Kelly O’Connell – Modern Liberalism & Islam: An Uncanny Resemblance

Modern Liberalism & Islam: An Uncanny

Resemblance
Author: Kelly O'Connell
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2010
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23511

Both Neo-Liberalism and traditional Islam present unmistakable hallmarks of

Fundamentalist thought. (Neo-Liberalism defined here as the early 20th century attempt to
hide socialism behind the term “liberalism.”) Arguably, the main fixation behind both
ideologies is controlling others, seeing to it they obey all the rules. In other words, both have a
predilection towards totalitarianism. This is clearly seen in regimes like Saudi Arabia, China,
Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. Both socialists and Islamic fundamentalists assume a
judgmental, condescending tone when preaching. Such doctrinaire attitudes result from
accepting a false fundamentalist world view.

Socialism is easily differentiated from true, i.e. “Classical” Liberalism. The latter was the
default world view of freedom-seeking Europeans during the American Revolution, based on
the ideas of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Paine, Calvin, Puritan Revolutionaries, etc. These
convictions center on self-reliance, limited government defending the rights of man, and
bolstering freedom – wherever possible. The world view of Classical Liberalism is well-
represented by Locke’s observation that the task of government is increasing people’s
freedom.

In the following essay is examined the strange resemblance between the totalitarian regimes
of Islam and socialism in the areas of politics, law, economics and freedom. (This paper
differentiates between traditional Islam and modern Muslim states accepting Western ideas
on human rights, law and politics.)

I. Politics

Both traditional Islam and Neo-Liberalism have a totalitarian vision for a one-world
monolithic state. Marx believed in the inevitable rise of a worldwide worker’s state, guided by
singular leadership. This was also Lenin’s goal, according to William Miller’s “The Meaning of
Communism.” In traditional Islam, the centuries-old European concept of the sovereign
nation-state is likewise absent. There are only two destinations in the classic Islamic world,
being the various Muslim versus non-Muslim nations. These are termed the House of Allah
(Dar al-Islam), and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), according to the “Popular Dictionary of
Islam,” by Ian Richard Netton. The only defensible traditional Islamic state is organized
according to the Qur’an, thereby run by Allah as a theocracy, according to Farooq Hassan, in
his “The Concept of State and Law in Islam.”

Neo-Liberalism also does not brook opposition. Communism staged no free elections,
refusing democratic principles when in power. For example, after the Russian Revolution, the
Bolsheviks did not allow any opposition party to remain. Instead, Lenin instituted the world’s
most oppressive regime, according to Clarence B. Carson’s “Basic Communism; It’s Rise,
Spread and Debacle in the 20th Century.” All other entities were ruthlessly crushed by Lenin,
while establishing a one party rule, with a reign of terror to enforce this ideal, which then

Page 1 of 6
Kelly O’Connell – Modern Liberalism & Islam: An Uncanny Resemblance

became the hallmark of all Marxist regimes. Given the almost total lack of democracy in the
history of Islam, this perfectly comports.

While many leftists painfully differentiate between communist and socialist regimes,
according to Marx the only difference between the two is opportunity. He taught socialism
and communism are both inevitable stages of the irresistible people’s revolution that must
overthrow capitalism. Each stage denies citizens exclusive ownership over property, and both
vests all rights of the people within the government. The very essence of Neo-Liberal and
traditional Muslim government is erection of an all-powerful state to rule over people who are
neither intellectually, nor morally suited to rule. One merely has a government in the name of
an absolutist God, whereas the other absolutely delivers the state as the only god. Not much
difference exists in the final analysis.

II. Law

Classic Muslim and Marxist legal theories have more in common than a superficial gloss
would suggest, despite one being overtly religious, whereas the other is wholly atheistic.

The legal theory accepted by Neo-Liberalism is positive law, a jurisprudence based upon the
popular will of the people, judged by a scientific “positive” standard. This is a rejection of
Natural Law, or the notion there is a law above the law, i.e. “God’s Law,” from which to judge
human decisions. Natural Law, being a supposed application of biblical principles to legal
theory, had great impact upon development of Anglo-American jurisprudence. This resulted
in the British “common law,” beginning with Alfred the Great encapsulating the Ten
Commandments at the heart of the English statutes. It is a very flexible and dynamic theory,
allowing principles to easily be drawn out for application in similar cases. From this base was
developed our constitutional, due process and Bill of Rights based approach to jurisprudence.

It might then be assumed classic Muslim Shari’ah law would also be a Natural Law theory
since it too is religious. But this is not so. Shari’ah law is a highly inflexible construct, the
opposite of Natural Law, explaining why it’s so often condemned in the West, especially
regarding draconian criminal punishments. Natural Law, versus positive law, is a principle
based jurisprudence, meaning it can be endlessly applied to various situations that are
analogous in some way to past rulings.

Traditional Islamic Shari’ah developed during a roughly hundred-year window after the
Prophet’s death which closed by 10th century AD. Shari’ah is informed by the Qur’an; the
Sunna, or model behavior of the Prophet; the Hadith, or wise sayings of the Prophet; and the
agreement of the four classic Muslim legal schools, or Ijtihad, according to preeminent
Islamic legal scholar Joseph Schacht, in his “Introduction to Islamic Law.” According to
critics, it is nonetheless marked by a simplistic design, a striking lack of modern topics, and
an inability to successfully adapt to the modern world.

For example, while not practiced in all modern Muslim regimes, Shari’ah is famed for its cruel
and antiquated punishments for crimes, such as public whippings and lopping off hands and
feet. But Shari’ah advocates argue it cannot be updated to modernity without displeasing
Allah. Therefore, for example, a judicial amputation cannot be translated to, say, a stretch in
prison. It is either the exact Shari’ah punishment, or an abrogation of God’s will, according to
traditional Muslims.

Page 2 of 6
Kelly O’Connell – Modern Liberalism & Islam: An Uncanny Resemblance

Fascinatingly, Schacht argues the heart of Islam itself is not theology, but law. He wrote,
“Islamic law is the epitome of Islamic thought, the most typical manifestation of the Islamic
way of life, the core and kernel of Islam itself,” For this reason many argue Islam is better
defined as a political movement than religious creed. The central theme of Islam, according to
this theory, is not belief, but control and fealty. This would explain why the term “Islam”
derives from the Arabic root “Salema,” meaning “obedience.” Islam sees itself as a submission
to the will, i.e. law of God.

III. Economics

Both Neo-Liberalism and traditional Islam are normally fixated upon employing a socialist
command economy. One would think the radical theocratic mindset of Islam would opposes
the totalitarian atheistic structure of Marx’s thought. Walter Z. Laqueur in “Communism and
Nationalism in the Middle East” refers to this as the “bulwark” theory, that falsely claims
since most Muslims oppose atheism, socialism could never take root in Islam. Yet, the
opposite has been historically true. The various Muslim countries which have employed
socialism or communism over the years include Iraq, Sudan, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and
others. Both classic Islam and socialism are committed to radical control of the populace,
making them agreeable, yet strange bedfellows.

Leftism, by definition, is a theory of socialist and communist ideals. Marxism and socialism
both arose in the radical ferment of the post-French-Revolutionary Parisian culture. Marx
was lucky enough to achieve preeminence, but there is little doubt that the two “isms” share
almost all the same convictions.

Does traditional Islam have an ancient default towards socialism? Historically, according to
Kevin Reinhard in “Before Revelation,” Arab society predating Mohammad existed within a
very paltry economy. Therefore, it was typical of Bedouin tribesmen to constantly raid one
another simply for survival. This could be argued a cultural precursor to socialism, since there
was no law against such raids. Likewise, one of the classics reasons for Muslim war, aka
Jihad, was the collection of booty, in goods, slaves, and land. Augustine’s theory of the “Just
War” has no analogue in Muslim history. Any war against non-believers was justified, ipso
facto, in Islamic law.

Modern Islam has been much exposed to socialism. For example, the ideas creating the Iraqi
and Syrian Ba’th party resulted from the French-educated Syrian intellectual, Michael Aflaq.
He combined nationalism with Arab socialism, according to Ira M. Lapidus’ “A History of
Islamic Societies.” Aflaq defined his idea of the perfect Ba’thist in essentially Marxist terms,
calling the idea “Qawmiya,” or – that which “...implies total absorption of the individual in the
nation.” The movement was designed to push out French and British colonial presence.
Interestingly, Aflaq was raised Christian, and not Muslim.

A main religious factor in stymieing Muslim economics is the broad prohibition against so-
called “usury,” or lending with interest, i.e. riba. In classic Islam, money can be loaned, but
not done at interest. (It should be noted this definition of “usury,” which the Medieval Church
also employed, is a mistranslation. In the Bible, “usury” is not all interest, but simply money
lent at excessive interest.) As Timur Kuran explains in “Islam & Mammon,” the Muslim
banking system which officially avoids interest, cannot function without clever strategies to
sneak charges back into the equation.

Page 3 of 6
Kelly O’Connell – Modern Liberalism & Islam: An Uncanny Resemblance

Condemnations of usury is found here in the Qur’an where Mohammad discusses riba:

Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the devil by
his touch has driven to madness….. Allah will deprive usury of all blessing…for
He loves not any ungrateful sinner…. O you who believe, fear Allah and give up
what remains of your demand for usury, if you are indeed believers. If you do it
not, take notice of war from Allah and His messenger, but if you repent you shall
have your capital sums; deal not unjustly, and you shall not be dealt with
unjustly. And if the debtor is in difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to
repay. But if you remit it by way of charity, that is best for you if you only knew.
[Surah al Baqarah, verses 275-280].

On top of the agreement on the evils of capitalism, traditional Islam and Marxism also shared
a strong criticism of Jews. Marx’s famous essay, On the Jewish Question, is arguably an anti-
Semitic work. Further, the two groups are in agreement in mistreatment of the Jews. Much of
the anger directed towards the Hebrews was motivated by envy at Jewish excellence at
capitalistic undertakings. For the same reason, the Muslims did cooperate with the Nazis in
efforts to exterminate Jews, during WWII, with Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem, working with the Third Reich.

Marx agrees with the Muslims, saying this on the topic in “On the Jewish Question”:

What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the
worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering What is his worldly god? Money. Very well:
then in emancipating itself from huckstering and money, and thus from real and
practical Judaism, our age would emancipate itself…The god of the Jews has been
secularized and has become the god of this world. The bill of exchange is the real
god of the Jews. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.

IV. Freedom

Unsurprisingly, commitment to traditional Western definitions of freedom in classic Islam

and Marxism are lacking, given the totalitarian vision common to each. A recurring theme for
traditional Islam’s cultural critics is the utter lack of a Reformation or Enlightenment in its
history. Scholars argue original Islam perpetually struggled to escape ancient concepts of
person-hood, rights and state. Contra, Neo-Liberalism is a movement bent on returning
citizens to slavery given how completely the Marxist state capitulates to the totalitarian
concept of government. These groups end up agreeing. The theocratic state representing
Allah, and the secular state as god, have no room for a robust, Lockean theory of individual
rights against the government.

In development of world views, both traditional Islam and Marxism assume the utter
incompetence of individuals to make appropriate life choices without direct guidance. They
also assume the need for a legislative regime to direct human decisions, yet with one
intriguing difference. In liberalism, it’s assumed there is an ever-expanding need for rules and
laws. This is the sign of a regime that does not understand Rule of Law. But traditional Islam
developed an unusual counter to this, being the tendency to proclaim whatever was not
officially allowed to be considered off-limits. The book “The Lawful and the Prohibited in
Islam” by Yusuf al-Qaradawi is an explication of this theme.

Page 4 of 6
Kelly O’Connell – Modern Liberalism & Islam: An Uncanny Resemblance

In “Islam And Human Rights; Tradition and Politics,” Ann Elizabeth Mayer explains that
modern Muslim regimes give mere lip service to Human Rights. She says typical modern
Islamic rights manifestos “...call for obedience to authority and give political leaders complete
leeway in determining the scope of permissible freedoms.” Likewise, Neo-Liberalism has
brutally attacked various freedoms in the past. For example, all members of communist
societies were held as slaves without any freedom of speech or movement, or any property or
legal rights of any kind.

Worryingly, Neo-Liberals in America are now calling for various caps on freedom of speech,
such as at the United Nations. In 2009, the U.S. and Egypt sponsored a U.N. Human Rights
Council resolution calling on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national,
racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
There are efforts by Democrat politicians to bring back the Fairness Doctrine on AM radio,
and to bring similar Net Neutrality onto the Internet. All of these regulate speech content,
against the 1st Amendment. And Supreme Court nominee Ellen Kagan has admitted she
believes in censoring free speech based upon “content.”

Traditionally, both Islam and socialism have supported the repression of religion. In Islamic
countries, Muslims have superior rights to non-Muslims. The persecution of Jews, Christians
and pagans is legendary in Islamic nations. For example, any person residing within an
Islamic nation, but not Muslim, is considered an “enemy combatant.” These must pay for and
sign a yearly capitation tax to enter a treaty of war, the Jizyah. This is offered to Dhimmis, or
“People of the Book,” being Christians and Jews, according to Bernard Lewis in “The Middle
East.” Should a Dhimmi be found outside Jizyah in a Muslim land, in theory they can be
killed on the spot, according to Schacht.

But communist countries made religion illegal, per se, and millions of people were liquidated
simply for their beliefs. Now again, there is a strenuous move by many Neo-Liberals to
completely separate religion from secular society, which would have the obvious effect of
driving the most pious and selfless persons out of public life. Further, America’s religious
history itself is in danger of being buried under a nonsensical regime of Political Correctness,
aiming at, and achieving nothing worthwhile.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, strident and bossy Neo-Liberals have misunderstood the purpose of

government. It is not the place of government officials to judge private citizen’s decisions and
become arbiters of personal taste. When politicians confuse the serious responsibility of
keeping government reigned-in and protecting citizen’s rights with the call to proclaim
Marxist pseudo-fatwas on judging the economic dictates of their citizens, all hell is bound to
break loose. These politicians cannot be trusted with the most basic tasks and therefore must
be replaced, ASAP, with Classical Liberals who understand that being a doctrinaire,
spendthrift busybody is the last thing America needs in these desperate times.

We need to remember there is one form of good government, being John Locke & Edmund
Burke’s vision of a kingdom of virtue, with few rules and protected freedoms. Contra, there is
one type of tyranny – which comes in many forms, being an infinitely flexible totalitarianism,
whether religious or secular. Until our leaders re-learn this lesson of our Founders, we cannot
consider ourselves free people.

Page 5 of 6
Kelly O’Connell – Modern Liberalism & Islam: An Uncanny Resemblance

======================

Kelly O’Connell is a writer and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las
Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed
Church in Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he
earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher
and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He
then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private
practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.

Kelly can be reached at: hibernian1@gmail.com

###

Page 6 of 6