The Modernist Menace To Islam by Daniel Haqiqatjou

No version of secularism is the neutral space that it claims to be. Once we accept that, we can move on to more productive conversations.

In a 2015 op-ed, Anglican priest Giles Fraser wrote on the history of secularism:

“At the end of the 18th century, France’s war against the Catholic church reached its bloody conclusion. By Easter 1794, the same revolution that once proclaimed freedom of conscience had forcedly closed down the vast majority of France’s 40,000 churches. What began with the confiscation of church property and the smashing of crosses and chalices, ended with forced conversions and the slaughter of priests and nuns at the guillotine.”

“It is in this period, the so-called Reign of Terror, that the modern English word terrorism – deriving from the French, ‘terrorisme’ – has its origins. ‘Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue,’ argued Robespierre, in what now sounds like a sick press release from ISIS. Over in the Vendée, those who remained loyal to their centuries-old faith were massacred in what historian Mark Levene has called ‘an archetype of modern genocide.’ The systematic de-Christianisation of France was not the natural and inevitable collapse of sclerotic religion and the natural and inevitable rise of Enlightenment rationality. It was murderous, state-sponsored suppression.” A great example of how secularism is just as imposing as theocracy in enforcing its moral prescriptions on the public based on specific metaphysical beliefs comes from Belgium.

In 2017, Belgium’s Wallooon region voted to ban kosher and halal meat by outlawing the slaughter of unstunned animals. As of today, seven European countries have banned kosher and halal slaughter: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia, Austria, Iceland, and Belgium.1

The justification for the ban is that animals that are not stunned suffer and that that is inhumane, therefore slaughter without stunning is banned. But how do we know any of that? No animal can testify to its internal state. No animal can tell us, “Hey! This really hurts, please stop!” We can only make assumptions about what an animal may experience in the slaughter process. It is far from clear how a bolt blast to the skull or electric shock is less painful than a slit throat. If anything, the former seem much more agonizing. But there is no way to tell.

Nonetheless, the legislators in these countries made a decision based on what they believe to be morally correct and then forced others to abide by those beliefs. This is not something avoidable. This is the nature of law, whether in a secular or a theocratic state. But Islamic states are singled out for not upholding “religious freedom” when they allow their moral positions and beliefs, viz., Islam, to inform the law. “For legislation to be based on Islam and the Sharia is barbaric theocracy!” they shout. “But for our legislation to be based on our liberal materialist beliefs, that’s fair and neutral.” The hypocrisy is clear.

So, it is ineffective to argue against this halal ban by saying it is “racist,” “bigoted,” “anti-Muslim,” “islamophobic,” etc., though these biases probably did factor into the bans. It is ineffective because the secular legislators will simply defend themselves by claiming to be legislating on the basis of reducing harm, pain, etc.

A more effective line of argument would be this:

On one level, we cannot fault Belgians for legislating according to their deepest beliefs about right and wrong. We can, however, criticize the beliefs themselves. We can say, “You are wrong on this, and we are right.” We can say, “Our beliefs on the matter come from the Creator of the cows, sheep, chickens, and you and me, whereas your beliefs are based on nothing but hot air.” That would be a meaningful dialectic that could develop and be substantive. Sadly, substantive dialect is not on people’s radars nowadays. Nowadays, the only spark that starts the engines of many people’s moral reasoning, the only moral argument that they can wrap their heads around, is: “That’s bigotry!” Meanwhile, the deception of secularism proceeds undetected.