There is a lot of complicated discussion here but we can select one or so ideas to comment: We need to consider how we define secularism, and then we need to consider the issue of ‘western values’ and the response to these, viz. by those who reject them as with Islamists.
The historical framework of WHEE creates a context for ‘modernization’ in a European context, one that has nothing to do with Europe, but rather a complex ‘transition’ logic as discussed in that historical model.
It is fallacious to equate ‘secularism’ with anti-religion and this mistake has poisoned the discussion of globalization. The modern transition clearly starts with a ‘reformation’ of religion, in the process confronting its theocratic character. It is an unreasonable contraction of viewpoints to try and amputate religion from modernity. It has caused an immense postmodern reaction and confusion. Thus, even the term ‘postsecular’ is misleading.
The problem arises with the issue of Islam which has not gone through such a reformation, although it is getting one willy-nilly.
The model in WHEE helps to see the way that globalization chooses a transition zone, which stages an interval of transformation, which then diffuses rapidly into a new oikoumeme, here the global stage. The issue of Europe in fact is irrelevant, and the point of transformation shows its global character almost from the start.
Nevertheless the full model of WHEE shows the way the false perception of a Euro-centered modernity is misleading and serves to harm the clarity of the modernist phenomenon. Before we make charges of Eurocentrism we should note that globalization of the early modern transition, given its capitalist bias to be sure, was a huge success, as Marx/Engels sensed at the start, and has brought a common set of ideas and values into a global transnationalizing world civilization, still in gestation. By comparison the charges of Eurocentrism seem minor: the vast majority of the global civilization have adopted modernity with alacrity. And this once included Islamic cultures.
The question of Islamism has confused us. As has the question of secularism. We fail to see that Islamic cultures poised to enter modernization have been subject to regressive tactics, not the least being the way the West (the US) has itself seeded reactionary religious movements. This confusing legacy makes the issue of secularism irrelevant. The real issue is the rising malevolence of the American system of foreign policy.
We can’t speak of secularism and the covert action of the CIA in the same discussion. The US is losing its secularism to a perverted hidden mafia of rogue agents we can’t readily identify. Period. The nature of secularism is being subject to regressive redefinition and the Islamic world has been a clear victim. The current system of American government is hardly a ‘sermon of secularism’ to the Islamists, who have been driven into frenzy by the American psychopaths. This is not leftist exaggeration: look at the Iraq war: behind the fraudulent propaganda to start it an operation was set in motion (ambiguous as to Israeli svengali interests being served) on the level of cultural rape for the profit of American corporations. In the wake of this we can’t include the US in the context of secularism. It is turning into a monstrosity of obscure mutant degeneration. It is quite reasonable to consider that Islamic cultures might mutate back into ‘Islamist’ or other false definitions of traditional Islamic culture.
One should note this carefully: nothing in the writings of Enlightenment philosophes justifies the degeneration of the US model into a mafia of psychopaths. And leftists have proven unable to grasp how they have been outflanked: consider the 9/11 conspiracy and its ramifications….
It is hard to evade the problem here with cliches about secularism. Much of the calamity inflicted on Iraq (and Afghanistan, etc…) was neo-liberal economic imperialism disguised as still more secular modernization. We can’t really speak of ‘secularism’ to Moslems anymore given the orgy of sadists inflicted on countries such as Iraq in the calamity of Mossad/CIA agents run by corporate elites.
More generally the question of secularism, and this needs another post, is not so easily defined. Sit down and consider the transition of the early modern from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century: ‘secularists’ have botched the definition of the secular. So the need arises for a more considered version of the secular, and then a clear expose of the degenerating character of imperialist capitalism behind the fronts of ‘democracy’ and ‘secularism’.
I think that the Islamic world was ready in the nineteenth century for a secular transition and reformation. If anything it is the regressive manipulations of the Americans that have created this supposed ‘antimodern’ entity. Since the calamity clearly started with the onset of the age of oil we have a clear basis for a new discussion. Meanwhile the false flag logic of 9/11, still misunderstood by the left, exposes the outrage of malevolent cultural fixes nest to the slander against ‘moslem fanatics’ in reality dupes of the american covert groups, in league with the reactionary stooges of Saudi Arabia.
Charges on the issue of secularism are thus often ridiculous: was Nasser not an ultra-secularist, undermined by the West? Meanwhile the dupes in the Saudi Arabian absurdity run by the US are passed over in silence in the charges of anti-secularism. Oh yes, the secularist in this case was a socialist. The profits of the oil gang were at risk. So the US system undermined secularization here and now we complain as Islamophes of the rage in protest at the American system of rape.