Although it was a discussion, I would like to analyze this in the context of a debate, since the topic discussed was an affirmative-negative topic; whether liberalism is a threat to Islam or not. My analysis is a summarized version of the debate and it is organized based on arguments, not chronology. Answers to questions from the moderator and Fathi Aris Omar are compiled in the arguments. My commentaries are italicized and a summary is provided at the end of this article.
-------------------
Arguments
PRO: Liberalism is a threat to Islam
Ustaz Abdullah Zaik, President of Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA)
CON: Liberalism is not a threat to Islam
Khalid Jaafar, Executive Director of Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD)
Opening question: "What is the threat of liberalism to Muslims, Malaysians, and Malays?"
PRO Argument 1: Liberalism contradicts the fundamental idea of Akidah.
Liberalism is an atheistic ideology that promotes dissociation of identity (which includes individual and national identity). It contradicts the idea of Akidah in Islam as it does not acknowledge the idea of a higher being (as a reference). It also promotes the belief that religion should be democratic such that it is now defined by the society based on their preferences, not religious texts. It upholds human thought and preferences as a source of reference which is against Islamic philosophies. We propagate ideas based on Islam. In Islamic politics, Islam preserves religion. We oppose groups or movements that promote liberal ideas which includes any individual that propagates the ideas through actions, statements or words.
Ust Abdullah Zaik defined the main contradiction between liberalism and Islam. He referenced liberalism as an ideology. He managed to justify the central idea of how liberalism seeks to give power to human thought in defining fundamental values of the society and thus rejecting Syariah.
CON Argument 1: Liberalists are not atheists.
Liberalism is a political ideology and it is not holistic. It allows religion to be practiced. John Locke is a man of faith even though he was not an expert in theology. Other examples include John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville. Syeikh Yusuf Qardhawy defends justice, democracy and civil rights to overthrow an unjust government. That is in essence what liberalism is about. Another epitome of liberalism is the Arab Spring. A majority of Malaysians are liberals because a democrat must be a liberal. Many Islamic scholars are also liberals. History proved that mankind agreed with secularism on the sense that they disagree with oppression from theocratic governments. Most people are liberals whether they agree with it or not. The Islamic world is getting more and more liberal in the sense that there is an increasing amount of democratic ideas being promoted in the Islamic world. Liberalism is a package which includes many different human rights and it is an evolution of human thought. Slavery was accepted by men in the past. However, the liberalization of thought eradicated slavery through the development of institutions. Liberalism is not static, it is continuously developing.
Khalid Jaafar argued that liberalism is not a complete school of thought, but rather a political ideology . He tried to justify liberalism as an ideology that accepts religion by defining liberalists as men of faith. This justified how liberalism allows people to worship and have personal religious beliefs. However he did not address Ustaz Abdullah Zaik's central point on how liberalism rejects Syariah (in political matters). His correlation of liberalists being anyone who accepts freedom was very simplistic. An example of a similar inference is "All cars have tires. Bicycles have tires. Thus all bicycles are cars." Therefore, his generalization was invalid.
PRO Argument 2: Islam as a complete religion (Syumul).
Islam comprises of many different components such as behavior, transactions, Akidah, politics and worship. Thus it should not be restricted to personal matters of beliefs. Justice and freedom are components of liberalism that are aligned with Islam. A democratic election is an example of a part of liberalism that we can accept as there is a slight overlap between liberalism and Islam. However, liberalism is a package that is not limited to certain ideas (of freedom and justice). Liberalism indoctrinates the Akidah of Muslims. Examples include how Benz Ali questioned the justice of Allah by stating that heaven or hell should not be based on the Syahadah, and the statement, "we are all children of Allah" which contradicts fundamental Akidah. (Argument 3 elaborates this statement). Our world view is based on Islam, not liberalism.
Ustaz Abdullah Zaik rebutted Khalid Jaafar's argument on the idea that liberalism accepts religion by defining the scope of Islam which is not restricted to personal faith. He stated that there is a slight overlap between the two ideologies but liberalism is more than the components of freedom as defined in his first argument. He gave examples of current issues that are threatening Akidah of Muslims and he drew a line between Islam and liberalism.
CON Argument 2: Liberalism opposes oppression and upholds justice.
Liberalism has to be defined according to the original sources of liberalism and it differs based on the current development of society. The pillars of liberalism include freedom of speech, human rights, and political liberty as defined by John Locke, John Hicke, Adam Smith and etc. History has proven that Liberalism helped eradicate oppression and upheld justice. Islam upholds freedom such as the right to property and life. However, Islam is not a complete political system. Liberalism promotes a more equal form of politics that opposes oppression. In the case of the separation of church and state, liberalists (who are deists) fight for the corruption of the church and they do not believe in organized religion.
Khalid Jaafar disagreed with the definition of liberalism that rejects religion as defined by Ustaz Abdullah Zaik. He reiterated that liberalism include various rights and freedom but he failed to state the limitations of liberalism that he believes in. He disagreed with Ustaz Abdullah Zaik's definition of Islam being a complete religion which includes politcal affairs. While he managed to clarify how liberalism allows freedom to worship, he failed to address the issue of liberalism rejecting Islamic references in political affairs. He stated that liberalism is more effective in promoting a more equal form of politics.
PRO Argument 3: Liberalism removes commitment (Intima').
Islam is a religion of obligations (Iltizam). There are no limitations of conduct in liberalism. Humans are free to decide whether to be Muslim or not. As long as they're Muslims, they're obliged to follow the rules outlined by Islam. An example of Muslims who does not abide by these obligations include Amina Wadud who conducted solat in English which is against Islamic teachings that were founded by the prophet Muhammad PBUH. Liberalism removes commitment to our race and religion such that everyone is seen as equal. In the case of debates, Islam recognizes debates such that Imam Syafie authored a book on the art of debate. However, there are methodologies and discipline in debates in Islam.
In this argument, Ustaz Abdullah Zaik outlined the obligations of Muslims that limits their freedom. He referenced that an example of a liberal form of freedom of expression is the case of Amina Wadud. He clarified that freedom of expression is allowed in Islam through specific methodologies and comes with limitations of conduct.
CON Argument 3: Liberalism was referenced from Islamic sources.
Muslims have to engage in the challenge of progress. The Islamic tradition before the Enlightenment phase in Europe was rich in criticism and debates through various writings (not physical debates). Caliphs acted as adjudicators in debates. Thus the idea of freedom of expression is not new. Due to the absence of liberalism, many scholastic books were burnt during the eras of the Caliphate. No civilization could progress without debates. Rome and the Abassiyyah empire engaged in many debates which caused to their great influence in the world.
Khalid Jaafar argued that liberalism was the cause of the rise of great civilizations including Islamic empires. However he did not engage in Ustaz Abdullah Zaik's argument on liberalism rejecting obligations.
PRO Argument 4: Liberal Freedom of Expression is against formal knowledge disciplines.
Discourse and criticism should happen according to disciplines of knowledge. Someone who has engaged with the different phases of knowledge inquiry is allowed to debate in issues pertaining to their field. In Islam, there are debates and differences in opinion. There is a fatwa on freedom of criticism which outlines this. If the issue is a clear cut and definite issue in Islam (such as oneness of Allah), thus there must be disciplinary actions toward intellectuals who criticize such issue. But if the issue is new or based on Ijtihad, Ulama' has to respond. There are different phases of inquiry and not everyone should engage in debates to critique every issue based on their opinions without prior understanding in the disciplines of knowledge. In the case of a public citizen who is new to Islamic ideas, trying to question Islam, there are phases of actions that need to be conducted which includes proper explanation and repentance. What is happening today is that extreme views that go against Islamic ideas are considered critical, modern and progressive and they are being defended as freedom of expression. This is a worry-some situation. However this situation should not be dealt with brute force. Ulama' and Da'ies are in charge of explaining the situation. There exists different schools of thoughts (Mazhab) in Islam. However, many cases of criticism today are not based on any school of thoughts (Mazhab) that are recognized in Islam. An example of such is the case of Amina Wadud. We present our arguments to hundreds of mosques (and other mediums) on issues related to COMANGO. This is our way of educating the public. Liberalism is a movement. There is a difference between responding to ideological movements and responding to individuals. We provide explanations on issues that pertain to liberalism for individuals.
Ustaz Abdullah Zaik corrected Khalid Jaafar's argument on freedom of expression in Islamic history. He emphasized the importance of methodology and the barriers of freedom of criticism in Islam as outlined by a fatwa. One of his points was that Ulama' and Da'ies play an important role in providing explanations, and criticism issues not be dealt with unnecessary brute force. He reiterated the case of Amina Wadud as a case of criticism that is beyond the official schools of thoughts in Islam, which makes it unacceptable.
CON Argument 4: Knowledge expand on synthesis.
Various disciplines of knowledge exist today. Knowledge expands on synthesis. Thus people from different disciplines should be able to engage with any kind of debates to allow expansion of knowledge. We live in a free world. No restriction could be enforced on the public. Because the sources of information are many, thus Ulama's should use different technologies and methods of persuasion. Religious authority should not be institutionalized any more. Those who are knowledgeable should project their knowledge not through authority, but through persuasion. Ulama's are able to answer such question with wisdom. There are aspects that are allowed today in Islam, wasn't allowed before such as music and the wearing of neckties. Amina Wadud does not represent liberalism as she is not John Locke, John Stuart Mill, or Alexis De Tocqueville. She is merely interpreting the Quran, thus the Ulama' has to respond. Discourse on secularism should be promoted. A lot of people do not understand Secularism vs Islam. I believe that secularism is a process that opposes oppression of theocratic institutions. We should not be rigid in making discourse and should be open to new ideas of secularism.
Khalid Jaafar engaged in the discussion of synthesis of knowledge as a rebuttal to Ustaz Abdullah Zaik's argument on the limitations of freedom of criticism. He argues that various knowledge areas that exist today should be able to engage in criticism. However, he mentioned that Ulama's play a pivotal role in persuading. He argued that Amina Wadud does not represent liberalism, but he failed to address whether or not Amina Wadud's actions are forms of liberalism. He also failed to state whether he deems Amina Wadud's actions as acceptable or not. He later justified secularism as a form of freedom from the oppression of theocratic institutions. This is however, a simplistic view of secularism and he did not address whether secularism would accept non-oppressive theocratic institutions.
CON Conclusion: Promoting global consensus.
Liberalism has allowed progress ever since its ideological
expansion. It promotes global consensus. An example of such is the United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Muslims that are afraid of liberalism
would not progress. Arab Spring is an example of the success of liberalism. The
Muslim World today is indeed moving towards more liberalistic ideas.
Khalid Jaafar concluded by stating that liberalism promotes global consensus which is a form of standardization. He failed to address the difference of policies between an atheistic, secular or Islamic state which would not align with global consensus.
PRO Conclusion: Islam and liberalism are two separate entities.
Islam and Liberalism are two separate ideologies. On global
consensus, it is the clash of the Muslim civilization and the western
civilization. The western civilization is based on atheistic ideologies, while
the Muslim World is based on servitude to Allah. We are open to receive
goodness (or Hikmah) from anywhere as long as it does not contradict with our
principles, but our progress is through the development of basic understanding
of the principles in our religion, not through foreign ideologies as this will
lead to vitiation and the removal of identity.
Ustaz Abdullah Zaik reiterated that there is a clear line between Islam and liberalism. He rebutted Khalid Jaafar's argument on global consensus by stating that there are differences in policies between an atheistic and Islamic state which would not align under global consensus. He expressed openness to values that does not contradict with Islamic principles and firmly stated that foreign ideologies are threats as they cause vitiation and removal of the Muslim identity.
-----------------------------
Summary
One particular thing about this debate is that there were no clear definition of liberalism, its limitations and the scope of the discussion in the beginning. This resulted in vague use of terms and thus the debate was not clear and decisive. The lack of agreed definition resulted in many re-clarifications throughout the debate.
Khalid Jaafar was eloquent and loud in volume which appeals many. However, his ideas did not properly address some of the arguments and rebuttals brought by Ustaz Abdullah Zaik.
- Ustaz Abdullah Zaik defined Islam as a holistic system while Khalid Jaafar rejected Islam as a complete political system.
- Ustaz Abdullah Zaik was firm in stating that Islam allowed freedom but it comes with limitations while Khalid Jaafar was consistent in stating that all types of freedom is liberal, which is a simplistic generalization.
- Ustaz Abdullah Zaik stated that liberalism upholds the human mind as a main source and rejects Islamic sources. Khalid Jaafar did not clarify whether liberalism rejects Syariah or not.
- On the case of global consensus, Khalid Jaafar argued for uniformity of values across the globe while Ustaz Abdullah Zaik recognized contextual definition of values based on ideologies of different nations (Islamic or atheistic).
- Ustaz Abdullah Zaik outlined the obligations of Muslims in the servitude of Allah while Khalid Jaafar focused on the freedom of individuals while still being able to believe in god.
- Both speakers agreed that Ulama' should play a more active role in providing explanations to the public.
- Khalid Jaafar expressed that people of all disciplines of knowledge should be able to freely participate in the interpretation of the Quran, while Ustaz Abdullah Zaik stated that understanding methodologies of interpretation of the Quran is essential thus it should not be freely interpreted.
- Ustaz Abdullah Zaik also mentioned Amina Wadud as a case in point of misinterpretation of the Quran under freedom of expression. Khalid Jaaafar denied that Amina Wadud represents liberalism but failed to clarify whether the case is an example of freedom of expression or not. If it is, then in essence Amina Wadud is a liberal based on Khalid Jaafar's own definitions (ie all who believe in freedom are liberals).
- At some part of the debate, Khalid engaged in wordplay by saying that American republicans uphold family values, thus liberalism is not against family values. While he is true that republicans are keen on family values, republicans are the opposite of liberals, and liberals fight for legalization of same-sex marriage which is against family values.
As for who won this debate (discussion?), you decide.
What is more worrying for me is that Khalid Jaafar declared himself as a fighter of liberalism, and some Islamists are happily nodding to his arguments. Perhaps they fail to see how the Egyptian FJP that they support so much was opposed by liberal parties.
I guess the ABI (Anything But ISMA) sentiment is still there.
1 comment:
How could I miss this? Thunbs up akh!
Post a Comment