Secularism Exposed

Islam came to liberate mankind from the oppression it found itself in, being enslaved to man’s whims and desires and arbitrary systems of hierarchy. Despite the strength of the Islamic ideas, Muslims found that spreading the truth was no easy task as people did not necessarily follow something because it was true, but some people opt to follow something because it satisfies their current state of desires and wants. Such people are described in the Quran as being ‘Kuffar’ (Someone who rejects truth once it has become known to him – coming from the root meaning ‘someone who covers the truth’).

It was widely assumed that if someone embraces the truth or is born to a community of those who embrace the truth, they cannot be of those who reject the truth. This is, sadly, far from the reality of human beings. This is because if human beings are given the truth on a silver platter, of those that may accept the offering; there will be some that had only wanted the silver platter. Such people are especially a reality today in the Muslim world and of those who live in the Muslim diaspora in the west. This is because although at the moment the Islamic civilisation may hold the oil, but the West has, by hook or crook, gotten hold of the most of the world’s supply of ‘silver platters’. Predictably, falsehood can look just as good as truth if framed with the right silver – and no-ones knows this better than the ‘Muslim’ Secularist, whose palms have been crossed with Western silver more times than the customs export office at a Mexican seaport (Mexico being the worlds leading exporter of silver).

Thus we find that the ‘Muslim’ Secularists have become awed at Western material success (for as long as it continues to last anyways) and they look upon the Muslim world as backward and uncivilised. The fact that most ‘Muslim’ Secularists living in the West are from middleclass to upper class well-do-to backgrounds no doubt would probably account for their satisfaction with western society (the famous quote by Malcolm X about the ‘house slaves and field slaves’ immediately springs to mind). While their observations about the Muslim world are true up to a point, the error occurs when they blame ’traditional’ Islamic (read Orthodox) understandings of Islam for the conditions the Muslims currently face, even though their exists no country that currently implements Islam, and almost all countries are implement a form of Secularism (oh the irony).

The ‘Muslim’ Secularists assume that the reason for the West’s success was Secularism and ‘Freedom’ alone (a relative term in the West these days). They seem to fail to take into account the West’s long history of human exploitation, slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, debt-trapping and wars for conquest over peoples who happen to have the (mis) fortune to be blessed with abundant resources. It is like saying that due to a thiefs rich and lavish house and property, his kleptomanic lifestlye must be an intellectually superior one due to its proven delivery of material progression to an individual!

The ‘Muslim’ Secularist’s love affair with all things western, led them to the only possible conclusion they would naturally have to enact – make all other Muslims see what they see. Furthermore, as an added incentive, their Western Secular ‘massa’s’ granted unto their pet ‘Muslims’ funding and promised them all the silver platters they could wish for! All they have to do was pursuade the Muslims masses that the West’s ideology is benign and morally superior to Islam, and that all they have to do is change the laws of Islam so that they could be successfully assimulated into Western culture and they would be welcomed into the international community with such wonderous rewards as more compound interests loans, one-sided oil contracts, and more pro-western fat-cat rulers – but all in the name of ‘development’ and ‘progress’.

However, three major things stick out to the ‘Muslim’ secularist. Islam contains a veritable shopping list of items that the West would find intolerably disagreeable and demand changing to conform to the Wests ‘ideal’ of human civilisation. The reformist dilemma is further compounded by Islamic textual evidences that, in very explicit terms, call for such liberally-unsavoury issues as public female modesty, capital punishment for the adulterer and the neo-con old chestnut of Islam’s punishment for ideological treason, referred to as ‘apostasy’ in the West. These are called Islam’s ‘big three’ unpalatable issues to Western Secularists – and you’re not a bona fide ‘Muslim’ Secularist unless you work to change all three.

Thus, Islam ordaining women to be covered up and not allowed to display their varying ‘assets’ or other items of their anatomy which the West considers should be part of their ‘free-expression’, is deeply frowned upon by Secular ideology, because after-all, women must all be nymphomaniac exhibitionists with nudist tendencies to such an extent, that to restrict them exposing themselves at whim would be the greatest oppression unto female kind, wouldn’t it? Note: sarcasm.

Then there’s the punishments for adultery which, according to the West, goes against a Man’s ’human right’ to cheat on his wife and kids with another woman (usually younger and prettier) even though it may break the bonds of family trust and togetherness. I mean, it goes against reason! – a liberal would argue, it should be all about choice, perhaps the offended wife should blame herself for not being nymph-like enough to compete with a women almost half her age, or perhaps it was her fault for getting old and unappealing in the first place and thus the Man should not be blamed for his wayward loin-led advances, or perhaps should I say; ‘mature and civilised adult choices’.

I guess the key argument of secularists is that freedom is the key to happiness, and how can we all be happy if we are not allowed the freedom to frustrate, compete with, cheat on, backstab and render unto ruinous misery; our fellow man – stands to reason doesn’t it? Again for the sarcasm-deaf (or American), note my sarcasm.

But last in our example of the shortlist of anti-secular elements of Islam- is the infamous law against apostasy. That Islamic Law, depicted by neo-con non-Muslim Secularists as a barbaric law that restricts freedom of thought and causes people to become in fear of using their full free expression and faculty of inquiry to delve into any issue no matter how unpalatable to wider society. One wonders whether the ‘holocaust denial’ laws and the glorification of terrorism laws also fall into this category? Especially so, since the definition of terrorism is so broad, that supporting Nelson Mandela’s fight for freedom, or the 4^th July American independence day celebrations could also probably be considered ‘an act of glorification of terrorism – whether it was committed in both past or present’.

But further to the matter, what should we do with someone that believes in the mass extermination of a part of the population of a country? (no, I’m not referring to Nick Griffin, head of the BNP). If we allow such individuals to undermine the civil cohesion of a society, there’s no telling what could happen next! (Actually there is a way, Nazi Germany being a potent lesson from history – and history, like the BBC, often being prone to repetition).

In Islam, the period before Islam consisted of tribal feuding, raiding, superstitious backward rituals and barbaric cultural values. Into this milieu, Islam came and fought against these social-political-intellectual realities and setup an advanced civilisation based upon the worship of God and the realisation of this purpose by man. The Arab society of Arabia became transformed from one of cruel ‘end justifies the means’ behaviour, to one of principle, justice, enlightened conduct and peaceful co-existence.

The previous period of barbarity became known as ‘the age of ignorance’ and was viewed with sheer terror and disgust by the newly-established enlightened Islamic society, desperate never to let society sink to such a level again. The difference between one social situation and the other was, of course, Islam. Thus if a person entered into Islam under false pretences’ with sound mind and able will, deigned leave Islam in order that Islam should be undermined, such a person was ordered to be executed in order to deter such activities that could undermine the intellectual basis for the entire system and disrupt the harmonious functioning of society such that it would regress back into ‘the age of ignorance’ - with devastating consequences.

If one could go back in time and execute Hitler before he destroyed the tolerant society of pre-Nazi Germany, wouldn’t one do it? If one could go back in time and prevent Mustapha Kemal’s rise to power and change the course of history such that the Muslim world was never broken up, but allowed to remain under Islamic unity and peace, wouldn’t one do it?

All that one would need to be convinced of that, is to see the Muslim world as it is now, during its current period of jahilliyah (age of ignorance). Today under the non-Islamic SECULAR regimes ruling the middle east, we witness mass killing, massacres, murderous tyrannical puppet leaders, starvation, malnutrition, lack of basic health care, abundance of superstition, backwardness and the return of socially regressive cultural practises. If it took the death of one person to prevent this, would not even the most peaceful and conscionable person in the world pick up a gun and execute the intellectually and socially recalcitrant individual himself?!

To save millions, wouldn’t anyone?…

It is these main three points that have become a chief target for neo-con propaganda saturation bombing, and they have issued strong attacks upon Islam around these issues. But such was their ‘Muslim’ secularists allies (i.e. lackeys) gusto to comply with the neo-con directives, even Malcolm X’s allegorical ‘house slaves’ would have felt that was one kiss too much upon the hindquarters of their pet-keeping neo-con patriarchs.

Thus we see ‘Muslim’ secularists the likes of Tariq Ramadan calling for a moratorium on the Islamic laws of Apostasy, and other secularists following suit upon the other issues that Islam indisputably stipulates. The secularists use a number of arguments from hadith denial, all the way to semantical devices that change the meaning of a well known Arabic word into something else entirely! The funny thing is, despite all these attempts by the ‘Muslim’ Secularists to justify their beliefs using twisted out-of-context Islamic sources or just plain arbitrary Western philosophy, in the end, like Secularism’s economic system - Capitalism, they are now emerging (intellectually) bankrupt.