Jogging around the local blogosphere, I suppose me and a few other bloggers have been placed by local religious conservative bloggers within the Liberal Islam philosophical school. Though I had no qualm with it initially, I started to rethink whether that label fits me; it doesn’t.
Though these conservative Muslims have attacked the school, I had unwittingly tried to defend it despite the fact that I’m not actually in the latter group. In some cases, some conservatives attacked me on the false assumption that I’m part of Liberal Islam. My uncalculated effort to defend such philosophy hasn’t helped me in dispelling the assumption that I’m part of that loose liberal group.
In time, I’ve recognized such defense was more of a knee jerk reaction on my behalf. So, I had taken a step back and reassessed the situation. This entry will clarify some of my political stances that are relevant to the issue and explain why I don’t subscribe to Liberal Islam philosophy.
First of all, I’m a libertarian. A libertarian is a very specific branch of liberalism. It advocates that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. In short, it calls for freedom as well as respect for freedom. Libertarianism influences all aspects of my life; from economic to social beliefs. Environmentalism also influences me but that’s irrelevant to the objective of this entry.
Being a libertarian and generally a liberal, the call for free speech, etc. comes only naturally. Part of that is freedom of religion. All these are individual rights. Libertarian itself sees individual as the basic unit of a society. These rights are essential components of libertarianism. Without these rights, one’s freedom might mean less freedom for others. I’d call libertarianism as equitable freedom.
In liberalism, the state is established by its citizens to protect the citizens and their rights. The state is there to make sure those rights are not compromised by others — be it by a citizen upon another citizen or a downright infringement of sovereignty by a foreign force. Theoretically, the state is there to provide equal protect to all, hence a fair state. In a nutshell, libertarianism distributes freedom to all equally.
In one way, this grants incredible power to the state that — if it wishes to do so — it could not only not protect its citizens that established the government in the first place, the state could infringe the rights of the citizens. Hence, the question, “who will guard the guardian?”
Democracy is designed to force the state to be accountable to its citizens. It’s the guard that guards the elected guardians. Democracy unfortunately introduces tyranny of the majority. It allows the majority to infringe on the minority’s individual rights which occurs in many places, including Malaysia, France, Turkey and the United States of America. A properly written constitution might provide some safeguard against such tyranny. Alas, the constitution itself is at the mercy of the majority. This is something that still needs to be thought out soon.
Whatever needs to be thought out, apart from rationalism and empiricism, it’s the tyranny of the majority that makes me embraces secularism. Secularism helps forestall such tyranny. It’s one step towards an impartial government.
Secularism forces the state to not favor any religion at the expense of others. The state is responsible to its citizens, not to any particular group within the society. Secularism coupled with a liberal democratic system is fertile ground for a multicultural society like Malaysia.
As a secularist and a liberal, I rarely find myself talking from religious perspective. In fact, whenever I express myself in matter related to religion, it’s because the followers of religion — may it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. — are infringing on individual rights. An example is the enforcement of moral policing which violates common people’s privacy.
Though I’m a Muslim, I take religion as something personal. Add that on top of the libertarian-ness in me, I won’t allow others to regulate my religion or belief as long as I don’t infringe on others’ rights. I don’t mind advice but decisions on my life are mine to take and I can do whatever I like, as long as such action doesn’t affect others.
I don’t see the world through religious prism. Instead, reasons appeal to me. That explains why sometimes I’m hostile towards religious conservatives — regardless of religion — which rarely provide rationality.
Proof to this is that, while I’m philosophically hostile to conservative Muslims, I’m not fond of Christian, Hindu or Jewish zealots either. That’s why I’ve issues the Republicans Party. If it hadn’t been from the religious conservatives, part of me would probably prefer the GOP to the Democrats in the US.
In the final analysis, while a liberal, I’m not part of Liberal Islam philosophy. I’m just a liberal with a strong sense of rationalism and empiricism. I’m a humanist. Suffice to say, the concept of divine rights needs to be rationalized before it becomes rationale.
The school of Liberal Islam may share some of the schools of thought that I subscribe to, but I don’t use religion to advance liberalism. I don’t use religion to justify a lot of things; I use reasons instead. That’s why I’m not a Liberal Islam. The fact that I’m a liberal and a Muslim by birth doesn’t make me a subscriber to Liberal Islam.