Refuting misconceptions towards freedom and liberty

 Refuting misconceptions towards freedom and liberty

Ustaz Amar Ismat Bin Mohd Nasir merupakan Graduan Kuliah Usuluddin Jabatan Aqidah & Falsafah Universiti Al-Azhar Kaherah. Beliau aktif dalam menyuarakan suara dan pandangan dalam pelbagai isu semasa dari sudut pandang falsafah yang merupakan kepakaran beliau di pelbagai medium termasuk blog, akhbar dan portal berita.

Liberalists always come up with the same arguments when they want to justify their concept of freedom.  There are flaws in those arguments as I made some analysis through my reading, I ought to refute some concepts that they threw in their justifications;

  1. They said that insulting others is not prohibited as long as it did not violate the two basic rules of freedom, which are; (1) you do not physically harm others, and (2) you do not prevent others from exercising the same freedom.
  2. They also argued that there is no such thing as gay rights, minority rights, and human rights. Collective rights are nothing but an aggregation of individual rights. The numbers do not matter. You can’t pick and choose freedom. You either believe in freedom or you don’t.

Firstly, I would say that I believe in freedom totally, but not an absolute freedom or a freedom with the basic principles that are written above. I also believe that freedom and liberty is not a goal, but just a tool to achieve bigger goals of life. I derived this from a formula sculptured by Aristotle, in his book The Nichomachean Ethics, which he saw that the HIGHEST GOOD as the end sought by political science. Aristotle is focusing on the moral purpose that should be achieved from politics (in this case it’s freedom and liberty), which means that there are no benefits from freedom and liberty if they did not serve moral ethics of the society which is the highest good that Aristotle believed.

I cannot imagine, living in a country that’s full of religious blasphemy and insults. Although both parties did not result to violence or prevent others to exercise the same insult, I swear it is not the kind of country that we ought to live in. There will be chaos, religious flare up and cold war between the citizens. Is this what liberalism means? Freedom that does not provide anything good for the society and individual. I guess if Aristotle still lives today, he will also reject this kind of freedom that is far away from what he imagined should exist in a virtuous city.

I also cannot imagine waking up and see gays and lesbians across my hometown without feeling guilt. Is this a civilized society that we are talking about? Yes, they did not insult me personally, but this kind of freedom insults the civilization for the next generations, thus giving harm to human nation productivity and growth. We said that liberalism or liberal democracy brought us to the end of history, which means the culmination of human history. But liberalism does not always mean progressive, whereas conservative and dogmatic do not always mean regressive.

Therefore I conclude that nature of a good life is the core of freedom. Though conceptualization of a good life varies, but the basic realization of a good life is the combination of freedom with goodness. From this aspect, I realized that Islamic Politics and Philosophy meet the requirements. There are not just meant for pure spiritual uplifting, but also have a socio-economic and political significance as well.

Original post from Amar Ismat’s post at  http://www.amarismat.com/

Columnist Amar Ismat Bin Mohd Nasir has been active in voicing his opinion and thoughts on current issues and philasiphical view on the world today through various medium.
Columnist Amar Ismat Bin Mohd Nasir has been active in voicing his opinion and thoughts on current issues and philasophical view on the world today through various medium. He is currently completing his Baccalaureate Degree in Al-Azhar University, Faculty of Islamic Theology, Department of Aqidah and Philosophy.

Comments

comments

admin