Today's subject is liberalism and liberalism's basis: equality and liberty. If you interpret liberalism into the Urdu language, liberalism can be termed as "Azad Soch." The West's slogans are extremely lovely, and they are branding experts. Branding is the activity through which if they wish to sell anything, they formulate a slogan so appealing that you think there is nothing greater in the world, and you need to purchase it. Just the same, when reforms emanate from the West, only upon scrutiny would their intentions be made clear. Take this, for instance: equality or liberty—who would be saying that equality is a negative or that they would rather have slavery than liberty? No one would be saying that. All of them believe that when the West invites us towards these things, it is a sign of their moral superiority, and we are trapped in backwardness, and they are attempting to bring us out of it. This is the work of their branding.
There is one English proverb: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." What it says is that if Greeks bring you gifts, beware because there is an underlying agenda. They are not sharing it with love or respect for you. This proverb does not belong to us, nor does it originate from Urdu or Arabic. It belongs to the English themselves, and this refers to the Greeks. So, if you notice a convincing term, first know the motive and agenda behind it, and only then make the decision of whether to support or embrace it.
Most speakers or writers assert that Islam arrived to encourage liberalism. No, Islam did not arrive to propagate liberalism. Liberalism is a Western ideology with its own philosophy and ramifications. If you break up European history into various periods, five different eras come to the fore. I will describe them briefly. The third era, as it is known in English or "Nishat-e-Saniya" in Urdu, is a movement in Europe between the 14th and 16th centuries. In a period, prior to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), Greek civilization was predominant, and numerous books were composed in different sciences and arts, yet they were in Greek. Afterwards, Christianity put them under suppression, and they still existed in Greek, a specialized religious language at the time. English, Latin, French, and German languages emerged later, yet these books were not translated into these languages. A movement was initiated to translate these books, and thus the Renaissance took place, which means Europe rediscovered its lost treasure. These books started being read and comprehended by people.
At the same time, another movement, humanism, took place. One of the great scholars of Pakistan, Askari, wrote a book that was just recommended by Shaikhul Islam Hazrat Maulana Mufti Taqi Usmani, stating that everyone must read it. It really is a great book. In it, he identifies humanism with the Renaissance, but Mufti Yasir Nadeem Al Wajidi's research implies that they are separate. In any case, both groups were brought into being by the same man. Humanism can be defined as "worship of humans," i.e., holding humans worthy of worship. Out of the womb of the Renaissance, the Reformation movement gave rise to two major Christian factions: Protestants and Catholics.
Two ideologies emerged from humanism: liberalism and scientism. I will concentrate on liberalism because today it is our subject. Scientism refers to worshipping science—not studying or knowing science, but treating science as the criterion of truth and morals. If a person thinks that they will only believe something from any religion—whether Quran, Bible, or Vedas—if it is supported by science, then that is scientism. It is unscientific in itself. Materialism believes that only material entities are there. For example, the soul or God is not considered to exist because they are non-material. Darwinism, another ideology, has gained such widespread acceptance that denying it makes one appear foolish. There is a long list of ideologies stemming from these, including secularism, feminism, capitalism, and transgenderism, all rooted in liberalism.
To know why liberalism became so quickly acceptable, particularly in Europe, we need to look at the state of affairs in Europe during that time. There were religious slavery, political slavery, and economic slavery. The Catholic Church, under the leadership of the Pope, enslaved individuals religiously. If an individual sought forgiveness, he or she could buy a priest a certificate of forgiveness, which meant that the Pope, being the representative of God, promised that they will not end up in hell. It is a world where forgiveness is granted by the Church, governed by the Pope at Vatican City. The people thought that in order to gain entrance to paradise, they would need to purchase these certificates. That was mental slavery. The Pope interpreted what was halal or haram, and this went on for centuries in Europe. In response, the Reformation movement by Martin Luther spawned Protestantism.
The second slavery was political. There were monarchies with kings, nobles, landlords, and commoners, all slaves to the one above them. A farmer or merchant was not only a slave to one master but also a chain of masters. The third slavery was economic, or wage slavery. A farmer labored not for himself or his family but for his landlord, who received most of the produce. The landlord retained part and transferred the remaining part to the noble, who retained part and transferred the rest to the king. So, an individual was enslaved to a chain of masters. Europe was ensnared in these types of slavery—political, economic, and religious.
Philosophers arose during the Renaissance, compelling individuals to emancipate themselves from political and economic slavery. These intellectuals were referred to as "liberators" (from the Latin term "liper," free). Their concept was referred to as "liperty." Revolutions don't occur overnight. They take long struggles, planning, writings, speeches, books, and, in the West, movies and dramas to condition a nation's psyche. In the 16th century, liberty began to be discussed, leading to the French Revolution of 1789–90, the culmination of 100–200 years of work. Those who came up with the notion of free thinking were referred to as liberators, and their idea was liberty.
Liberalism was quickly embraced in Europe because individuals had lost freedom many generations back and longed for it. When thinkers presented liberty, which assured freedom, individuals naturally trailed behind. The definition of liberalism is a philosophy of morals that aims to maximize freedom, equality, and autonomy. It believes in increasing these three elements: freedom, equality, and autonomy.
This ideology has shaped humanity from the East to the West, even in Mecca and Medina. It is not a requirement that a person in Saudi Arabia is liberal, nor a person in America or England is liberal. Both situations are feasible. The Quran, in Surah Qiyamah, uses this idea with the word "sawwa" (to make free). Imam Shafi’i, in his exegesis, explains that scholars unanimously agree that "sawwa" refers to someone who is neither commanded nor forbidden, unbound by any moral code, creating their own morality, and not accepting external commands or prohibitions. This is liberalism—taking freedom and equality to the point of denying God or going against natural or religious principles.
The two main foundations of liberalism are the golden rule and the harm principle. The golden rule, so tagged by the West, is: "Treat others as you would like others to treat you." It is the foundation of equality. If a man is asked if he would like to be equal to women or below them, he will answer that he wants equality. Therefore, he has to extend the same to women. But the golden rule is defective. If used in a family, it would ruin it. For example, if a husband returns home tired and would like rest, but his wife wants to chat, using the golden rule would equate to both of them ignoring each other's needs, creating conflict and even divorce. Sacrifice, not the golden rule, rescues relationships. The West's golden rule is no longer golden; it destroys families, which suits their agenda.
The principle of harm, as expressed by John Stuart Mill, is that the sole reason to limit someone's freedom in a civilized community is to avoid causing harm to others. You cannot limit one's freedom unless his/her actions result in physical or financial harm to others. Mental harm, defamation, or insulting sacred objects (such as burning the Quran) is not harm according to the West. In Islam, there is a principle of "no harm, no foul" but broader. Islam forbids causing harm to others and to oneself, including psychological harm such as backbiting or libel that is allowed in the West unless it results in financial or physical damage.
Western legislations, such as those mandating seat belts or helmets, are in conflict with the harm principle as they limit individual freedom to avoid injury to self, reflecting inconsistency. Likewise, legislations in Europe criminalize Holocaust denial, limiting free speech, even though the West prides itself in furthering freedom of expression. Such double standard exposes the emptiness of their principles. Liberalism's pillars—equality and freedom—are wanting, and their implementation causes society to crumble.
May Allah grant us a genuine comprehension of the religion, the capability to apply it, and enhance our practice and knowledge. Ameen.
0 Comments