samir sadek ,mamdouh bitar
What if we looked at religion from the perspective of beliefs and legal rulings? Wewould see it as a tool for distorting humanity, alienating it from its true self, perpetuating selfishness, hypocrisy selfcenteredness, and seeing oneself as superior to others…the best nation! In addition to dogmatism, hatred of the other, fanaticism, and backwardness, and ultimately, falling into the arms of terrorism, isolation, backwardness, and distancing oneself from the spirit of humanity and morality. Here, the bearers of clear verses will attack us with a barrage of verses from God’s sayings in His Holy Book, depicting things as they are not. The thing is not a virtue, as the verses claim, but rather a vice, as practice reveals.
Where is the value or importance of a verse that enjoins good, while the pious, pure believer practices evil? Then, what is the value of a verse or hadith that promotes the saved sect, loyalty and disavowal, and legitimizes captivity, raids, the killing of apostates, and disavowal of infidels and apostates? Then, the claim that God’s religion is Islam, and the rest of the religions are merely valueless intellectual luxury! Sectarianism is a religious product. Since sectarianism is inherently sectarian, it must be said that religious concepts are inherently sectarian. Can sectarianism exist in a non-religious society? Is there a religious society without sectarianism? What is this sect, and what is its relationship to the individual and the state? Does it have rights over the state, or even over the individual? Even if we assume that the sect has rights over the state, what are the sect’s duties toward the state? What positive benefits does the sect offer the individual? Is it a virtue to incite an individual against another sectarian? Did the wars between religious sects over the course of the fourteenth century have any positive benefits for the individual? Was a state established during these wars? The sect takes and gives to the individual only the material of conflict and hostility towards others, and to the state the material of dissent, and infects the state with the cancer of a statelet within the state, therefore it is considered a parasitic structure on the individual and the state, a germ that is pathogenic to death, it disputes with the state over the material of belonging, and exhausts the state constitutionally, as the constitution must have a sectarian source, and its sectarian source is fossilized and calcified and is not subject to development and change because it is sacred. Can we in any Arab country except Tunisia abolish the farce of polygamy without the screaming of sheikhs whose noise reaches the sky, and about belonging, as the sect competes with the state and wants belonging to it to precede belonging to the homeland, the sect does not accept being placed under the homeland but above it, and the sect overthrows the principle of choice, as immediately after birth the child becomes of the religion of his father, without his subsequent will affecting this belonging, so when he grows up he finds himself imprisoned in the prison of belonging that he perhaps does not want, do you allow him The Muhammadan sect embraces another affiliation. Here, a person is considered an apostate! Apostasy may cost him his life. The apostate is killed, and his blood is permissible. The only choice is to remain in the sect or remain in the grave. What does forced affiliation to a sect mean? Isn’t this an assassination of the concept of freedom?
The sect represents a state of latent and ongoing separation from the state’s society. A latent separation that can be awakened at any time. A separation that is ready and extortionate. When the state fails to support one sect over another, as a result of one sect’s sense of superiority and superiority over another, the weapon of extortion is brandished against the state. Extortion, at its best, is represented by negative behavior toward the state. This may escalate into bloodshed, and demographic sectarian isolation may develop into geographic fragmentation, leading to the destruction and demise of the country. All of the above represents political and social concessions made by the state to sects within a sectarian society. Here, a sectarian might ask, “What does the state offer in addition to these concessions, transforming sects into mini-states within the state?” Financially, we must not forget the costs of houses of worship, which far exceed those of educational institutions such as universities and schools. By what logic or right are mosques funded from public funds? Are mosques for the public? Should the state bear the costs of private relationships? A person’s relationship with their religious beliefs is a private, personal matter. Does the state fund other private relationships of citizens? The answer is an emphatic no. Those who want to worship should worship in their homes or build a house of worship using their own money, not ours. There is no need for the state to make concessions to sects. Nor is there any justification for state funding of sects. Belonging to a sect is a personal affiliation with no social depth. It is strange how a person willingly summons a wolf to protect his sheep. Has a wolf ever respected a sheep