Those who refuse to engage in dialogue will face war

 Every phenomenon has a standard, and the standard for dialogue according to fundamentalism is no dialogue, There are structural reasons for refraining from dialogue, including the dogmatic standard, including the narcissism of possessing the absolute truth, where there is no other truth, On this basis, disastrous matters are established, such as isolation, exclusion, and attempts at domination, Since fundamentalism is certain of its intellectual contents, because these contents represent the absolute and sacred truth, we find a terrifying tendency in the literature of religious fundamentalisms to use the method of denouncing, rebuking, accusing of treason, and declaring people infidels in their interaction with each other, i.e., in dialogue.

The service of dialogue requires a carrier, and the carrier is the word, which is classified in many cases as vulgar, Look at the writings of the fundamentalists in their dialogues on the websites that are teeming with the skies of the groups of this region, Pages that exude a language of denunciation, rebuke, reproach, betrayal, and excommunication. Writings in an ahistorical language, stemming from a chauvinism that claims superiority over the other, The religious person is superior because he is almost sacred, There is no need for dialogue with the unsacred, the heretical infidel, or the atheist,Therefore, any dialogue or interaction with fundamentalism turns into mere dictation, The interlocutor either accepts or rejects what is presented of convictions, Rejection is associated in most cases with reprimand and marginalization, and in the worst cases with the establishment of the death penalty.

Dialogue is a personal choice, but it is also an objective social obligation, Since personal matters have no role in social dialogue, there remains the social obligation that compels a person to perform what is called a duty, Refusal of this duty means the tyranny of personal choice, i.e., personalization, which is expressed by the word “no dialogue.” The rebels of Idlib, their leader al-Julani, and their sheikhs do not engage in dialogue, and their flock does not engage in dialogue,Rather, they submit to the ruler with obedience and compliance,The ruler said, “Obey me!” Therefore, obedience has been obligatory from the time of Abu Bakr to the time of al-Julani! 

Fundamentalist organizations are known for their cohesion, unity, and solidarity with each other, which gives them a striking power that is disproportionate to their usually small popular size, Whoever does not engage in dialogue will be fought! That is, there is a compulsion to deal with warmongers and the results of wars, which we do not want to participate in, and whose results we cannot live with. In this case, we have no better option than to flee, If you are not able to practice the full course of action, then two-thirds is enough.

No one has the right or interest to ask sheikhs like Al-Arour to engage in dialogue, which will disgust the soul because of its absolutism and its disconnection from reality, However, we do not want wars, and we hope to have the ability, patience, and open-mindedness to listen to what Al-Arour and others want, We hope that they will tell us what they want, and how they will reform and develop, It’s not how they pray, but what their project is regarding democracy in detail, and not by launching general, obfuscating slogans, The word “freedom” means the beautiful, essential values ​​of life, but its meanings are different, Do Al-Arour and his ilk, like Al-Julani, think that we will accept a freedom that means nothing more than the freedom of religious figures to usurp the freedom of the individual? Do Al-Arour and Al-Julani mean by freedom “their affairs are conducted by consultation among themselves,” and they are only religious figures? Do Al-Arour and Al-Julani mean by freedom paying the jizya (tribute)or dividing society into a part that is controlled according to the Sunnah of God and His Messenger, and a part that enjoys being the People of the Book, happy with what Al-Arour and his ilk bestow upon them of tolerance, patience, and forgiveness? All of this and more leads to the sharp polarization of societal groups, either to this current or that, or to the gray area, the third current, which is the crisis of society, which may develop into wars or problems similar to the problems that the peoples of this region are experiencing now and will experience in the future if renewal does not occur.

What is demanded of Ar’our and other fundamentalist groups, including Ar’our’s followers, ISIS, and their ilk, such as the so-called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, is also demanded of others, such as the so-called “third gray” current, which, as far as we know, seeks a natural and dignified relationship between any authority and its people, This natural relationship can only be achieved through genuine popular representation, which is currently faltering in every country in the region, Here, we do not deny the responsibility of the people for the decline and inadequacy of the process of popular representation, A citizen who sells their vote is not worthy of the ballot box, A citizen who casts their vote as their sheikh or tribal leader dictates is not worthy of the ballot box, A citizen who elects representatives of prophets and messengers, rather than representatives of the people, is unqualified to perform the most important duties of democratic practice, Along these lines, many criticisms can be leveled against what is called democratic awareness and the democratic consciousness of these peoples, It is self-evident that governments should reflect the nature of their people; governments are created from the people and were not imported from Sweden, for example,  Therefore, the need to develop democratic awareness is not limited to governments alone; development must primarily target the people, for governments come and go. But the people remain.

“Dialogue” oscillates between personal will, which may be opposed to practicing it, and social necessity, which always requires it,As a result, dialogue is considered a response to a social necessity, and whoever practices it is the social creature, and whoever rejects it is the isolated person who is in a pre-social stage, i.e., the pre-social state stage!