Mamdouh Bitar, Mira Bitar:
Reality proves the existence of two rights that represent the belief in the existence of God and man together, that is, we stand before the duality of the right of God and the right of man, and both are imposed on the one hand by God’s terror, intimidation and enticement on the one hand, and on the other hand by the necessity of social life in the age of the state, that is, human rights, which will not change in the foreseeable future, so some think that it is necessary to choose the right of God or the right of man or both together.
The development of the divine religious side lags behind the development of man, because the religious side is by nature fanatic because it is absolute and faith-based. In humanity, whose nature is secular, the presence of God declines as the all-powerful, all-commanding, all-powerful one, while the presence of man declines in the religious culture built on hateful fanaticism that rejects the other and rebels against social life. The religious creature is not social, that is, international. The social is organized in the form of the state that is based on society, while the religious is based on the nation, that is, international, transcending the borders of the state, which it rejects in the first place.
In order for the human creature’s choice to be easy, one of the parties must theoretically be eliminated, either eliminating the human being or eliminating God. God’s problem lies in the fact that man does not want to commit suicide and thus eliminate himself, and he no longer wants to eliminate his earthly life in the hope of the heavenly life in the paradise that he promised, which is increasingly doubted and its credibility, so nothing remains for man but to eliminate his heavenly rival. The development of history has proven that elimination is possible and very easy, as is the case in most countries of the world, and even in the largest country in the world, namely China, where belief in God, for example, according to the Muhammadan method, is considered a psychological illness that must be treated medically. Here, God was absent and man’s reputation was restored.
From a sociological perspective, coexistence does not mean a kind of forced, complete homogeneity of the “be safe or you will not be safe” type, i.e., a group of one color that embraces coercion, compulsion, and formal or actual obedience, but rather what is sufficient of common denominators whose size, level, and quality differ from one society to another. Political life is social life, and since religious affiliation is personal and not social, it is therefore not political. The basis of secularism is political, i.e. social, and religion has no relation at all to the socio-political matter. Therefore, there is no existence of religion in secularism as a social policy, and there is no existence of secularism at the level of personal individual faith or belief. Therefore, there is no compatibility between religion and secularism at the political level, and there is compatibility between secularism and religion at the personal level, in which secularism does not interfere. From here, it can be said that there is no existence for canceling the other except at some levels, and there is no need to mix them at all levels. Secularism does not force the individual to live outside of God, and there is no need for understanding between them. Secularism, which does not want to have a relationship with God at the political level, can live alongside God or those who believe in Him. On a personal level, the absence of God is not a secular necessity. The religious individual can live by God, dissolve into Him, and be annihilated by Him and for Him, provided that he does not annihilate or harm others.
With the separation of religion from the state, the clergy, i.e. religion in practice, will find many difficulties, the most important of which is the lack of means of livelihood or spoils of war on the political community, and then religion will turn into a colonizer of society, i.e. politics. These people do not want to wear the turban and the galabiya without material benefits, as was the case with the first conquests after the birth of the call by a few years, i.e. a number not sufficient to plant faith in the minds of the people, but sufficient to form a gang of theft and plunder, i.e. the spoils of war. Without the benefit, the clergy will wither and their religiosity, which was originally formal, will wither. This means, in theory, the transformation of religion into a set of dry, repetitive rituals, i.e. a habit without worship. Religion was nothing but that, and the clergy were nothing but mercenaries. In practice, there is no spiritual or moral tendency in religion, as evidenced by what we know from ancient literature, and what we witness now in religious groups of the absence or scarcity of morals accompanying the abundance of money, as is the case with Abdullah Rushdi, Al-Huwaini, Al-Shaarawy, Al-Ghazali, Al-Qaradawi, and others. There is no existence with These people and their ilk are not spiritualists but only materialists. Separating religion from the state will impoverish them, and will make the people live. The lives of the people do not and will not concern them.
Religious fanaticism cannot be combined with any other position, whether extremist, moderate, or otherwise, because religious fanaticism is narcissistic and self-absorbed, accepting only the surrender and prostration of others before it. The paradox lies in the fact that religious faith is personal and individual, while the clergy act as if religion is a social system, i.e. a political system, which it is not. And because the religious system is fanatical, regardless of whether it is extremist or not, it is therefore considered a major cause of disagreement and hostility, which requires even secular extremism to eliminate the religious party from dialogue and consideration. Religiousness is fanatical by nature, and accordingly by its nature it determines the identity of others according to its mood. The mood of religious fanaticism is not mosaic, but rather monochromatic, and monochromaticity wastes shared and unshared values, and even within a single religion the same principles are applied because sectarian identity is specific to some, while the general Muhammadan identity is concerned with common denominators or commonalities between these some in general.
There is no need for dialogue between secularism and religion when religion is separated from the state, as is the case in the overwhelming majority of societies and countries of the world. There is no need to disengage between religion and secularism, because each has its own space. There is no need to demand the renewal of religious discourse, because secularism is not responsible or a guardian of religious discourse, and there is no hope for any change, because the so-called religious reform has not borne fruit after many attempts. After many attempts, we do not know the truth of how the failed reform attempts were carried out. Was it by abrogating and abrogated, i.e. by abolishing Surat Al-Baqarah, for example? Sanctification does not allow for any change, and there is no abrogating and abrogated, i.e. by abolishing some texts and verses in this era.