Secularism and Moral Values
Contributor:
Coverage:
Creator: Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris
Date:
Description:
Format: text
Identifier: http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=383
Language: en
Publisher:
Relation:
Rights:
Source:
Subject: comparative
Title: Secularism and Moral Values
Created on: Thu Jan 24 11:15:06 -0500 2008
Updated on: Thu Jan 24 11:15:06 -0500 2008
Version: 1
Abstract: ... ome traditional Jahili cultures to maintain innate religious values: they might appeal to their desires, or they represent their heritage and do not conflict with their desires. "And when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them, Lo! a party of them refuse and turn away. But if the right is with them they come to Him willingly." [Al-Nur: 48-49]. Their relationship with truth is similar to Satan's, as described by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) to Abu Hurairah, whom Satan had advised to recite Ayat al-Kursi when going to bed: "He told you the truth, even though he is an inveterate liar." Contemporary Western, secular societies are the clearest examples of the shifting, self-contradictory nature of jahili civilization. From one angle it views culture and the values it rests upon as a relative, variable phenomenon. However, from another angle it characterises some values as human values, views their violation as shocking, and punishes their violators severely. The sources of this problem are two fundamental principles which democratic secular societies rely upon. The first is majority rule as a standard for right and wrong in speech and behaviour; the second is the principle of individual freedom. These two principles will necessarily conflict with each other if they are not subordinated to another principle that will judge between them. Secularism, by its very nature, rejects religion, and in its Western form it does not consider fitrah (innate values) a criterion for what is beneficial or harmful for humanity. It has no alternative but to make these two principles an absolute standard for what behaviour is permissible and appropriate, and what isn't. The contradiction and conflict between these two principles is showing itself plainly in some of the current hot issues in these societies. Those who advocate the acceptance of homosexuality and the granting to avowed homosexuals equal rights and opportunities in every aspect of life, including military service, base their argument on the principle of individual rights. They see no one as having the right to concern themselves with what they call their "sexual orientation." The same argument is made by supporters of abortion. You frequently hear them say incredulously, "How can I be prohibited from freedom of choice in my own affairs and over my own body? What right do legal authorities have to involve themselves in such personal matters?" The only argument their opponents can muster is that this behaviour contradicts the values held by the majority of the population. Even though the basis for many people's opposition to abortion is moral or religious, they can't come out and say so openly, nor can they employ religious or moral arguments, since secular society finds neither of them acceptable. If we accept that there is no basis for values except individual or majority opinion, and that it is therefore possible for all values to change from one era to another, and from one society to another, this means there is no connection between values and what will benefit or harm people in their material and spiritual lives, which in turn means that all values are equality valid and it doesn't matter which values a given society accepts or rejects. However, this means that all behaviour considered abhorrent by secular societies today, such as sexual molestation of children and rape of women for which it has serious penalties, are co... [Full Article...]
