Some religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia accuse those that disagree with the Lina Joy case ruling as Islamophobes. While there are Islamophobes out there, just as there are xenophobes in general out there, the labeling of Islamophobes on freedom lovers is merely an act of poisoning the well. While I do not speak for others, the accusation certainly does not apply to me as well as other like-minded libertarians and sincere freedom lovers. Most libertarians disagree with the ruling not because it is specifically connected to Islam but rather, it is due to the intervention of the state in personal individual affairs. That intervention results in the infringement of individual liberty. And just like libertarians, generic freedom lovers are concerned with the restriction imposed on religious freedom by the ruling.
Imagine a hypothetical country called Hinduland where Hinduism had the exact sanction Islam enjoys in Malaysia. Imagine further of a former Hindu Muslim and he wished to remove the word Hindu from his identity card whereas by law, a Hindu must have his religion stated on the card. As is the case with the Lina Joy ruling, many individuals with strong conviction to religious freedom would support the Muslim convert’s wish and subsequent action toward that wish.
I would imagine, religious conservative Muslims would also join the freedom lovers in expressing support for the former Hindu Muslim, just because the person was a Muslim. The religious conservative Hindus in Hinduland on the other hand might take the position the religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia currently take. If the ruling in Hinduland would have been the same as in Malaysia, the religious conservative Hindus would call everybody that disagreed with ruling as Hinduphobes. This is the exact parallel in Malaysia with the only difference is the names of the religions.
In that case of the Hinduland scenario, I would support the Muslim’s action. Be mindful that I would do so not because he is a Muslim but rather, because I fully respect his freewill. The same cannot be said for religious conservatives whom have issues with the concept of religious freedom. To them, freewill is a dirty word.
Before one disposes this model as merely hypothetical, do note that conversion from Hinduism to Islam is a controversial subject in India. The religious conservative Hindus in India share the same concern with the religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia regarding liberty to disassociate oneself from the religion.
For sincere freedom lovers, this is not a question of loving or hating any particular religion. Freedom lovers and especially libertarians could not care less with the beliefs a person would want to migrate from and to. For freedom lovers, it is a matter of allowing a person to think and act for himself. As long as any of his action does not limit others’ same rights, he should be free choose his own course of action without coercion from others.
This clearly shows that freedom lovers’ opposition is based on dedication to an ideal of liberty and not based on irrational fear or hatred to Islam. Some religious conservative Muslims are trying to say otherwise in hope to poison the well, divert attention from the source of disagreement and indulge in disinformation.
5 replies on “[1248] Of accusation of Islamophobia is just an act of poisoning the well”
[…] proof that The Economist is concerned with liberty rather than appealing to irrational fear of Islam: In many places, constitutional guarantees of […]
Yet again, no, I am not referring to your site.
But yet again, I agree that there are you that there are those that believe (be it true or not) that the two Muslims judges that judging specifically in favor in their religion. But is that phobia? Say I have two paths to take: one to KL and one to Jakarta. If I favored KL, would that mean I have a Jakarta-phobia? Besides, being biased does not make one automatically a (insert favorite word here)phobe.
If a person prefers Islam and not everything else, would I call the person everything-phobes? I do not think so. Two wrongs do not make a right.
In this post, I am saying many liberals (myself especially) do not care about the religion. All they care is freedom in this particular case. Despite that, many religious conservatives just accuse everybody that disagree with the ruling of being Islamophobes.
The point is, name calling does not solve anything, be the attack done against or for Islam.
I maybe perasan again that you are referring to my post, but if true, let me just state I’m fine with the line of argument taken by libertarians. But when some people only accuse the two muslim judges of arguing for their own religion while not making the same accusation towards the third judge, then that’s a clear bias, no?
YOu do realize the Islamist fanatics will not get your point, do you?
There are to tied up doing kenduri and doa selamat.. argh!
You hit the nail alright!
I personally don’t have a problem with Islam. It’s the followers that irk me.