I have a tingling suspicion that the school of Liberal Islam is not part of liberalism. Earlier, I have reasoned that while I am a liberal, I am not a member of Liberal Islam. This entry will further strengthen that assertion.
Forgive me but when I refer to liberalism, I really mean classical liberalism. Nowadays, the core concepts of liberalism have won the global ideological battle so greatly that almost everybody at least gives a lip service to liberalism in order to share the victor’s glory. Everybody loves winners and this includes Liberal Islam. Even religious conservatives through varying degree nominally accept certain aspect unique to or introduced by liberalism. Thus, I must qualify liberalism before I go on.
The problem with Liberal Islam is that, it does not hold the concept of liberty for the sake of liberty. Rather, it holds liberty — particularly civil liberty — because the school interprets the sources of Islam to allow as such. Whatever the conservative camps are saying, Liberal Islam still refers back to the sources of Islam. At the very least, it is the Koran. A real liberal does not embrace liberalism because “revealed knowledge” tells him or her to do so. A real liberal embraces liberalism simply for the sake of liberty through his or her own reasoning. A real liberal is not a slave that follows every order or commandment presented to him or her. A real liberal thinks for him or herself.
If it is true that Liberal Islam is not part of liberalism, why does Liberal Islam call itself Liberal Islam?
I would venture to say that the term “liberal” of Liberal Islam acts as a superlative. The term “liberal” in Liberal Islam simply describes the fact that Liberal Islam is more liberal in its interpretation of the sources of Islam compared to that of religious conservatives’. Nothing more. In comparison, the same reasoning is meaningless in liberalism; it should be meaningless simply because “revealed knowledge” is irrelevant.
It is no question that some of the tenets of Liberal Islam are similar to that of liberalism. Nevertheless, Liberal Islam does not go as far as liberalism in embracing liberty. And that liberty encompasses more than civil liberties. Free market is an important pillar in liberalism but Liberal Islam does not seem to stress too much of it.
The fact that term “liberal” in Liberal Islam is a superlative, a socialist could be a member of Liberal Islam. Socialism is affirmatively not part of liberalism. If socialism were liberalism, then the Cold War would not have made sense.
14 replies on “[1053] Of Liberal Islam is not liberalism”
Maybe Liberal Islam refers to Islam that has been set free by liberal thought, only to be limited by the revealed nature of Islam itself?
I think the ultimate test of liberal Islam would be for it to allow its flock to step away from its revealed core and embrace liberalism fully, without making a fuss about it. It has to recognize that freedom of religion is an essential part of liberal thought and that Islamic beliefs will be relegated to a greater, overarching set of liberal principles.
Mudasir,
If I may play the devil’s advocate here,veering slightly if not a whole mile from the original point,I would like to add on to Hafiz’s point-
“To be part of Liberal Islam, I strongly believe that a person’s liberalness must originates from the sources of Islam, no matter how a person interprets the sources.”
Some view on this from a humble Christian perspective (I am far from a scholar in this field, and my thoughts most definitely is not the official Church teachings)-
Liberal Christianity would be defined as a branch of Christianity with an unusually liberal and often controversial view on among others,gay and lesbian rights,abortion,premarital sex and so on.Basically its an interpretation, of scriptures in a very liberal way.I would compare it to the Feminist Islamic movement in New York and Canada where they have female imams.The source of their liberal ideology has its traces in religion, though arguably influenced by mainstream liberals (I would define mainstream liberals as anyone with a Democrat’s doctrine and doesn’t associate his/her ideology with any religion, nor tie it in with nationality/culture/etc)
There are some Christians who reject some ideas of the Church,while generally accepting most of the Churches’ ideas.I would call them Christians with liberal tendencies.
And as for the Christians who really do not know what the Church teaches and supports anything liberal in nature, basically placing more emphasis on the status quo and being agreeable I would call them freethinkers,the Church will call them lost sheep, the Dems will call them highly potential voters and MENJ would call them idiots.But then again, the almighty MENJ calls anyone who does not subscribe to his ideas idiots anyway, but I digress.
Thank you for your kind patience in reading this highly unacademic ramble :)
third,
does your liberalness originate from Islam or the philosophy of liberalism?
To be part of Liberal Islam, I strongly believe that a person’s liberalness must originates from the sources of Islam, no matter how a person interprets the sources.
If the liberalness originates from liberalism, then one is a liberal of liberalism.
One does not become part of Liberal Islam by just being a Muslim (especially nominal) and by having liberal beliefs at the same time.
It’s all about defining what is Islam liberal. I would consider myself a Liberal with Islamic influences and if anything, Islam Liberal seems to define me. Maybe i’m not the poster child of classic liberism but i definately adhere to its fundemental philosophies, Small goverment, free market, rational before tales etc.
As to the remark about Liberalism is anti-Islamic, Well we’re just going to have to wait until Allah gives me a call on it.
Islam can never be a liberal. In fact Islam is just Islam. There’s no such thing is liberal Islam. It’s acctualy against teaching of Islam.
menj, if you are unable to conduct civilized discussion, please leave. I’m uninterested in personal attack. It adds no value to any discussion.
third, a liberal of liberalism could be of any religion (or ir-religion) but he must be prepared to place the mind first above anything else.
As far as Liberal Islam is concerned, the mind acts within the sphere of Islam. It interprets the sources of Islam to get to what it is, a perception of liberalism which is superficial from my point of view.
Again, a liberal of liberalism does not need to adhere to the boundary of Islam if such adherence goes against reasons. Liberal Islam will have to adhere to the boundary of Islam even if it goes against reason. Instead of using reason to judge his life, Islam Liberal is using reason to interpret the sources of Islam which judges his life.
Liberal Islam maybe about liberty (limited to civil liberty only) but again, the school arrives at the conclusion through interpretation of the sources of Islam. Liberalism arrives at the conclusion through reason (some would argue through experiment too).
On top of that, liberalism is more than just about civil liberty. As mentioned earlier, liberalism is about liberty at large.
That are differences between Liberal Islam and liberalism.
Also, please note that when I say liberalism, I mean classic
al liberalism, as stated in the original entry. Liberal Islam is not classical liberalism. Like what mentioned in my entry, a socialist could be part of Liberal Islam but socialism is certainly not part of classical liberalism.
“One has only to put the mind first.”
So is it possible for a Liberal in your definition be a Muslim? If yes.Can that truly be the definition of a Liberal Muslim?
Also, in theory, Liberal Islam is all about liberty, The elimination of the middle man, Freedom to opt out/in with no consequences, Practices and technicalities are totally abandoned and the only reason a liberal would call himself a Muslim would be because he grew up with a muslim background.
It will be hard pressed to find a Liberal Muslim convert.
Mudasir is correct in his definition that liberalism and liberal islam are one. Keep up the good, Mudasir!
Hafiz is an arrogant fool who will never accept other peoples’ definitions of liberalism.
– MENJ
No. Liberal Islam is not anti-liberalism. In fact, Liberal Islam shares many pillars of liberalism. However, it simply not part of liberalism.
The only anti-liberalism philosophies are anti-liberty philosophies. Further, one does not need to be an atheist to be a liberal. One has only to put the mind first.
By your def., Islam Liberal should be considered a new sect.
By my definition, Islam liberal simply means, Liberalism within Islam and its “movement”, although there is no one mosque that could cater all liberals view.
Also, to define Islam Liberal will be anti-liberalism, not?
Liberalism is after all about individualism, so Islam Liberal is an easy way of identifying a large group with different set of belief but share a common heritage, their religion.
However i do understand your point, to be a true liberal one by default should be an atheist as well.
Third,
Third, the label Liberal Islam has already been described. It has is related with ijtihad.
And when you said “liberty in interpretation”, that is the difference between liberals of liberalism and liberals of Liberal Islam.
Liberal Islam could be liberty in interpretation. Or any other else.
In contrast, liberalism is liberty at large. Aristotle said “I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” A liberal of liberalism can say that. A liberal of Liberal Islam cannot.
Abidin,
Fear is required in the former. Reasoning is required in the latter.
And the former is not robust at all. Does a thief stop thieving because god says thievery is wrong?
Desperation discounted, not likely.
And who will enforce what god says?
Still us, the living.
The distortion of the word “liberal” is a major irritation for those of us who abide by the classical definition.
I put it to you that divinely-endowed liberty is infinitely more robust than human-reasoned liberty: compare the person who says “I will not infringe upon your liberty because that is what God requires of me” versus one who says “I will not infringe upon your liberty because that is what I require of me”.
“A real liberal embraces liberalism simply for the sake of liberty through his or her own reasoning.”
I hate doing a clinton on you, but please define Liberal Islam as you percieve it.
Liberal Islam can mean a lot of things and the fundemental reasoning for that Label would be that, Liberty in interpretations. It is open to individuals to interpret Islamic texts to fit their own life. Unlike the more mainstream Sunnis and Shiattes who follow a set of rules and books that have been pre-screened for its followers.
Islam Liberal is indeed a branch of true liberalism. It should be noted that each Liberal Muslim do not share the same set of belief making it the most unique sect in the Islamic world, actually it is not a sect, it is just a label to differentiate.
A liberal Muslim is just as liberal as John Kennedy. Maybe a Catholic, but a liberal none the less.
True. It is indeed a superlative to differentiate from conservative or puritanical Islam although Islam is just Islam.
Does not need any superlatives to it.
And ah, liberal eh! Wonderful. Always could do with another one.
Peace.