Abstract
The aims of liberalism—which is often confused with value pluralism—are routinely challenged
by persons whose primary commitments lie elsewhere. In his weighing the pros and cons of
liberal democratic states versus an Islamic state, Ahmad Yousif has offered an impressive
challenge to liberals, but in doing so has confused the aims of liberalism with the pre-liberal
nation-state ideal. In this article, I will challenge his conclusions by demonstrating the
competing aims of liberals without conflating them with the liberal state. Yousif is right to draw
attention to the inequities of Western liberal democracies, but I will contend that (a) wherever
actually existing liberal democracies fail to show tolerance towards religious minorities, it is not
the fault of liberalism, and that (b) Yousif’s counter ideal of an Islamic state is less than ideal.