The so-called moderation tries to answer the question with the methods available to it or which it is also good at, Moderation is adept at practicing hypocrisy and duplicity and twisting the neck of verses and hadiths with interpretations that suit their ambitions that dilute everything, justify everything, forbid everything, and also allow everything. Moderation is vague and appears in different forms and contradictory colors, but its essence is one, and its representative, for example, is Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who personally wanted several wives and practiced polygamy and married as many women as he wanted because he was fair between them. However, for many of the The facts: It is not possible to identify Al-Qaradawi’s justice? Even the owner of the polygamy project was not fair between Sawda or Safiyya or between Aisha and Maria, etc. and others, then obeying the order to kill the infidels wherever they are found, and justifying that by saying that the believer does not kill except for a right! Where is the right in colonizing a quarter of the globe and placing the people of the colonies under the terms of the covenant of Umar? As for the spoils, they were permissible… so eat from what you have taken as permissible and good. The justification for Ibn Abdullah getting a fifth of the Ghaim was to spend it on orphans and the poor. The only orphan was apparently Ibn Abdullah, even his relatives did not get anything from the spoils, in implementation of the five conditions for distributing one-fifth of the spoils of war. History did not tell us about the distribution of any part of Ibn Abdullah’s share to the poor and orphans, while Sheikh Wagdi Ghoneim told us about Ibn Abdullah’s gigantic wealth, the source of which was one-fifth of the spoils. There are many examples that indicate the absence of moderation in the true sense of the word, but rather a weak, evasive fundamentalism that did not achieve any tangible benefit, which does not help Religious manipulation in the ability to deal productively with the current modern civilization and with the future, which will be more inconsistent with the extremists and moderates who represent the wolf in sheep’s clothing. One of the results of the so-called moderate position was the postponement and complication of the confrontation with fundamentalism. Moderation contributed to encouraging some terrorist groups to delete time, i.e., delete one side of the equation, and they decided to perpetuate the early days of Islam. Rather, they tried to impose this on others, as the Rightly-Guided Caliphs were their role models and the spread of the true religion was their message, while their true goal was the spoils. In doing so, they provided their opponents with the argument and proof of the justification for accusing religion of barbarism and that it is itself the exclusive problem. He who deletes time is able to delete the rulings and laws that do not belong to this time. The deletion of time by some groups does not mean the ability to delete time in general, that is, it is impossible for all believers to be able to go back 1440 years, not to mention the will of the overwhelming majority of them, which does not want to return to the civilization of the peninsula 1440 years ago. These people want modernity that provides them with a productive and dignified life. Therefore, it is necessary to end the state of opposition to time and hostility to it. In this time, great developments have occurred that cannot be deleted, and it is not possible to remain in the era of Ibn Abdullah by applying rulings that are old. 1440 years, instead of deleting time, many verses and their rulings should be deleted, or at least frozen and considered a historical event that has passed and gone, or completely separated from politics. Then the verses can interact with themselves in their atmosphere or independent religious space in the temples, and this is what will happen in the future.
Stories of Syria