Liberal Islam?

[ray245]

Some of the most common argument against Muslims are based on the idea that Islam is considered to be medieval (that's ignoring the fact that Medieval Islam is responsible for much of human intellectual development during the medieval age) and anti-liberal. Even among the various conservative right-wing groups in the western world, they still think of themselves as being more liberal than Islamic communities.

Others have argued that Muslims are generally more homophobic than Christians as another major argument against accepting more Muslims into their society. In other words, they are suggesting that Christianity today have a much greater tolerance for liberalism than Islam. It certainly adds to their argument when many of the most liberal nations have or had a large Christian population.

Muslim dominated countries are generally seen as far more conservative than Western countries, even with some of the most liberal Muslim-majority states having much difficulty in convincing anyone that they value human rights seriously. In part, this is pointed out in Joseph Massad recent book, arguing Islam is inherently defined as being anti-liberal.

In the popular imagination, Islam is often associated with words like oppression, totalitarianism, intolerance, cruelty, misogyny, and homophobia, while its presumed antonyms are Christianity, the West, liberalism, individualism, freedom, citizenship, and democracy. In the most alarmist views, the West’s most cherished values—freedom, equality, and tolerance—are said to be endangered by Islam worldwide.

Joseph Massad’s Islam in Liberalism explores what Islam has become in today’s world, with full attention to the multiplication of its meanings and interpretations. He seeks to understand how anxieties about tyranny, intolerance, misogyny, and homophobia, seen in the politics of the Middle East, are projected onto Islam itself. Massad shows that through this projection Europe emerges as democratic and tolerant, feminist, and pro-LGBT rights—or, in short, Islam-free. Massad documents the Christian and liberal idea that we should missionize democracy, women’s rights, sexual rights, tolerance, equality, and even therapies to cure Muslims of their un-European, un-Christian, and illiberal ways. Along the way he sheds light on a variety of controversial topics, including the meanings of democracy—and the ideological assumption that Islam is not compatible with it while Christianity is—women in Islam, sexuality and sexual freedom, and the idea of Abrahamic religions valorizing an interfaith agenda. Islam in Liberalism is an unflinching critique of Western assumptions and of the liberalism that Europe and Euro-America blindly present as a type of salvation to an assumingly unenlightened Islam.

The question is whether our society, in general, can accept the notion of Islam itself as liberal? Could we see Mosques that is happy to allow Muslim homosexual marriage?

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that almost anything is possible given time. I think that their are certainly things in Islamic teachings that are very, very far from liberal, but that individual Muslims may (and sometimes do) choose to interpret their faith in a different way.

Which point of view will win out in the end... well, I'm reluctant to make predictions about the future, as they so often turn out to be wrong.

Edit: What I will say is that "Islam vs. the west" is not an acceptable outcome. Both on moral grounds of tolerance and freedom of religion, and because I consider such a hypothetical conflict to be every bit as much a mutually assured destruction scenario as America vs. Russia and China in a nuclear war would be. It would just take longer.

[Purple]

The issue here is that people are looking at the whole religion thing from the wrong perspective. The Christian church has in the western world liberalized to a large extent not because they wanted to but because they had no choice. Their target audience (the western population) has chosen liberalism as their new primary faith. And Christianity faced the choice of either assuming a submissive stance or losing support from all but the anti liberal fringe. Islam in Europe faces the same pressures. Thus liberal Islam in Europe is perfectly possible. However in the middle east no such pressure exists. And until it is formed liberal Islam in the middle east is not going to happen.

[ray245]

I think that almost anything is possible given time. I think that their are certainly things in Islamic teachings that are very, very far from liberal, but that individual Muslims may (and sometimes do) choose to interpret their faith in a different way.

Which point of view will win out in the end... well, I'm reluctant to make predictions about the future, as they so often turn out to be wrong.

Edit: What I will say is that "Islam vs. the west" is not an acceptable outcome. Both on moral grounds of tolerance and freedom of religion, and because I consider such a hypothetical conflict to be every bit as much a mutually assured destruction scenario as America vs. Russia and China in a nuclear war would be. It would just take longer.

The main focus is not necessary on individuals because everyone could most certainly do so. The question is whether there could be any major Muslim communities/countries to be on par with Western Europe in embracing liberal values?

The issue here is that people are looking at the whole religion thing from the wrong perspective. The Christian church has in the western world liberalized to a large extent not because they wanted to but because they had no choice. Their target audience (the western population) has chosen liberalism as their new primary faith. And Christianity faced the choice of either assuming a submissive stance or losing support from all but the anti liberal fringe. Islam in Europe faces the same pressures. Thus liberal Islam in Europe is perfectly possible. However in the middle east no such pressure exists. And until it is formed liberal Islam in the middle east is not going to happen.

True, the only problem we are facing right now is Islam in Europe have not shifted towards liberalism the same extent as Christian churches in more liberal nations. This has led to some outspoken Muslim communities to outright reject liberalism.

[The Romulan Republic]

The issue here is that people are looking at the whole religion thing from the wrong perspective. The Christian church has in the western world liberalized to a large extent not because they wanted to but because they had no choice. Their target audience (the western population) has chosen liberalism as their new primary faith. And Christianity faced the choice of either assuming a submissive stance or losing support from all but the anti liberal fringe. Islam in Europe faces the same pressures. Thus liberal Islam in Europe is perfectly possible. However in the middle east no such pressure exists. And until it is formed liberal Islam in the middle east is not going to happen.

I do not doubt that their are a lot of Muslims in the Middle East who want a more liberal/moderate society. Though probably fewer and fewer as IS and its like kill and people flee to other regions. Unfortunately, they are too often suppressed by the brutality of the fanatics and despots.

However, by your reasoning, should we not be welcoming as many of Muslim immigrants as possible to Europe, where they are free to adopt more liberal views (remember, a lot of the ones coming here will not be the ones who like living in theocracies), in the hopes that they or their more liberal children will eventually demand reform in their home lands?

Granted, I'm skeptical of attempts at social engineering in general. Its just a thought.

ray245, communities and countries are made of individuals, obviously. If enough individuals seek something, then by default the country/community does as well.

[Purple]

True, the only problem we are facing right now is Islam in Europe have not shifted towards liberalism the same extent as Christian churches in more liberal nations. This has led to some outspoken Muslim communities to outright reject liberalism.

That is troubling indeed. I predict we won't see a change until Muslims learn to place Islam on the second place behind liberalism.

I do not doubt that their are a lot of Muslims in the Middle East who want a more liberal/moderate society. Though probably fewer and fewer as IS and its like kill and people flee to other regions. Unfortunately, they are too often suppressed by the brutality of the fanatics and despots.

How many of them would be willing to completely denounce Islam if faced with the choice of one or the other? Because that and only that is the kind of incentive it takes to liberalize a religion. Only when a religion is back to the wall and faced with being abandoned will it convert.

However, by your reasoning, should we not be welcoming as many of Muslim immigrants as possible to Europe, where they are free to adopt more liberal views (remember, a lot of the ones coming here will not be the ones who like living in theocracies), in the hopes that they or their more liberal children will eventually demand reform in their home lands?

Why would they ever demand any change in their homelands if they move into your country and thus it becomes their new homeland? What incentive could a second or third generation western liberal citizen have to travel to some forsaken theocracy in order to enact change?

[The Romulan Republic]

A religion will surely liberalize if enough of its adherents do. Because ultimately, a religion is composed of its adherents.

Also, I don't think that we were ever at a point where the majority of Christians would have completely denounced Christianity, for example. Yet here we are.

Also, many people retain a connection to more than one country. While its obviously different since I've always been a duel citizen and the two countries are relatively close geographically and culturally, I am a US/Canadian duel citizen and feel an attachment to both countries despite having lived in Canada since I was 12. In fact, if anything, I identify more strongly with the US (no offence intended to Canada, which is my current home and one I'm grateful to have).

[ray245]

I do not doubt that their are a lot of Muslims in the Middle East who want a more liberal/moderate society. Though probably fewer and fewer as IS and its like kill and people flee to other regions. Unfortunately, they are too often suppressed by the brutality of the fanatics and despots.

If countries like Malaysia is anything that goes by, their view of being liberal and moderate is still going to be vastly conservative by western standards anyway. It is not realistic to assume that the majority of them secretly wants to be liberal anymore than to assume the vast majority of people in Republican states all secretly want to be liberal.

Liberalism is not something that is inherently popular to human society if history is anything that goes by. We all have to be dragged screaming and shouting for centuries before we reached the stage today.

However, by your reasoning, should we not be welcoming as many of Muslim immigrants as possible to Europe, where they are free to adopt more liberal views (remember, a lot of the ones coming here will not be the ones who like living in theocracies), in the hopes that they or their more liberal children will eventually demand reform in their home lands?

Note, I am not arguing against accepting more Muslim immigrants. The problem is more often than not, they are often stigmatised the moment they are in Europe. This had often led to the formation of ghettos and their children facing the problem of integration.

Successful integration of any migrant communities is a hard task, even when the migrant population is small. It becomes harder to expect any of them to integrate when they are poor. Their children have to face growing up in an environment that is less conducive to learning, and face many challenges when they are learning.

Note that children do not merely learn about the societies values from school alone, but from their families as well.

Granted, I'm skeptical of attempts at social engineering in general. Its just a thought.

It's an extremely hard task unless you can absolutely ensure that their socio-economic status is equal to their host society. Socio-economic inequality can easily produce lots of resentment, even if we have laws to prevent prejudice against them. It's why generally successful migrants often come from relatively well-off background to begin with.

ray245, communities and countries are made of individuals, obviously. If enough individuals seek something, then by default the country/community does as well.

Except it's harder to get societies to change as opposed to individuals. Look at how long it took for racial discrimination to end, or homosexual marriage to be accepted by society as opposed to individuals.

Any person seeking change is basically going against societal norms, and societies in general respond very poorly at change. Many societies and countries are entirely legitimised on the basis of being adherent to some sort of tradition or traditional values. And it's certainly very easy for many non-western societies to see "flaws" in western societies and reject any western-led change as a result.

Of course, it's certainly very easy to point a finger at Miley Cyrus and make this an argument for the "flaws" of western values.

That is troubling indeed. I predict we won't see a change until Muslims learn to place Islam on the second place behind liberalism.

That will not happen because there are many who cannot see the benefits of liberalism. Why bother when it is possible to become rich without being liberal, and liberalism does not promise a good life after death?

[Purple]

A religion will surely liberalize if enough of its adherents do. Because ultimately, a religion is composed of its adherents.

A religion is not about the people who believe it. It's about the power structures it supports. Liberalization within a religion comes not from the individual followers liberalizing but from the priests and clerics adopting a more liberal narrative in order for that power structure to remain relevant to the worshipers.

Basically think about religion like any other consumer product. The church is the supplier and the worshipers are the market demand. The supplier has to keep changing to meet the needs of the consumers but the consumers do not in fact directly alter the product.

Also, I don't think that we were ever at a point where the majority of Christians would have completely denounced Christianity, for example. Yet here we are.

Actually we have been to that point and past it. Notice that modern Christianity is absolutely nothing like what it was before. People today are just treating it like some sort of vague spirituality whilst paying lip service to religion. If any christian church today tried to revert its doctrines to the middle ages I think you'd find said church abandoned rather quickly.

Also, many people retain a connection to more than one country. While its obviously different since I've always been a duel citizen and the two countries are relatively close geographically and culturally, I am a US/Canadian duel citizen and feel an attachment to both countries despite having lived in Canada since I was 12. In fact, if anything, I identify more strongly with the US (no offence intended to Canada, which is my current home and one I'm grateful to have).

Neither of those however are countries with core ideals, culture and way of life radically different from one another to the point of complete incompatibility. It's easy to identify with 20 groups which are mostly alike. It's the 21st that's radically and incompatibly different that poses the issue.

[Alferd Packer]

The short answer is: Christianity's overarching influence over all aspects of life was significantly hampered by the Enlightenment. Europe's greatest minds--its scientists, philosophers, thinkers, writers--rejected the tenets of the religion as an explanation for temporal matters. In other words, "God did it" was no longer a valid explanation for scientific principles, nor a good enough justification to have an absolute monarch ruling a state(among many other things). In that way, the liberalization of the western world was from the top down.

That same event(or chain of events) has not happened in the Muslim world, because it doesn't need to. Secular Muslims who live in theocracies don't need to change their countries--they can just leave. There's no pressure to change, and I don't think there will be in the short-to-medium term.

[ray245]

The short answer is: Christianity's overarching influence over all aspects of life was significantly hampered by the Enlightenment. Europe's greatest minds--its scientists, philosophers, thinkers, writers--rejected the tenets of the religion as an explanation for temporal matters. In other words, "God did it" was no longer a valid explanation for scientific principles, nor a good enough justification to have an absolute monarch ruling a state(among many other things). In that way, the liberalization of the western world was from the top down.

That same event(or chain of events) has not happened in the Muslim world, because it doesn't need to. Secular Muslims who live in theocracies don't need to change their countries--they can just leave. There's no pressure to change, and I don't think there will be in the short-to-medium term.

I think that is in part what many people in western societies want to see from the Muslim communities. That they have reached a sort of "enlightenment" age which rejected many of the unfavourable aspects of Islam.

It does not help things when Islam in the contemporary period had acquired a political dimension to it as well, making it a political ideology on top of a religious one. It makes the separation of religion and state even harder.

[Channel72]

The short answer is: Christianity's overarching influence over all aspects of life was significantly hampered by the Enlightenment. Europe's greatest minds--its scientists, philosophers, thinkers, writers--rejected the tenets of the religion as an explanation for temporal matters. In other words, "God did it" was no longer a valid explanation for scientific principles, nor a good enough justification to have an absolute monarch ruling a state(among many other things). In that way, the liberalization of the western world was from the top down.

That same event(or chain of events) has not happened in the Muslim world, because it doesn't need to. Secular Muslims who live in theocracies don't need to change their countries--they can just leave. There's no pressure to change, and I don't think there will be in the short-to-medium term.

That's true, and while the Muslim world has no historical framework for democracy or liberalism, Medieval Islam of the Abassid Caliphate was more or less extremely liberal compared to what we see today - plus it was basically the global epicenter of science, medicine and philosophy, incredible Universities, and was overtly tolerant of Jews and Christians. I mean, the Islamic philosophers of that era were scholars of Aristotle and often Neo-Platonists. Also, people usually think of Gutenberg as the watershed moment when reading became available to the masses... but in reality it happened during the Abassid Caliphate when cheap paper-making techniques from China made it possible for scholars and authors to have their works widely sold. And it's arguable that this guy, not somebody like Descartes, formalized the scientific method.

Of course, they never reached the same levels of anti-religious or democratic sentiment that Europe reached during the Enlightenment, obviously, and women were still basically second-class citizens (although not as bad as what we see today in Saudi Arabia.) But it's quite possible that Islam, rather than Christianity, would have emerged as the face of liberalism if it weren't for the catastrophic destruction of Baghdad via the Mongol invasion.

[Adam Reynolds]

When one looks at the way in which the Muslim world fell back into scientific ignorance it was due to the fact that there weren't diverse religious groups in the region. After the Mongol invasion, as people turned back towards religion in the Muslim world, there was not enough religious diversity of opinion and so progress died.

In Europe, it is no coincidence that the Enlightenment followed the Reformation. It was because there were conflicting religious ideas that it was possible for the ideas of science to slip through the cracks. Eventually it reached a critical mass that it was able to give ideas that conflicted with religion enough that it was able to challenge it in the public consciousness. Eventually it reached that state it is today, in which parts of Europe are for all intents and purposes atheistic.

The problem today is that is the Muslim world religion is so entrenched with politics that it is difficult to separate the two and thus there is little way out. It's what makes secular dictators somewhat common in the Middle East as that really is the only alternative to theocracies.

[Elheru Aran]

It also didn't help that the Muslim world, in its time, covered quite a bit of land-- much of Africa, the Middle East, and a pretty hefty chunk of Asia, even portions of eastern Europe. Western Europe, on the other hand, is a much smaller area of land... fairly well developed by the Renaissance, with a reasonably efficient network of roads, canals, and trade. Communication was therefore facilitated. Messages could be transmitted in a matter of days or weeks rather than months or years as they might be in the Muslim world.

So essentially geography was part of the reason why the Muslim world didn't develop a Reformation or Enlightenment period after the failure of the Abbasid 'Renaissance'. There are other reasons of course, but that, IMO, is a contributing factor.

[Adam Reynolds]

Wasn't that Jareed Diamond's argument in Guns, Germs, and Steel?

[biostem]

The problem, IMO, is a combination of stances on different subjects and how they directly and irreconcilably clash with Western culture:

1. Equality of the sexes -unless a Muslim doesn't observe Sharia law, then they cannot accept this facet of Western civilization.

2. Equality of sexual preference - similar to above, if a Muslim cannot accept the right of homo- or bisexual people to exist, then we again encounter an irreconcilable difference.

3. Apostacy - see above.

4. Infidelity/Adultry - again, as above. Note that I'm not endorsing that this is good or proper behavior, simply that it exists and should be addressed strictly between the parties involved, and definitely that no one should be put to death!

5. Freedom of speech/expression - people/groups do not have the right to *not* be offended - ideas will be presented, or depictions of things you hold dear will be crafted, and you must put up with them. Violence will not be tolerated in response to non-violent portrayals.

6. Deference to secular law/legal system(s) - it is not acceptable to take matters into your own hands, (for certain matters) - honor killings, etc.


The issue is that Western societies cannot compromise when it comes to these matters - we cannot and should not institute censorship laws because many Muslims cannot stand to have Mohammed drawn. We cannot compromise when it comes to gender equality or tolerating people of different sexualities. It is my opinion that, if Muslims wish to join the Western world, then *they* must accept these aspects of modern civilization, not where Western countries pass laws to protect these archaic and bigoted beliefs.

[Batman]

You do know that Christianity has all those same stupid laws, right?

[AniThyng]

You do know that Christianity has all those same stupid laws, right?

Yes, and we also know western Christianity no longer enforces them with anything approaching the rigor of contemporary Islamic nations.

[Batman]

Which shows us that the problem isn't Islam, it's the morons who try to force a radical Interpretation of it on everbody else. Abortion clinic bombings anyone?

[Purple]

Which shows us that the problem isn't Islam, it's the morons who try to force a radical Interpretation of it on everbody else. Abortion clinic bombings anyone?

I think you should read the entire thread before posting. We already went over in detail how religions change and how the whole dynamic works.

[Thanas]

It also didn't help that the Muslim world, in its time, covered quite a bit of land-- much of Africa, the Middle East, and a pretty hefty chunk of Asia, even portions of eastern Europe. Western Europe, on the other hand, is a much smaller area of land... fairly well developed by the Renaissance, with a reasonably efficient network of roads, canals, and trade. Communication was therefore facilitated. Messages could be transmitted in a matter of days or weeks rather than months or years as they might be in the Muslim world.

So essentially geography was part of the reason why the Muslim world didn't develop a Reformation or Enlightenment period after the failure of the Abbasid 'Renaissance'. There are other reasons of course, but that, IMO, is a contributing factor.

I don't buy that argument. You need to look at travel time between the muslim states that actually mattered. Those were the muslim states in spain, North Africa, Egypt and the Abbasid Caliphate. The travel time betwen those was not substantially larger than travelling from Spain to Sweden or vice versa. The travel distance between the most important cities of Islam - Cairo and Baghdad - wasn't that long either.

I think a far bigger cause is the lack of education and institutes of higher learning as well as the decline of the muslim states in General. North Africa degenerated since the conquest due to failures in irrigation and soon turned from the most densely populated region in antiquity into a sandbox. The states in Spain had the reconquista. Baghdad was utterly destroyed. That left Egypt as the only state of any advanced culture that also had great wealth until the Ottoman Empire arose and an argument can be made that the latter was more a westernized Steppe people that gained most of their traditions from the people they conquered instead of making their own.

So by the time the reformation rolled on, you had two muslim states of note that were warring with each other with the largest universities already lost.

Try having a reformation without the universities of Paris, Bologna and Rome. It would not have happened either.

[Civil War Man]

I think a far bigger cause is the lack of education and institutes of higher learning as well as the decline of the muslim states in General. North Africa degenerated since the conquest due to failures in irrigation and soon turned from the most densely populated region in antiquity into a sandbox. The states in Spain had the reconquista. Baghdad was utterly destroyed. That left Egypt as the only state of any advanced culture that also had great wealth until the Ottoman Empire arose and an argument can be made that the latter was more a westernized Steppe people that gained most of their traditions from the people they conquered instead of making their own.

To add to this, and add a more recent example, the way the various colonial powers divvied up the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire certainly didn't help. Especially considering how they drew the borders with little regard as to who was actually living in those areas, and then chose to install dictators that they believed would serve their interests when the colonies were granted independence (and sometimes would overthrow governments that failed to serve those interests). So not only could they not have a reformation due to what they lost, but the oppressive atmosphere has inhibited the ability to rebuild what was lost.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, I don't particularly have any argument with those points regarding geography. In terms of the overall Muslim world though I think the lack of communication thing still stands. It was bigger than just those few states.

[ray245]

The question is whether it is possible to see a development of a very strong western liberal movement among Muslim communities in the near future?

It's a little too optimistic to assume Muslims in more liberal nations would become liberal simply by exposure to a more liberal culture alone. Of course individual Muslims can and have become very liberal, but the communities tend to be rather conservative by western standards.

What does it take to see a further development of a liberal movement within predominantly Muslim nations? Or at the least stop defining Islam as the anti-thesis of western liberalism?

After all you don't have to be radicalised to reject western liberalism as morally wrong.

[Channel72]

It would take influential imams and clerics to preach a liberalized version of Islam. Under the Abassid Caliphate, certain Koranic verses praising learning and the pursuit of knowledge were highlighted and used as a theological justification for the immense amount of resources poured into higher learning institutions, and large-scale translations of Greco-Roman classical literature into Arabic. I mean, it's definitely possible to cherry-pick Koranic verses that support humanism and liberalism, if you just gloss over all the "kill infidels"-oriented passages.

Of course, under the Caliphate, killing infidels wasn't a priority, since the Caliphs were already the supreme power in the region, and the Muslim world enjoyed intellectual and political superiority. Nowadays, much of the Muslim world is in political chaos - so it's natural that enterprising imams would preach a more radicalized message. I mean, it's easier to galvanize a group of followers with a message of anger and religious fundamentalism than it is via a liberal message about tolerance.