The pillars of heritage and ideology!

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

There is a contemporary phenomenon of searching for the foundations of the Ansar in the heritage. Hardly a group of contemporaries finds a scholar who expressed an opinion according to their whims, even if it differs from the prevailing prevailing opinion among the scholars, until they bring him, as one of their symbols, and call upon him as one of their righteous predecessors, even if he or her thought is innocent. This is how Dhul Qarah surprised us with his new topic. I said:

It is the urgent need to build on a past, on a heritage, on soil, on a good ancestor. Everyone is a lover of the past, everyone is a lover of heritage, and everyone is a lover of some righteous ancestor, even the infidels (Quraysh); And if he did not find that past, that heritage, and those predecessors, he would be fraudulent in seeking them, or inventing them!

You are right. This is because the fathers and ancestors are “hospices” that comfort consciences, remove the semblance of innovation, and say what the forefathers did not say, thus repelling opponents, who have similar historical “hospices” that are authentic and rooted, or those that are neither authentic nor rooted.

That is the house of disease. Otherwise, how can an Islamic thinking mind, such as (Ibn Rushd - 595 AH), a philosophizer, and before that a jurist, a fundamentalist, and a judge - who only wanted to reconcile reason and transmission, that is, between thought and religion - be viewed as renegade, or belittling religion? This is the opposite of what he wanted, to support religious discourse with rational discourse, and to deny the claims of those who say there is a contradiction between them, or the inconsistency of philosophers, as a result of a superficial understanding of philosophy and religion at the same time?!

Lack of understanding of the philosophy of religion arises fundamentally from the lack of distinction between the purposes of religion and the means of conveying those purposes in practice. So the means become goals and objectives. This is the reason why some people are averse to religion, or even become disbelievers.

It is the cause of human division and religious conflict. Because there are those who insist on implementing the purposes of religion using the same old mechanisms, in every time and place. Here the means become ends, while the ends are often lost. This is nothing more than someone who continues to insist on living according to the same old mechanisms that existed at the time of the Prophet. He only rides, for example, horses, mules, donkeys, and camels, and prohibits anything else!

Yes, those who suffer from this disorder do it. As for the goals themselves, as they are, they are truly valid for every time and place, and they are essentially the goal of every religion, every law, and every human, civilized social system. That is, it is not “dogmatic,” ideological in accordance with a specific intellectual or political orientation of a human group, which it wants to impose on all people, and to prevent them from having a different opinion, orientation, or social behavior.

There are many examples of this happening! For example, in the laws emanating from the so-called (United Nations Charter), you notice that they are laws designed for two distinct categories of human beings, the first category: international Zionism and those who adhered to it and walked in its wake, and the other category: laws designed for all other human beings. This is evident in application, even if it does not seem stated at the level of theory. This is because whoever designed these laws in the first place had no right to deviate from his well-known ideological fear, nor from the smoke of his emotions, nor from the smoke of his national and economic interests. Insofar as what was called (the Charter of the United Nations) its basic reality is: (the Charter of the United Nations Colonial Nations). Before that, he is the heir to biblical thought, which divides the world into: Semites, Hamites, Japhethites, or Aryans. The supreme race is the Semitic race, newly reduced to those fragments of peoples, which the (Takfiris of Europe) gathered in (Palestine) - in atonement for their Nazi and non-Nazi crimes against the Jews - after the occupation of Palestine with their support and support. What was called (Israel) - which is a cunning religious designation for political goals - has no connection to (Noah) or (Bassam bin Noah), nor to the “Middle” East or anything other than the “Middle” East at all, and they are only connected by the ropes of Biblical ideological myth. As for the humans discovered in the land of the Red Indians, they are, like the Palestinians, a satanic offspring. Because the author of the “Torah” - the Lord of hosts - did not know about their existence on planet Earth, or the existence of other peoples! Therefore, the flood of the “Torah” did not include them in its water! It is a mythical culture that continues to gnaw at the Western brainThe kidnapped person will not be freed from it until a meteor falls on him, just like the one that destroyed the dinosaurs and freed them from them!

Can there be a religion, law, or system - worthy of this name - whose highest goals and overall objectives are not the building of a civil society, in which: the protection of the soul, money, honor, mind, and religion (meaning freedom of belief)?!

No, even if such a religion, law, or system exists, it is purely the hands of a corrupt tribal ideology that contradicts the mind, the spirit, and the primary morals of man, which are among his innate axioms, even if he lived isolated in a forest, like (Hayy ibn Yaqzan), according to his story in the famous letter (Ibn Tufail).

Because a person’s mind - if he is sane - necessarily imposes on him that just system, and guides him to the fact that there are red lines, respectable boundaries, and life necessities. She protects him from others, and protects others from him.

In this context, you said in a previous course that you are, in principle, against the cultural ban policy, and it has no meaning today in cultural matters. Despite this, any censorship will find in the quality of some degrading productions - thought, morals, and art - the pretext for its existence, and the food for its rise, so that people will say that they are then right to ban, to protect public taste, observed morals, and the social structure that refuses to be attacked. That is the weakest of faith.

The irony here is that those who do not see the art of the novel as having a reformative social function - as was presented in our previous dialogues - are drowning to their ears in the corruptive social concern, and their only cure is that concern. But from the perspective of functions to which they are ideologically inclined, which is reform according to them, the verse is true for them: “And when it is said to them: Do not corrupt The land, they said: We are only reformers. Indeed, they are the corruptors.” When understanding slips, honesty collapses, and the responsibility of the word of a writer or critic descends to this lowest level of belonging, it becomes culturally dangerous, especially in a non-elite art - often - such as the novel, which is received by all segments, from children to the elderly, and from various levels of education, more than other arts.

Although elitism does not justify the lack of politeness in literature as well. Such as images of child molestation in some of Nizar Qabbani’s poetry, such as his ridiculous text under the title “At the Wall,” his collection “Samba,” 1949. The absurdity of the text is not only moral, but artistic as well.

May God have mercy on (Abdul Qaher Al-Jurjani) (1) who pointed out that belittling the values ​​of religion and moral absurdity in poetry does not only affect the values ​​and religion, but also harms the poet’s message and his relationship with the reader, throwing him away from the mass of recipients, so that he remains stuck with those who were similar to him in abnormality among the recipients, and they are the least, no matter how corrupt society is. Commenting on Al-Mutanabbi’s verse:

They take sips from my mouth... and they are sweeter than monotheism.

He said: “The farthest thing a poet can be from success is if the desire for foreignness prompts him to borrow seriousness from seriousness and playfulness, and flirt with this genre.” If the poet is not keen on values, it is foolish for him to sacrifice his audience and clash with them in their morals and feelings. But stupidity is an art too!

So what if (Al-Jurjani) was informed of some of the wastes of our time?!

Although the word “tawhid” in the house of (Al-Mutanabbi) has been given different interpretations. One of the funniest ones is the claim that the intended “tawhid” is a type of Iraqi date!

These people regretted a more disgraceful act than the house of Al-Mutanabbi. If a poet says that his woman is sweeter than dates, then this is a hungry person, neither a lover nor a poet. Dates have become a role model for him in terms of sweetness, and what people desire, ambitions and dreams. Al-Mutanabbi only referred to the Islamic word monotheism, even though he misbehaved in his exaggeration of the religious meaning. There is no doubt that monotheism has a sweetness for its people that is unparalleled in sweetness. As a person feels his oneness with God, not in the Sufi sense, but in the sense of the relationship with the Lord of the Worlds, Alone with no partner. This is what Islam tried to instill in the souls of Muslims. To be distinguished from everyone else, from those who called: O Hubal, or O Jesus, or O Virgin. However, soon there appeared among the Muslims themselves also those who imitated the followers of the previous religions, against which Islam came as a revolution, so they began to call in the same way: O Ali, O Fatima, O Hussein, O my Bedouin master, or my “Hadari” master... to the end of those Muslim pagans, to restore history. Religions themselves with innovative cloaks!

Then Al-Mutanabbi has the right to say: “There is something sweeter in it than monotheism,” meaning: than such a distorted monotheism, which no longer has that original sweetness. Thus, the poet escapes from the stick of (Abdul Qaher Al-Jarjani)! This is an interpretation of “Above the Pledge of Allegiance” by the house of (Abu al-Muhsid), in addition to the previous jurisprudence!

Khawabi's tiredness licked her lips

Namir rhymes with string cup

Without a name, it has two clouds,

Ask: What are they? And forget the rain clouds!

When the perfume caresses the night

Many centuries have revolted and others have raided

And if she speaks, poetry is as grassy as rock.

And the fire sparked a river within us!