“Айнан шу davrda, ya’ni so‘ralgan «Dahshat hukmronligi» davrida ingliz tilidagi zamonaviy «terrorism» (terrorizm) so‘zining ildizi paydo bo‘lgan; bu so‘z fransuzcha «terrorisme»dan kelib chiqqan. «Dahshat — bu faqat tezkor, qattiq va og‘ishmas adolatdir; shuning uchun u fazilatning mahsulidir», deb ta’kidlagan Robespyer; bugun bu so‘zlar ISIS’ning kasal matbuot relizidek eshitiladi. Vandeyda esa o‘zlarining asrlar davomida qadrlangan dinlariga sodiq qolganlar qirg‘in qilindi; tarixchi Mark Levene buni «zamonaviy genotsidning arxetipi» deb atagan. Frantsiyaning tizimli ravishda dinsizlantirilishi eskirgan dinning tabiiy va muqarrar inqirozi hamda Ma’rifat aqlining tabiiy va muqarrar yuksalishi emas edi. U qotillik bilan, davlat tomonidan homiylik qilingan bostirish edi.”
Seküalarizm o‘z axloqiy qoidalarini aniq metafizik e’tiqodlarga asoslanib jamoatchilikka majburlashda teokratiya kabi bosimli ekanligining ajoyib misoli Belgiyadan keltiriladi.
“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.
2017-yilda Belgiyaning Vallon mintaqasi hayvonlarni hushsiz so'yishni taqiqlash orqali kosher va halol go'shtni taqiqladi. Bugungi kunga kelib yettita Yevropa davlati kosher va halol so'yishni taqiqlagan: Norvegiya, Shvesiya, Daniya, Sloveniya, Avstriya, Islandiya va Belgiya.1
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
Asosiy sabab shundaki, stunlanmagan hayvonlar azob chekadi va bu insonparvarlikka zid, shuning uchun stunlanmasdan so'yishga taqiq qo'yilgan. Lekin biz buni qanday bilamiz? Hech bir hayvon o'zining ichki holatini guvohlik qilib bera olmaydi. Hech bir hayvon bizga: "Hoy! Bu haqiqatan ham og'riyapti, iltimos, to'xtating!" deya olmaydi. Biz faqat so'yish jarayonida hayvon nimani his qilishi mumkinligi haqida taxminlar qila olamiz. Bosh suyagiga zarb bilan otilgan bolt yoki elektr toki bilan bo'g'ilgan zarba, tomog'ni kesishdan qanday qilib kamroq og'riqli bo'lishi aniq emas. Aksincha, birinchisi ancha azobliroq tuyulishi mumkin. Ammo buni aniqlashning hech qanday yo'li yo'q.
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.
Shunga qaramay, bu mamlakatlardagi qonun chiqaruvchilar o'zlari axloqan to'g'ri deb hisoblagan qarorni qabul qilib, boshqalarni o'sha e'tiqodlarga amal qilishga majburlashdi. Bundan qochib bo'lmaydi. Bu qonunning tabiatidir, u dunyoviy davlatda ham, teokratik davlatda ham shunday. Ammo islomiy davlatlar "diniy erkinlik"ni himoya qilmaslikda alohida ayblanadi, qachonki ular o'zlarining axloqiy qarashlari va e'tiqodlari, ya'ni Islomni, qonunga singdirishga yo'l qo'ysalar. "Qonunchilik Islomga va Shariatga asoslansa, bu vahshiy teokratiya!" deb baqirishadi. "Ammo bizning qonunchiligimiz liberal materialistik e'tiqodlarimizga asoslansa, bu adolatli va neytraldir." Bu ikkiyuzlamachilik aniq ko'rinib turibdi.
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.
Shunday qilib, bu halol taqiqiga qarshi "irqchi", "fanatik", "musulmonlarga qarshi" yoki "islomofobik" deb bahs yuritish samarasiz, garchi bu taqiqlarga bunday qarashlar ta'sir qilgan bo'lishi ehtimoli bor bo'lsa ham. Samarasiz, chunki dunyoviy qonun chiqaruvchilar o'zlarini og'riq, azob va zararni kamaytirish asosida qonun chiqarayotganliklarini aytib, shunchaki himoyalanib qo'yadilar.
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.
Yanada samarali bahs yo'nalishi shunday bo'lardi:
A more effective line of argument would be this:
Bir darajada, belgiyaliklarni o'zlarining chuqur to'g'ri-noto'g'ri tushunchalariga muvofiq qonun chiqarganlari uchun aybdor deb bo'lmaydi. Lekin ularning e'tiqodlarini tanqid qilishimiz mumkin. Biz shunday deyishimiz mumkin: "Bu masalada siz xato qilyapsiz, biz esa to'g'rimiz." Biz shunday deyishimiz mumkin: "Bu masaladagi e'tiqodimiz sigirlarni, qo'ylarni, tovuqlarni, sizni ham, bizni ham yaratgan Yaratuvchidan kelgan, sizning e'tiqodingiz esa faqat havodan olingan bo'sh gapga asoslangan." Bu mazmunli va rivojlanishi mumkin bo'lgan, mohiyatli munozara bo'lardi. Afsuski, bugungi kunda odamlarning diqqat markazida mazmunli munozara emas. Hozir ko'pchilikning axloqiy mulohazalarini ishga soladigan yagona uchqun, ular tushunadigan yagona axloqiy dalil: "Bu fanatizm!" Shu orada sekulyarizmning aldovi sezilmay davom etmoqda.
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.