Mamdouh Bitar, George Banna
There are several fronts in the societal conflict in this region, including the political Islamist front, which relies on the sacred and uses it to serve its interests in a simple popular struggle. For reasons of faith, it fears the criticism and deconstruction of so-called sanctities. The battle was and remains practically between the proponents of “Takbir,” who add to them the prophets, verses, heritage, etc., and the proponents of “expression,” such as secularists, without the additions of sacred religious references, prophets, companions, heritage, or verses.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s political movement has a significant presence in Arab social life. The Brotherhood presents itself through the marriage of religion and politics in an entity very similar to the so-called Caliphate, yet very distant from the state system, which the world has known for more than 500 years, while the peoples of this region have yet to recognize. The Caliphate is built on the Islamic Sharia and the politics derived from this Sharia, in addition to the heritage that has flourished, accumulated, and developed over 1,440 years. The Caliphate monopolizes this heritage and employs it in its project, sanctifying it and treating it as a unified, unified entity. It excommunicates everything besides it and around it, thereby transforming others into its enemies. As a result, it creates an isolationist, hostile situation, which is not mitigated by patchwork claims of tolerance, coexistence, reassurance, and promises. The hypocrisy of tolerance, coexistence, and gentleness turns into the unbridled monster of Sharia when the Muslim Brotherhood-political duo is able to rule. The political Brotherhood does not aim to Islamize the state only, but to Islamize society, by imposing special rules for daily life, which non-believers must adhere to by force. The identity of society is the identity of the majority, and the majority means in their dictionary “victory.” Victory dictates, and the vanquished has no choice but to obey. The political Brotherhood can only dominate others when it rules. It is not possible for there to be equality between it and followers of another religious affiliation when the Brotherhood considers others to be infidels and when it poses to itself in a negative form the question: Are believers equal to infidels? Not amputating the necks of infidels immediately or postponing amputating their necks is a kind of generosity and tolerance from believers. It is a waiver of one of their rights. It is kindness and compassion, or what is called forgiveness. In the shadow of a Brotherhood state, the other may live as a guest or a settler, not as a citizen, i.e. a second- or even third-class creature. A second-class creature and above has no right to object, because in the first place… He is not a citizen. Moreover, Sharia law does not recognize any opposition, and therefore does not permit its practice. Opposing God’s rule is a crime of blasphemy.
The political exploitation of the religious sacred emerged over several periods, including the era of the Great Fitna, for example. However, the dimensions of the political exploitation we see and know today are somewhat recent; they are the product of the discourse of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political advocates, beginning with Sayyid Qutb and ending with al-Qaradawi.
Whatever the circumstances of the exploitation of the sacred in politics and however harmful it may be to others, it can be said that it is also harmful to religion, and religion is a victim of this exploitation. Religion and politics form a discordant duality that produces political and social conflict and inflicts severe damage to the values that regulate the relationship between the state and society and the relationship between the various segments of society in general. The state is distorted by exposing its earthly existence to heavenly influences that are as distant from it and its nature as heaven is from earth