Note: This is an important essay. The Libertarian Alliance may look like a collection of English nationalists. We are, however, interested in promoting libertarian ideals wherever we can. We want ideological hegemony everywhere on earth. That includes the Islamic world. SIG
Note: Muslims4liberty writes: “I hope you plan to offer a credit to the actual author and organization that released this article first. It was written by Davi Barker,, the assistant national director of Muslims 4 Liberty an American muslim libertarian/ancap organization. You can find the original post on muslims4liberty.org and thedailyanarchist.com,”
Why Muslim Fundamentalists Should Embrace Voluntaryist Anarchy
I want to be clear from the outset what I mean by “fundamentalists.” I’m not talking about muslims engaged in suicide bombing, plane hijacking, church burning, cartoonist murdering or teddy bear rioting. Those people have departed from any semblance of what I can call islam. So, for the sake of distinction making let’s call them “extremists.” I’m talking about a rigorously literal and conservative interpretation of islam which includes movements to establish a new Caliphate and an emphasis on end times prophecies. These are the type of fundamentalists that join islamic political parties, or separatist movements. And despite what the fear mongers pretend, very few of these fundamentalists have any interest in imposing islamic law on America. They’re far more concerned with countries like Saudi Arabia, which they don’t view as legitimate in any sense. At most they’d like America to stop thwarting their efforts in their own lands.
Putting all that aside, to explain why muslim fundamentalists should embrace voluntaryist anarchy we’ve got to start with some basic review of these two areas of islamic scholarship, the Caliphate and end times prophecies. This argument is primarily written for the fundamentalists themselves, but I’ll try to explain it in terms accessible to a general audience.
Islam attributes sovereignty to God and God alone, and places mankind as vicegerents of God’s sovereignty on Earth. The secular State attributes sovereignty to itself, and makes all other law subservient to its law. Islamic fundamentalists compare this to the idolatry of Pharaoh in the time of Moses, and they argue that so long as they must acquiesce to the sovereignty of the State they cannot be free to worship God as the lone sovereign. In order to be a proper servant of God they must be free from all political slavery. And so, they argue, they must establish an Islamic State built on three basic foundations: The ruler is a vicegerent of God, a Khalifah in Arabic; the law of the land is divine law, Shariahin Arabic and; sovereignty belongs to God alone, and not to the State.
While I am in agreement with the position that the sovereignty of the State is a kind of idolatry and political slavery, I do not believe that draping islamic paraphernalia over the existing model of political slavery magically solves the problem of political slavery. Most Islamic movements aim to achieve this ideal Caliphate by forming political parties and working within the existing political systems in their countries. But this strategy requires acquiescing to the sovereignty of the existing State, which they regard as idolatry. They also presume that because prophet Muhammad and the Caliphs of the past occupied positions of leadership that they constituted an “Islamic State” while I would argue that the foundations on which Muhammad built the social order in Medina did not constitute a “State” by modern definitions, and misunderstanding this distinction is a huge contributing factor to the failure of these movements.
Western civilization saw the need for pluralism after suffering the predation of a medieval Church with a monopoly on law. So, taking the monopoly away from the Church and giving it to the State was fair seeming. Nationalism replaced faith as the unifying principle of secular society, but now we see Western civilization suffering the predation of secular States with regional monopolies on law.
The problem is monopoly. Anywhere you find a monopoly you find power used to oppress the powerless. You cannot protect pluralism by creating a State, because the very definition of a “State” is a regional monopoly on coercive violence.
In Medina under the leadership of the prophet Muhammad pluralism was accomplished differently. The social order accommodated a wide diversity of tribes, many of which were non muslims, that were afforded complete self determination. So, the muslims were under the leadership of prophet Muhammad, but the Jewish and pagan tribes of Medina were respected as independent units of society. They were free to choose their own leaders, to practice their own religion, to form their own judiciaries, and to live by their own law, not islamic law. In this way no institution claimed sovereignty over others, and no theological monopoly existed either.
During his life all Muhammad’s followers consented to his leadership voluntarily and individually, face to face. He never claimed the authority to legislate over people who did not consent. Most muslims will say that Muhammad’s authority as a leader came from God, which is a fine answer for a muslim, but not for the Jews and Pagans of Medina. In Medina’s social order authority was derived from an oath, Bayah in Arabic. This oath was an explicit voluntary arrangement, not a coercive one. It was an agreement between individuals outlining mutual rights and responsibilities, not arbitrary authority to enforce sociopolitical preferences through violence.
This is why I say no State existed in Medina. The independent tribes negotiated a covenant, Mithaq in Arabic, which was the first written constitution in history. Prophet Muhammad never claimed that the Quran was their constitution, as modern islamic States do. The Mithaq outlined a mutual protection pact to defend one another from outside attacks, a non aggression pact to prohibit attacks from within, and a system of arbitration, to impartially settle disputes between tribes. In this way every community was free to regard God as sovereign without any intermediary, and free to live according to their conception of Law without imposing it on others. But none of these provisions constituted a violent monopoly, and therefore the Mithaq did not constitute a State.
No modern muslim country runs this way, and nothing fitting the definition of a “State” could run this way, but this is the heyday fundamentalists long for. I would argue that if muslim fundamentalists believe the end times prophecies described in islamic scripture it is impossible to believe an ideal islamic Caliphate such as this can be achieved by them.
The Hadith of Jibril is one of the most explicit expressions of the islamic creed. In it the Angel Gabriel appears to Muhammad in front of his congregation and asks him questions concerning islam. This is from where we derive the five pillars of islam and the six articles of faith. At the end Gabriel asks about the signs of the last day, and the Prophet gives him two. First, that Bedouins will compete in the building of tall structures. And second, that a slave girl will give birth to her own mistress. You’d have to be blind not to see the first sign in Dubai today, but the second has been the subject of much speculation. The belief that we are currently witnessing the end of history is virtually universal among muslim fundamentalists. Just as you’ll hear dog-whistle references to the Book of Revelations from American evangelicals.
Some of the minor prophecies are really fascinating. For example, Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said that near the Last Day a man will leave his home in the morning, and be informed what is happening to his family by a voice from his hip. Sure sounds like a cell phone, doesn’t it? I regard prophecies as I regard conspiracy theories. They are all true in some sense, false in some sense and meaningless in some sense. And if you ever learn the Truth behind them it would likely be far more strange and illuminating than you imagine.
The major signs of the End Times in islam will be very familiar to Christian fundamentalists. They aren’t precisely the same, but very similar, complete with the armies of Gog and Magog, the Beast and an epic battle between the false messiah and the second coming of Jesus. But the islamic account introduces a new character known as Imam Mahdi.
Imam Mahdi is a prophesied redeemer of authentic religion said to reestablish justice and harmony, and rid the world of tyranny. This role puts him direct opposition to the Anti Christ, who is prophesied to rule a vast dictatorship from Jerusalem. The two clash, and Imam Mahdi is unable to triumph without the aid of Jesus’ return.
Here is why I say the muslim fundamentalist cannot believe the prophecies of Imam Mahdi and advocate an islamic State or Caliphate at the same time.
It is reported in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, which is a compilation of widely accepted prophetic sayings that Muhammad said:
“I will remain amongst you for as long as God Wills. Then there will be my successors upon the Prophetic methodology. And they will remain for as long as God Wills. Then there will be a reign of oppressive kings, and it will remain for as long as God Wills. Then there will be a reign of despotic tyranny, and it will remain for as long as God Wills. Then there will be a successor once again upon the Prophetic methodology. (Musnad of Imam Ahmad #17680)
In another narration it is reported that after the reign of tyranny Muhammad said:
“a man from the family of my house will come and fill the earth with justice just as it had been filled with transgression. (Al-Fitan of Nuaim ibn Hammad #38704)
For non muslims this likely sounds like the writings of Nostradamus, but for muslims, especially fundamentalists, these are sound narrations from a Prophet of God to be taken seriously.
Scholars have identified the first rightly guided successors as the four Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. They identify the oppressive kings as the Ummayads of Damascus, the Abbasids of Baghdad, and the Ottomans of Istanbul. And they identify the despotic tyrants as all those petty dictators we commonly see today. But what of this new successor? The appearance of a man from the family of the Prophet who leads as the Prophet lead? Most scholars who actually have the nerve to comment on this narration identify this figure as Imam Mahdi.
This means a few important things about the road ahead for muslim fundamentalists. First, it means that rightly guided leadership only existed in the muslim community for about 30 years. So, it’s a wonder why any muslim anywhere trusts any government anywhere anymore. It is clear that we are already ruled by a reign of tyrants, called the Age of Fitnah (oppression, strife and tribulations) in the literature. And we know somethings about the Age of Fitnah from other sources. For example Muhammad is reported to have said, “When rule is taken by people who are unworthy of it expect the Last Hour.” (Sahih Bukhari) During this time “mosques will be grand structures but will be devoid of guidance” and “religious scholars will be the worst of those beneath the sky.” (Sahih Bukhari) Sound familiar?
So, for muslims who accept this any attempt to reform the State, or establish an islamic State or a Caliphate that is prior to the appearance of Imam Mahdi can only result in further tyranny. If rulers inevitably become tyrants, then the only acceptable course of action is to explore stateless alternatives to societal needs.
Second, according to prophecy Imam Mahdi does not come to power by some democratic process, and he doesn’t ascend the throne of an existing State by force of arms. It is known (let’s say “claimed” for our non muslim readers) that he is a reluctant leader who is not even aware of who he is until others recognize the signs and begin to make bayah to him themselves.
“Bayah” is a forgotten concept in most muslim countries, just as “consent of the governed” is a forgotten concept among most Americans. Violent monopolies claim to enjoy “tacit consent” from their subjects, which means if you say nothing they assume you consent. And in my experience, even if you tell them you don’t consent they govern you anyway. So, for the muslim fundamentalist, the most important right to be demanded is the right to make your oath explicitly to the leader of your choice. This means you must afford the same right to others to make their oaths explicitly to the leader of their choice, and not claim to rule them against their will. No State, whether it’s “islamic” or not, can ever afford such a right on its subjects, because it defies its nature as a monopoly.
It is contradictory and naive for muslim fundamentalists to imagine that an islamic State would prepare for the appearance of Imam Mahdi, as Iran postures itself, because such a State would defacto be part of the reign of despotic tyranny. When Imam Mahdi appears it will not be the tyrants who pledge oaths to him. And even if they did, the tyrant does not bring their subjects with them if they do. If Imam Mahdi does lead according to Prophetic methodology, as the literature claims, he would reject any doctrine of tacit consent and take bayah only face to face from individuals, voluntarily. Further, he would not claim any authority to legislate over those who did not consent, instead allowing non muslim segments of society to legislate themselves according to their own consensual agreements, as the Prophet did.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I hope you plan to offer a credit to the actual author and organization that released this article first. It was written by Davi Barker,, the assistant national director of Muslims 4 Liberty an American muslim libertarian/ancap organization. Yopu can find the original post on muslims4liberty.org and thedailyanarchist.com
Sorry for the lack of credit. I will move your comment to the header.
We want ideological hegemony everywhere on earth. That includes the Islamic world. SIG
You know, Dr Gabb, I’m always entertained by your attacks on Mr T. Blair, but have you ever thought of how much you have in common with him? You both believe in Rhetoric over Reality and bow before the Almighty Logos. Remember all those speeches in which he abolished world poverty, ended war, violence, and global warming, cured the common cold, deciphered Linear A, perfected cold fusion, etc, etc? The psychology behind them isn’t so very different from the psychology capable of producing lines like the above.
Not an entirely fair comment. I only want what every crusading ideologue wants. I remember once reading a Moslem who claimed that “England too belongs to Allah.” It’s only the modern, agnosticy Christians who don’t want to convert all the Jews and Moslems.
The important difference between me and TB is that I don’t want to bomb everyone who doesn’t accept that I’m right. Oh, and I don’t regard such political career as I’ve had as a loss-leader for my consultancy trade.
Well, this sort of illustrates why I am not an anarchist or anarcho-prefixist. There seems to me to be a belief among some that anarchism is the logical conclusion of the search for liberty. Me, I don’t believe that. In fact, I don’t think anarchism or anarcho-prefixism is libertarian at all. It confuses the quest for liberty with a simplistic anti-governmentism, and thus anarchists (at least, “libertarian” ones) waste inordinate quantities of brainpower devising systems which satisfy a legalist formulation in which the State-as-defined is absent; as an aside this legalism seems to be a consequence of the extreemly strong American influence on libertarianism, America being the most legalist nation on Earth, a place where you have a “family lawyer” like a family doctor or family dog.
So what the anarchists end up with are arbitrary degress of tyranny sans the State-as-narrowly-defined. However you start out, it ends up as a form of micro-statism, in which the nation states of today are dissolved and replaced by a myriad micro-states, in which there is no guarantee of freedom, and indeed little concern as to how much liberty the actual citizens experience, because by the legalistically tweaked definition, they are “voluntary”.
As a libertarian, I am unconcerned with such thought experiments. I am interested in the balance of power between the collective and the individual, in whatever form it arises. I am a liberal, as such. In my own case, I want to achieve liberty in Britain, or England, or Northampton, whatever the collectivised level is. It may seem a clever end-run to say, the answer is to abolish Britain, or England, or Northampton, but it isn’t. It doesn’t answer the question, “how much freedom will I have?”. It simply achieves an on-paper abolition of “The State”. As I said, this is simplistic and, worse, useless.
Probably the most famous formulation of this (in my view) logical error is anarcho-capitalism. It seems to me that that achieves an unspoken American Dream; the total replacement of the Government with a hegemony of lawyers. As such, it is very similar to the desires of Muslims to live under a crushingly totalitarian sharia formulated by legalists; and one could perhaps argue that this trend in American society descends from the most “muslim” of Christian heresies; the Calvinists, who where they gained power arranged their socities in this manner (Geneva, New England etc).
As a libertarian, this is no use to me. I’m interested in freedom, not the navel-gazing of legalist formalism. It might be an interesting intellectual hobby, like solving crosswords. But in the quest for a state of liberty which, we may dream, is one day embraced by all mankind, it is entirely useless.
“ideoligical hegemony” is a silly way of putting it but I see nothing wrong with wanting freedom to prevail everywhere. As long as one is not so deluded as Bliar to believe that what one wants is reality.
I don’t think Sean thinks we can impose liberty. Libetarians can do two thngs; the first is to advocate liberty in the hope that “the masses” will embrace it as a concept.
The second is to explain why and when it was lost, who destroyed it, and why. This is why unlike some here I think Paul Marks does an important job in our movement, explaining the anti-liberal influence of the Marxists on Western thought and politics. I try to do the same with the Puritans. The purpose being to warn some new, future generation seeking liberty how to avoid repeating previous failures.
The previous liberal reaction, in the sixties, went disastrously wrong as it was almost immediately colonised by illiberal forces. So I see our job as being the canaries in the coal mine who must strive to stop that happening again. There will, in time, be some new young generation reacting against the fierce strictures of the moral hegemony we call “Political Correctness”. Not yet, but some day. It’s our job to ensure that they look to libertarian writers for a justification for their gut instincts, not to a Marcuse or Althusser.
Not an entirely fair comment. I only want what every crusading ideologue wants.
And that’s your exculpation?! You might as well announce: “SIG Heil!” (joke) I like Evelyn Waugh. I’d like more people to like him. But I would not want the world to, because I don’t think it would be good for the world. “Let a thousand literary flowers bloom!” And even if I did want World-Wide Waugh Worship, I’d recognize it’s not a realistic prospect. There would be barriers like language and culture and (whisper it quietly) biology to overcome first.
“He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars: general Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer, for Art and Science cannot exist but in minutely organized Particulars.” — Blake.
We don’t know what “total libertarianism”, even of the L.A. variety, would do to the nation happy enough to experience it, but I would worry. “Total Marxism” doesn’t have an inspiring record and if Ms Rand had managed to “reason” her way to power, I envisage her having created something not too far removed from North Korea.
Will, I hate to have to say this, but you’re talking total pants. It’s a very strange kind of libertarian who doesn’t desire liberty for all.
I can not read classical Arabic – or any form of Arabic come to that.
So I have to go by the translations of those who can read classica Arabic – such as Robert Spencer. Although, I fully accept, that under Islamic law anything that that is not written in Arabic has no standing.
If Robert Spencer, and others, are correct in their account of the central texts of Islam (the Koran and the Hadiths – the collections of sayings of Muhammed) and in the account of the life and teachings of Muhammed, then Islam is not compatible with libertarianism/classical livberalism. So for Muslims to be free they would have to reject the life of Muhammed (considered a mortal man in Islamic teaching – but one whose example is to be followed) and many of the central teachings of Islam (for example those concerning special taxes and other restrictions on nonMuslims, and the death penality for anyone who mocks Islam or tries to leave the Islamic faith)..
For example, it is claimed (by Spencer and others) that Muhammed fully approved of the murder of an old blind poet who had mocked him – and then approved of the murder of a female poet who had protested against the murder of the old blind poet
So the cry of “what would Jesus do?” flung in the faces of Christian persecutors may have some basis, but when “what would Muhammed do?” is flung in the faces of Islamic persecutors it has none – as they can (with justice) reply “Muhammed would do just as we are doing – in fact he did”.
Other English translations of Islamic texts that I have upstairs (such as a translation of the Koran by a group with at least the tacit approval of the Saudi government) do not seem to contractict what Robert Spencer and otehrs say.
As for the photograph……
This is President Franklin Roosevelt (perhaps the most minunderstood American President – then and now) talking to the Hard of the House of Saud (and King of Saudi Arabia – thanks to Kim Philb’s father, who betrayed the Hashimites, partly becasue his socialism led him to do the opposite of wha the British government had asked him to, partly because he had been promised high rewards, including slaves, by the House of Saud).
The House of Saud are well known – they have been allied with the most strict interpretation of of Sunni Islam (what in the West are known as the Wahabbi) sine the 18th century – President Roosvelt’;s judgement to ally with them was wildy misgudied..
The House of Saud (whilst saying how much they love the West) have used oil money to spread (via schools and so on) strict interpretation of Islam everywhere that Muslims live – from Indonesia to the United States itself.
For example, their schools teach that Jews are to be exterminated – indeed that the very rocks and trees that Jews will hide behind will cry out to the Muslims that there is a Jew behind them – and that they should be killed.
Some argue that this (and much else) is poetry that should not be taken litterally – but that is not what the schools (and so on) financed by “our friends” the House of Saud (i.e., the government of Saudi Arabia) teach.
Nor is the hatred they teach (whilst, at the same time, smiling at the West at claiming to be friends) confined to Jews – Christians (and even other sects of Muslims) are taught (by their schools, publishing houses and so on – all over the world) to be essentially vermin.
Would President Roosevelt have been upset with all this?
One woud like to think to so – and he indeed got the vast majority of the Jewish vote (in spite of it being the Republican party that endorsed the creating a state of Israel, in its Convention of 1940 – not the Democrats).
However, there is reason to doubt this.
For example, Roosevelt’s understanding of Christianity was odd – he declared that Stalin was a “Christian Gentleman” (no he was not being ironic – it was in response to officials who showed surprise at his friendship for a man, Stalin, who had murdered vast numbers of human beings). There is a trace of the “Social Gospel” in this (a theology fashionable in the youth of Franklin Roosevelt and still around today) – this taught that Christianity was not about believing in a person called God and individual survival after death – but was about creating “social justice” here on Earth (a sort of Heaven on Earth doctrine, with de facto collective ownership of income and wealth and its “distribution” by government).
Mrs Roosevelt was almost fanatical in her support of what the left called the “New Civilisation” of the Soviet Union – the lady even went to the extreme of supporting the attempted destruction of the files of the old Russian Section of the State Department (which show that the American government was aware of the murder of tens of millions of human beings by the Soviets). Although it should, in fairness, be pointed out that the Roosevelts did not always have the same political opinions – indeed did not even like each other (the marriage became rather a sham over time – although there were children).
Franklin Roosevelt also had some odd opinions about the Jews – declaring (for example) that German hatred of Jews was, partly, justified as the Jews had dominated Germany before the Nazis had taken over – with “50%” of senior civil servants, school teachers, college professors (and on and on) being Jews.
For the real percentages see Paul Johnson (a Roman Catholic) “History of the Jews” – for example the percentage of college Profs who were Jewish before the Nazi take over was 0.5% (a rather long way from “50%”).
And, of course, when Winston Churchill raised the matter of mass murder of Jews by the Nazis (suggesting bombing the railways, the gas chambers and so on), Roosevelt rejected the whole matter with amused contempt.
I wonder if quite so many Jews would have voted for Franklin Roosevelt if they had known what he was really like.
Still it could have been worse. At least if Jews were useful to him in the United States Roosevelt showed no public dislike for them – employing them as he would anyone else that could be of use to his power.
President Roosevelt’s mentor, Woodrow Wilson, had accepted the support of some black leaders in his 1912 bid for the Whitehouse – and then turned round and become the first President in modern history to try and do such things as stop black people use the same toilets as white people (he brought segregation to the heart of government). Favourate film “Birth of a Nationi” (the KKK restoration film) – private screenings in the Whitehoiuse. And on and on.
In the modern period Barack Obama seems to be relying on the (growing) Muslim vote to ensure that he holds the State of Michigan (against Romney who was born there and whose father was Governor of the State).
How Barack Obama manages to successfully reach out to Muslims (at least at election time) – whilst, at the same time, believing in such things as “Gay Marriage” and the right to leave any religion (indeed expressing contempt for traditional religion, of any sort, via his support for such doctines as “collective salvation”, the Heaven on Earth “social justice” doctrine, rather than belief in a person called God and individual survival after death) and …… is hard to work out.
Harder to work out than Jewish support for Franklin Roosevelt – as he kept his dark side private.
Barack Obama does lighthearted prayers (which he learned in Indonesia in his boyhood) – not to show Islamic faith (he has none – indeed he attended a nominally Christian, in fact Marxist Liberation Theology, church for 20 years), but to amuse journalists.
Surely Muslims should be offended by this? But. somehow, he gets a pass.
Will, I hate to have to say this, but you’re talking total pants. It’s a very strange kind of libertarian who doesn’t desire liberty for all.
It’s a very strange kind of Christian who doesn’t desire heaven for all. It’s a very strange kind of Marxist who doesn’t desire freedom, justice and equality for all (who deserve it). Ms Rand was a libertarian. Am I wrong to say that she would have created something like North Korea, given the chance? Not if Murray Rothbard’s account is to be trusted. Read that Blake quote again and remember: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” That’s assuming they are good.
In any case, I’m not a libertarian: I’m interested in libertarianism and the psychology of libertarians. As far as I can see, the chief contribution of libertarianism to modern politics has been to encourage individualism in an already individualist group under collectivist attack. Some aspects of libertarianism remind me of the Ministry of Truth and I trust Orwell above Rand or even Rothbard:
About a year ago I attended a meeting of the P.E.N. Club, the occasion being the tercentenary of Milton’s Aeropagitica — a pamphlet, it may be remembered, in defense of freedom of the press. Milton’s famous phrase about the sin of ‘killing’ a book was printed on the leaflets advertising the meeting which had been circulated beforehand… In its net effect the meeting was a demonstration in favor of censorship.
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/prevention/english/e_plit
Ayn Rand did not like the word “libertarian” in poitics – but she certainly supported the nonaggression principle, which means that she supported the opposite form of politics from that of North Korea.
I am cultural conservative, not an admirer of modern buildings and so on – as many Randian Objectivists are.
I am also a believer (a Christian in fact). – and Randian Objectivists are atheists.
Yet I have always found them reliable friends and allies.
I would trust them with my life – and, far more imporantly, with the cause of liberty.
I am far from being a tolerant man – in fact I am quick to anger at betrayal.
No Randian Objectivst has ever earned that anger from me – none (that I have known) has ever broken their word or let down the cause of liberty.
I wish I could say the same of all my fellow Christians.