Liberalism, Democracy, and Islam

Below is a recent exchange of opinions between myself and my good Muslim friend Salim Mansur, Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario. To be continued ...

***********************************************************

February 20, 2012 

Salim, my friend -

So nice to chat with you the other day.

And thank you for sending me your "Decade After 9/11" essay. I have read it carefully and learned from it.

Where you and I diverge somewhat (only perhaps due to my inadequate understanding) is where you discuss how the Islamic convulsion will eventually "work itself out."  

I would say that in this section you are conflating classical liberalism and democracy, as if they were the same thing.

I used to believe they were. but I no longer do.

So I humbly suggest that all the peaceful and tolerant accommodations ("reconciling") you mention as essential things for the Islamic nations as they "work toward democracy" are in reality, and historically speaking, unique features of Western liberalism as it has evolved, and not of western democracy per se.

I mean to say that almost all of these things (private property rights, freedom of speech, individual liberty, etc.) existed in England and her colonies centuries before "democracy" in any meaningful or broad sense came on the scene as a permanent feature of our common life.

Further, I believe that we can in turn trace those still-evolving features to their roots in Christendom, and perhaps more specifically to Post-reformation Christendom. I think that prior to that epoch there was very little tolerance of the faiths of others -- indeed, there was much persecution. At any rate I find it hard to imagine that people (especially Muslims) without these roots will ever evolve the classical liberal ways of the West without those roots from which the tree of our liberalism has grown.

I see democracy in the West, I mean modern, individualistic democracy (as distinct from the Greek or Roman or Venetian sort) as "a child of the Reformation," and specifically born, not of any generous love of tolerance, but of a practical need for it, due, not any grand spirit of the British people, but to the fragmenting of Protestantism into its hundreds of sects that made this tolerance necessary on a tit for tat basis … to avoid slaughters.     

Another reason (sorry to go on so long) that I believe we will never see this reconciliation of Islam with the Western way of life is that Islam/Muslims worship a God of pure Will. Hence, the Koran is in many respects a Book of Laws/Rules for living (a little like Judaism’s “Halakkah” with its 613 rules for living).

The Will of the Islamic God (it seems to me) is absolute, unquestionable, and not subject to Reason of any kind. This means that nothing this God has decreed (in the Koran, Shari'a law, etc) can be countered, disobeyed, or subjected to human questions or to democratic decrees. For no matter how unreasonable, there is nothing this God cannot do. Hence, I cannot see how such a religion/theocracy could ever accept the will of democratic majoritarian rule. God has already declared what is good. So the people, no matter how many vote, cannot change that. Indeed, I would think that for a true Muslim, the very idea of "the people" voting to decide whether things such as homosexuality, or euthanasia, are morally right or wrong, or lawful, or not, must seem a blasphemy. It does even to me!

Christianity, it seems to me, rests on a different theological ideal, namely, on a God of Reason. For Christians, there are many things God cannot do. He cannot do something contrary to his love; He cannot do something evil; He cannot make a square circle; he cannot make what is true, false. He cannot contradict himself, and so on. So, there are many things that a Christian believes are good (or evil) in themselves, and not specifically or only because God says so. God loves certain things because they are Good; they are not Good just because he loves them.

So the Bible, it seems to me (pardon my ignorance once again) is not so much about God's Will and His rules for living (except in the Old Testament) as about a transformation of the spirit (New Testament). We could also say (whether or not this is an historical development or not, I don't know) that it has become a religion rooted in the idea of universal love as the very ground of (reasonable) existence.

So I think the Western ideal of democracy (since the Reformation at least) somehow has worked well for the Western world because underlying it is this idea that a mere individual can grasp God's Reason by himself (Luther: sola fides/sola scriptura, etc.).  So, if a mere human being can grasp God's intent directly, goes the assumption, then he or she can also be trusted to vote in a democratic system comprised of reasonable people who share a faith in ... human love and reasonableness. From this perspective, majority rule will seem to be the rule of the reasonable; of the democratic masses infused with the very Reason of God (accessible to them because they are "made in his image," and because they need only "the Word" to decide the truth/His truth, for, and by themselves).

I guess what I am suggesting is that I don't think these two very different systems (rooted in such contrary notions of God) can ever be put together. We can always create a "democratic system" for another people, of course. That is what American hegemony is attempting everywhere, as if democracy itself were a secular religion in need of converts. But if the underlying liberalism has never taken root, a democratic system can only lead to a formalization of pre-existing factionalisms. (I suppose it has "worked " in India because they are 85% Hindu, which is a system that already tolerates hundreds of diffferent Gods, and so their democracy divides to conquer rather than the opposite).

Sorry to go on so long. It interests me. More when we meet.

All best wishes

Bill

Dear Bill,

Thanks for your kind words, and for this relatively long letter setting forth your thoughts on a matter you have reflected much.

I cannot respond in kind, since a response of the sort that your reflections merit is one that would also take much space. Perhaps this is a subject that deserves a long conversation between us or among friends who have also done some reflection on the matter.

My response here is therefore a quick reply to the issue that you elaborate upon, i.e. that Western liberalism (individual freedom, tolerance of other(s), separation of religion and politics, etc) predates democracy, and it being a fruit of somewhat special circumstances in the evolution of Western culture rooted in Judeo-Christian values and Ionian rationalism cannot be transplanted or embedded into non-Western cultures, especially Islam. In other words, this Western liberalism is a unique product, and being a unique product paradoxically it is not of or for universal adaptation since political and cultural climate will not be found hospitable for its nurture outside of the Western environment.

If the above is true, and this is in essence it seems to me what you are saying, then however unique and valuable this Western liberalism is it is not something for non-Western people since their body-politics will reject it as alien implant. And if it is not universal in essence, then Western liberalism is just an off-shoot of a culture that will wither in time just as the West might well wither in time as have other cultures and civilizations most notably the ancient and vibrant culture of Greece. And therefore with the decline of the West the ideas of Western liberalism will fade and in time vanish, and the loss will be less than the loss of Ionian cultures since it lacks universalism.

I do not share your view and your premise, and from it the conclusion, and therefore one can derive as I have done.

Western liberalism was born in a culture zone now described as the West (or Occidental), but its vitality meant it carried a universal appeal in terms of idea and  practice as did, for example, Euclidean geometry. But unlike Euclidean geometry, the meaning of liberalism is not as fluid and transparent, and so its adaptation into other cultures is more difficult. But over time it can be absorbed. Japanese samurai culture, for instance, has faded as Japan in its own fashion adopted the ideas of Western liberalism. India has been absorbing the ideas of Western liberalism since its first encounter over 300 years ago, and since India is a hugely diverse entity Western liberalism has penetrated many different population segments of India including Muslims.

Your views about Islam and Muslims reflect the contemporary view of many, a view that is reductionist and in ways essentialist and un-historical. To simply assume that Islam is entirely alien in its essential creed from Judaism and Christianity, and in essence hostile to Ionian rationalism, is (to put it politely) a reading that is now fashionable given the political ideology of Islamism and events such as 9/11. Such a reading lacks historical perspective not only of Islam, but of what Islam is being compared with, and that produces a judgment that closes off history -- in this case of Islam and Muslims. Recognizing difficulties in the realm of inter-cultural exchanges out of which world history evolves is not the same as concluding that because of difficulties such exchanges are not only unlikely but impossible.

The paradox is in how Western liberalism is defined and understood. If it is to be understood entirely as a Western project, unique and therefore limited or not "repeatable" outside the cultural zone of the West, then of course there is no need for anyone else who is not part of the West to be taken up with or be impressed by this unique project.

This indeed is also the argument of Islamists, and they are not alone. Ironically it is also the argument of the cultural relativists in the West who see Western liberalism as a "colonial" or "imperial" project when taken outside of the West's cultural zone. I emphatically disagree with any such suggestion, and on the contrary I view Western liberalism as a universal project just as Christianity itself (in its essence as Abrahamic monotheism preached by Paul to the Gentiles) was a universal project and not a Palestinian/Jewish heresy, and also Islam itself (in essence Jewish faith and Abrahamic monotheism brought by Muhammad to pagan Arabs and through them to other people not touched by Paul's mission) was a universal project. The problem lies in how people conflate and confuse the universal with the particular and, thereby, cannot or are unwilling to see and separate the universal that gets embedded in the maze of a particular culture and history.

Let this conversation proceed when we meet.

Warmest regards,

Salim