On the Islamic Conception of Freedom:

Liberty versus Liberalism

By Cyril Anderson

Part Two of Two

Admittedly, there are both good and bad ideas within the general compass of Liberalism.  The opposition in this article is not to reasonable amounts of external liberty from government oppression; indeed the example of the ahlil bayt (as), namely through Imam Hussain (as) at Kerbala, is to fight against oppressive government.  The objection is to the dangers of the extremes of hard-core Liberalism.  The criticism is on the focus only on external lack of constraint, and the focus only on certain types of constraints.  The opposition is not to freedom, but to a limited, deficient understanding of freedom and a limited, deficient understanding of the human being.  To be fair, there are splinters and streams within liberalism, with social liberalism in particular saying that true freedom also includes the freedom of all to realize their potential without hindrance or exploitation, therefore justifying reasonable levels of government intervention to protect and help the weak in society through regulation and through government funding: of schools to educate; hospitals to keep people healthy; assistance/social welfare to help the poor, old, and weak; access of the poor to legal counsel to help protect legal rights; access to basic needs of shelter, food, water, and clothing; protection of minorities and their rights; crime prevention; assistance for victims of natural disaster; and government investments to help stimulate and direct useful economic activity.  Islamically, there is little or nothing to object to in the promotion of such forms of liberty, which recognize, rightly, that “The freedom of the wolves is the death of the sheep (Isaiah Berlin).”

A distinction is often made between negative rights (rights not to be restricted in certain ways – e.g. right not to have privacy violated, right not to be arbitrarily detained, right not to be put through cruel and unusual punishment, etc) and positive rights. (rights to have something-e.g., right to decent employment if ready to work, right to a living wage, right to a certain minimum standard of living, etc)  All forms of liberalism will argue for certain negative rights, while some forms allow for positive rights.  This distinction is where some of the softer, socially minded forms of liberalism come in, arguing that the government has a duty not only to prevent people from wronging you in certain ways and to refrain, itself, from doing so, but must also act to provide people with certain positive rights (food, shelter, education, etc) that they would not otherwise have access to.

The Islamic concept of freedom, and indeed the Judeo-Christian concept of freedom as well is something different from the liberal understanding of freedom.  These Divinely inspired religions see the idea of freedom being defined as simply doing what you want as a degraded conception of human freedom. 

 From the religious perspective, freedom consists of two essential parts.

First, there is correct, undistorted knowledge of reality to understand and distinguish right from wrong behavior.  Second is the unhindered ability to choose right over wrong to put this knowledge to work.  In this religious perspective, then, freedom is related to morality and truth rather than to simple momentary desires or impulses.

 Religiously then, it is not freedom to simply be unhindered from acting, and one does not exercise freedom by simply doing whatever one feels like at any moment.  According to the religious perspective, such a view confuses libertinism with liberty.  From the religious perspective, this is a very animalistic and degraded view of liberty stemming from an animalistic and degraded view of the human being. 

 In the religious perspective, humans have an animal part of their nature, sharing this with the lower animals.  However, we also have a higher intellect and a rational soul.  According to the religious perspective, humans are only free when the rational soul is in proper command of the lower animalistic nature, taming it and directing it to proper ends. 

 According to the religious perspective then, if one just goes with whatever one feels like, this usually means that he is allowing the animalistic nature to take control of him.  In this sense, he is no longer free because his lower, baser animal nature rather than his higher, rational nature is in control of his actions.  In a sense, he becomes a slave to his lower passions, and to the sense that he does so, ceases to be free, and even, in a certain figurative sense, ceases to be human, because he is not using the rational mind that makes him truly human and distinguishes man from beast.   

A person who does not have proper knowledge is also from this perspective not viewed as truly free either in his actions because due to his lack of knowledge, his actions will not be directed according to any solid rational reason, nor by any true conception of ultimate reality.  His actions will either be based on his animalistic nature, making him a slave of his passions, or he will blindly follow the lead of some other charismatic human being or ideology, making him a slave of that person or ideology.  For example, in modern liberal democracies, there is large de jure freedom and enshrined liberties for people.  However, the quality of education (needed to have knowledge to make informed decision) usually depends highly on one’s socio-economic status, and the media (television, radio, newspapers) tend to be closely held in the hands of a rich elite, leading to distortions in media coverage which distort people’s awareness of the truth, thereby limiting their ability to make informed decisions in their own interests and in the interest of the society.  A case in point is the sad reality in the United States even several years after the start of the Iraq War, where the majority of the population, getting their news from television, believed that it had been established that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9-11, despite the fact that this had long been openly refuted.  This is despite any actual legal ban on broadcasting the truth, and despite any official censoring of the media access in the country.  That Saddam was not involved was well published in major newspapers and on the Internet.  Yet still the misconception lingered surprisingly widely.  From the standpoint of liberalism, these people are free because there is no dictator clamping down on the press, and no one physically preventing people from seeking out alternative sources.  From the standpoint of religion, however, they would not be seen as free; they would be seen as manipulated and controlled by those who manipulated and controlled their level of knowledge through biased media channels. 

Religiously, ignorance is a form of slavery.  Indeed, it is not a coincidence that in the worst examples of the practice of human slavery, and in the worst forms of economic and political oppression, efforts have been made to keep the victims ignorant and uneducated.  Indeed, this ignorance is the form of slavery that lasts in its crippling, constraining effects long after the actual chains are removed.  This is seen in many of the formerly colonized nations, particularly in the Middle East, where despite decades of technical independence, so many of the people still carry the bonds of colonialism imprinted on the deepest recesses of their minds.

 It is only when one can understand in some sense ultimate truth and understand what is the right thing to do (i.e., does what God wants him to do), and is then unhindered from doing it, that he becomes truly free.  In the religious perspective, then, we are only free to the extent that we are able to know and follow God’s will.  Unless we master our selves and our desires, and unless we seek knowledge, then no lack of external constraint will make us free.  We will still be imprisoned and enslaved, but with shackles and chains that are invisible, with mental shackles instead of iron ones.

Further Reading

“Liberalism,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

 Wikipedia article on Liberalism.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 Wikipedia article on the Austrian School of Economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

 Wikipedia article on the American School of Economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics) 

 Wikipedia article on the Chicago School of Economicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(economics

                               Part One                    Part Two