{bit.ly/AZffoe} Preliminary Note; The Enlightenment Narrative is central to the myth of European Superiority. In the battleground of knowledge, effective weapons must be built on secular grounds. We cannot defeat this myth in an open contest by saying that this conflicts with the Quran, because the Quran is not an acceptable authority for a secular audience. Remember that our Prophet Mohamad ﷺ scratched out the notation Prophet of Allah on the Peace of Hudaybia, because it was not acceptable to the Meccans. The attached article is addressed to a secular audience and uses secular arguments to explain that the Enlightenment Project was a failure. In this context, it is worth mentioning that Al-Andalus provides a model of a society where Muslims, Jews, and Chrisitian lived together in peace for seven centuries: See: Maria Rosa Menocal: The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain
The Search For Peace: Do We Need to Re-Enlighten the World?
Introduction
For centuries, humanity has yearned for peace, striving to create a world free from the horrors of war. The Enlightenment, with its bold promise of a new age governed by reason and science, seemed to offer a path toward that dream. Yet, as we look back on the bloodiest centuries in human history, it becomes clear that this promise remains unfulfilled. In this post, we will explore the Enlightenment’s quest for peace, examine why it has failed to deliver, and consider whether a new "Re-Enlightenment" is needed to finally realize the world of harmony we so desperately seek.
The Enlightenment as a Response to Centuries of Religious Wars
The devastation wrought by centuries of religious wars in Europe profoundly influenced the thoughts of Enlightenment thinkers. Believing that the roots of conflict lay in stubborn adherence to religious dogmas, they sought to liberate themselves from attachment to authoritarian knowledge claims and rebuild the entire structure of human knowledge on solid foundations of reason and observation. As Bristow (2023) notes, "The characteristic Enlightenment suspicion of all allegedly authoritative claims ... is directed first of all against religious dogmas." This skepticism led them to theorize a secular society, believing that by removing religion from public life, they could eliminate a primary source of conflict. However, as we look back, it becomes clear that this conclusion was overly simplistic and ultimately flawed.
The Persistence of War in Secular Societies
Despite the Enlightenment's push towards secularism, the anticipated decline in warfare did not materialize. Barnett (2005) writes that the “Enlightenment … project was a costly failure, bringing not the sweet dreams of reason, but war, famine, disease and ecological disaster.”. The 20th century witnessed the deadliest conflicts in human history—World Wars I and II—fought on secular grounds, driven by nationalism and ideological fervor rather than religious zeal. These wars challenge the Enlightenment assumption that removing religion from public life would lead to peace. The persistence of war in secular societies suggests that the roots of conflict are far more complex and require a deeper analysis. The foundations of such analysis have deep roots, tracing back to Plato.
Plato’s Republic and the Manipulation of the Masses
In Plato's Republic, the concept of the Philosopher-King establishes a ruling class of enlightened individuals who, possessing higher knowledge, are justified in guiding the masses. This elitist and non-democratic vision explicitly endorses the manipulation of public opinion to maintain social order. As Alan Ryan explains in the introduction to Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies, "Plato was the originator of totalitarian political thought, and all the more dangerous because he was an undeniably great philosopher." Popper underscores that Plato’s division of humanity into "mindless sheep and philosophically enlightened shepherds" laid the groundwork for historicist fantasies and myths about racial destiny, ideas that have echoed through totalitarian regimes across centuries. The use of ideology to manipulate the masses into supporting war or other state agendas has been a recurring theme in totalitarian thought, originating with Plato and persisting through modern times.
Machiavelli and the Continuation of Political Realism
Machiavelli's doctrine that the ends justify the means has provided a chilling rationale for the conduct of modern wars, where leaders often view deception and manipulation as necessary tools for achieving political objectives. As Isaiah Berlin notes in Against the Current, Machiavelli believed that to cure degenerate populations and restore a state to health, rulers may be compelled to use "force and fraud, guile, cruelty, treachery, the slaughter of the innocent—surgical measures that are needed to restore a decayed body to a condition of health." In The Prince, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of appearances and the use of deception in maintaining power. This Machiavellian approach has echoed through the centuries, influencing leaders who justify conflicts on the basis of statecraft, often at the expense of truth and morality.
The Rise of Nationalism: A Manufactured Idol
As Benedict Anderson argues in Imagined Communities, nations are socially constructed entities, created through shared beliefs, rituals, and narratives that bind people together. However, beyond Anderson's analysis, the act of imagining the nation as a cohesive community became a necessity in the modern era, particularly as the influence of religion waned. In a world increasingly defined by secularism, emerging nation-states required new ideologies that could inspire people to live and die for abstract concepts like the nation. As Eric Hobsbawm notes in Nations and Nationalism since 1780, “the political agenda of patriotism was formulated by governments and ruling classes” to mobilize citizens, particularly in the context of war, where “the willingness of men to serve was now an essential variable in government calculations.” This deliberate cultivation of nationalism served as a means to unify populations under a common identity, replacing traditional sources of loyalty like religion. The state’s new "civic religion" of patriotism became essential for maintaining social cohesion, especially in times of war, where rulers could appeal to nationalism to justify the enormous sacrifices demanded of the citizenry. Political Leaders of Europe, following the logic of Machiavelli, recognized that only a cause as powerful as nationalism could galvanize the masses in the absence of religion, justifying sacrifices for the sake of the nation in a way that mirrored the fervor of religious devotion.
The Crusades: A Case Study in Religious Wars
The Crusades are often portrayed as quintessential religious wars, driven by Christian zeal against the infidels. However, their true nature is far more complex. As Christopher Tyreman explains in The Crusades: A Very Short Introduction, crusading has been "variously interpreted" as both a defense of faith and "a decisive ecclesiastical compromise with base secular habits," where the church sought to accommodate the spiritual aspirations of the laity by aligning them with the military ambitions of the ruling elite. The Crusades were not solely about faith; they were also a strategic maneuver by the church to preserve and extend its influence in a world where religious, cultural, and political power were deeply intertwined. The religious fervor that fueled the Crusades was, in many ways, a tool crafted to mobilize the masses for what were ultimately political and territorial goals. The real motivation behind the Crusades was less about faith and more about the preservation of power by those in authority.
The Religious Wars of Europe: Political Battles Disguised as Holy Wars
The so-called religious wars that ravaged Europe, such as the Thirty Years' War, are often framed as conflicts fueled by religious differences. However, their true motivations were far more complex. As C.V. Wedgwood observes in The Thirty Years War that these wars were driven as much by dynastic ambitions, economic interests, and the desire for efficient governance as by religious convictions. The rise of new social classes, the decline of feudal obligations, and the increasing demands for efficient administration all played crucial roles in the conflicts. Religious rhetoric served as a rallying cry, but the underlying motivations were deeply rooted in the political and economic struggles of the time. The masses were often led to believe they were fighting for their faith or for their nation, but in reality, they were pawns in a much larger game of political maneuvering and statecraft.
Modern War: Profit and Power
In the modern era, the true motivations for war have become even clearer, as the scale of military engagement and spending has reached unprecedented levels. Books like Merchants of Death expose how war profiteering drives conflicts, revealing that economic gain is often the hidden agenda behind military engagements. Smedley Butler’s War is a Racket similarly lays bare the reality that war serves the interests of a powerful few at the expense of the many. As David James notes in Foreign Policy, "The United States of America is in a state of perpetual war which requires perpetual war spending. The reason for this is simple: money and power." This perpetual state of conflict is underscored by staggering military expenditures. For instance, global military spending in 2021 reached $2.1 trillion, with the United States alone accounting for over $800 billion—a figure greater than the combined military budgets of the next nine largest spenders. This expenditure is not merely a defense mechanism but a driving force behind modern conflicts, as defense contractors, politicians, and lobbyists all benefit from the continued production of arms and the initiation of wars.
Moreover, the number of active conflicts worldwide remains alarmingly high. As of 2023, there are more than 50 active armed conflicts globally, ranging from full-scale wars to smaller-scale insurgencies, many of which are driven by the same economic and political motivations that fueled wars in the past. The United States, for instance, has maintained a military presence in over 100 countries and is engaged in various levels of conflict across multiple continents. The global arms trade, worth over $100 billion annually, further perpetuates these conflicts, supplying weapons to both state and non-state actors and ensuring that war remains a profitable enterprise.
The continuation of this critique shows that modern wars, much like their predecessors, are often driven by the interests of an elite minority rather than by the public good. Despite the Enlightenment’s promises of peace through reason and progress, the modern era has instead seen the entrenchment of war as a central feature of global society, revealing the deep flaws in the Enlightenment’s vision of a rational and peaceful world.
Enlightenment's Dreams Turn to Nightmares
The Enlightenment's dream of a world governed by reason and freed from the chains of religious superstition was one of humanity's most ambitious projects. However, as the horrors of the 20th century demonstrated, this dream was ultimately shattered. The very principles that were supposed to lead to human flourishing and peace—reason, science, and progress—were instead harnessed to unprecedented violence and destruction. As Horkheimer and Adorno (1944) starkly observed, the Enlightenment spirit, when stripped of its humanistic aspirations, becomes "a purposiveness without purpose," capable of being "harnessed to any end," including the most brutal forms of totalitarian control. The rationalization of society, intended to liberate humanity, instead laid the groundwork for what they describe as "imperialism, reason in its most terrible form," where the state could "exterminate the people, should it fear them".
Zygmunt Bauman takes this critique further, arguing that the Holocaust was not an aberration but a product of modernity itself—a chilling demonstration of what happens when the Enlightenment’s tools of rationality and efficiency are applied without moral constraint. Bauman (1989) writes that "modern civilization was not the Holocaust's sufficient condition; it was, however, most certainly its necessary condition." The Holocaust, he asserts, was "a legitimate resident in the house of modernity"—a nightmarish manifestation of the Enlightenment's darker possibilities.
The world wars and the Holocaust revealed that the Enlightenment's faith in human reason was dangerously naive. Instead of leading to a peaceful world, the secular ideologies that emerged from Enlightenment thought—nationalism, totalitarianism, and unchecked industrialism—brought about unparalleled suffering. The failure of the Enlightenment to deliver on its promise of peace and progress forces us to reconsider its legacy and to question the assumption that reason alone can guide us to a better world.
Lessons from the History of Perpetual War
The Enlightenment thinkers sought to build a new world free from the horrors of war that had plagued Europe for centuries. They placed their faith in reason, economic interests, and the rule of law to curb the destructive passions that had led to religious fanaticism and violence. As Albert Hirschman's The Passions and the Interests explains, early advocates of capitalism believed that the pursuit of profit would tame dangerous passions, underestimating the potential harm that traders, driven solely by profit, could inflict when detached from morality. History has shown that when these economic interests become detached from morality, they can cause immense harm. The relentless pursuit of profit, untempered by ethical considerations, has led to environmental destruction, exploitation, and new forms of violence perpetuated by powerful corporations and states alike.
Moreover, the Enlightenment’s emphasis on external law over internal morality, as articulated by Hobbes in Leviathan, has contributed to a society where legal compliance often replaces ethical behavior. This shift has enabled individuals and institutions to engage in morally dubious actions that, while legal, cause widespread harm and suffering.
In light of these lessons, it is time to pay our respects to the Enlightenment thinkers for their courage and vision in seeking to rebuild the world anew. They recognized the need to escape the cycle of violence that had defined their times. Today, we can honor them by seeking to complete their task. It is time to rethink the entire body of human knowledge anew, combining reason with compassion and ensuring that our pursuit of progress is always guided by a deep commitment to the well-being of all humanity. Only by doing so can we hope to avoid the horrors of modernity and build a truly just and peaceful world.
Bibliography.
Anderson, Benedict. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Barnett, Stephen J. (2004) The Enlightenment and Religion: The Myths of Modernity, Manchester University Press. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/35013/341381.pdf
Bauman, Zygmunt (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust, Polity Press, UK & USA.
Berlin, Isaiah. (1979). Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas. Edited by Henry Hardy. New York: Viking Press.
Bristow, William (2023) "Enlightenment", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/enlightenment/>.
Butler, Smedley D. (1935). War is a Racket. New York: Round Table Press.
Engelbrecht, H. C., & Hanighen, F. C. (1934). Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Hobsbawm, Eric J. (1990). Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horkheimer, Max, & Adorno, Theodor W. (1944). Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder.
James, David. (2015, January 15). War is Still a Racket. Foreign Policy. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/15/war-is-still-a-racket/
Plato. (1997). Republic. In J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Plato: Complete Works (pp. 971–1223). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
Popper, Karl R. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge.
Tyerman, Christopher. (2004). The Crusades: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wedgwood, C.V. (1938). The Thirty Years War. London: Jonathan Cape.