Truth to Power
The days of American Muslims walking around with their head hung low whilst being apologetic about their faith is coming to an end. The days of Muslims being moralized by condescending Islamophobes whether from the right or the left is also coming to an end. The days of Muslims being made to believe that they belong to a violent, primitive, and barbaric faith by white liberal neo-atheists is also coming to a complete end.
“The problem isn’t fundamentalism. The problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam.” – Sam Harris
My last article critiquing Sam Harris seems to have upset many liberal Islamphobes. In this article, I discussed the role of John Locke one of the most foundational western liberal philosophers in anti-black violence detailing how Locke believed white slave masters had the right to kill their black slaves. Unfortunately, many critics completely mischaracterized my argument. One such critic wrote:
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. It’s exactly like saying ‘Democrats are all racists because they created the KKK.’ Except this article takes it a step further…saying liberals are evil because one of the early philosophers of liberalism was involved in the slave trade…in the 1600s.
Of course, this was never the argument. My argument was that since many liberal Islamophobes seek to hold Muslims accountable for fringe interpretation of Islam carried out by extremist groups, then as a Black Muslim it is even more reasonable for me to hold liberals accountable when the pioneering thinker of their worldview believed liberal principles justified killing black people. If liberal islamophobes do not want to be held accountable for interpretations of liberalism that have been evoked to justify violence, then they should extent that same courtesy to Muslims.
Though they moralize upon Muslims, I have never seen Sam Harris or Bill Maher condemn nor repudiate mainstream liberal political thinkers that have rationalized terrorism by evoking secular utilitarian principles. Take the case of John Rawls who is one of the most influential liberal philosophers of the past century. John Rawls posits what he refers to as The Supreme Emergency exemption as an ethical principle guarding war.
While the right to life is a general principle in liberalism, Dr. Anne Schwenkenbecher writes according to the John Rawls“in supreme emergencies, a state actor can infringe upon this principle and directly target enemy civilians.” Rawls and Waltz evoke not religious scripture but the secular philosophy of utilitarianism to justify a state actor targeting civilians populations. Dr Schwenkenbecher writes that Supreme Emergency Exemption, “justifies the re-sort to terrorism against innocents to avert moral disasters.” In response to my mentioning of the Supreme Emergency Exemption, a critic of mine, the rationalist writes:
I am very willing to concede the rationalist’s framework that the issue at hand is not what people do in the name of an ideology but rather is what they do consistent with that ideology. However, it is merely his interpretation that the Supreme Emergency Exemption is an illiberal idea. Not only John Rawls but also Michael Waltz have explained in-depth as to why liberalism can be utilized to justify the supreme emergency exemption. They evoke utilitarianism principles to explain why civilian casualties in liberal just-war theory are perfectly morally acceptable.
These are not fringe liberal thinkers. These are among the most influential and mainstream liberal political thinkers of the past century. Nonetheless, I am perfectly ecstatic to discover that the rationalist is a “moderate liberal” who rejects these radical liberal justifications for terrorism.
However, shouldn’t the rationalist and other moderate liberals do more to condemn these radical liberal thinkers? Where are the “not in my name campaigns” to disassociate themselves from these radical liberals?
Where are the countering violent extremist movements to ensure that the radical ideology of Supreme Emergency Exemption does not spread and radicalize another generation of liberal thinkers? Moderate liberals are not doing enough.
As a Black Muslim, I unequivocally denounce John Rawls as I do all justifications for terrorism. In the Islamic tradition, a previous prophet’s companion was bitten by an ant and he subsequently sought to burn the entire ant farm in retaliation. However, God sends a revelation that explains to the Prophet explaining that simply because one ant bit him, it was not right to kill the entire ant colony. This hadith provides a strong ethical basis upon which to condemn utilitarian justifications for terrorism. In Islam, supreme exemption to kill innocents is not even allowed in the ant world. Furthermore, Islam posits a worldview in which the taking of one innocent life is the moral equivalent of taking the life of all of humanity.
Another critic of mine accuses me of seeking to change the topic as to whether a literalist interpretation of Islamic doctrine can justify terrorism by focusing on the crimes of the west. However, my argument is that even the most literalist and conservative interpretation of Islam provides a strong ethical basis to oppose terrorism. This is true whether those terrorist acts are carried out by extremist groups claiming to be Muslim or by liberal state actors in the name of supreme emergency exemption. An exemplar of Islam’s zero policy stances towards terrorism were manifested by an African Muslim by the name of Ahmadou Bamba.
When the very secular and enlightened French colonized Muslims in Senegal and began brutally oppression them, Ahmadou Bamba evoked the Qu’ran and Prophetic traditions to support a non-violence struggle. Ahmadou Bamba rejected resorting to violence to combat French imperialism in Senegal and instead embarked on a campaign that consisted of praying and fasting. In response to his exclusively peaceful campaign, the French arrested him, tortured him, and while under captivity, even prevented him from praying! Eventually, Ahmadou Bamba would be exiled as the French viewed him as a threat.
The non-violent principles Ahmado Bamba devoted himself to according to historian David Robinson, “were not tantamount to frailty or lack of any other alternative but proceeded from a willful religious choice he made.” Yet Ahamdou Bamba’s legacy remains in-tact and he has over 4 million followers across West Africa, which is significantly larger than the followers of modern day extremist groups. In other words a pacifist movement within Islam has significantly more following and backing than extremist ones!
The rationalist writes:
“The core tenets of liberalism are freedom and equality for all people and the inherent human dignity of the individual. You can’t logically rationalize a justification for slavery from these ideas and do so consistently…..Locke dilutes his own principles to rationalize the circumstances of his time. Other liberals like Jeremy Bentham (who Sam Harris has much more in common with, as a left leaning utilitarian) advocated for abolitionism. “
John Locke does not dilute his own principles to rationalize the circumstances of his time. In fact, according to Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Dr.Andrew Valls indicates that Locke was writing at a period in which the form of slavery had not yet been settled. Discussing his innovative role in constructing a race based slavery system, Valles states, “Locke was one of the principal architects of a racialized form of slavery whose severity was by no means predestined.” Thus, the argument that he was a product of his time excuse does not hold up
My critic is correct to say that several Muslim societies practiced slavery. After all, slavery was practiced by numerous societies throughout history as a product of war. Nonetheless, the particular racialized transgenerational chattel form of slavery which is unique in its horror is a product of white liberal thinkers such as John Locke. Additionally, “free the slave” is a phrase repeated throughout the Qu’ran and Islam’s elevation of blackness is solidified through narratives such as the life of Bilal. In the book Slave Rebellion in Brazil: The Muslim Uprising of 1835 in Bahia by Joao Jose Reis, the author highlights that Islamic narratives inspired slaves to revolt against their oppression.
As for my critics belief that one cannot logically justify the enslavement of black people by a resort to liberal principles, this is an erroneous perception. One of the primary critics of liberalism’s role in the enslavement of black people comes from philosopher Frank Wilderson.
According to Wilderson, the enlightenment gave rise to the category “human” which Black folks were excluded from. Wilderson writes that,”the human was born, but not before it murdered the black.” Humanity was established in opposition to blacks. Thus, enslaving black people was not incompatible with liberalism but a manifestation of it. Black people were expelled from the notion of humanity all together at the foundation of modernity and blacks were defined as the,”anti-Human” upon which humanity established itself.
Explaining this, Wilderson writes,”Black Slavery is foundational to modern Humanism’s ontics.” Wilderson even takes it a step further to say that black slavery provided the basis for liberal notions of freedom and liberty by providing the human which something to counter. As for the issue of abolition, Wilderson states even the end of chattel plantation slavery was not the result of humanity suddenly accepting black people but instead represented only an evolution in the technologies of how anti-black slavery would manifest itself. Thus, even in utilitarian political thought, blacks are seen as devoid of utility and thus outside of calculus.
So, this Black Muslim will continue to condemn the complicity of liberalism in anti-black terrorism.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In