A Liberal vs. Multiculturalism: An Interview with Salim Mansur
Recently, PJM sat down with professor and author Salim Mansur, whose latest book I reviewed here.
In this interview, Salim describes himself as a “Muslim dissident” and he challenges all those who describe themselves as “moderate” Muslims. Unlike many “moderate” Muslims, Salim is opposed to a shariah-compliant nation and believes that religion and state must be separate in order for modernity, human rights, scientific inquiry, and democracy to flourish. He says so, below, in his own words. He also has strong words to say about immigration and Canada’s multicultural policy. Born in Calcutta, India, Salim arrived in Canada in the spring of 1974.
Phyllis Chesler: Tell us about what you do.
P: You may note that I did not indicate what your religion was or currently is in my review of your book. I did not do so because the work stands on its own merit, and does not have to be framed as the work of a “Muslim dissident.” But how would you describe yourself in terms of religious identity?
S: I am a Muslim by faith, a Sunni Muslim, and raised by my parents in the mainstream of the majority Hanafi madhab or school of Sunni Islam. But as many of my generation of Muslims, my parents sent me to an English middle school run by Catholic priests, and this upbringing and education taught me to be open to the world around me.
P: And how about your intellectual identity?
S: I am a liberal or, more precisely, I would say a classical liberal. I believe in freedom, individual freedom based on individual rights, and I view the struggle for freedom as the defining element in the making of the modern world.
P: Are you, or have you been, politically active? Which political party do you support, or with which political party are you affiliated?
S: I am not at present politically active. But I was for sometime, and I did stand for a parliamentary seat as an officially nominated candidate in the 2000 Canadian federal election. I was nominated by the Canadian Alliance but I did not win the seat I contested. Canadian Alliance was a center-right conservative party, and at the time of the 2000 election it was the main opposition party in Ottawa. Later the Canadian Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative Party of Canada under the leadership of Stephen Harper, the current prime minister of Canada.






So, Mr Mansur neither knows the tenets of nor practices the faith that he claims to profess. Typical liberal.
Mr Mansur is, as stated, a ‘classical liberal’, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism ), which is far removed from what is known today as ‘liberalism’, in fact he ran for office on a conservative ticket.
Dr. Mansur knows very well the axioms and tenets of Islam. He is, as he said, a Muslim, BUT, you ignore that he specifically insists that faith is a private not a public matter – and he separates the two.
He is NOT a liberal, in the commonly understood ‘leftist’ sense. He is a classical liberal, which is actually, a conservative.
He’s an apostate.. or running stealth..
Yup.
I’m in no mood for double-mindedness. “History, in other words, future generations of Muslims looking back, will judge who is right.” – Mansur. I hate to remind you but there are absolutes and the judgement has already been made.
I got as far as page three … and after a visit with Ralph O’Rourke I decided that Mr Mansur is just full of it. There is no such thing as moderate Islam and in fact; Islam is simply not a religion unless adherence to a socio-political totalitarian ideology can be called a “religion” or a “faith”. For goodness sake … does Mansur think he’s talking to idiots or what? Get a life Mansur … you’re spending way too much time in your own mind and listening to the wrong voices.
Thanks Phyllis
Thanks again Phyllis for a powerful and provocative interview with Mansur. On the one hand, the issues raised are extremely complex and deserve to be parsed in great detail over a long period of time, not to reach a specific conclusion about where Islam now stands, how it should change to enter the modern world, or what individuals could do in the meantime; on the other, we are in the midst of the crisis, or rather series of overlapping crises both in the West and the East, and decisions have to be taken rapidly to address these immediate problems–and threats. It is good to read what persons like Mansur have to say from inside Islam, from inside Canada, from inside the liberal fold. But we have to remember that such a voice is a lonely cry in the wilderness, without even the stridency and urgency some of your other friends, the women who have risked their lives to speak out against sexual abuse, honour killings and fanaticism against their right to speak out. I have neither thr right nor the knowledge nor the experience to tell Mansur what he should believe or how he should behave, but I do have the right to defend myself and my family and the basic principles of enlightenment against those who would destroy what I hold dear.
Norman
Enlightening.
Salim Mansur is a breath of fresh air that many of us have waited for. Just to read his explanation of honor killings by members of the Islamic faith is riveting.
Phyllis is the absolute best when it comes to asking the right questions, and she is in top form with this one. If Mansur was a fake, it wouldn’t fly by Ms. Chesler. Believe me.
Great Interview!!
He may not be a fake, he may actually be genuine in his “beliefs” but…
He is certainly no Muslim.
He does NOT follow the way of Mohammad, and is clearly an Apostate.
He is as much a “Muslim” as Ted Kenneys was “Catholic”.
Booze, immorality, adultery, sloth, pride, abortion, perjury in the drunk driving death of Mary Joe…
All completely at odds with the faith of Jesus…
This Gentleman was educated by NUNS, and adheres to a Western belief system of individual rights and dignity….Completely at odds with the teachings of The Prophet, who demands in unmistakeable terms, eternal enmity for outsiders, violence and conquest.
He can be “muslim” as well as a pro-abortion lesbian “priest” can be Pope.
Only in his mind, as the doctrines are abundantly clear, both are completely outside of the principals of their respective faiths.
I was fascinated and heartened by this interview. This is my first introduction to Salim Mansur, he is the first Muslim I know who champions the idea of the separation of religion and state, and I hope he is able to influence both the deluded chattering class of the west and his co-coreligionists.
Good luck to him!
It is so important to support anti-Islamist Muslims and ex Muslims. These are our allies in combating terrorism and hatred. Chesler once again led us to the heart of the issues, something the current American administration has failed to do.
Once again, Phyllis Chesler brings ua a compelling, and provocative interview. Salim Mansur is a brave and enlightened scholar. The posts on this page about liberalism do not understand the ‘small l’ liberal Dr. Mansur uses to describe himself. It’s time we heard from more people like him, who are willing to take up the challenge of Canadian multiculturalism, which virtually discriminates against all religion, actually practices racism, as it seeks to accommodate only the most vocal and intimidating group. And, we need to hear from more ‘liberals’ who have not abandoned their true cultural liberal philosophy, and are dismayed at the loss of our freedoms as we cower to those loud voices. Freedom of speech, the freedom to attend school without prayer that marginalizes all but one set of students – the freedom to publish, which we’ve essentially given up – should not only be ‘liberal’ values. They should be the civil liberties we all cherish, and fight for – no matter how we are voting.
Yes, Salim Mansur is a fine man. I’ve met him a few times: he’s a true scholar and gentleman.
You write: “It’s time we heard from more people like him, who are willing to take up the challenge of Canadian multiculturalism, which virtually discriminates against all religion, actually practices racism, as it seeks to accommodate only the most vocal and intimidating group.”
I agree with this, except that you think multiculturalism “discriminates against all religion”. That is not true. Multiculturalism is the statists’ (Trudeau and gang) smokescreen to marginalize and sideline Christianity. Other religions, e.g., Gaia worship, Native spirituality, and Islam are allowed, indeed, celebrated in our public schools: did you know that imams are allowed to conduct prayer services in Toronto public schools during instruction time? On the other hand, it’s OK to mention Santa but not Christmas. Earth Day is anticipated for weeks and it’s a big celebration. Kids make native dream catchers and I know of a school, with not one native student, that conducted a school-wide smudge ceremony.
I’m not sure I agree with Mansur re the Conservatives’ immigration initiatives. Minister Jason Kenney is working hard to make changes that compel immigrants to adopt Western values. The Conservative government hasn’t gone so far as to ban mass immigration from Muslim countries: I think that’s a fine idea and I wish the Conservatives, with their majority, had the cojones to “just do it”!
This pretty much says it all:
P: Then would it be fair to say you are at odds with a majority of Muslims in the Muslim world?
S: Yes. But I am not alone in holding the view I have expressed. And while we are a minority under great deal of duress in Muslim countries, we are, I believe, significant in numbers.
I believe that Salim Mansur is being candid and he can only be credited in that. It is evident that he sees the futility of reconciling islam, as it is practiced just about everywhere, with anything western.
On the other hand, there may be one instance where the west and islam meet, that being our mutually suicidal tendencies; islam, because it loves death more than life, and the west, because it fears opprobrium more than death.
Terence
I’m confused…
“On the other hand, there may be one instance where the west and islam meet, that being our mutually suicidal tendencies; islam, because it loves death more than life, and the west, because it fears opprobrium more than death”
op·pro·bri·um
1. Disgrace arising from exceedingly shameful conduct; ignominy.
2. Scornful reproach or contempt: a term of opprobrium.
3. A cause of shame or disgrace.
How is it “suicidal” to fear disgrace and dishonor more than death?
Are you saying one should engage in “exceedingly shameful” conduct to extend their life for a day, an hour, 5 minutes?
Or are you saying we’re better than Islam because we fear shameful conduct, and thats all they have to offer?
Call you a Dick, or give you a high five, which is it?
First, give me a high five. The west fears scorn, period, and gives every indication that it would rather extinguish itself than suffer OPPROBRIUM through the eyes of parties claiming victim status.
Second, maybe its generational, but I don’t take to the casual address.
Gottcha…
My casual address was intended to lighten what (I feared) could have been otherwise mistaken for criticism.
Thanks for the straight answer.
Thank you, friend.
T
I know Prof. Mansur and he is for real. He is a deep thinker and completely sincere. As I understand his thinking, the cultural elements of Christianity had to have their rough edges knocked off during the middle ages before the enlightenment could happen. Separation of church and state was not how it began, but happened later representing an ascent to a more enlightened view of life. He sees that much of the underling cultural structures surrounding Islam have been trapped in time and are anachronistic. He envisions that those structures need something analogous to an enlightenment and or a reformation for the Islamic world to come to terms with the modern world. Much of what we see happening now, he suggests, is just that happening before our eyes. Imagine if we could go back in time to watch the turbulence of Europe during those centuries. This is a fascinating way to look at it with serious implications for the rest of the world. He sees no conflict in principle with the notion of being a free individual (classical liberal) and being islamic. I do hope he is right.
Problems with yours (and Mr. Apostates) views:
Christianity needed reform beceause it stopped BEING Christianity.
It became The State, with all the self defeating coersion and corruption to be found in State Power.
Christianity needed to return to the Goodness of Christ, the internal, moral goodness of the way Jesus wanted us to live. That is the foundation of Christianity…love.
Islam can have no such “reformation” because its Founder was corrupt and evil.
Mohammad was a villian. An evil, vile criminal with a lot of blood on his hands.
Personal beheadings and the displays of severed heads as a means of enforcing his will…
calls for violence, murder, torture, and genocide.
There is nothing “good” for Islam to “return” to. It has not been corrupted, it is what it is…
An ugly, horrific view of man, god, and the universe.
The excuses and excesses of a deranged killer, passed off as “religion”
Mr. Apostate has been exposed to the west, and to its goodness. He thinks he can eat certain foods on certain days, and wear certain clothes, all while while acting like a Christian, and call THAT the new Islam.
Aint gonna happen as long as anyone (honestly) acknowledges who Mohammad was.
The “convulsion” that Mr. Mansur alludes, currently happening in the Muslim world, is the only hope to avoid a clash of civilizations. The current Islamist reaction in the Muslim world obeys in part to a feeling of hopelessness and being rapidly left behind by the engulfing and fast-advancing secular West civilization. The rigidity of the majority of Muslim societies is incompatible with these advances.
A resurgence of Sufism within the Muslim world could be a welcome sign of this “convulsion”. Sufism abandons the jihad principle, which is the cornerstone of the imposition by Islam on other faiths. This jihad imposition is 100% incompatible with any other religion, from Hinduism to Christianity, to even a secularist approach.
Ok. You’ve convinced us. Islam is a thoroughly nasty “religion” whose basic tenets are incompatible with individual human rights – especially freedom of association and speech. Now what? Ms. Chesler, I suggest that the next step is to use your influence to garner support for legislation to deny tax-free status to any organization which does not explicitly endorse individual rights.
You know what? I really think you’re onto something because many of us have been looking at islam as “not religion as the west understands it.” Fine as far as that goes, but it will actually have to be redefined through our eyes and through statute.
I don’t think its asking too much to require folks who want to take us over to pay their taxes while they’re doing it. After all, when “later” comes, it will only be the dhimmis filing their 1040′s.
Mr Mansur’s response in this exchange seems disingenuous or not well thought out.
P: How do you reconcile your faith with your politics, or your religious identity with your intellectual identity?
S: I do not carry my faith into my politics. For me faith is a matter of personal belief, it is not a political ideology. As a modern liberal Muslim, or a Muslim modernist, I view the separation of religion and politics as a necessary and essential requirement in order to come to terms with the modern world of science and democracy.
Believers carry their faith everywhere at all times, or they are without faith. Politics is the act of making decisions that impact others what system, other than our faith, informs those decisions?
I have to agree with The Root ’83′s first posting. If someone tells me they are Catholic, I expect they will be against abortion and birth control, for this is a tenant of their faith although, as a constant reader of the Bible, I must say that — at least on the subject of birth control — there is no scriptural basis for such belief. When a person says he is a muslim, I assume they want to kill me and anyone else who is not a muslim, since that — according to their holy book, the Koran — is a tenant of their faith. I am sure that Mr. Mansur is sincere about what he said in the above interview, since you don’t get too far when you try to bullshit Phyllis Chesler. However, I just don;t think he is a real muslim, whether he believes himself to be or not.
“If someone tells me they are Catholic, I expect they will be against abortion and birth control, for this is a tenet of their faith”
Then you are mistaken. It’s true that most Catholics are morally opposed to abortion, although they differ widely on the issue of its legality, but most Catholics are not against birth control, and opposition to it is NOT “a tenet of their faith”; it is official Church position, a different thing entirely.
A Catholic’s faith is stated in the Apostles’ Creed which is recited by the congregation as a part of every Mass and contains precisely no references to abortion or birth control. Although I have not attended Mass for 30 years I can still rattle this off by heart. Tenets of faith do not change; literally not one word of the Creed has changed in 2000 years (even the Anglicans did not change it, and recite it at Mass too), but the Church itself has changed many times.
Non-Catholics have a hard time accepting the contradiction in this, but humans are not by nature very obedient creatures, particularly when it comes to arbitrary orders given by an institutional hierarchy made up of flawed and fallible fellow human beings. All Catholics, even long-lapsed ones like me, understand that very well indeed.
Kathleen and Lou,
“at least on the subject of birth control — there is no scriptural basis for such belief”
This is true, but the principals of respectiing life cover that issue rather well. We are supposed to elevate ourselves, and think of consequences in the larger realm.
Since sexual relations between humans is where live originates for us, the Catholic Church takes them seriously.
Who among us wishes WE were not wanted? That WE are a “mistake”. That OUR lives and very souls are a burden, an inconvenience, an interruption of others who resent our very existance. That our entire reason for being is less significant than “an itch” scratched between two strangers, who have no desire to bond together, and be there for us as we grow?
Its a difficult standard, but its unavoidable. Taking respect for life to its “natural” end, you must beware of your activities. Know the consequences. Treat the power of Pro-creation with respect it deserves. Mechanical/chemical barriers (and their failure rates) do not excuse that responsibility.
The churches view is such man-made devices create unreasonable expectations, that sex for pleasure is morally “consequence free”, and ultimately, the “failure rate” of contraceptives will cause more harm than if people accepted and PLANNED FOR, simple nature to take its course.
Not an easy topic, and not one I always follow (we are all sinners)
but I cant ever dispute their POSITION on the subject.
I have a similar problem with Capital Punishment…I’m all for it if guilt is incontrovertable, but I cant ever expect the Church to completely give up on the potential redemption of a living soul, no matter how heinous the crime.
Respect for life is an absolute, all the time, and its sure is a BITCH, aint it?.
The Root ’83.
Very interesting your statement. The realm of consequences. Whether we “are a mistake”.
This is rather well explained in the Chhandogya Upanishad, in the Vedas. There there are 2 tremendous Vidyas (knowledge for Cosmic meditation); The Vaishvanara Vidya, and within it the Panchagni Vidya (Pancha = 5; Agni = Fire, the meditation of the 5 fires).
Everything that happens here and everywhere follow the Panchagni. The birth of a child, the womb of the mother is the same as the womb of nature, thus the Brahmanda is the Pindanda, as above, below. The child is not pushed out of the womb of the mother, as if by a magic. It is a tremendous process that takes place throughout the cosmos. Every action produces an effect called Apurva, that occurs in the process of the thought that underlies it. Apurva is often the mistake.
What is wrong with us? We do not know this, though we know that there is something fundamentally wrong with everyone of us, on account of which the whole world keeps us in subjection. We are, indeed, the causes of this Apurva.
The Panchagni Vidya proposes a meditation whereby the whole universe is responsible for manifesting everything, so everything is all things, and all things are everywhere.
The Chhandogya Upanishad states: “The Earth is, indeed, the Fire, O Gautama. Of that, the Year is the fuel, the Sky is the smoke, the Night is the flame, the Quarters are the embers, the Intermediary Quarters are the sparks”.
Ponder about that.
Thank you, Dr. Chesler, for presenting this interview with Prof. Mansur. Throughout my professional life I worked daily with documents of Islamic civilization in many languages. I am fully aware of the glories of that civilization, its advances and influences on the West. I am also aware of those aspects of Islam that are inimical to the values of Western democracies. Dr. Mansur’s deliberate positions should be heeded. I for one am grateful for his courage in clearly enunciating his position.
As a leader of a discussion group within my Unitarian-Universalist congregation, I shall introduce his books for discussion–a discussion sorely needed by my denomination because of its advocacy of multi-culturalism and its eager, non-critical acceptance of Islam.
An interesting and amusing take on ‘moderate Muslims’ here. Comments also wort a look.
Kevin.
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2012/02/is-there-such-thing-as-moderate-muslim.html
Ms. Chesler and Professor Mansur are to be greatly commended as truth tellers in a present time when being such brings scorn and criticism from cowards and those too dumb to bother to question all things pc.
Oh, and one more thing. I would like to add to what KathleenP wrote: “. . . humans are not by nature very obedient creatures, particularly when it comes to arbitrary orders given by an institutional hierarchy made up of flawed and fallible fellow human beings”, most if not all of whom are male. Such an easy place from which to condemn contraception.
Cheers.