Mamdouh Bitar, Maha Bitar
We do not find any fundamental differences between one Muhammadan sect and another, or between thetrue and the unreal. It seems that the model of ISIS and its ilk, such as the model of the Guardian Jurist, is closer to the so-called true religion than other trends, which is represented by the religious state, i.e., the Caliphate. Those who seek this Caliphate are approaching the true religion. The Caliphate was an entity resembling a state, but it was not a state in the sense known since the Westphalian Accords. It was an entity that derived its legitimacy from Sharia law. Those who seek the Caliphate are ISIS supporters, whether they curse ISIS or praise it. The foundations of this state are well-known and clear, and ISIS has demonstrated, explained, and clarified all of that. The religious life of the true religion has fixed pillars, such as eliminating others, either by eliminating them or placing them at an inferior level, and then disdaining life for the sake of the afterlife, which includes self-destruction and specialization in the manufacture of death. Disdaining worldly life goes hand in hand with destroying the landmarks of this life, from urbanization to material civilization. It is like other monotheistic trends, which represent everything except unity. Monotheists know nothing more than conflicts over symbols and texts. They do not accept each other, nor do they accept others. This is the essence of their unity or unification. They are united in their pursuit of inferiority and backwardness, and divided in their pursuit of the lowest levels of progress and freedom. In general, believers can be considered two types: a preacher who excommunicates and threatens, and a jihadist who is tried and killed in accordance with the preacher’s instructions. Both types can coexist in a single person, so it is difficult to separate the preacher from the jihadist, as the former quickly transforms into the latter and vice versa. There is a third hypothetical type: moderation. However, it is very difficult to define this moderation, as there is no fixed, moderate model—a model that practices equality, peace, and democracy. Furthermore, there is no believer committed to religious principles who is moderate and objective in their understanding of relative or absolute truth. For example, there is no moderation in the necessity of spreading the religion, even by force. What is called “moderation” is weak and difficult to define and recognize among proponents of moderation, such as al-Qaradawi. So, what is a moderate according to al-Qaradawi? Someone who oscillates between being a preacher and a jihadist. The phenomenon of moderation is hypothetical, a name without a fixed content, a pseudonym for both the preacher and the jihadist, depending on the circumstances dictated by the necessity of hypocrisy. The impossibility of producing moderation or balance is due to several factors, including the believer’s belief that his faith is the greatest, because religion proclaims the first and final truth, but has only achieved the opposite. Moreover, Sharia provides solutions to all dilemmas, meaning that the true religion is the solution! The Qur’an embraces science in everything; it is the miracle that claims that the results of all science are present within its lines or between them. Religion and its miracles preceded Newton in inventing electricity, preceded Nobel in inventing dynamite, and preceded Martin Cooper in inventing the mobile phone, etc.! Moderation does not exist when the believer believes that he belongs to the best nation, which provides him with a deadly degree of arrogance and superiority. Then there is the belief that rulings and rules are valid for all times and places, and thus the cure is confused with the disease for believers. What was a cure in one historical context turned into a disease in a different historical context. Al-Qaradawi and others have failed to produce a moderation that can be defined, understood, and applied. Consequently, the benefit of this moderation that prohibits congratulating a neighbor of another religion on his holidays has been negated. Is there a solution that can be called moderation, and thus a moderation that can be applied and is capable of benefiting and being benefited from? The concept of moderation requires a kind of modification, not in texts but in practices. Europe did not change the Bible, but rather established what is called nominal Christianity. In this context, we can speak of a nominal religion (Islam Light), a religion practiced by the Mayor of London, the Mayor of Amsterdam, and many believers in Europe, the Levant, and all over the world. A religion that transforms the relationship between it and the person into a nominal relationship whose content is limited to the minimum of religion and the maximum of personal and objective convictions. Belonging to a religion here does not mean more than formal practices for some aspects of life, such as marriage ceremonies, for example. A religion that does not accept formal practice in this age will turn into the problem of the age. Religion cannot turn into formality except through a secular system through which the problem of religion and society can be resolved. Thus, religion was able to continue to exist as a nominal religion in individual private life, and a real religion in temple life!!