Citing the Great Arabic Philosopher Ibn Rushd (Latin: Averro��?���«s)
The conference for 40 Middle Eastern liberal bloggers and journalists is going very well. I’m meeting some very brave and dedicated friends of freedom and learning a great deal from them. Yesterday I gave a presentation on “Principles of Individual Rights” and today I’ll be speaking on “Models of Civil Society.” The latter is a new-ish presentation for me (although I’ve written on the topic in the past) so here is the PDF version of my Powerpoint notes.
Dr. Palmer your enthusiasm in supporting liberty, rights and freedom is most likely contagious, but I doubt it is working on a mass level.
You are seeing in the Mid East intelligent, Western oriented young men and women, usually from the high or middle class. These people may resent the US foreign policy in the region, but they are not willing to give up at the comfort, commodities the Western thinking is providing them with.
It would be a whole new picture if you’ll travel to the small towns, villages, speak in mosques or schools there.
You have a very analytical, reason based speech. You represent the very image of what the people you’ve met want to become: highly respected professionals, men and women who cherish their rights, etc. I have heard you speaking in the past, so I can understand why they are so attracted to your message.
But, that’s exactly why your message is not suitable to the masses and that is why intellectuals such as yourself seem to be pretty confident that Arab Muslim have the same future goals as all the other Westerners. To my disappointment, that is not the case.
Logic stops, where faith begins — and when this particular faith has at its core the death cult (Jihhadism) then all is grim We have passed through some horrific times to be the people we are today, and the Muslims have to follow the same path. Too bad that the Qu’ran (Wahhabi, Deobandi school of Islamic thought) and the interpretations of various religious clerics teach them that the West and the Jews have to be either exterminated or subordinated for them to accomplish God’s word.
What can one do to solve this issue?
Maha asks: “What can one do to solve this issue?”
I wasn’t asked, but if I may jump in…
I think Tom Palmer’s approach is the one of the most important things that can be done — speaking to those who are ready to listen. I don’t think there are any shortcuts in the process of spreading ideas, and spreading ideas is ultimately what is needed to develop a more libertarian world. By spreading them where we can, we make inroads. If people such as Tom can influence intellectuals and professionals in the Middle East, they in turn can begin influencing others at lower levels in these societies. It’s hard to see how this could occur except on a step-by-step basis.
Another point is that part of the reason people are attracted to anti-liberal agendas (whether religious ones or nonreligious ones such as National Socialism or Marxism) is that they promise some sort of liberation or salvation from a miserable state of affairs. Classical liberalism and free markets offer a better alternative (because these latter actually work). Hence I don’t think that that religious and cultural barriers are as insurmountable as we sometimes suppose. I do think it’s part of the biological nature of the human animal to want a better and freer lifestyle; hence the bad that ideology and religion have taught can always be unlearned, and deep down maybe we all have some urge for a happier life on earth.
I appreciate your input, Charles. What Dr. Palmer and others are doing is excellent. I have no doubt about that. And, I also understand what you are saying. But, I disagree. Islam is not only a religion.
Islam is more than a religion. It dictates everything in eco-socio and political arena. If you will take that away from the Muslims, you rip off their identity.
Thus, everything they do and everything we do to engage them into dialogue has to be done through the religious frame. Easier to be said than done. I don’t even think we can do that, while maintaining our reason based discourse. It is just not compatible.
I have read an interesting interview on secularism/Islam in Turkey. If you want to read it,
http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=13225&topicID=32
The only way you could introduce something remotely similar to an open society, liberalism in the Mid East is to support secularism. It’s a tough subject, and I don’t have here the space to develop all of my ideas.. bottom line, before we’ll see liberalism flourish we’ll see Islamism (most likely in its most violent and radical form) thriving and maybe in 100 years something else.
Well, I wasn’t refering only to religion. Marx-Leninism and Naziism were totalitarian — they dictated every aspect of life. If such an ideology really sets in deeply, it takes a generation to be replaced (less than one hundred years). It took much less time with Naziism.
I don’t understand what you mean by “Thus, everything they do and everything we do to engage them into dialogue has to be done through the religious frame. Easier to be said than done. I don’t even think we can do that, while maintaining our reason based discourse. It is just not compatible.”
I had at least one very long discussion with a (non-militant) very fundamentalist Pakistani Muslim — we disagreed on numerous points but had a reason-based discussion, and I think I made some headway. And I’ve known Muslims (an imam in the U.S. and and a Ph.D. in Arabic studies in Moscow) who were quite explicit in insisting that Islam is compatible with libertarianism.
At any rate, it’s not a forgone conclusion that political Islamism will dominate the Muslim world — and in fact, people such as bin Laden see themselves as locked in a desperate struggle for “the soul” of Islam, rather than as the obvious and dominating leaders.
They have an uphill battle — against the tide of history, I think, and I wouldn’t bet on them.
I’m also less pessimistic — even optimistic — about liberalism in the Islamic world. Things are changing. The tide of political Islamism probably hasn’t peaked yet, but it’s intellectual appeal seems to have done so already.
Remember that much of what is called Islamism is quite recent and represents a rejection of historical patterns — that’s why they’re so angry and radical. Said Qutb and others — including Usama bin Laden — are more influenced by Martin Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, and Benito Mussolini than by traditional Islamic scholarship or the remarkable variety of Muslim history. I don’t see the religion itself as an obstacle to liberty; I see the violence and the oppression exercised in the name of the religion as the problem, and most of that is motivated by sets of ideas quite similar to those that ravaged Europe in the past century.
Great work. I agree with Charles: this is one of the most important things that can be done (considering long run effects this is probably the most important thing).
Radical Islam is a form of totalitarianism. The ideas of the West, in terms of ultra nationalism, fascism, communism and Nazism were imported in the Arab and Muslim countries. When the West escaped the plague of the above forms of totalitarianism, everyone thought that this is the end of it. Surely that was not the case. I still think that we have not yet seen the worst of it, and that is why I am less optimistic than Dr Palmer and Charles.
I can’t remember if this has come up before or not, but anyway…. the Arabic work for “liberty”, what is its direct translation into English? In other words, when you talk about “liberty” to an Arabic-speaking audience, how different or the same is their conception of the term, compared to in the West (where admittedly it differs too, so let’s say in a classical liberal framework)?
It translates, according to my friends, very well. Hurr’iyya is the word and it’s rather well understood, at least as well as “liberty” or “freedom” in English, libertÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?©, Freiheit, or Libertad in French, German, or Spanish. In addition (I am asking now a distinguished Kuwaiti liberal), Arabic people understand “freedom of speech, freedom of association, accountability of government officers, and so forth” and that, just like in America, it is a process of understanding and discussion to understand the full implications of freedom.
Tom,
Arab people doubtless understand “freedom of speech, freedom of association, accountability of government officers, and so forth” as much as anyone else, but no Arab country has any of these things in any great measure, if at all.
It would be easy to suppose the problem is oppression, except that wherever democracy is attempted in the Arab world, it results in a rejection of liberty. Witness the aborted attempt at democratizing Algeria, or the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, an anti-liberty group if ever there were one (forget about their foreign policy for a moment, these folks are not exactly classical liberals). In Iraq, it isn’t clear that the democratically elected government, such that it is, is going to stay away from sharia law, much less respect minority rights.
And if free elections were held today in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, would we prefer the new governments to the current ones? It isn’t obvious.
Do you ever wonder if the region’s religious or fatalistic cultural attitudes are compatible with liberty? Isn’t it a hurdle?
Tom,
Looked over the powerpoint. Very nice. The “free air of the city” quote reminds me of comments in Abbe Raynal’s “History of the Two Indies” (Sankar Muthu’s “Enlightenment Against Empire” has some good discussions on Raynal and Diderot’s understanding of non-European societies). Also appreciated the Douglas quote at the end.
Every person yearns to be free and every society has elements of freedom within it. I’ve been a student of history and a student of freedom for many years. It is so important for those will little hope for their social world to find the examples and find the means to discover for themselves how to become free. I do believe that what your efforts in promoting and educating about classical liberalism is a crucial element for many that you meet, Tom.
I’ve spoken to palestinians and lebanese about such matters and have come back optimistic. As bad as their current situation may be, a people can find a way to be free, Tom. Customs regarding land ownership and other matters evolve over time. As Ludwid von Mises pointed out, “It was only when a country was more densely settled and unoccupied first-class land was no longer available for appropriation, that people began to consider such predatory methods wasteful. At that time they consolidated the institution of private property in land. They started with arable land and then, step by step, included pastures, forests, and fisheries.” “Human Action,” p. 656. Written law originated not as legislation from a state but as an effort to record customs already observed by society. See Bruno Leoni’s “Freedom and the Law” for a good discussion of this matter.
There are seeds amongst the cedars of Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East. It may be awhile before peace comes to all who live there, but it will come. When it does, freedom will follow.
Best to you,
Just a thought.
Just Ken
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/
http://spencerheath.blogspot.com/
re: Heidegger and Bin Laden…
Dr. Palmer,
I’ve never suspected that Bin Laden had any interest in philosophy, but, if he indeed does, I suppose no other Western philosopher would appeal to him as much as Heidegger. Is the association mainly due to Heidegger’s stance against modernity, or some other aspect of his thought? I doubt that he’s drawn to the “spatiality of Dasein” since such a view leaves little if any room for an afterlife. That is, unless you have a correct preminition that Bin Laden doesn’t really believe in Allah and a “hereafter”.
Can you refer me to your source?
p.s. Heidegger was definitely a sicko, but it’s a sick world (and I don’t primarily mean the state that the world is in).
Ryan,
I doubt that bin Laden has ever read “Sein und Zeit,” but his movement is very much influenced by various ideas of authenticity that come out of that and related influences. A few places to look for ideas on the topic would be Olivier Roy’s “Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah” (“Terms such as ‘Islamic culture’ and ‘Islamic identity’ are by definition modern.” “The real genesis of Al Qaeda violence has more to do with a Western tradition of individual and pessimistic revolt for an elusive ideal world than with the Koranic conception of martyrdom.” “It is common to find among Islamic radicals a mix of Koranic injunctions and pseudo-Marxist explanations.” Etc.), the book “Empire” by Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, which identifies Islamist radicalism as a “post modern” movement (I don’t have my copy handy for a full quote or a citation), or Timur Kuran’s “Islam and Mammon,” for the very modern roots of “Islamist economics” and Islamist identity movements.
Dr.Palmer it was great to meet you at the conference i enjoyed the discussions we had with you ,
i have a good idea now how to start , i am not so optimistic about libralism in my arab society however i think we can find a compromisation ,the Islam is very important for us in the arab world for me as an arab muslim to find an islamic libaralism might be a solution ….
the young activists (bloggers) that were detained with other young muslism brotherhood activists during a month at the same cell were talking about a new-open close to librarism views and opinions that those young muslim brotherhood had , we have a current of young muslisms middle and believe in non-violent peacefull way to change .
Dear Shahinaz,
It was a delight to meet you, as well. I hope that important things will come from our conversations.
I also believe that Islamic liberalism — or liberalism within an Islamic context — is important. As we discussed, there is a very big difference between liberalism and secularism, because liberalism allows for freedom of religion, but the secularists demand that religion be controlled by the state, which is directly contrary to liberalism. Religion should be free, neither imposed on the people by the state nor controlled by the state.
The dialogue for liberty has to proceed in all directions, among secularists (to understand the importance of free exercise of religion and the dangers of state control over religion) and among Islamists (to understand why all should be free to practice or not to practice religion and why the state and religion should be separated).
Dear Dr Tom..
we really had a great time at the conference and every one was very intersted to know more about the developed countrys experiences as they suffered much to reach the freedome..
but i have a small question..?
dont you think when the west try to make our home an open markets for their multi-nationality companys thats they do it for a purpose coz:
1.they will destroy the small investments which represents about 80 per cent of the investments.
2.they are gonna pollute our lands.
3.they will use our lands for cheap prices which is not a good deal at all.
4.they will increase the wage at the same time the num of unemployed will increase as Fadi mention in his presentation.
so is there any midd-way to be liberal at the same time to conserve the small investments and to make these overseas big company more concerned about the people in the areas where they are gonna invest?
it was more than great spending a launch time with you and the conference was more than great,thanks a million for every thing.
you syrian freind
dr.tooti
Dr. Palmer,
It was really great meeting you. I enjoyed listening to your presentations. They were interesting and thought-provoking. I read the remarks posted by others. Evidently, it is agreed upon that radical Islam, or the violence practiced in the name of Islam, is the greatest obstacle before promoting a civil, liberal society; yet,people seem to forget that another major problem is the rigid regimes clinging persistently to power. Saudia Arabia, for instance, has the largest ruling family, with 22,000 princesses and princes most of whom are waiting for their turn in the thrown. The case isn’t anything different in other Arab countries.We seemed to be trapped between a small but powerful and technologically sophisticated group of extremists, and large,rigid ruling families obsessed with mainitaing the status quo. These two, i think, are the greatest problems.
Marwa-
Conference participant.
I must sadly concur with Maha; I’m not optimistic. Marwa’s description, above, only adds to my worries. My doubts stem from the lack of Arab self-criticism accompanied by the usually practice of blaming one’s sorry state on scapegoats: Zionists, America, colonialism, etc. Have you seen signs to the contrary?
Is there much self-criticism? Is there a respect and admiration of the core Western achievements of reason, naturalism, and individualism? Is there a desire to move beyond a parochialism and identity politics?
Jason: some signs to the contrary are the messages posted here by participants in Dr. Palmer’s conference. We all see the problems & obstacles, but I think that small steps like these show that they can be overcome.
Dr. Totti: in reply to your questions re globalization — I think that many of the problems that you associate with multinational corporations in a setting of open markets are really problems of multinational corporations in a setting of insecure property rights for the local populace and special priveleges for the multinationals.
For example, in some parts of the world (e.g. Indonesia, Papua New Guinea) the national government has sold logging rights to foreign companies who proceed to clear cut the land, doing severe damage to the local economy & environment. In fact, the lands where the rights are sold are really occupied — and in some sense claimed (owned) by local people who depend on them. These prior rights are ignored when the state sells the logging rights. The market gets blamed, but the problem isn’t the free market, it is insecure property rights (and often corrupt state officials as well).
There are other examples of this (e.g. in fisheries). Similarly, insecure property rights has been identified by economist Hernando de Soto as preventing economic development of the poor around the world. One thing that secure rights do is protect local people from at lest some of the harms you mention.
This is only partial answer to your question, I know, but it’s a start.
Lots of interesting comments. I don’t understand Mr. Pappas’s remark about Marwa’s comments. Is he saying that Marwa has pointed to a serious problem, or that pointing to that problem it is itself a kind of problem, i.e., “practice of blaming one’s sorry state on scapegoats”? I think that she has indeed put her finger on a serious issue and that such insight is a good sign for the future of the Arab world.