She Gave Me of the Tree

When Islam Freed Woman from the First Sin

A verse that I perceive to be coral in human social development, it was related to the first sin of Adam, and how he played Goofy when asked by God, claiming "she" to be the reason. Saying; "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate" Genesis 3:12

It was then when the man took the economic leadership on this planet, when he first started to claim the woman as the source of the first sin, and all the sins that came after. Judaism and Christian scriptures were only a part of a long story, always depicting women as the source of sins and evils, even in Islamic scriptures, Quran had never related the old sin of mankind to Eve as the Old Testament did. Nevertheless, some Hadieths that is a suspect of forgery related the sins and evils to women as well, and depicted them as the maidens of Satan.

Recently, reading comments on Kolo-Mashy blog of my friends Emy and Coca, specifically on a post about Fornication and the society different perceptions and attitudes toward men and women who fall into it. I read comments of the blogger Hossam Sunray, where he proposed some justifications for this discriminative social value. As I had something to say about almost every justification he wrote, I though to write this post answering his claims. He might forgive me if the translations of his claims became shorted by any mean. Hereunder the claims and its answers from my side.

First Claim:

"Since the ever, the nature granted this to man, as always the man held the right of polygamy while women used to have only one man who represents the security and shelter to his woman"

I am afraid here the basic foundation of the claim is inaccurate. It was in the 19th century when Bachofen, a brilliant archaeologist brought up the suggestion of matriarchal communities civilization witnessed once, needless to mention he was highly oppressed specially from the Catholic Church. By that time, they managed to limit his argument to academic cycles. Yet, it was re-vitalized over years. Today, the majority of archaeologists believe we had once matriarchal societies where women were equal or higher ranked to men. In some of these societies women were economically dominant, and a sort of polygamy (androgamy) existed, together with male prostitution. So, polygamy is a sign of economic dominance and does not belong to gender

Second Claim:

"Sex is more Important to man, as women are not moved by desire as men do"

I will agree if the blogger meant men to be more public in their sexual tendency than women. But the reason is not sex is less important to women. Medicine and Sexology proved women to be as sexually interested as men. First legend stated men are more sexually aroused than women. Then a second legend said that women are more aroused like 10 times more than their peer men. Finally, Sexology states today that both are equal, all variations are individual variations. So, women do crave men as much as men crave them, then why it looks different? because females usually are less talkative about it. Even among their closed feminine circuits, they do not talk about their desires as much as men do. That is all.

Third Claim:

"A woman can seduce a man if he is not welling to make love to her. On the contrary a man can only force a woman if she is not welling, he can never seduce her"

Seductive ability is a matter of personal variation. Some men can seduce women and vice versa, others can not. By the end of the day if the man want to control he can, same applies to woman. The man who need to force a woman to make love while they are in privacy is whether blocked by negative emotions from her side or a very bad seducer in general.

Fourth Claim:

"A girl will tolerate well knowing her father is a playboy. Yet, she will undergoes moral breakdown knowing her mother is playing around"

It depends on the society dear. Some other places in the world will be equally destructive to know one of the parents is faithless to the other. Here due to traditions male fornication is taken lightly even from his own sons and daughters.

The Misleading Logic:

I think the drift of logic here, was the blogger's perception of the symptoms as causes. i.e. when a man has a fever and shivering due to it, we can not say that he shivved because he has fever and that is it. We should follow the cause of the fever as it is a symptom not a causative factor.

If I will explain the blogger's justifications in my own language as I see it as symptoms, I shall say;

• Polygamy is highly practiced in the east as the society does not disregard it. So it became easier to imagine and to practise.
• Males enjoys more sexual freedom than females, so it appears from outside as if females are not interested in sex
• Family in case of female fornication suffers more as it is much worse perceived compared to mail fornication.

All what he says actually is signs of the disease not its causative agents. What do you think?

Hormonal Tango

Love & Mysterious Brain Chemistry
During a visit to Moments blog, I read a post Shereen wrote, about her adoration to the moon, despite of her knowing sciences had revealed it as a stony surface full of ugly pores. The idea of the post triggered me to write about the concept of life and life truth. The life as we knew it, lived it and used to it, versus the life facts as revealed by scientific researches.

How can we balance between life and life truth, therefore we live knowledgeably, yet happily?

Today I will start with the popular subject. Love and its chemistry. Yes chemistry, in the past we said "it takes two to tango" now maybe we shall say, "it takes hormones to tango". Go on and you shall see, how science translated to us, all what we thought one day to be merely spiritual

1. Recent researches proved the common idea about sweet words and how it creates love to be factious. The very first 90 seconds to 4 minutes of your interview with her/him is the major ignition that marks someone as pass or not pass. This relies mainly on the body language constituting of 55% of the whole thing. 38% on your voice and manners, and only 7% on what you say. So, sweet words helps minimally to earn others hearts. Whoever said that first impresions last was very true.
2. Excitement upon seeing your beloved one happens through Adrenaline, that flushes your face and speed-up your heart rate. Also makes you energetic enough to do things and perform like never when you are alone. I remember one day, under the vision of a beloved one in the old days, I managed to beat the wrestling machines in the park. This is not my usual at all
3. Highness experienced when you spend time with your beloved one is mediated by Serotonin that accumulates in your blood to feel elated. Needless to mention that Prozac, called one day "drug of happiness" in USA is classified as "Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor" (SRI). Love does this on its own with no extrinsic material needed.
4. Ever missed her/him like crazy? It is the Dopamine dear. It is dopamine, which creates our attachment to someone, and feeling that we miss him/her. This dopaimnirgic effect plus the serotonin elating effect, we define both as "falling in love" with someone. When you do not only feel happy with him /her, but you can not feel so without him/her. Anti-dopamine drugs were proven clinically to decrease the lust feeling toward our special ones.
5. After sexual orgasm, Oxytocin floods in blood, giving pleasure and relaxation at a time. It is the same hormone of motherhood. The one attaches the newborn and his beloved mummy together. Yes, the feeling of intimacy after sexual episode and the motherhood feelings has the same father hormone mediator.
6. Vasopressin is the hormone of harmony. When you consort in peace with someone for long time, your body links seeing this person to increase production of vasopressin, a hormone that mediates relaxation and comfort feeling. This is what happens usually to husbands and wives after years and years of a common life. A complex form of acclimatization, even without loving one another, the vasopressin gives them both a comfortable feeling when they are together. I think ladies might consider making a memorial statue of this hormone. It is the one keeping the wandering him at home by the end of the day.
7. Love induction among human beings were applied in a clinical trial involved 34 volunteers, out of them, in more than 70% of cases they felt something toward each other. 4 cases ended in marriage! The trial aimed to prove that relatively suitable men and women when placed together under favorable conditions are highly likely to end loving each other. Never blame yourself if you felt attracted to someone like a classmate or a colleague. To feel is not a sin, only when you start to manifest, you should observe the rights of others and your own situation and obligations.

Shall this mean there is no Love?

Surly there is love. Love is the major power driving this universe to prosperity and development. Whether directly or indirectly, love plays as a pacemaker in our life. What this post meant is to raise awareness about how love is mediated with hormones. We need to know this as part of our understanding of the world. Then we have to forget it all and live love, so we can live our lives. Yet, knowing this calls us for some modesty when it comes to emotions and feelings. Never say that you are dieing to see someone. a hormonal antagonist injection can make you forget the whole thing.

My Role Models

Dedication .. Optimism .. Faith

This will be a short post, As I explained about the list of my role models before. But I would like to look at it from general angel this time. What makes a man living today or lived in the past as one of my role models? what is very common among them all? It is basically three things as I perceive, Faith, Optimism, and Dedication (D.O.F.) or "DOF Role" as I like to call it myslef.

For a man to be an immortal role model, I think he must have a faith in something or some idea or ideology, another essential aspect, he must be optimist toward his believed-in case, idea or dream. A man with no guts will never achieve realistic steps toward achieving his goals, and guts needs hope in hearts. The third factor is to be dedicated, to commit his life to achieve his faith. Important condition here is he commits himself only to a fair case, and to a fair and moral means to materialize such a faith, this excludes men like "Ben Ladin" and "Zawahry" from the list forever. They do have dedication, optimism and faith. However, their faith is falsehood itself, and their means are immoral. Now let us test my men with the DOF role, and see who fits in,

Ali ibn Abi Talib. One might think I must be a Shiite as I start my role models with Imam "Ali ibn Abit Talib" and not with Muhammad (pbuh). I do not find it a shame surely to be a Shiite. However, I am not and can never be. I am a man who refuses any power of clergy and this sets me apart from both Christianity and Shiite Islam. I do not list Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) among my role models as he was not an ordinary man. He is a man with divine inspiration. Therefore, despite of his grand achievements and glorious deeds, we can not equate him to ordinary leaders. Imam Ali was the 4th Caliph, and the one who had to fight the two poles of falsehood in humankind life. The power and wealth seekers on one pole, represented by "Muawia ibn Abi Sofian" and "Amro ibn Al-Aas", who were supported by all power and wealth seekers in the Caliphate, those who did not tolerate the justice and idealism of Ali. On the other pole, "Khawarej" stood as the blind fanaticism that turns any faith into an agony against its nature. Imam Ali had the faith and dedication to fight both until his honorable martyrdom while praying. He did not possess much optimism by the end of his days, only as he knew with his vision that the era of righteousness had gone forever. However, he persisted on the principle to death.

Che Guevara had a faith in a free & communist Latin America, he was full of belief that his people can do it, and he died for it, this is the highest degree of dedication, and he committed no immoral acts never during his fight against USA. Freedom fighter he was, with no innocent civilian blood shed at all. I loved Che the revolutionary, the freedom fighter, the life lover and the romance dreamer.

Hassan Nasrallah, the man of controversy, he has a faith in free Lebanon and for the rights of his religious group, the Shiites in it. His smile always reflects his trust in God and his people. He is dedicated to this faith to an extent of offering his beloved son to martyr in the front lines. Did he commit any attacks on civilians? No, the man only dealt with military and militias in Israel. This sets him afar from the terrorism false accusations by USA and Israel together. I loved his solid attitude, leading his small militia, compared to the semi-men and semi-leaders allover the Arab league.

Mao Zedong has his famous faith in a communist China, wherein the mainland can offer the basic needs to every Chinese equally and based on the right of nationality. He was optimist facing the most difficult situations and betrayals. He lived for what he believed till the last moment. I loved Mao the inspirational leader, although I preferred him before taking the "divine" image he had in his late days.

Mohamed Ali Pasha has a faith in an independent Egypt under his monarchy, whereby he can compete with the Ottoman Sultans themselves. He had all the optimism and dedication to achieve his vision. He is the non Egyptian man, to whom every Egyptian owe the foundation of modern Egypt. A question mark rises about his means, was it really moral? Considering his era and the nature of Mamelukes in Egypt, I will say yes, when a gang interferes with the future of a nation, the gang destiny does not matter much. The man committed a massacre against the Mamelukes militias. However, when we read the history of the era, we shall find out his options were too limited.

Gamal Abdel-Nasser had a faith in socialist Arab states, united and powerful, lived for it, and died for it after his effort in September 1970 that was too much for a man with pending myocardial infarction. The gang of two (Khamies and Baqary communists of Kafr El-Dawar) and the gang of six (Muslim Brotherhood leaders who conspired against him and arranged for his assassination trial in 1954, Saied Qotb and O'oda being included) who are used as critiques to Nasser's means, I see them much similar to Mamelukes in Muhammad Ali case. A gang hindering a nation to prosper must be set aside at any cost.

Charle De Gaulle stood alone dreaming for "Free France" while others accepted Nazi occupation of Paris and looked at it as a fact of life. He believed it will pass, and he lived for this and achieved it. Imagine if De Gaulle had abided to what is called today "Political Modesty" and "Practical Settelments", what would be the result? This man on his own, was the only French contribution to the glories of World War II. Without him, the French national dignity would have been highly degraded after the war

Martin Luther had a faith in Christianity before clergy drifting, he believed he can restore it, and he did, witness the millions of Protestant nowadays. This man was the one who liberated the western mind from the theological domination, releasing humanity to prosper in the renaissance. Later on, even the Roman Catholic Church was obliged to show some modesty and loosen its ironic hand; therefore it can keep some followers. To this man, I believe the world as we know today owes much

Galileo Galilee stood on his own in front of the Vatican power that was huge in his time, defended science and lived for it, some sees his apparent surrender later on as a defect, which I understand, but the ability to face death differs from a man to another and I can never call it immoral. The man was not strong enough to face death when exposed to it. However, this can never abolish his achievements and the horizons he opened to humankind.

Muhammad Abdo with his developed faith in Islam that fits the modern lifestyle, he faced Azhar clergy and he lived for his faith. Some visualize the period he spent in France trying to find a window to talk to people as immoral, I do not share this opinion. He was rejected here so he found another menard to voice his ideology. I do not find it immoral. Moreover, I think I might do it oneday myself, so I am the last to blame his on this.

Averroes did much closed to what Luther and Abdo did and he even lived a more tough life due to his faith. He coupled logic and Islamic faith in his writings. Also he re-introduced the Aristotle philosophy back to Europe through his translations, interpretations and elaborations. He faced a potent attack from his intellectual opponent, "Abu Hamed Gazaly", the head of Asharites. This had never reduced his faith in his own Islamic philosophical approach to life.

M. Hassanien Haikal was one of the rare calibers who did not re-consider his ideology after Nasser deceased and Sadat came-over, till this moment he is standing in the same spot, defending what he believed in one day. Comparing him to "Tawfiq Hakim" in "Consciousness Regained" and to Anis Mansour in many of his books, we shall know the difference between the man of all ages, and the man of values. When he decided to stop writing, I can say I lost the last journalist, for whose articles I used to wait.

Mahamtma Gandhi, believed in one India despite three religions. Shall the Indians follow him? We should not have seen wars between India and Pakistan and tension with Bangladesh, like what is going-on since separation and until today. He resisted a great power, Great Britain in the glory of its utmost power, and he managed to educate his people how the elephant can be kneeled before a persistent peaceful kitten. Moreover, he did it all in peace, without blood shedding.

These are my men of honor, and my role models, and what links them all. Their faith, optimism and dedication. It is all about DOF

Spiritual Secularism

I have received various comments, most repeatedly from the dear friend "Egypt Rose", inquiring about my beliefs, ideology, and faith. In response to these inquiries, I write today about a very intimate subject, and very intimate person, Me, I always thought I am a too simple person to write about, as I am not a celebrity so basically no one shall be interested to read if I did. However, as finally someone cared to know, I shall care to write.

Despite my belief that religion is a very personal subject, yet, I do not mind share it with my friends here. Throughout my life, I have always believed in divinity, in the existence of supreme deity, I have read and still reading in all aspects related to religions of mankind, in my study I started in a chronological fashion, believing this fashion supports understanding the roots of every religion in the preceding ones, if any existed, starting with the primitive totemic faiths, to structured paganism, to ancient Egyptian faith, to Hindu faith and Buddhism, to Judaism, to Christianity with its theological and clerical sciences, to Islam with a vast of sciences from Tafseer, studying most of the major traditional Tafseers and some of the modern ones, citations, Quranic sciences, Hadieth, Feqh ...etc. Needless to mention I have studied atheism for quite long, and studied different anti-Christian and anti-Islamic streams.

So, am I done by now?

Surely I am not, it takes more than one man's life to get done with the mankind heritage of divinity and theological streams. Yet, I can say, I developed my own understanding to life and universe, based on three pillars. Science and logic, altogether with my religious faith, Islam. Forming also my own perception for the kind of utopia God wanted us to reach one day. Utopia that derives its mindsets from science and logic, while it derives its internal peace from spiritual satiety of a faith. This faith can be different from a person to another within this utopia. So, I call this utopia "Spiritual Secularism" or "Religious Tolerant Secularism"

So Finally what I believe?

Well, it might take a while to explain it, but to keep life simple, I am a Muslim, fortunately I belong to quite unpopular scholar in Islamic ideology, a scholar that had started since the beginning of revelation to "Muhammad" (pbuh) as one of its major founders was "Ali ibn Abi-Talib", the first Muslim male, it is the scholarship of the "Interpreters" or "Ahl Al-Ra'ay" if I can name it, a scholarship believes in taking the interpretation principle up to no limit, as far as it does not conflict with the broad inspirations of Quran and true Sunnah of the apostle.

This name originated from a glorious reaction of "Ali bin Abi-Talib", after Caliph "Omar ibn El-Khattab" assassination. Wherein, the assigned temporarily camerlengo, if I can say, "Abdel-Rahman ibn Ouf" first selected "Ali" to nominate him as Caliph. In the major mosque in Medina,"Abdel-Rahman" called "Ali", saying; "Give me your hand Ali to nominate you as Caliph based on Quran, Sunnah, and the principles of the two guided previous Caliphs" , "Ali" then replied with a statement revealing his understanding of a faith he witnessed since his early childhood, "Ali" said while withdrawing his hand "O' God, No, I accept it only on the basis of Quran and Sunnah, then on the basis of my own interpretation". Own Interpretation, or "Ra'ay" was the name giver for this scholarship since that specific day in the 7th century in Medina.

Throughout Islam history this scholarship stood-out the frequent attacks of fundamentalism, it excelled in its understanding with its followers, Imam "Abu Hanifah" was partially one of these followers. Yet, he was highly affected by the understanding of "Moqalidien" in some aspects. They have always represented the direct opponents to "Interpreters" scholars. These were the roots, over which "Wahhabism" specifically and fundumentalism in general have all grown and branched. Interpreters scholarship was highly enriched with the stream of "Moa'atazala" jurists like "Wasel ibn Ata'a", "Amre ibn Obaid" and the most famous "Al-Gahiz". Then due to supression of Moa'atazala, who were part of Interpreters scholarship, it became limited during the following eras to individual efforts, like those of "Averroes". Finally, it was manifested in the modern times in the thoughts of jurists and philosophers like Imam "Muhammed Abdo", "Muahammed Rashid Reda", "Abbas Al-Aqad", "Hussein Haikal" and "Zaki Najib Mahmud" in his later stages. Among the contemporary Islamic jurists, we find people like Dr."Jamal Al-Banna", Dr. "Selim Al-Awwa" and Dr."Muhammad Shahrur" very closed to its approach.

Does this mean I believe in Islam according to the understanding of any of the names I mentioned above?

No. As interpreters school does not replace an idol by another. According to apostolic teaching, only Islam and the "true" sunnah should be followed. So, you have only to abide by these two sources. Others' works are taken as models for guidance, but not as a ready made answers. Thinking and understanding is the assignment of every Muslim and every human at large. Each in his timeframe and according to the knowledge and technology avialable in his time. To explain the differences of my very own understanding of Islam, in simple and short words, I will only include the basic criteria in bullets, I wish this will not give a very shallow impression about it, but this is a nucleous for elaboration;

• I regard Quran, Sunnah and individual interpretation as the basic foundation of the faith. So, this is common with the mainstream. Yet, my understanding of interpretation, its limits and conditions is very different. I respect the interpretations of previous scholars, but did not give it a holiness by itself. It remains man-made thoughts that bears no holiness and is not regarded as unchangeable dogmas, another point, I do not limit "Igtehad" or interpretation to clerks, any Muslim who can dedicate the effort required for a thorough understanding of a subject, is entitled to think for his own self according to his time and place obligations. Not only entitled, I can say he is required to think and interpret. Being the last of his messages to earth. God wanted Islam to be a dynamic faith that changes its layout from time to time, while keeping its moral core.
• The role of intellectual processing of religious faith is unprecedented, I regard the mind and intellectual capacity as the major gift of God to humanity, and believe its role is to guide in all matters including faith. Why humankind only were given the choice? Because God granted them the tool to attain to the faith. Their mind and judgement. Prophecies came online with logic as reminders. Apostles were meant to remind man, to guide and help him attaining to his faith. They were not intended to force.
• Heritage is for knowledge, not for obligation, for a book being written hundreds of years ago, this will never mean it became divine. Understandings of Bukhary and Muslim for example does not stand as an obligation to us today. Needless to mention some of the 4 major jurists in Islamic theology have changed his interpretation upon moving from one culture to another.
• My understanding supports the democratic state foundations, and here was the sin of Interpreters as perceived by Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs, it was enough to grant them ongoing oppresion and to encourage their opponents, who makes people much easier to lead through acclimatizing people to blind subordination.
• I answer basic questions like the reason of creation ...etc. relying on religious as well as scentific resources. All processed with the power of logic. But i have minimal interest in metaphysical thoughts, and it discourages the use of Judaism heritage texts in religious thoughts, as it is deeply metaphysical thoughts
• Finally, it is not a stream in Islam, like Sunnat and Shiat, it is a way of thinking any Muslim can adopt, it does not have a special rituals in prayers or fasting ....etc. A man who adopts this faith can practice his usual practises, yet his mind will be favoring always enlightened opinions at any debate.

Unfortunately there is no specific sources to get the spirit of "Ahl Al-Ra'ay Scholarship". There is no short cuts here, it is only for who wants to pay effort to understand more, and it gives no Holiness or dominant position to its scientists, so you will find no clerk interested in adopting it as it has no benefits, so the hope of its popularity is minimal. Moreover, there is no ready-to-go thoughts and solutions, you have to build up your own, there is no take-away Fatwa, you have to understand the roles and develop it yourself.
This is how I perceive my faith. A Muslim who respects humanity, diversity, liberty and all other religions and thoughts came as a fruit of truth seeking throughout mankind history. A Muslim who finds secular societies the best for a Muslim to live within. Finally, a Muslim who thinks his mission is to support the excellence of mankind in all his works, deeds and words.

Lyric of Lonliness

Lonely in the Crowds
Lonely in the Masses
Jailed with Memories
Staring ...at the Ashes

***

An Outcast ..with Pride
Pretty Glorious Inside
Freaked-out in Courage
Bravely .. Stepped-aside

***

When Homeland is Far
Where has no Meaning
When you Lay on Altar
Rain turn-into Bleeding

***

Fly Happy all Demons
Sustain your Darkness
For you I Shall Leave
The Valley of Madness

Eyad Harfoush

Cairo, 22/10/2007

علمانية الدولة في الإسلام

من ضمن ثوابت قنواتنا الفضائية ، أن تجد شيخا من شيوخ الفضاء يتحدث عن العلمانية، و يخلط بينها و بين غيرها من المفاهيم المرتبطة بها كالليبرالية و المدنية، و المفاهيم الغير مرتبطة بها كالالحاد و اللا-أدرية و الضد-دينية ، و المؤلم ليس التضليل المتعمد للجماهير من قبل تيار الإسلام السياسي حول العلمانية التي تستوعب كأسلوب في إدارة الدولة كل الأديان، بدليل كون انجلترا و غيرها من الدول العلمانية هي الملجأ و الملاذ لشيوخ التطرف الذين لفظتهم دولهم و مجتمعاتهم ، المؤلم هو الافتراء على الاسلام و العلمانية معا، بادعاء ان الاسلام ضد العلمانية، بينما كانت أول دولة علمانية في أوروبا بعد القرون الوسطى هي دولة الموحدين في الاندلس ، و تحضرني في هذا الصدد عدة مواقف قد لا يربطها رابط مباشر، لكنها تدور حول محور الحكم العلماني و موقف الدين من علمنة الدولة

لقطة تاريخية : لطفي السيد و علقة الديمقراطية

عندما كان "أحمد لطفي السيد" ، رائد التنوير المصري يعد لمؤتمره الانتخابي لدخول مجلس النواب في ذلك الوقت من عشرينات القرن الماضي ، أوعز منافسه للناخبين أن "لطفي السيد" كافر ملحد و أنه يسمي الكفر باسم غربي مبتدع هو الديمقراطية ، و طلب منهم أن يسألوه في هذا ، و حين فعلوا فسألوه أثناء المؤتمر الانتخابي "هل أنت ديمقراطي" فرد "لطفي السيد" رده الشهير "نعم ديمقراطي و متمسك بالديمقراطية لآخر يوم بحياتي" و إذا بالناخبين الأشاوس يضربون أستاذ الأجيال و يحطمون سرادقه و يفوز عليه غريمه الانتهازي ، و هكذا كان تدين و ورع البسطاء دوماً سلاحاً يمسكه الانتهازيون بأيديهم ليقتلوا به هؤلاء البسطاء أنفسهم بعد أن يمتصوا دماءهم ، نحن اليوم ندرك المفارقة ، و نعرف أنه لا تعارض بين الدين و الديمقراطية و هي حكم الشعب بالشعب ، و لسوف يأتي يوم نتعلم فيه أن العلمانية بدورها - باستثناء تيار العلمنة الكاملة و هو لا يمثل نسبة، ليست ضد الدين من قريب أو بعيد ، و أنا أبدأ قولي هنا فأقولها واضحة صريحة، انا مسلم مؤمن بالله و ملائكته و كتبه و رسله و بالبعث و الحساب و الجزاء و مؤمن بالقرآن و صحيح السنة و أنا بعد هذا كله علماني حتى النخاع ، علماني و قلبي مطمئن بالايمان ، فديني الإسلام ، و مذهبي السياسي علماني ليبرالي ، و مذهبي الاقتصادي اشتراكي، و لا تعارض بين أي من هذه المعاني و الاعتقادات

لقطة تاريخية: هل أرجع الاخوان الحكم لله و رسوله؟

بعد اغتيال التنظيم الخاص (المسلح) للاخوان للنقراشي باشا ، عقدت الجماعة مجلس تحقيق داخلي مع "عبد الرحمن السندي" ، الارهابي المحترف الذي أعطى الأمر بالاغتيال ، و في التحقيق قال "السندي" أن الشيخ "حسن البنا" قال أمامه "لو كان ربنا يخلصنا من النقراشي" فاعتبرها "السندي" تكليف له بالقتل ، و نلاحظ هنا طبعا ان الارهابي خلط بين ذاته و ذات الله سبحانه و تعالى ، فاعتقد دعاء البنا لله أمرا موجها له، المهم ، ان مجلس الحكماء الخاص بالجماعة التي تدعي على الله ظلما أنه غايتها ، و على الرسول ظلما أنه قدوتها ، حكمت بدفع دية القاتل ، هكذا ....؟؟؟ هاهم الاخوان الذين يدعون الحكم بما انزل الله يحكمون بغيره ، يحكمون بالدية على القاتل المتعمد المتربص بدفع دية القتيل بدون موافقة ولي الدم الشرعي من أهل القتيل، لماذا؟ لأن القتيل من مراكز القوى الاخوانية و تحت يده التنظيم الخاص، فتلكم هي الانتهازية ، و هذا هو ازدواج المعايير ، و لهذا قننت القوانين المعاصرة بتفاصيل كثيرة معايير الأحكام ، لأن من يقضي ليس "عمر بن الخطاب" و لا "علي بن أبي طالب" ، من يدعون اليوم الحكم بكتاب الله هم في الأغلب و الأكثر من عينة "مروان بن الحكم" و "الحجاج بن يوسف الثقفي" و هم من تعرفون سفكا للدماء و استهانة بحرمات الله و قيم الدين الحنيف

لقطة تاريخية: التفكير و التكفير

ان المجموعة الرائعة من الرجال التي كفرها دعاة الاسلام السياسي خلال القرن العشرين وحده بسبب اقتناعهم و كتابتهم عن مبدأ العلمانية في الحكم بتضمينات مباشرة أو غير مباشرة ، لتجعل الرجل يفخر بعلمانيته ، و تهون عليه اتهاماتهم بالكفر على بشاعتها بعدما كفروا هذا الرعيل العظيم ، و هاك قائمة المكفرين ، كلهم مر بهم حين من الدهر اتهمهم فيه من لا يفقهون قولا بالكفر و دعوة المجتمع للكفر ، عباس العقاد ، طه حسين، زكي نجيب محمود ، الامام محمد عبده ، جمال الدين الافغاني ، الشيخ محمد رشيد رضا، كامل الشناوي ، نجيب محفوظ ، الشيخ علي عبد الرازق، توفيق الحكيم، أحمد لطفي السيد، و حسين فوزي، و يالها من قائمة من النجوم الزهر، يتمنى المرء لو لحق بأذيالها باتهامه بما اتهم به هؤلاء، و الذين لا نحسب عقولهم و عقيدتهم الا بكل خير

ما هي العلمانية ؟

العلمانية هي ترجمة للفظ "سيكولاريزم" اللاتيني ، و يعني تنظيم شؤون الدولة الحديثة بما يقتضيه المنطق السليم و بعيداً عن سلطة رجال أو علماء الدين ، و بما يحفظ لجميع طوائف المجتمع الدينية و الاثنية حق المواطنة المتكافيء رغم اختلاف أديانهم ، و تكفل فيه الدولة حرية العبادة لكل فرد وفقاً لدينه ، و تكفل للمؤسسة الدينية حرية الخطاب الديني و الدعوة الدينية في اطار احترام الآخر و عدم ازدراء أي دين أو عقيدة لعدم المساس بالمشاعر الدينية لأفراد المجتمع

هل تتعارض العلمانية مع تطبيق الحدود الشرعية الإسلامية؟

الحدود هي حق المجتمع الذي يحفظ له حياته وأامنه و حرمة ماله و عرضه ، و مبدأ القصاص الإسلامي لحفظ المجتمع موجود كمبدأ في كل الشرائع بدءً من قوانين حمورابي ، و القانون الروماني الذي يقول عليه دعاة الاسلام السياسي فرنسي، بينما القانون الفرنسي تنويع من الروماني ، و انتهاء بالشريعة الموسوية التيتكاد تتطابق في حدودها مع الحدود الاسلامية ، و كذلك أقر السيد المسيح ناموس موسى فاعتمد هذه الحدود الشرعية كمبدأ مقبول في المسيحية ، لكن تطبيقها اقتضى عبر العصور تطويرا في الاليات مع الحفاظ على روح القانون، و روح القانون هنا هي قاعدة القصاص، و كل ما عداها تطبيقات متزمنة بزمن، قتل القاتل مثلاً مطبق في القانون المصري ، و لكن هناك ظروف مخففة و ظروف لا يطمأن وجدان القاضي الجنائي فيها لحكم الاعدام فيخفف الحكم ، و الظروف المخففة موجودة و معترف بها فقهيا و جاز عند بعض العلماء أن يعزر الحاكم المسلم بحكم مخفف لو لم يطمأن لاكتمال أركان الجريمة مع وجود قرائن تدين ، و اما رجم الزاني المحصن ، و جلد غير المحصن، فمقنن بأربعة شهود عيان يشهدون عملية الايلاج رأي العين ، كدخول المرود في المكحلة ، و هو ما يصعب حدوثه لغير من يمارس الجنس في مكان عام ، و بهذا يحمي الحد المجتمع من جرح الشعور العام ، و لكن لا يمكننا أن نتعامل به مع قضايا الدعارة مثلاً لصعوبة الاثبات، فهل نترك العاهرات و نجلد ضباط الآداب لو لم سيتطيعوا أن يثبتوا بأربعة شهود؟ هل هذا يرضي الله و رسوله؟ لقد تعقدت المجتمعات و تشعبت احتياجاتها ، و الدرس الالهي الذي علمنا أن الدين يتطور ليواكب احتياجات الناس من خلال دروس النسخ في القرآن الكريم هو درس جليل لو كنا نفقه مغزاه ، فلقد تغيرت عقوبة الزانية المحصنة في كتاب الله ، و هذه اشارة ربانية الى أن العقاب للردع عن الجرائم هو الهدف و ليس طبيعة فعل العقاب بذاته ، الأساس هو أن نطبق القانون و نطبقه على الجميع كأسنان المشط حتى لو كان المجرم هو "السندي" صاحب النفوذ و الباع ، هذا هو الدرس الالهي الذي ينكره دعاة الاسلام السياسي

هل تتعارض العلمانية مع تطبيق الشرائع في الأحوال الخاصة بالفرد كالمواريث و الأحوال الشخصية مثلاً؟

على الاطلاق ، فمن حق كل طائفة في المجتمع العلماني أن تطبق ما يتماشى مع عقيدتها في ما يخص الحياة الشخصية للأفراد ، فيكون هناك قانون أحوال شخصية للمسلمين و آخر للمسيحي القبطي و ثالث للبروتستانتي و هكذا ، و هذا يندرج أيضا في أحكام الوراثة و غيرها مما يختص بالفرد ، مهمة المجتمع المدني ليست منع الشخص من ممارسة حريته الدينية أو غيرها من الحريات ، و لكن مهمته ان يوقف الفرد عندما يقترب من أنف الاخرين

هل حدد الإسلام نظام حكم محدد قد يتعارض مع آليات العلمانية لإدارة شؤون الدولة؟

ما كان يمارس على عهد رسول الله بالمدينة المنورة كان ما نعرفه اليوم ب "الديمقراطية المباشرة" حيث ينوب كل فرد عن نفسه ، فيعطي رأيه بنفسه في شؤون الدولة الجوهرية و يبايع الحاكم بنفسه و هكذا ، و هذا ممكن في المجتمعات المحدودة و كان مطبقا أيضا في مدينة روما القديمة قبل تشعب الامبراطورية ، و مات رسول الله تاركا أمة الاسلام حرة في اختيار حاكمها ، و لو كان القول بحكم علماء الدين صحيحا لاختار لهم الرسول أفقههم في الدين ، و لكنه تركهم لحكمة ، هي دعم مبدأ الخيار الديمقراطي، و بما أن الديمقراطية النيابية هي تطور حتمي للديمقراطية المباشرة فلا ريب أن الاسلام يدعم روح هذا النظام الأقرب للعدل و الأبعد عن الهوي لتعدد أطراف اتخاذ القرار لتصل للملايين ، اما ما صغر من شؤون الدولة ، فيصدق فيه قول رسول الله في واقعة تلقيح النخيل "انتم أدرى بشؤون دنياكم" فبمنطق الأمور و معطياتها تدار الدولة فيما صغر من شؤون الناس و ما استجد ، و لو كان لدى أحد دعاة الاسلام السياسي قانون مرور اسلامي أو قانون بورصة اسلامي فليغفر جهلي و يخبرني به

و هنا يدفع دعاة الاسلام السياسي بدفع لئيم زنيم ، فيقولون لك لو أن الناس في النظام الديمقراطي أقروا شيئا يتعارض مع الدين ، فما الحل؟ و نحن نرد على هذه الحجة المتكررة فنقول ، ان من واجب المؤسسة الدينية أن توعي و تثقف الناس دينيا ، فلو أن الناس بعد هذه التوعية و التثقيف أصروا على اختيار ما تراه المؤسسة الدينية مخالفا للدين فما معنى هذا ؟ معناه اننا أمام مجتمع أغلبيته رفضت الأمر، فهو مجتمع اما ان تكون اغلبيته غير مسلمة ، و في هذه الحال فمن حقهم ما اختاروا ، او انها اغلبية مسلمة لا تعارض في رأيها بين الدين و بين الموضوع محل التصويت ، و بما أنه لا تجمع الاغلبية من الامة على الباطل فرأيهم هو الصواب و رأي المؤسسة الدينية خطأ

هل تقتضي العلمانية رفض حجاب المرأة كما فعل أتاتورك و كما يحدث أحيانا بأوروبا من منع المحجبات من المدارس و الجامعات؟

أتاتورك كان متطرف لا ديني ، رغم فضله على تركيا الحديثة ، و لا علاقة للعلمانية بهذا ، أما ما يحدث في بعض بلاد أوروبا أحياناً ،فهو محاولة فرض الشخصية الوطنية على الوافد ، و هو نفس ما تفعله العربية السعودية ، فكما يجبر السعودي الأوروبية المسيحية أن ترتدي الزي البدوي الأسود و تغطي شعرها و وجهها ، يتشدد الأوروبي في الاتجاه المخالف فيمنع حرية المرأة في أن تغطي شعرها وفق عقيدتها ، و كلاهما على باطل ، و كلاهما تبرأ منه العلمانية الحقيقية، لكن موضوع النقاب مختلف في أمر واحد ، ان على المنقبة في المجتمع المدني أن تكشف وجهها حين يطلب منها في نقاط التفتيش و غيرها ، لان طمس الشخصية بتغطية الوجه يتعارض مع المبدأ الأمني في التحقق من الشخصية ، و ليس من مهام الدولة أن توفر سيدة في كل نقطة مرور و على كل باب بعدد يصل لعشرات الآلاف لأنها اختارت النقاب، فهذا اهدار للمال العام ، لكن لها ان تنتقب كما تريد و لا تضطهد بسبب ذلك طالما لا ترفض الاجراءات الأمنية

اذا فما المشكلة؟ لماذا كل هذه الضجة حول العلمانية و الدين ، ما سبب ربط الكفر بالعلمانية؟

السبب من طرفين كلاهما متشدد و متطرف ، فاما الأول فهو المتطرف اللا-ديني و الذي يسمي نفسه علمانيا ، فيأخذ رجل الشارع من هجومه على الدين و التدين ان العلمانية و الكفر مترادفان ، و الثاني هو المتطرف الديني ، الذي يريد تطبيق الدين ، لا كما أنزله الله غضا مرنا مناسبا لكل عصر و كل زمان ، و لكن كما طبقه بني أمية و بني العباس منذ ثلاثة عشر قرنا أو يزيد و في ظروف مغايرة تماما لظروف اليوم ، و بهذا يجد فارقا كبيرا بين الدين كما يراه و بين الفكر العلمانية فيحسب العلمانية كفرا

فهل تتعارض العلمانية مع الاقتصاد الاسلامي؟

لقد اتجر الرسول (ص) و صحابته و لم نسمع منهم تعبير تجارة إسلامية ، و لكننا عرفنا تجارة يلتزم فيها المسلم بخلق دينه و سماحته ، كما أننا لا نعرف من الاقتصاد غير اقتصاد جزئي يتعلق بالمنتج و اقتصاديات الانتاج و آخر كلي يتعلق بالاقتصاد على مستوى الدولة ، أما ما روجوا له ضد فتاوى كبار العلماء من حرمة البنوك و روجوا بعده لمؤسسات إسلامية نصبت باسم الدين في تجربة توظيف الاموال المريرة ، و أذكر الدعاية لتلكم المؤسسات النصبية بالاية الكريمة "لا ربى و لا ريبة حلالا طيبيا" و كان أولى بهم أن يقولوا لا ربى و لا ريبة و لا حتى رأسمالك هاتشوفه تاني، فلماذا ننسى بهذه السرعة يا اخوتي ما اقترفوا من جرائم ، ألم يكن زعمائهم في ركاب السعد و الريان في الحل و الترحال و على قمة كشوف البركة

المؤامرة الحالية

أنظر للأسلوب الانتقائي الذي يتعامل به دعاة الاسلام السياسي مع الدين ، فلا أستطيع أن أحسن بهم الظن ، فلكأنها مؤامرة لخلق ديكتاتورية ثيوقراطية هي ما يسعون اليه و يجدون السعي ، و هذا ليس على مستوى الشباب و الجماهير و لكن على مستوى الكبار الطامحين للسلطة و المجد و الجاه الدنيوي باسم الدين ، و انظر معي كيف يحيكون المؤامرة باللعب على الرأي العام و ترسيخ الخطأ بذهن الناس، يدعون أن الشورى شرعا لا تلزم الحاكم المسلم ، و يخالفون بذلك سنة الرسول حين نزل على راي الشباب يوم غزوة أحد لأنهم مثلوا الأغلبية المخالفة له في الرأي ، فخرج للقاء العدو خارج المدينة و كان رأيه أن يتحصن داخلها ، و هم بذلك يعدون ليوم يصلون فيه للحكم فيحرقون كوبري الديمقراطية الذي وصلوا عليه و يقولون أنها بدعة غربية و مخالفة لشرع الله، ثم يقولون أن الشورى ليست عامة و لكنها لمجلس من الثقات ، و هذا لعمر الحق افتراء ، فقد كان الصحابة جميعهم يناقشون النبي فيما صغر أو كبر و كانت امرأة ترد عمر بن الخطاب عن تشريع اعتزمه و هو خليفة ، و هم يعدون بذلك لقصر الشورى على مجموعة مثل مجلس الحكماء اياه تحكم بالغرض و الهوى و ليس بالصالح العام

كذلك يقولون بعدم جواز ولاية غير المسلم ، رغم أن كل وظيفة هي ولاية بدرجة من الدرجات ، و قد اختار الرسول ابن أريقط دليلا لرحلة الهجرة و هو مشرك ليضرب لنا مثلا على ان الكفاءة المهنية هي معيار الاختيار و ليست العقيدة ، أما هم، فيربطون الولاية بالفهم الشرعي ، طريقتهم طبعا، حتى يقصروا السلطة على من والاهم ، ثم تراهم يوسعون كل يوم من قاعدة "المعلوم من الدين بالضرورة" و ذلك حتى يعمدوا الى من خالفهم في فهم الدين و الدنيا فيقولوا بكفره لانكاره المعلوم من الدين بالضرورة ، فيجوز لهم دمه أمام المجتمع، كذلك يقصرون حق التفكر في الدين و التدبر في ايات الله على أنفسهم بدعوى التخصص و الاحاطة ، و ذلك لتدعيم سلطتهم الروحية على الناس من البسطاء ، فلا يأتي الرجل عملا فيما صغر أو كبر الا باذنهم، و يحرصون على الفهم الجامد للدين حتى لا تتسرب السلطة من أصابعهم ، فتجد منهم من يقول أن للزوج ان يضرب زوجته و لكن يتجنب وجهها و لا يبرح في ضربها ، ألم تفقه يا هذا ان القرآن أمرنا بالعشرة بالمعروف ، و ان هذا المعروف متغير من زمان لزمان و من مجتمع لمجتمع؟ فلا يجوز لرجل اليوم ان يضرب زوجته لان هذا خرج من نطاق المعروف الذي تعارف الناس على حسنه ؟ هذا مثال لفهم الدين كما يفهمه الرجل الرشيد و كما يفهمون ، و ما أبعد الشقة بينهما

Additive vs Substractive

Seeking Roses in Every Garden

I first wrote this post in Arabic, in the good days wherein I was writing in my beloved mother tongue before I decided to shift to English for complex reasosns. Mr. Tareq Amr in Global Voices had elected the post and translated it to English to be published there. He saved me the effort to trnaslate it myself now. Therefore, the text below, is Tareq's translation to my original post. To him I owe all grattitude.

Getting to the subject, we all know, addition is a mathematical operation that leads to growth by the accumulation of its components. Subtraction, on the other hand, leads to decay due to becoming less. Based on this logic, additive thinking tends to add the various morals we meet in our lives to each other. We may see many positive attributes in many societies and characters - for sure not everyone has such positive attributes, as some are like flies which are totally useless. Anyway, additive thinking is the opposite of the subtractive one that tends to divide people into either absolute good, or absolute evil, and nothing in between, absolute light and absolute darkness, while life by nature is a mixture of this and that. Through additive thinking, you can love two men or role models who were enemies themeselves. However, you can find in each a positive attribute that can inspire you.

People who believe in subtractive thinking will sure refuse and hate Abdel Nasser because they believe he was a dictator. They will hate Guevara because he was a womaniser and will hate Hassan Nasrullah because he is Shiite (nearly all the Egyptians are Sunnis) and will hate Muhammad Abdou because he was against Salafism, and will hate Martin Luther King because he ignored the teachings of the old church, and will hate Gandhi because he gave priority to his Indian nationality more than his religious doctrines, including his Hindu religion, and will hate Muhammad Ali - he ruled Egypt in the 19th century - for his personal ambitions to become an emperor, and will hate Mao Zedong for the side effects of his economical vision. At the end of the day, they will not get any benefits from any of the experiences that mankind has passed by, as they prefer to ignore all the ideals just because they see some negative aspects there. This is really dangerous, and that's why I believe in the additive thinking and I'll try to mention the positive sides and the negative ones I see in the characters mentioned previously. Those characters that despite my great respect to them - I still believe that I have the right to criticize them.

I love Gamal Abdel Nasser as a person and a leader. I agree with him in his vision towards national dignity so the people can live happily. I agree with him that the ultimate solution for our society is socialism. I also believe in the importance of strategic cooperation and the coordination between the Arab nations, like that between the members of the EU and the United States, which is not based on nationalism. I like his honour and his lack of corruption when it came to the State's coffers and his insistence on representing the middle class he belonged to. I love his strength and strong will, which enabled him to liberate the nation and end Royalty when he was younger than me. I also like the way he liked Arabs and how they liked him back. And for all this I like Gamal and always put him as an ideal hero and person … While I disagree with his policies of repression as Dr Mossadegh's experience in Iran unfolding in front of him was a scary obsession, when the Americans were able to foil his revolution. What Gamal didn't see what that Mossadegh did not enjoy the support of the Iranian masses like he did on the Egyptian street after the war of 56. Gamal did not need to resort to repression to maintain the strength of the revolution and safeguard it. I also disagree with the way he implemented his revolutionary socialism, which sought to ensure that he got the support of certain classes at the expense of society as a whole. I also disagree with his emotions that affected his choices and led his friends to occupy leading positions in Egypt, which represent his downfall, such as Abdel Hakim Amer, who ruined all the military achievements of the revolution, and Anwar El Sadat, who destroyed all its other achievements.

I like Guevara as a person and a revolutionist who left the ministry and the governmental position after liberating Cuba and preferred to die fighting his enemy. I like his establishment of the Guerrilla War strategy which is considered the cornerstone of the wars between the weak groups and the tyrants - a strategy that marketing books borrowed and made Marketing strategies based on it without giving credit to him. I also like his bias toward the poor.I disagree with his communist vision, which I believe is not compatible with the human nature that is eager to excel. And I prefer practical socialism which gives people a chance to excel while guaranteeing the minimum levels necessary for human life like food, clothing, medicine and shelter to citizens to it.

Similarly, I loved Nasrallah the freedom fighter, while I did not agree on the clergy role in civil life according to "Welayat Faqih" role of Shiites. I like Muhammad Abdu for his reform trial, while I disagree with him in many details. This is what I meant by additive thinking, we can criticize while keep getting inspiration of almost all historical figures and leaders, as well as contemporary leaders. Adding is maximizing, while substracting is zeroing, and we shall choose for ourselves.