Robespierre claims that revolution is nothing but a transition from the kingdom of crime to kingdom of justice, Does this apply to those who call themselves revolutionaries in this region? Can ISIS and the like, and the Brotherhood in general, establish a kingdom of justice, advancement, progress and respect for humanity? As Nietzsche said centuries ago about fundamentalism, it is saturated with everything that is criminal and backward. In his opinion, all fundamentalism leads to barbarism. Events have proven the truth of what Nietzsche and Robespierre said hundreds of years ago
The Brotherhood-ISIS fundamentalism, under the black banners and under different names, has contributed to proving the validity of Huntington’s theory about the clash of civilizations, or what Gilbert Achcar calls the clash of fundamentalisms. In our opinion, what Gilbert Achcar wrote about fundamentalisms, which exist everywhere, even in the West, is more accurate. The difference between Western fundamentalisms and the Brotherhood-ISIS fundamentalism is that Western fundamentalism wanted there to be a certain kind of world, while Brotherhood-ISIS fundamentalism wanted there to be no world at all. The existence of the earthly world contradicts their nihilistic view of all life. According to them, life is a very small, earthly, mortal part, but most of it, or even entirely, is heavenly, eternal, and everlasting. There is no comparison between the mortal part and the entire, eternal part, as the basis is heavenly, not earthly
Heavenly is the most important in the view of religious-political fundamentalism, because it is the best quality of earthly, as explained by religious texts in the description of heaven, its houris, its young boys, its wines, its rivers of honey, and then the hymens of its houris that are renewed daily. All of that was the subject of care, promotion, and embrace by religious-political fundamentalism, which brought all the countries of the region, in partnership with the Arabists, to the brink of extinction. All of these people of the past founded God’s countries, God’s governments, and God’s legitimacy imported from heaven and accompanied by God’s curse, which let them down to the extent of their ability to belong to global history. That is, He placed them outside of history by dressing them in the cloak of violence, killing, and bloodshed. Religious fundamentalism did not master the arts of belonging to human history compared to mastering belonging to the jungle, in which the killer and the killed were equal in terms of the chances of reaching heaven. Therefore, there was insistence and eagerness to annihilate the self and annihilate others to hasten access to eternity in the gardens of heaven, which are managed by the Almighty Creator
The Brotherhood wanted to control people from the chair, which in this era works “electrically” and thus kills whoever sits on it! So, the passion for the chair and sitting on it became nihilistic. This was the fate of the Brotherhood after they sat on some chairs, for example in Egypt. We used to think that the Brotherhood’s sitting meant their eternal stay. Now we believe that their arrival is no longer a catastrophic matter, because their departure will follow their arrival more quickly than expected. There are no countries in the world that can remain on the chair with 100% religious privacy. The systems of countries have globalized and lost many of their privacy. Countries and their systems now live on common denominators with others in the global environment. The more common denominators there are, which allow for the establishment of common relations, the higher the standard of living of the peoples and thus the possibility of the survival of any regime. For the Brotherhood, there are no common denominators with most countries and societies in the world. Therefore, their collapse after reaching the chair became inevitable. How will the Afghan Taliban regime continue when, until now, not a single country in the world has recognized it except Pakistan?! Therefore, its downfall has become inevitable. Its isolation practically means its downfall.
Not all religiously influenced entities are carbon copies of Afghanistan. There are somewhat toned-down versions, such as Morsi’s religious state in Egypt, Ghannouchi’s state in Tunisia, Bashir’s defunct state in Sudan, and even Morocco when a party ruled that was a carbon copy of Caliph Erdogan’s rule. Not to mention Saudi Arabia before Mohammed bin Salman took over the reins of power. All of these quasi-states were political failures because they did not provide freedom to their people and did not achieve democratic transition. Economically, they spread poverty and corruption.
Oil may have alleviated poverty, but it has not alleviated corruption. Oil has ensured modernization and denied modernity. Most of these countries have sent their citizens to their graves before they die organically. Exclusion, racism, and excommunication are death and killing. Takbir is not the way of life, as evidenced by the fact that in this age, only those who proclaim Takbir die of hunger. Takbir was one of the most important verbal manifestations of political sectarianism, which combined the contradiction of changeable politics with rigid religion.
There is a lot of ambiguity and confusion surrounding political sectarianism. Despite this ambiguity, some features, functions, or practices of this concept can be identified. Among these manifestations is the paramount importance of seizing power by any means, whether it is an election, a military rebellion, or an armed confrontation. Reaching power is the first and last goal. According to them, the path to power is a one-way street. Whoever ascends cannot descend, and the first task of the ascendant is to eliminate the method by which he ascended, such as elections and democracy. Hamas ascended to power in 2006-2007 through elections that could not be repeated, and have not been repeated throughout that period from 2007 until now. The doctrine sees nothing in elections but sterility and blasphemy!
The ruler in the name of God does not derive his legitimacy from the funds, but from heaven, and these people do not feel any contradiction in their abolition of the means by which they ascended to the seat of power. They believe in the concept of “empowerment.” Every means that enables them to ascend is legitimate, even democracy, which they reject in principle. It is a tool for reaching power, not a tool for ruling. Power belongs to God, not to democracy.
They have their own perceptions of the modern lifestyle. These perceptions suffer from a lack of governmental imagination and understanding of the nature of the state, in addition to considering the past as valid for the present regardless of the nature of this past, which is protected by the sacred and by an undoubted concept. They read history theologically, which makes any dialogue with them almost impossible. There is no benefit from theological dialogue based on sacred religious backgrounds that do not change or develop. Nietzsche was right when he said that returning to the origins leads to barbarism everywhere
