Middle Nation Podcast (E:5) -- Serious discussions use precise language

Welcome everyone to another edition. This is the fifth episode of the Middle Nation podcast. You know, there is more or less a continuous discussion going on in the Muslim community about the threat of liberalism to Islam and to the Muslim world. But frankly, this discussion is usually approached in a very sloppy and irresponsible manner, in my opinion. We throw around a lot of rhetoric and hyperbole, and it just ends up being something that reminds me of a Chinese shadow puppet show because there are no details or clear definitions, and it's just like a clash of themes rather than a serious conversation.

For instance, the term the West, capital w. We have to acknowledge that it is really only acceptable to talk about the West in a very particular type of discussion, a very general discussion, because there's no such thing actually as the West. North America, The UK, and Europe are not a monolith. The US is not identical to Canada. The UK is different from Europe.

And even in Europe, North, South, And Eastern Europe are not all one homogenous culture. Don't treat the West as if it is an ummah. They have distinct histories, distinct political systems, political philosophies, customs, religious traditions, geopolitical realities, economic structures, on and on and on. So just the fact that someone talks about the West means that they are not engaging in a very serious discussion. Now you can talk in general terms, simplified terms.

That's fine, but that means that it is a simplistic conversation. When you use these kinds of amoebic terms referring to an incredibly complex set of societies and cultures as if they are a single cell organism, you know that the listener will project whatever features they want onto that term to give it meaning because otherwise, it doesn't really have a meaning, which again is fine for a certain type of conversation, but not a serious conversation. And that, by the way, applies to anyone, whether they are critical of the West or praising it. Anyone who talks about the West, it's already a misleading and simplistic conversation. And we shouldn't actually even let Westerners get away with referring to the West as if it is one single civilization.

It isn't. Now another thing that goes on in this kind of conversation, this discussion all the time is that a lot of terms get wrongly conflated. Like, for instance, liberal, leftist, progressive, or woke. Those all get conflated with each other even though they're all different things with their own definitions and descriptions and, meanings. And all of those things, liberal, leftist, progressive, and so on, they all get conflated with the word liberalism.

Now liberal does not mean liberalism, and liberalism does not mean liberal. If you're talking about America, both the Republicans and the Democrats as well as libertarians and almost everyone across the political spectrum subscribed to liberalism. This just means a belief in individual liberty, equal rights before the law, the consent of the governed, and philosophical stances like that about the social contract between the state and its citizens. Liberalism does not denote taking a particular position on so called liberal causes like the LGBT or abortion rights or what have you. The conservatives who object to these things, the anti liberals, are still believers in liberalism.

This is why you have so many right wingers in The US declaring themselves to be classical liberals because that just means someone who believes in the values and principles of the so called enlightenment. It's almost superfluous to say this about yourself, that you're a classical liberal. It's almost superfluous to say this when you are an American because everybody in The US basically is a classical liberal regardless of their political positions on policy issues. So I think what most people mean when they talk about the threat of liberalism is actually what they regard as the immorality of the current liberal agenda originating in The US with regards to things like feminism, the LGBT, what we can sort of describe as the woke platform. And fair enough.

But this is a different conversation than a conversation about liberalism. So we should try to keep everything in its proper place. If you have a problem with liberalism, the values of, you know, individual liberty, equality before the law, consent of the governed, freedom of speech, all of those things, then you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking, for example, that the Republicans or American conservatives are potential allies in opposing liberalism because they exist in the context of liberalism. They believe in it, and they argue according to its tenets. So you see, you have to be clear in your understanding of definitions.

If you have objections to liberalism, you have objections to everyone across the political spectrum in The US, The UK, and Europe, not just liberals. But if what you really object to are the social and political values of liberals themselves, liberals, again, things like LGBT issues and so on, or say you're against what right wingers have referred to as cultural Marxism and identity politics and so forth because you think it is immoral or unnatural or detrimental to the morality of the society or the religious beliefs and practices of the Muslims, then this is a very different argument. And it does not necessarily require you to also be against liberalism itself. Now with regards to liberalism, for Muslims in Western countries, it does not make much sense to be against liberalism. As a minority community, liberalism provides you a legal mechanism for protecting and expanding your rights as a Muslim.

It gives you the right, in fact, to object to the liberal agenda. The ideals of liberalism guarantee you the right to practice your religion, express your opinion, protest, and to live as you choose. So when you're only something like 1% of the population, liberalism is in your best interest. Now you may be motivated to fight for the rights of Muslim women to wear hijab, the right to practice the deen as you see fit, the right to disapprove of gay marriage or what have you because of your Islamic beliefs. That's what motivates you to fight for these things.

But what gives you a recourse to fight for those things is gonna be based on the society's official dedication to liberalism, the society's official commitment to individual liberty and fundamental freedoms. That is what provides you the mechanisms to fight for what you believe if you're living in a non Muslim society. Liberalism is what allows you to make dua in The US, The UK, or Europe, and it's even what allows you to criticize liberalism. You know they don't like you doing any of those things, but according to their own classical liberal principles, they are not allowed to prevent you. So it does not make much sense to me for any Muslim in a western country to be anti liberalism.

I get it that the problem with liberalism is that people with beliefs and agendas that conflict with Islam and morality are also guaranteed the same right to promote their views and to push for policies that we don't want or cannot accept. But like I said, most of the people in the Western countries don't like your beliefs either and would like to see you censored and forced to conform or converted. So without liberalism, your presence in Western countries would be unsustainable, especially for those Muslim critics of liberalism who are particularly vocal. Now, obviously, the application of liberalism's ideals in The US, UK, or Europe vary pretty dramatically. They adopt policies in France that would be very hard to impose in America, and this again is why it is meaningless to talk about the West as a monolith.

But this opens a much deeper discussion about the extent to which liberalism's and principles have ever actually been absorbed and internalized in the societies that claim them, but I'll leave that topic for another podcast. We will end up discussing everything here. Don't worry. Liberalism, democracy, public versus private sector power, the woke agenda, etcetera. We'll get to all of it, Insha Allah.

But for now, I just wanted to establish that when you want to discuss important topics, the conversation should be serious and the language should be precise. So I would suggest that if you are going to participate in these kinds of discussions, clarify whether you're talking about liberalism or about liberals, and clarify what society you're talking about specifically. Because, no, liberals are not the same as leftists, and progressives are their own thing as well. And how any of these terms or labels function is going to be different depending on what country you're dealing with. Let's try not to use composite language, words that amalgamate a variety of social and political threads.

It does not actually help anyone understand things any better, and it is not useful for determining how we should approach these issues. So