questionable whether they are at all “Islam” or “liberal”.
Filed under: Freedom & Liberty, Malaysia
It’s a great irony that the phrase “Islam liberal” is hardly ever used by these supposedly “liberal Muslims” themselves, the label is mostly used by their critics who classify them into several sub-groups within the Muslim ummah.
It’s a truly curious point that you mention, that it is not the role of the state to impose morality. I presume that you are referring to legislation, but laws themselves are not morality-free. It is incorrect to refer to law and morals – as it is done in traditional western philosophical thought – as mutually exclusive domains. Values such as justice, equality, freedom and human rights are moral values, yet I strongly believe that it is the fundamental role of the state to uphold and advance them. When judges decide cases, often a literal interpretation of the black-letter law would lead to manifestly unjust result and the judge would have to exercise his discretion, in which case his moral belief would often help him in deciding the case. If you are looking for a classic illustration where the state is not involved in promoting and enforcing moral values, look to no further than the laws of Nazi Germany that effectively legitimise and authorise – by law – the discriminaton and killings of Jews.
Hazri, thanks for the comment. I would argue that there is a difference between ‘imposing’ a set of values with ‘promoting’ those values. For example, I would promote the wearing of tudung among women and I would encourage you to persuade your family members do so. But if I were to be a parliamentarian, I would not legislate to impose my beliefs on your wife.
And, yes, a judge would use his moral beliefsin deciding a case. But, he would have to work within the framework of the law.
I believe liberal democracy at the moment is a tool that can be used to promote Islam. I disagree that you cannot force or ask a Muslim to follow Islamic laws and regulations. Having said that, education is also very important (as you said, encouragement). If not, you will allow people to follow their free will. I say gambling, prostitution, sumbang mahram, homosexuality, incest are all bad, but I don’t force you to stay far from it. Islam will only become a preaching religion without element of authority to create an environment conducive to practise it.