Who or what is a liberal? I’ve recently written about the different meanings of ‘liberty’ and it got me thinking, the term liberal and its sisters moderate and extreme are also misunderstood. Or at least they mean many things to many people.
As such, other than being pejorative do these terms really mean anything, anymore?
Unlike America, the term ‘liberal’ in Europe is almost always neutral. Mostly it is used to describe those with a certain political outlook – ie supporters of individual rights, equality, freedom of speech, etc. Although originally associated with left-leaning politics, we now have ‘liberal conservatives’ and ‘social liberals’.
In short, almost everyone in mainstream politics or with a mainstream political outlook is a liberal – fascists not included. Hence liberal is hardly ever used as a derogatory term.
The story is somewhat different in America, where accusations of being a member of the ‘liberal elite’ are a career wrecker and vote loser. Often shortened to plain ‘liberal’, the only worst thing is being called a ‘communist’.
Within the Muslim vernacular, what does it really mean to be a liberal, moderate or extremist? In recent times all these terms have become politically loaded. The supposedly neutral term ‘moderate’ has been corrupted by the likes of Irshad Manji.
The author of ‘The Problem with Islam’, realised that Muslims were ignoring the Islam-hating, openly lesbian pseudo-intellectual, and decided to re-launch herself as a ‘moderate’ Muslim. She even renamed her book ‘The Problem with Islam Today’.
Add to this the government imposed ‘moderates’ at the Quilliam Foundation, (rejected by the Muslim community) and bingo! Which right minded Muslim would now want to be called ‘moderate’ and be associated with these?
The other issue is of course perspective, depending on one’s personal position, others may seem either liberal or extreme. Just as China is the Far East to us in the UK, but a mere neighbour to Pakistan – a person might be liberal to someone on the opposite extreme. What we call others, says as much about us as it does them.
So rather than label people with these terms, just let us be Muslims (Maududi).
Some very true points.
nicely said.
Shk yusuf al qaradawi said in his book, islamic awakening between rejectionism and extremism (if i am correct), to this effect that ‘extremism is any farthest point from the centre’.
So in reality, one should also say that liberalism is a form of extremism just as certain aspects of the right wing may be considered extreme. That is the implied meaning of extreme by its definition.
More importantly, the ‘centre’ and the definition of what is ‘moderate’ or ‘balanced’ is the issue of difference. Every extreme, both left wing or right, mutashaddid or mutasahhil claim ownership of the ‘middle ground’ according to their own definitions, by their own rules. Hence, the percieved relativity of the definition of ‘moderate’.
What may appear impossible, yet presents itself as a challenge is that the muslims should endeavour to come to an agreement on what being ‘moderate/balanced’ IS. I believe that it IS possible, considering that the issues of extremism, both liberalism and conservatism, aswell as ‘balancedness’ is covered to SOME extent in the holy book and the ahaadeeth.
If nobody takes offence, i may wish to add that the example in the quran, that of the prophet pbuh, and the best of generations i.e. the pious predecessors should be a benchmark for defining ‘balancedness’ (please excuse this non-word). Ofcourse, their example is still open to interpretation (for the ulamaa) yet we should all have a central point of reference as much as we can (as stated above) including also the concept of ijmaa’.
Please share your thoughts.
Jazaakumullaahu khairan
I forgot to mention that a crucial element or characteristic of being balanced is the application of the deen in its entirety, comprehensively. Something referred to in arabic as shumuuliyyah… as opposed to becoming obsessed with only one aspect of the religion.
In saying that, one shouldn’t undermine the importance of ‘prioritising the work’ of the ummah instead of just becoming a ‘a jack of all trades, master of none’ nation. So, even in this, one needs to exercise moderation/balancedness.
sorry for the long posts
The war on Islam has enforced these terms of moderate and extreme on to our community. This labelling is used by the west but unfortunately now is been adopted by us (muslim community). We have to be very careful as this labelling will cause a bigger wedge in the already fractioned ummah.
We accept that many of us will follow different fiqhi opinions these will be matters of ikhtilaf and this ikhtilaf will never end. The problem is that when a someone endorses the concept of Jihad he is naturally an extremist and when a brother endorses spirituality he is naturally a liberal. The thing that we are forgetting is the ‘wasata’ as allah mentiones,
“And thus We have made you an “Ummatann Wasata”, so that you may be witnesses over mankind, and the Messenger a witness over you”.
We need to endorse all aspects of our religion and not just focus on one area whole heartedly at the expense of the other. Because a muslim is someone who submits his will to allah, and what ever allah has willed we must comply without hesitation/fear of what people will say or even brand us by. Because islam is the religion of truth and guidance which in its nature will attract enemies (batil).
We are the balanced ummah and this is what we (Islamic movement) feel we are following; the way of our beloved messenger. As Imam Shahid Hasan Al-Banna says,
“The Islamic movement addresses all the needs of man in proper balance. Therefore it is referred to as:
a) Salafi da’wah, because it derives from the pure sources of Islam, the Qur’an and sunnah;
b) The Sunni way, because it works to revive the sunnah of the Prophet (s) in its members and in every human community;
c) The Rabbani covenant, because it teaches that a pure and clean heart and a close relationship with Allah are the basis and origin of all good; and
d) The Political movement, because it tries to address everyone’s needs by changing both public policy and the institutions of society from which such policy issues.”
And another statement from Hasan Al-Banna will conclude my point,
“Our task in general is to stand against the flood of modernist civilization overflowing from the swamp of materialistic and sinful desires. This flood has swept the Muslim nation away from the Prophet’s leadership and Qur’anic guidance and deprived the world of its guiding light. Western secularism moved into a Muslim world already estranged from its Qur’anic roots, and delayed its advancement for centuries, and will continue to do so until we drive it from our lands. Moreover, we will not stop at this point, but will pursue this evil force to its own lands, invade its Western heartland, and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts by the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world. Only then will Muslims achieve their fundamental goal, and there will be no more “persecution” and all religion will be exclusively for Allah. “With Allah is the decision, in the past and in the future: on that day shall the believers rejoice.” [Qur’an 30:4]”
I’ve always felt that the term “moderate” is simply used to describe someone who supports the government line!!
What if someone is extremely moderate but not in the liberal sense? Or perhaps moderately liberal but not in the extreme sense?
How ever will we make sense of all these misnomers when their meanings change depending on who is using them and why?
Ali Abdullah – In the case of the present government I suppose it is plausible their definition of moderate would mean just as you say.
But it certainly wouldn’t be my definition of moderate, I hasten to add!