Last Friday (6th August 2010) marked the 65th anniversary of the slaughter of 220,000 innocent human beings from the first atomic bombs in history. The bombs landed in Japan, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This cowardly act has remained symbolic of secular regimes' modus operandi in trying to achieve their foreign policy goals. The outdated political cliché, as expressed by Lord Louis Mountbatten, "if the bomb kills Japanese and saves casualties on our side I am naturally not going to favour the killing our people unnecessarily..." must now stand to scrutiny as it obviously avoids the fact that Japanese soldiers were largely murdering soldiers, while American soldiers were largely murdering Japanese civilians.
This is no different to the massacres in Fallujah where the American army decided to use white phosphorous on the civilian population, and let us not forget the stealth nuclear war in the region due to the depleted uranium bombs which created uranium dust in the atmosphere, subsequently effecting the region's population for decades.
We have all seen the pictures of deformities and the anguish of mothers not knowing where and how to breastfeed their children as they couldn't recognise or find the innocent baby's mouth. In spite of this secular foreign policy, there is another policy of 'desensitising' by using cold abstract words like "collateral damage". So why does this happen? Why do secular regimes have a repeated history of slaughter and murder, cowardly wiping out civilian populations when their military objectives seem distant and unobtainable? The answer lies in the concept of a worldview.
A worldview is a philosophy of living that enables us to make sense of life and our daily experiences. The worldview we adopt affects the way we process ideas, and allows us to understand society and our place in it. A worldview is important especially in our society today - this is because the contemporary world has had a huge effect on human psychology. We seem unable to deal with the unpredictable changes and increased complexity of life - subsequently stress, uncertainty and frustration become common and our minds are overloaded with information. A worldview is the framework that ties all of this together, and allows us to understand life's complexity and unpredictability, it helps us make the critical decisions that will shape our future and our own selves, and it aids us in providing a picture of the whole. Worldviews vary and can range from being shallow to comprehensive.
A shallow worldview is one that just gives us the framework to react to day-to-day experiences, such as work and friendships. This type of worldview is usually formed via our previous experiences in life and it develops by creating templates of understanding the world from our history with it. This type of worldview is problematic as it makes us stuck in the past with no possibility of viewing the world in a positive or different way that will enable our transformation. It is limited in its scope as it becomes only as comprehensive as your experiences, and individually our experiences are every limited.
A comprehensive worldview, as discussed by the philosopher LeoApostel, encompasses everything in life and it includes various components. For instance, it provides a model for the world by answering the basic question "who are we?" In addition it provides an explanation usually answering "why is the world the way it is?" and "where did we come from?" Another important part of a comprehensive worldview includes extrapolating from the past into the future to answer the question "where are we going?" It should also answer "what is good and what is evil?" In other words, to include morality and ethics, while giving us a sense of purpose, direction and goals for our actions. Additionally, the answer to the question "what for?" may help us to understand the real meaning of life and a comprehensive worldview must answer "how should we act?" thereby helping us to solve practical problems. Lastly a comprehensive worldview should answer the question "what is true and what is false?", this is equivalent to what in philosophy is called "epistemology" or "the theory of knowledge", therefore it would allow us to distinguish between what is correct and what is incorrect.
The slaughter of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are practical examples of how worldviews affect our outlook on life. The secular worldview views nationalism and self preservation as key values, in addition to the fact that, according the secularist, human beings have no purpose other than the one we make for ourselves. So from this worldview the senseless killing of hundreds can be justified. In contrast to this, the Islamic worldview perceives the fulfilment of our purpose for existence as a key value - which is to worship God and therefore be moral. Therefore someone adopting the Islamic worldview would argue: that if our existence is to worship God and in order to preserve our existence we have to break our purpose for existing, then what is the point of our existence in the first place? In other words the killing of innocent lives en mass could never be justified. As the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said, which can be found in the hadith collection of Imam Malik’s Muwatta in the Book of Jihad,
"I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."
In light of above it can be seen why the secular regimes destroy humanity in order to ‘preserve’ humanity. Something that deservedly should be called the 'humanity of inhumanity' - in other words the paradox of the secular worldview.
Posts
10 comments:
In what way can you even begin to say that nationalism is a 'key value' of secularism?
the comments about massacre in Fallujah and depleted uranium are completely false. There was no massacre; white phosphorus was not used against civilians and depleted uranium bombs do not exist. This 28 year old kid should stick to what he knows, the Islamic religion and stay out of becoming a propagandist - he might get you the reader killed!
SubhanALLAH that's a very comprehensive beautiful piece of literature ALHAMDULILLAH....
Just today I listened to a talk by Cross Talk Radio - the Rise of Islam in America SUBHANALLAH they have such venom towards Muslims ( it's a Christian Talk show based in Memphis ) They Attacked the Quran, the RASOOL Of ALLAH AW & his Marriage's violently so much incorrect information portrayed to incite nothing but Hatred in the republican south "We should blow up the Kaba in Mecca" One caller called in & remarked "They believe it's protected by Muhammad" AudhoBillahi Minashaytaan Nirajeem!
JazakhALLAH Khairun for putting together such eloquent arguments that 'we' can just regurgitate!
Asalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu
Nationalism is a key value of secularism because historically when secularism was emerging there was a discussion amongst the political philosophers and thinkers on how to unite people within a state. So concepts of nationalism and nation state arose to deal with the emerging problem, because Christianity was no longer a unifying force, and they did not want it to be! I would argue that they should have made secularism itself as the unifying force (not that I agree with it of course!), because that would have joined people together on values rather than geography and perceived identity, which is creates a much stronger bond.
Roger Helbig:
Depleted Uranium
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/22/iraq-nuclear-contaminated-sites
White Phosphorous
"One resident told him the US used 'weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud' and that he watched 'pieces of these bombs explode into large fires that continued to burn on the skin even after people dumped water on the burns.' The doctor said he 'treated people who had their skin melted'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-fog-of-war-white-phosphorus-fallujah-and-some-burning-questions-515345.html
I agree with hamza that when religion is gone, secular leaders turn to nationalism to unify their people. It just makes so much sense. This is quite evident in what happened in Turkey by Ataturk. In Egypt, it has happened in the past and is happening again .
Hamza,
RE: Secularism/nationalism
What evidence do you have that political philosophers and thinkers were responsible for forming nationalism as part of the secular model? Presumably you're ignoring other reasons for the rise of nationalism, such as socio-economic causes, imperial culture, etc. I'm not denying that nationalism is/was used to unite a country, but simply questioning that a conscious decision was made by secularists to manipulate nationalist ideas for this purpose in the absence of religion. I'd be interested to hear your evidence and prove me wrong.
Re: Nationalism
What I mean in this context is nation state rather than nationalism. I am not using the term nationalism in a contemporary way.
The origins of the nation state, which was formed as a result of the clash between Pope, Emperor and people (the birth of European secularism), is traced from the year 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia, which brought the thirty year war to an end, was signed. However, even before that the states existed and entered into relations with each other, but they were not sovereign states as their authority was restrained by the Pope and the Roman Empire.
The peace of Westphalia paved the way for the emergence of the nation state by recognizing that the Empire no longer commanded the allegiance of its parts and that the Pope could not maintain his spiritual authority every where (the beginning of European secularism?).
Henceforth, the supreme authority came to be identified with the state. And was used as a way of unifying the masses, hence nation state or nationalism (in this context) being a key political value of secular thought.
Does this clarify?
There are many scholars who have this view, see this journal for example "The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty" by Derek Croxton found in The International History Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Sep., 1999)
Re: Nationalism
That's all very well, but the notion of nationalism as a political/economic need for a nation state is not the same as nationalism as a social and cultural idea, as you state. The problem is that the former definition does not automatically transfer into an idea that the masses adopt. Nationalism as a cultural idea that bound societies together happened much later as a result of capitalist expansion abroad in both secular and religious states.
Post a Comment