ممدوح بيطار , سمير صادق :
هل من الممكن قيام شراكة أو حلف أو حياة مشتركة بين العقلانية والخطاب الديني ؟؟ نعم من الممكن في أطر تنظيمية مؤقتة مؤسسة على الكثير من القسر والتنازل عن العديد من المبدئيات , على المدى البعيد أو حتى المتوسط لايمكن للعقلانية أن تتعايش مع الخطاب الديني , لأن التعايش يعني لوي رقبة كل منهما , بشكل يشوه كلاهما ويؤسس لمنظومة التلفيق والترقيع والمخاتلة وحتى العنف .
هناك ضدية موضوعية بين الخطاب الديني والعقلانية , ضدية لاتمس بعض الأقكار فقط ,انما تشمل كل الفكر , ضدية في العمق , فللعقلانية نظم معرفية ومسلكية تراكمية وخبرات تطورية اساسها تباين مايمكن أن يوجد مع الموجود , بينما يعتمد الخطاب الديني على مرجعية ثابتة تآكلت واهترأت على الأقل بعامل التقادم ,أساس الفكر الديني هو منظومة “المعوقات ” بينما أساس العقلانية هو عدم الاعتراف بأي عائقة تقف أمام العقل , العقلانية تصنع من الواقع “نصا” مؤقتا , بينما يريد الخطاب الديني من النص أن يصنع الواقع , العقلانية تسأل وتبحث عن الجواب الملائم لظروف الحياة الآنية والمستقبلية , الخطاب الديني يسأل ايضا الا أنه يبحث عن الجواب في مجاهل التراث العتيق .
الانسان الغربي يسأل كيف يمكنه شطر الذرة , يجد الجواب العلمي ويشطر الذرة , الانسان العربي يسأل عن شطر الذرة فيجيبه زغلول النجار شطرناها قبل 1400 سنة والدلائل موجودة في النصوص , وماذا عن نتائج الشطرقبل ١٤٤٤ سنة ؟ هنا تأتي وصلة التحقيرات والتهديدات والشتائم , لأن سؤال من هذا النوع يعني الشك في المقدرة الالهية , كفر وزندقة !!, وعن الفقر والتعتير والتأخر يجيبك الخطاب الديني , انها المؤامرة على الدين , ثم أنهم لايطعمونا ولا يسلحونا و يضعوا العوائق أمام لاجئينا , لايحاربون من أجل حريتنا , ولا ينقذوننا ,كل ذلك سببه مؤامرة شيطانية ابليسية, أما الاتكالية والقدرية ومحاولة تدبير أمور الأرض بأحكام السماء ثم الغيبية وتغييب العقل ,كل ذلك بريئ من التسبب بالتأخر .
من ناحية يهاجم الاخونج مفهوم “العقلانية” , ومن ناحية أخرى يدعون بأن الخطاب الديني هو خطاب العقلانية بامتياز , البرهان على ذلك كان ذكر مفردة “عقل” حوالي مئتي مرة في النصوص, مثل القول “لعلهم يعقلون ”,العقلانية ليست مجرد لفظ لغوي اي لغي , انها منهج وليست مفردة كلامية لفظية فقط , ذكر المفردة كان برأيهم البرهان المقنع القاطع لعقلانية الخطاب الديني , بهذه الترهات يحاول الخطاب الديني الاستيلاء على عقول الناس , بالخرافة يقتل الخطاب الديني العقل , وبالتالي يعيق قتيل العقل من صناعة واقع مناسب له ومنسجما مع تطوره , قتيل العقل أخصائي في صناعة الأوهام التي لاتستلزم عرق الجبين ,انما نشاط تصوراتي مؤسس على التمنيات والأحلام فقط , فكلما تمددت الخرافة انحسرت العقلانية , وتقلصت امكانية فهم الاخفاق والفشل الذي أصاب الشعوب المبتلية بالخرافة .
لم يتجاوز شعب في العالم كبوة أو نكسة الا عن طريق الالتزام بقوانين السببية العقلية , أين هو ذلك الشعب الذي نجح في تجاوز محنة ولو جزئية باعجازات زغلول النجار الخرافية ؟؟؟الكارثة أصلا ليست بشخص زغلول النجار فقط , وانما بتحول معظم الناس الى زغاليل , الى خراف تقودها الخرافة الى العدم واللاشيئ
The Fading of Reason and the Ascendancy of Superstition in People’s Minds…
Mamdouh Bitar, Samir Sadiq:
The crisis of Arab rationalism is chronic, beginning early in the last 1444 years. It is said that the crisis began with the victory of Ibn Hanbal over the Mu’tazila. Some believe the crisis began with the victory of the Mamluks (the military school) over the Caliph. However, the defeat of rationalism certainly began, or was consolidated, with the victory of Imam al-Ghazali over philosophy and philosophers. This clearly marked the beginning of the Islamization of the philosophical approach, a move away from the Greek method and toward the irrational, definitive, faith-based approach to dealing with the problems of life, death, and crises.
Is it possible to establish a partnership, alliance, or shared life between rationalism and religious discourse? Yes, it is possible within temporary organizational frameworks based on a great deal of coercion and the concession of many principles. In the long or even medium term, rationality cannot coexist with religious discourse, because coexistence means twisting the neck of each, in a way that distorts both and establishes a system of fabrication, patchwork, deception, and even violence. There is an objective opposition between religious discourse and rationalism, an opposition that doesn’t just touch on a few ideas, but encompasses all thought. It’s a profound opposition. Rationality has cumulative cognitive and behavioral systems and evolutionary experiences based on the contrast between what can exist and what exists. Religious discourse, on the other hand, relies on a fixed frame of reference that has eroded and worn out, at least due to the passage of time. The basis of religious thought is the system of “obstacles,” while the basis of rationalism is the refusal to acknowledge any obstacle that stands in the way of reason. Rationality creates a temporary “text” from reality, while religious discourse wants the text to create reality. Rationality asks and searches for the appropriate answer to the circumstances of current and future life. Religious discourse also asks questions, but it searches for the answer in the depths of ancient heritage. The Westerner asks how he can split the atom, finds the scientific answer and splits the atom. The Arab asks about splitting the atom, and Zaghloul El-Naggar answers, “We split it 1,400 years ago, and the evidence is in the texts.” What about the results of the split 1,444 years ago? Here comes the tangle of contempt, threats, and insults, because a question of this kind implies doubt in divine power, blasphemy and heresy!! As for poverty, hardship, and backwardness, the religious discourse answers you: It’s a conspiracy against religion. They don’t feed us, arm us, and place obstacles in the way of our refugees. They don’t fight for our freedom or save us. All of this is caused by a satanic, diabolical conspiracy. As for dependency, fatalism, and attempts to manage the affairs of the earth according to heavenly decrees, followed by the occult and obscuring the mind, all of this is innocent of causing backwardness. On the one hand, the Brotherhood attacks the concept of “rationality,” and on the other hand, they claim that religious discourse is the discourse of rationality par excellence. The proof of this is the mention of the word “reason” approximately two hundred times in the texts, such as the saying “so that they may reason.” Rationality is not just a linguistic term, i.e., nonsense. It is a method, not just a verbal term. In their opinion, mentioning the term was the convincing and decisive proof of the rationality of religious discourse. With this nonsense, religious discourse attempts to seize control of people’s minds. Through superstition, religious discourse kills reason, and thus prevents those who are dead of reason from creating a reality that is appropriate for them and consistent with their development. Those who are dead of reason specialize in creating illusions that do not require the sweat of their brow, but rather are imaginative activities based on wishes and dreams only. The more superstition expands, rationality declines, and the possibility of understanding the failure and debacle that befalls peoples afflicted by superstition diminishes. No people in the world has ever overcome a setback or a setback except by adhering to the laws of rational causality. Where is that people who succeeded in overcoming an ordeal, even partially, with the mythical miracles of Zaghloul El-Naggar? The catastrophe does not lie solely in Zaghloul El-Naggar, but rather in the transformation of most people into pigeons, into sheep led by superstition to nothingness and nothingness.
Mamdouh Bitar, Samir Sadiq:
The crisis of Arab rationalism is chronic, beginning early in the last 1444 years. It is said that the crisis began with the victory of Ibn Hanbal over the Mu’tazila. Some believe the crisis began with the victory of the Mamluks (the military school) over the Caliph. However, the defeat of rationalism certainly began, or was consolidated, with the victory of Imam al-Ghazali over philosophy and philosophers. This clearly marked the beginning of the Islamization of the philosophical approach, a move away from the Greek method and toward the irrational, definitive, faith-based approach to dealing with the problems of life, death, and crises.
Is it possible to establish a partnership, alliance, or shared life between rationalism and religious discourse? Yes, it is possible within temporary organizational frameworks based on a great deal of coercion and the concession of many principles. In the long or even medium term, rationality cannot coexist with religious discourse, because coexistence means twisting the neck of each, in a way that distorts both and establishes a system of fabrication, patchwork, deception, and even violence. There is an objective opposition between religious discourse and rationalism, an opposition that doesn’t just touch on a few ideas, but encompasses all thought. It’s a profound opposition. Rationality has cumulative cognitive and behavioral systems and evolutionary experiences based on the contrast between what can exist and what exists. Religious discourse, on the other hand, relies on a fixed frame of reference that has eroded and worn out, at least due to the passage of time. The basis of religious thought is the system of “obstacles,” while the basis of rationalism is the refusal to acknowledge any obstacle that stands in the way of reason. Rationality creates a temporary “text” from reality, while religious discourse wants the text to create reality. Rationality asks and searches for the appropriate answer to the circumstances of current and future life. Religious discourse also asks questions, but it searches for the answer in the depths of ancient heritage. The Westerner asks how he can split the atom, finds the scientific answer and splits the atom. The Arab asks about splitting the atom, and Zaghloul El-Naggar answers, “We split it 1,400 years ago, and the evidence is in the texts.” What about the results of the split 1,444 years ago? Here comes the tangle of contempt, threats, and insults, because a question of this kind implies doubt in divine power, blasphemy and heresy!! As for poverty, hardship, and backwardness, the religious discourse answers you: It’s a conspiracy against religion. They don’t feed us, arm us, and place obstacles in the way of our refugees. They don’t fight for our freedom or save us. All of this is caused by a satanic, diabolical conspiracy. As for dependency, fatalism, and attempts to manage the affairs of the earth according to heavenly decrees, followed by the occult and obscuring the mind, all of this is innocent of causing backwardness. On the one hand, the Brotherhood attacks the concept of “rationality,” and on the other hand, they claim that religious discourse is the discourse of rationality par excellence. The proof of this is the mention of the word “reason” approximately two hundred times in the texts, such as the saying “so that they may reason.” Rationality is not just a linguistic term, i.e., nonsense. It is a method, not just a verbal term. In their opinion, mentioning the term was the convincing and decisive proof of the rationality of religious discourse. With this nonsense, religious discourse attempts to seize control of people’s minds. Through superstition, religious discourse kills reason, and thus prevents those who are dead of reason from creating a reality that is appropriate for them and consistent with their development. Those who are dead of reason specialize in creating illusions that do not require the sweat of their brow, but rather are imaginative activities based on wishes and dreams only. The more superstition expands, rationality declines, and the possibility of understanding the failure and debacle that befalls peoples afflicted by superstition diminishes. No people in the world has ever overcome a setback or a setback except by adhering to the laws of rational causality. Where is that people who succeeded in overcoming an ordeal, even partially, with the mythical miracles of Zaghloul El-Naggar? The catastrophe does not lie solely in Zaghloul El-Naggar, but rather in the transformation of most people into pigeons, into sheep led by superstition to nothingness and nothingness.