Mamdouh Bitar, Mufid Bitar
In many discussions, some people resort to considering certain forms of criticism, such as criticism of female circumcision, criticism of polygamy, criticism of the notion that women are deficient in reason and religion, or other issues as inappropriate for this time and were not valid for another time. This leads them to accuse the critic of being spiteful toward a billion and a half believers. This suggests the existence of a homogeneous bloc of a billion and a half people, or, in other words, the absence of hatred, contradiction, and rejection among the various categories and groups within this hypothetical community of a billion and a half
In fact, it doesn’t matter to a critic whether he directs his criticism at a billion and a half or a thousand people. The number does not negate the necessity of criticism. On the contrary, the larger the number of people a critic considers to be misguided, such as superstitious people, the greater the necessity of criticism. Criticism is necessary to scrutinize ideas, concepts, and beliefs, to shape them, and to remove their stagnation. Therefore, criticism has no time limits. It is the only thing valid for all times and places, and one that aspires to attain relative truth. The results of criticism are the measure of the quality or weakness of an idea. A good, strong idea withstands criticism, while a weak idea collapses before it. The necessity of criticism has nothing to do with the source of the idea being criticized. The source is no guarantee of the correctness of the idea. The Creator is worse than any thought in this era, and perhaps in past eras. Moreover, attempting to stifle criticism is nothing less than an indirect admission of the weakness of the idea these people seek to protect and fortify with sacred prohibition. A very brief word is necessary about the sources and schools of critical culture in history. All of these sources and schools were of Socratic Greek and then European origin. Criticism passed through many stages and schools until it reached the Frankfurt School and the philosopher Habermas, passing through those before them, such as Freud, then Marx, and before them, Hegel and many other Europeans. As for the extent and quality of criticism in Arab-Muhammadan thought, it can be said that the culture of criticism is almost nonexistent. The reason is that Arab lives are filled with religion, and since religion is sacred, it does not allow for any criticism. Criticism occurs in the context of dialogue, and even dialogue with believers is pointless due to the absolute certainty of their ideas and the fact that the truth is the content of these ideas. Anything other than these ideas is blasphemy and heresy, deserving of the prescribed punishment. The people of this region do not criticize, but rather obey. They do not think, but rather accuse others of blasphemy and do not discuss, because they believe. Regardless of the logical fallacy of considering criticism in a personal dialogue an act of hatred, or even a criticism of a billion and a half people, there are some people sitting at the dialogue table, not including a billion and a half people. This hypothetical bloc of a billion and a half people did not assign this interlocutor to represent it, and this bloc does not exist at all. Believers add to this hypothetical bloc a preamble of respect for sanctities. We do not know the authority of any human or non-human creature to impose respect for sanctities on us or on others, when we do not even acknowledge the existence of those sanctities. The imaginary bloc of one and a half billion assumes a minimum level of internal homogeneity. Where is that internal homogeneity between Sunnis and Shiites when each considers the other infidels? Here is Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah calling for the necessity of fighting and killing Shiites. This is not limited to Ibn Taymiyyah. In this era, there is Wahhabism, represented by sheikhs like Ibn Baz, and wars between them have continued unabated for 1,440 years.
Shiites are present in their millions in many geographies, such as Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and a large portion of the people of Kashmir, among others. They are all considered part of the one and a half billion bloc… How so
The issue is not limited to Shiites. There are, for example, Sufis, who are considered infidels by a large segment of the one and a half billion, as Ibn Baz and other jurists claim. They are followers of a heresy representing the greatest form of polytheism. They are present in large numbers in Africa, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, yet they are considered part of the one and a half billion. How sosalafist
The question “How?” applies to the Ash’aris, who represent a large portion of the populations of Egypt, Morocco, and Pakistan. How can they be considered part of this billion and a half? What about Salafism? Are Salafists considered part of this billion and a half? Then there are relatively small groups such as the Druze, Yazidis, Batinis, Alawites, and many others who are considered infidels because they do not declare infidels infidels. Discussing the conflicting, hostile, and warring groups within this billion and a half requires further explanation. What we have presented are only a few examples.