The muslim Brotherhood and the inevitability of war and destruction

Ruba Mansour, Syriano:

The imaginary caliphate state is not wanted by more than 5% of the population. Moreover, such a state is prohibited by international agreement or resolution. Therefore, its establishment or continuation after a coup is virtually impossible. Even the establishment and continuation of a so-called civil state with a religious authority is impossible due to internal and external rejection. How can a state be civil and, at the same time, have a religious authority? Even some sheikhs do not believe in this hypocrisy. Some practice another form of hypocrisy regarding religion and state. They say, for example, that the civil state in Europe was established on papal injustice, where the church was corrupted and corrupted, whereas the true religion and the caliphate were neither corrupt nor corrupting! Therefore, there is no need for a civil state in the Western form in this region, but only for a religious authority for a “civil” state similar to the caliphate!!!!! What matters is the religious “reference” based on the principles of Muhammadan justice, consultation, guardianship, and the ruler’s accountability to God, not to the people. Furthermore, it imposes absolute obedience to the Creator and blind submission to the will of the clergy, i.e., the guardians of authority. The concept of a civil state with a religious reference is inherently contradictory and represents the greatest hypocrisy represented by an attempt to satisfy everyone formally (holding the stick in the middle). Civilization with a religious reference is evasive, in addition to being contradictory. It is neither civil nor religious! But its development into a religious state is almost inevitable, which will strike the principle of “citizenship” fatally and open the gates of hell in society, since there is no opposition in a religious state, no equal opportunities, no equality, no freedoms, no democracy, and no rights for the individual human being, especially women. Rights belong to religion only for the clergy, and thus the picture of religious dictatorship and the colonization of religion over humanity is completed. In the first place, religion has no rights over humans, and it is hypocritical to say that religion gives rights to humans. Religion violates people’s rights and intrudes on humans. Why should humans finance the clergy and finance temples? What can religion offer humanity except the nonsense of heaven and its houris and the nonsense of hell and its fire, in addition to some evil values that are outdated even in their historical context, and now have lost their validity completely, because the circumstances of life have changed completely. For example, adultery no longer exists, and consequently there is no stoning of the adulterous woman or man, and there are no conquests by fabricating the spread of religion, and there is no existence for women who are deficient in reason and religion, as well as There is no such thing as a man’s testimony equal to that of two women. In practice, religion was abolished by abolishing values that were not valid even for the time in which they were created, such as the principle of freedom of choice of belief attached to the principle of killing apostates, then the paradox of preventing women from working as judges, because that work contradicts Sharia, which sees that a woman sitting on the bench while pregnant affects the prestige of the judiciary, and her meeting with others to deliberate represents an illegal seclusion. Space does not allow for mentioning all the problems of religious authority, so we will suffice with the examples that were mention

The Muslim Brotherhood’s pursuit of a caliphate and the implementation of Sharia law has raised concerns among the vast majority of the population. Religious minorities, and most of the Sunni majority, do not want this. The vast majority wants to separate religion and state based on the principle that religion belongs to God and the homeland belongs to all. They want constitutions to be equidistant from citizens, regardless of their religious orientation. They want equal citizenship for all, with equal rights and duties. In practice, the Brotherhood’s proposals and practices will lead to division, and thus the Brotherhood’s proposals intersect with colonial proposals, perhaps unintentionally or out of ignorance. However, the intersection is real, and its consequences will be disastrous for the people and for their homeland. The Brotherhood has its own logic. They believe they have the right to organize politically and engage in political activity as a religious group. This stems from the fact that Muhammadanism is both a religion and a state. In application of the principle of equality, the Brotherhood must accept the existence of other Brotherhood members. Why aren’t there Christian or Alawite Brotherhood members, Ismailis, Armenians, Circassians, Maronites, Copts, etc.? How will the Sunni Brotherhood view other Brotherhood members? And how should other Brotherhood members accept Sunni Sharia law, which is incompatible with their own laws? The result will be the rejection of Sunni Sharia law by the remaining “Brotherhood.” What are the consequences of rejecting Sunni Sharia law? Or deviating from the so-called “straight path”? Here, the situation will inevitably develop into a deep dispute and then violence, i.e., civil war. The history of the Brotherhood clearly states that whoever strays from the straight path will meet the same fate as al-Hallaj, al-Suhrawardi, Abu Nuwas, or Bashar ibn Burd: flogging, book burning, murder, crucifixion, rejection, and torture, as happened in the past to Ibn Rushd, al-Rawandi, and Ibn Hayyan, and more recently to Taha Hussein, Farag Foda, Naguib Mahfouz, and Hussein Muruwa, etc. In other words, the result was the practice of violence, which could escalate into civil wars, leading either to the extinction or displacement of a group or groups, as happened in Iraq and is happening in Syria, or to the division of the country and subsequent disputes over the borders of the sections. All of this could continue for centuries. In other words, a state with an Islamic frame of reference is a state with a future of chronic war, nihilism, and extinction. No rational person can ignore or remain silent about the methodology of nothingness and war pursued by any “Brotherhood” faction, whether Sunni or non-Sunni. Nor can rational people accept the authority of the verses and the Sunnah, because this authority is not for everyone, and because this authority has not proven its validity for all times and places. It is relatively easy to get rid of a regime that has brought about oppressive, despotic, and tyrannical thinking, as is the case with political dictatorships, since this ideology is not something that is accepted or established in principle. However, in a religious state, oppressive thinking and religious methodology are accepted and established in principle. Muhammadanism is a religion and a state for all times and places, and people must accept the rulings and rules of religion, even if it is as old as the Stone Age! Despite the triviality and invalidity of the Brotherhood’s concepts, the Brotherhood believes in them, and fights, then kills and battles for them and in their cause. Whatever the relationship of the Brotherhood state with a religious authority with the issue of faith and belief, there is no way to allow them. Insisting on them is accompanied by adopting violence as a way to achieve them. This is the founder of violence among its opponents. We are surprised by the delay in adopting violence among the people who oppose the Brotherhood. We are happy with this delay, but we fear that this happiness will not last. We will end this article by saying that the twenty-first century has closed the doors to the destructive, war-based, jihadist religious thought, but Arab societies are still as they were, outside of history, and they still hesitate, stumble, and are preoccupied with the repeated sterility that led to backwardness, poverty, and failure, and then the loss of 450 million Arabs’ importance, effectiveness, and influence in the world. Whoever does not offer something positive to human history, this history does not offer him anything. Fleeing, seeking refuge, and parasitism at the tables of others do not represent the making of history, but rather an obituary announcing the death of those hundreds of millions!

Post Views: 385

Post navigation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply