D'Souza: "Moderate" Islam and Classical Liberalism Go To

[KendallJ]

By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Thanks to Ari Armstrong for posting this item on Dinesh D'Souza's Townhall column "What Muslims Really Think." In his column he does something that find stunning. He asserts the hypothesis that most Muslims are freedom-loving individuals.

The problem for most Muslims is Western liberalism. But here we must distinguish between two kinds of liberalism. There is the classical liberalism of the American founding. Call this Liberalism 1. This liberalism is reflected in such principles as the right to vote, to assemble freely, to debate issues, to trade with others, to practice one’s religion, political and religious toleration, and so on.

Then there is the modern liberalism of the 1960s. Call this Liberalism 2. This liberalism is defined by such tenets as the right to blaspheme, the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, pornography as a protected form of expression, gay rights and gay marriage, and so on...

Now we are in a better position to understand Islamic attitudes regarding the West. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide embrace Liberalism 1 while rejecting Liberalism 2. They are generally comfortable with classical liberalism while abhorring the tenets of modern liberalism.

Let's understand this. A religious, conservative commentator actually wants us to believe that it is religious traditions, both Christian and Islamic that are compatible and benevolent towards classical liberalism? The implication is no different than the philosophical interpretations of conservative legal intellectual Robert Bork in his Slouching Towards Gomorrah, which I blogged about recently. Except D'Souza gives it a religous basis, and in so doing, finds more in common with Muslims who tolerate radical hatred of the West.

Freedom and liberty exist to the extent that government is limited to the province of protecting individual rights, not trampling them in the name of some sort of social morality. Islam is not a peaceful religion held hostage, but is instead implicitly tolerant of the ideas that the radicals preach.

Our newest Oblogger, Kostubh, highlights the same argument being made half a world away, in his latest, "The Myth of Moderate Islam." In it he points us to an Indian review of a Pakistani film “Khuda Kay Liye” (For God’s sake) which attempts to equate the violence of radical Islam and the response of the US to the 9/11 attacks. And the author is wise to spot the contradiction.

What interested me most about the film was that in seeking to show Islam in a good light, it accidentally exposes the prejudices that make moderate Muslims the ideological partners of jihadis. In painting America as the villain of our times, the prejudices against the West that get exposed are no different from what Mohammad Siddique, one of London’s tube bombers, said in the suicide video he made before blowing himself up. In the video, that surfaced during the trial now on in London, he describes himself as a soldier in the war against the West: ‘I’m doing what I am for Islam, not, you know, for materialistic or worldly benefits.’

The same contradiction exists in D'Souza's piece of course. In mis-identifying the essentials of classical liberalism and liberty as the outgrowth of religious traditions, he unwittingly shows us his distaste for the very basis of individual rights. Notice the contradictions inherent in his lists of Liberalism 1 and Liberalism 2. The right to "debate the issues" unless your side of the debate questions the existence of God (blasphemy); the "right to vote" and submit to the will of the majority if the vote doesn't go your way on something like abortion; the "right to toleration" unless you're gay. ; the right to "trade with others" unless that trade involves paying someone to teach your kids the way you desire or to perform certain "questionable" medical procedures on your own body.

What interests me about the D'Souza piece is that in justifying the idea of a "moderate" Islam, he shows us the very mechanism through which "radical" Islam is allowed to perpetrate it's crimes. For if the blowback against elements of liberty that one finds distasteful is justified, in idea, then how long will it be before someone straps a bomb to their chest and puts the idea into practice? And who will actively oppose them?

That D'Souza would draw a line in the sand and side with religious influence shows me the true extent to which religious intolerance has become a force in today's society. In doing so he is uprooting classical liberalism from its secular grounding. If he wishes to see the logical end of such an association he need only look to the best example of it's logical, consistent end in today's world, radical Islam.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

View the full article

[softwareNerd]

So, according to D'Souza, the vast majority of Muslims are in favor of "the right to vote, to assemble freely, to debate issues, to trade with others, to practice one’s religion, political and religious toleration, and so on."

However, they are against "...the right to blaspheme, the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, pornography as a protected form of expression, gay rights and gay marriage, and so on."

I'm shocked that D'Souza implies that the muslim "blowback" is somehow justified by the things like the west allowing it's citizens to blaspheme and be openly gay. I suppose he secretly wishes fighters for God would arise in the U.S. too. There's a really simple solution for people like him: they should go live in a Muslim country, and enjoy their "classical liberalism 1".

[KendallJ]

I'm shocked

That makes two of us.

I keep thinking back to Peikoff's statements about the religious revival being more dangerous than anything and this type of thing makes him look clairvoyant.

It is the exclusive topic of D'Souza's book, The Enemy at Home.

[D'kian]

D'Souza has been sliding in that direction for some time now. It may be only a matter of time 'til he joins the other side.

The big problem is conservatives view religion as a good thing. Insofar as they view any religion as a good thing, theya re tolerant and do not impose their beliefs on tohers. But they also go about claiming that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. They also find no value greater than religion (or someties God, which is not the same thing at all). Therefore eventually they try to force religion on tohers, and to excuse malice because it offends religion and/or religious sensibilities.

D'Souza's book, as I recall, was not particularly well received by other conservatives, which gives me some glimmer of hope.

[Wotan]

Religious fundamentalist and fascist traitor Dinesh D'Souza is mostly off base in saying Islam today accepts classical liberalism. The people sort of do -- based on common sense and loose good judgment. But the thinkers and leaders strongly mostly don't -- based on current and traditional Islamic theory.

Still, there's a hint of truth to what D'Souza says: Islam today is highly influenced by, and intermixed with, socialism. Islam a century ago was truly evil -- but not nearly as bad as today. Moreover Islam today is much more confident and aggressive than it was a century or two ago, due to the West's open decadence and fall-away from Enlightenment liberal values.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Wotan

[softwareNerd]

Here is a muslim preacher from a U.K. mosque who says he does not agree with what the terrorists do; but, listen to what else he says. I can suppose D'souza pictures himself as the christian equivalent of this guy, without really admitting it to himself.

[~Sophia~]

Here is a muslim preacher from a U.K. mosque ...

This documentary is shocking.