The globalisation of secular-liberalism is nothing new. Indeed, it has existed and persisted for many years; tacitly and subliminally manifesting in the realm of society, our homes and more perilously in our conscious and subconscious minds, writes Yemeni-based journalist Yousef Mawry.
It is an obtrusive, vigorous force which will stop at nothing to reach its goals; obliterating anything and everything that stands in its way, whether it be a regime, a political movement, a universal concept, a religious belief, even the free-thinking mind.
Many people are now aware of Globalization; or as I like to call it, Glob-liberalization. The idea of seeing a global society where people from all walks of life – irrespective of religious belief, culture, race or ethnicity, embrace one ideological political and social system has empirically become our reality. The reality of liberal democracy where liberal concepts dominate the norms of society.
Liberalism, Secularism and Democracy are the all offspring of Capitalism, which originated back in the mid-seventeenth century, after 30 years of war between European powers and the Roman Church. The war ended with the “Westphalia Treaty” which united Europe under the principles of secularism, i.e., separation of religion from state.
It was after the “Westphalia Treaty” that state-sponsored religion started to decline rapidly in society and in people’s affairs. People in Europe during the late 16th century began to embrace anti-religious movements emphasising human reason, freedom, individualism, and scepticism about religious views.
Ironically, such a movement was defined as: “The Age of Enlightenment”. Although the Age of Enlightment materialistically pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages, it also spurned atheism, and raised sentiment against religious views due the oppression and exploitation Europeans faced in the name of religion – thanks to the Roman Catholic Church.
The newly established secular Europe managed to eradicate religion from most western societies; however, it still faced a grave threat from the Ottoman Caliphate, which had previously swept southern and Eastern Europe under the religion of Islam.
Britain and France countered the threat, not by military confrontation, but by attacking the Ottoman Empire’s greatest treasures which were the thoughts and concepts of Islam which Muslims politically and intellectually possessed.
This was executed strategically by planting western missionaries in the Muslim world whose objectives were to:
1. Interchange the Islamic thoughts and concepts with secular and liberal philosophies.
2. Detach Muslims from the political, social and economic regulations of Islam.
3. Instigate nationalistic conflicts between Arabs and the Ottomans.
Eventually the Ottoman Caliphate was officially abolished on 3 March 1924, and a secular Turkish state was established, while the Caliphate lands were divided and acculturated by secular colonial powers.
The map of the Middle East we see today is the work of the Sykes-Picot agreement where the British and French foreign ministers Mr Sykes and Mr Picot drew the national borders of the modern day secular-Muslim nations.
Islam as a comprehensive political system is no longer applied today because the Muslim world has adopted the same secular-liberal tenets which toppled the Roman Catholic Church and the Ottoman Caliphate.
These secular-liberal concepts are now inculcated universally throughout the world. They are praised and promoted by politicians, public figures, news networks, cartoons, and even so-called Islamic scholars and local imams who fervently hasten to show western-liberal powers that they have adhered and conformed to the global political ideology of liberalism.
In the UK, some religious personal and commentators have come out publicly announcing unequivocal support for the right of men to marry men, i.e., conforming to the liberal political position. One has to question why these religious figures would approve of such a notion if it’s clearly antithetical to the religion they follow. Did they just make a simple mistake, or have they embraced the secular-liberal ideology which views same-sex marriage as a basic human right?
The secular-liberal ideology has no tolerance for religion in state affairs, and will not accept any individual who uses religion as the premise for deriving laws and concepts of life. As the world has been witnessing in recent years, liberal society seems to be moving towards eradicating the effect of religion in people’s lives.
Richard Dawkins, an atheist and hardcore proponent of secular-liberalism, publicly calls for the abolishment of religion from education and even declared it as “illegal” and as “child abuse.” It’s not a coincidence that most atheists are liberal; however, in accordance with the global trend, we now also see that more and more religious clerics, scholars and Imams are embracing the liberal dogma and are propagating it every chance they get.
Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who many view as a “spiritual reviver of Islam” has publicly denounced the association of religion and state. In a lecture he delivered in 2013, he stated: “the vast majority of Islamic history had relatively secular-states, they weren’t really Islamic states. The whole concept of an Islamic state is a fantasy.” He also said: “Religion really has little to do with the running of a state”.
We are also coming to find out that liberal societies will stop at nothing to defame and discredit any person who seeks to shape his life in accordance with divine laws.
On April 6, of this year, The Telegraph published an article with the headline: “extremist working as psychiatric for NHC”. The article attempted to defame Dr Imran Waheed for being a member of an Islamic political group that seeks to establish a political system in the Muslim world based on the religion of Islam. The article labelled Dr Imran as an “extremist” and a “radical” because he is against the state of Israel and against same-sex marriage.
It seems liberal societies prefer a male doctor who is gay, than a Muslim who adheres to his religion peacefully and is against such sin. It is important also to note that choosing to be gay is not just part of a citizen’s freedom, it has become part of his/her basic rights in the liberal word.
Secular-liberal powers such as the US, will not even tolerate Uganda’s law to ban homosexuality which was passed by President Museveni. The US Secretary of State has publicly condemned the anti-gay law and has mentioned that it is similar to anti-antisemitism. John Kerry even went to the extent of sending “Homosexuality Experts” to convince Uganda’s president to change the law – which he passed after medical experts convinced the Ugandan President that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality.
The Huffington Post quoted the US Secretary of State as saying the following: “I talked personally to President Museveni just a few weeks ago, and he committed to meet with some of our experts so that we could engage him in a dialogue as to why what he did could not be based on any kind of science or fact, which is what he was alleging.”
In September of 2012, The Telegraph published an article with the title: “Teachers face sack for refusing to endorse gay marriages”. The article mainly stressed that if teachers refuse to teach same-sex marriage textbooks, they could statutorily be fired. The paper also imparted that parents would not be able to withdraw theirs kids from any same-sex marriage sessions in school.
For people of faith, this is indeed startling, whether you are a Muslim, Christian, Catholic or Jewish.
Irrespective of religion, people who practice any of the mentioned faiths, holistically, teach their kids to abstain from greats sins such as killing, fornication, intoxication and homosexuality.
Children who live under a religious roof are taught to shape their lives accordingly with their faith. So why has liberal society suddenly decide to radically impose homosexuality as a universal common norm, which everyone must accept, and which every religion must conform to?
Why should people of faith and their communities kneel before an arrogant anti-religious political system that demands explicit, unequivocal adherence? A system that will zealously rush to defend those who engage in sacrilegious invectives against God and his Prophets under free speech, and on the other hand, label those who get offended as extremist, undemocratic, close-minded and trying to suppress freedom.
How does religion maintain any effect in society if its virtues and moralities contradict the very law? In such a society, religion ultimately faces extermination; thanks to the aid of religious scholars, clerics, local imams, public figures, and activists who for years programmed the youth to believe that religion should not get involved in politics.
By default, if you hold the opinion that religion shouldn’t get involved in politics, you have indirectly embraced the most basic principal of secular-liberalism. And in such a case, any religious view you hold or try to live by, is not welcomed by law.
Ironically, the sternest secular society is not in the West; it is actually in the last base of the Islamic Ottoman Empire-modern day Turkey.