Dr. Hossam Badrawi Official Website
Between enlightenment and contempt
Through the ages, the space of knowledge has changed, and science has deepened and expanded, so the young child knows more than the mature man did hundreds of years ago.. and this child has more entrances and uses for the human mind than his parents and grandparents. The world has become other than the world, and we are still – unfortunately – in the midst of battles that were logical in the past centuries, and certainly not in the twenty-first century.
My experience says that many people fight without defining the meanings of the words they differ about, and if they agreed on the definition, there would be no reason for the fights.
“Contempt” is one of these terms, so I searched for the meaning of the word before talking to some of the youth of the “Dreamers of Tomorrow” association on this subject.
“Contempt” in the lexicon is a contemptuous term, an insult, a term of contempt, which is a word or grammatical formula that expresses a negative connotation or a demeaning opinion of a person or thing, and indicates a lack of respect for a person or thing.
“Enlightenment” is one of those words as well, and we have discussed it before.
The educated young man said: What do you mean by enlightenment? What is its relationship to the new republic, reform and renaissance? And why should anyone who says an opinion that is different from what people think of him be fought, and even accused and imprisoned in a state whose constitution says it is a modern civil state?
I said: “Enlightenment” is a term that expresses an intellectual, cultural and philosophical movement that defends rationality and logic. Without enlightenment, there would be no human renaissance, and humans would remain imprisoned for the ideas and beliefs of our ancestors.
The future Egypt is a modern civil homeland, not a religious caliphate with an outdated logic. Perhaps the battle between renewal, the use of reason and logic, and the avoidance of interpretations said by ancient people, with what science made available to them in their time, still threatens the authority of religious institutions and some of the Salafist and Wahhabi sheikhs that invaded Egypt, and is still pushing the country away from the human renaissance and the modern civil state.
The enlightenment includes a set of ideas, which are summarized in: the supremacy of reason as a basic source of knowledge, ideals such as freedom, tolerance and brotherhood, constitutional rule and the separation of religious institutions from the political management of the state, tolerance, and following the scientific method of thinking.
The scientific method begins with the right to question the inherited beliefs without an original reference, a position highlighted by the philosopher (Emmanuel Kant) in his wonderful article “Dare to Know”, saying that the protection and education of man lies in becoming mature and able to rely on himself, and that He uses his mind to free himself from inherited beliefs or those inspired by customs, and this is his only means of modernity and advancement.
A young woman said: Why is this battle between the advocates of enlightenment and modernization and those who claim their right to protect the Islamic religion in particular?
I said: There should be no difference.. the issue was in eras when knowledge was not available as it is today.
The young man said: What was the effect of the enmity between priests and churchmen in the dark ages in Europe, and the ideas of enlightenment that seem to us ordinary today, so that we may learn from experience?
I said: The priests of the Christian religion, with their stance, corrupted the movement of history in their time. They did not triumph for their religion, nor did they achieve victory over their enemy. Rather, with their stance, they were like a natural door that was opened wide for advocates of atheism and revolution against the church and religion together. They portrayed the situation as a conflict between religion and science, and not between churchmen and scholars; Between reason and superstition, between light and darkness, between progress and backwardness; The concept of enlightenment meant fortification with the logic of science and rationality against this religion and its men who represent ignorance and superstition; It was necessary for science to triumph in the face of ignorance, reason to triumph in the face of superstition, and progress in the face of backwardness.
The smart young man said: But why does something like that pass to us now?!
I said: Unfortunately, the battle with all its circumstances and circumstances has moved to our world, especially in Egypt, without the one claiming to protect the religion realizing that Islam has no priests; And that religious institutions do not control or rule, and we must not repeat the form of the Inquisition in the dark ages in Europe in a new form under the name “Contempt for Religions in the Twenty-first Century.” Neither time is time, nor is the scope of knowledge what was.
The educated young woman said: How can someone who rejects opinions and texts that are not mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and mentioned in human heritage texts be prosecuted?
I said: Like what?
She said: A lot, including the husband’s lack of responsibility for his sick wife, the ruling on having sexual intercourse with the dead wife, the permissibility of intercourse with a young girl in the cradle and taking her, and allowing the eating of prisoners if there is no food for the armies, breast-feeding the elderly, and captivating women when winning a war battle, or who confirms that pregnancy when The woman reaches five years of age, and that the sun at sunset descends under the throne of the Most Merciful, as if the earth is not round, and that sunset here is not sunrise there, or that God has a hand like the hands of humans..and other opinions that my mind does not accept, Doctor.
And what about refusing that insults the Islamic religion, by God, and puts me under the law of contempt?
I said: I listen to you, so say whatever you want.. this is your right and this is my approach.
The educated girl said: What is the difference in opinion that calls for an emergency State Security Court?
A third said: Why is the state of emergency applied primarily to someone with an opinion? Where is the modern civil state in all of this?
I said: I remind you that the law of contempt of religion was intended to prevent sectarian strife between extremist Muslims and Christians, but all issues after it were between Muslims and some of them.
One of the young people following the dialogue replied: Does development sometimes mean change?! .. I do not understand, Doctor, our desire to develop religious discourse; Which is advocated by the country’s leadership without including religious understanding and changing concepts that have settled in minds and have become an obstacle to progress.. that is, religious dialogue will not develop unless by breaking many of the beliefs that are thought to be religious, which are acquired from human beings like us and not from their origins.
I said: From the method of thinking and observation; it even p
Through the ages, the space of knowledge has changed, and science has deepened and expanded, so the young child knows more than the mature man did hundreds of years ago.. and this child has more entrances and uses for the human mind than his parents and grandparents. The world has become other than the world, and we are still – unfortunately – in the midst of battles that were logical in the past centuries, and certainly not in the twenty-first century.
My experience says that many people fight without defining the meanings of the words they differ about, and if they agreed on the definition, there would be no reason for the fights.
“Contempt” is one of these terms, so I searched for the meaning of the word before talking to some of the youth of the “Dreamers of Tomorrow” association on this subject.
“Contempt” in the lexicon is a contemptuous term, an insult, a term of contempt, which is a word or grammatical formula that expresses a negative connotation or a demeaning opinion of a person or thing, and indicates a lack of respect for a person or thing.
“Enlightenment” is one of those words as well, and we have discussed it before.
The educated young man said: What do you mean by enlightenment? What is its relationship to the new republic, reform and renaissance? And why should anyone who says an opinion that is different from what people think of him be fought, and even accused and imprisoned in a state whose constitution says it is a modern civil state?
I said: “Enlightenment” is a term that expresses an intellectual, cultural and philosophical movement that defends rationality and logic. Without enlightenment, there would be no human renaissance, and humans would remain imprisoned for the ideas and beliefs of our ancestors.
The future Egypt is a modern civil homeland, not a religious caliphate with an outdated logic. Perhaps the battle between renewal, the use of reason and logic, and the avoidance of interpretations said by ancient people, with what science made available to them in their time, still threatens the authority of religious institutions and some of the Salafist and Wahhabi sheikhs that invaded Egypt, and is still pushing the country away from the human renaissance and the modern civil state.
The enlightenment includes a set of ideas, which are summarized in: the supremacy of reason as a basic source of knowledge, ideals such as freedom, tolerance and brotherhood, constitutional rule and the separation of religious institutions from the political management of the state, tolerance, and following the scientific method of thinking.
The scientific method begins with the right to question the inherited beliefs without an original reference, a position highlighted by the philosopher (Emmanuel Kant) in his wonderful article “Dare to Know”, saying that the protection and education of man lies in becoming mature and able to rely on himself, and that He uses his mind to free himself from inherited beliefs or those inspired by customs, and this is his only means of modernity and advancement.
A young woman said: Why is this battle between the advocates of enlightenment and modernization and those who claim their right to protect the Islamic religion in particular?
I said: There should be no difference.. the issue was in eras when knowledge was not available as it is today.
The young man said: What was the effect of the enmity between priests and churchmen in the dark ages in Europe, and the ideas of enlightenment that seem to us ordinary today, so that we may learn from experience?
I said: The priests of the Christian religion, with their stance, corrupted the movement of history in their time. They did not triumph for their religion, nor did they achieve victory over their enemy. Rather, with their stance, they were like a natural door that was opened wide for advocates of atheism and revolution against the church and religion together. They portrayed the situation as a conflict between religion and science, and not between churchmen and scholars; Between reason and superstition, between light and darkness, between progress and backwardness; The concept of enlightenment meant fortification with the logic of science and rationality against this religion and its men who represent ignorance and superstition; It was necessary for science to triumph in the face of ignorance, reason to triumph in the face of superstition, and progress in the face of backwardness.
The smart young man said: But why does something like that pass to us now?!
I said: Unfortunately, the battle with all its circumstances and circumstances has moved to our world, especially in Egypt, without the one claiming to protect the religion realizing that Islam has no priests; And that religious institutions do not control or rule, and we must not repeat the form of the Inquisition in the dark ages in Europe in a new form under the name “Contempt for Religions in the Twenty-first Century.” Neither time is time, nor is the scope of knowledge what was.
The educated young woman said: How can someone who rejects opinions and texts that are not mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and mentioned in human heritage texts be prosecuted?
I said: Like what?
She said: A lot, including the husband’s lack of responsibility for his sick wife, the ruling on having sexual intercourse with the dead wife, the permissibility of intercourse with a young girl in the cradle and taking her, and allowing the eating of prisoners if there is no food for the armies, breast-feeding the elderly, and captivating women when winning a war battle, or who confirms that pregnancy when The woman reaches five years of age, and that the sun at sunset descends under the throne of the Most Merciful, as if the earth is not round, and that sunset here is not sunrise there, or that God has a hand like the hands of humans..and other opinions that my mind does not accept, Doctor.
And what about refusing that insults the Islamic religion, by God, and puts me under the law of contempt?
I said: I listen to you, so say whatever you want.. this is your right and this is my approach.
The educated girl said: What is the difference in opinion that calls for an emergency State Security Court?
A third said: Why is the state of emergency applied primarily to someone with an opinion? Where is the modern civil state in all of this?
I said: I remind you that the law of contempt of religion was intended to prevent sectarian strife between extremist Muslims and Christians, but all issues after it were between Muslims and some of them.
One of the young people following the dialogue replied: Does development sometimes mean change?! .. I do not understand, Doctor, our desire to develop religious discourse; Which is advocated by the country’s leadership without including religious understanding and changing concepts that have settled in minds and have become an obstacle to progress.. that is, religious dialogue will not develop unless by breaking many of the beliefs that are thought to be religious, which are acquired from human beings like us and not from their origins.
I said: From the method of thinking and observation; it even p
Those who lived with the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, and those who came after them did not adhere to literally much of what was happening in his life. And when they differentiated between the surahs with the basmalah, and when they added pointing and tanween, and when they affirmed the date in the Hijri calendar, and when they moved the capital from Medina to Damascus and then Baghdad, and when they collected the hadiths of the Messenger and wrote them down in the Sahih, and the Messenger himself said, “Do not write on my behalf other than the Qur’an and whoever wrote on my behalf other than the Qur’an.” Let him erase it.” (Sahih Muslim)
I think that the most threatening thing about Islam today is the fear of dialogue and the use of reason as if it were a religion that should be protected by specialists only, and it is the one who is protected by God Almighty as we understand.
The confused young man said: I mean, what are we doing?! We listen and obey, then we are accused of being like a herd, and some of us are recruited through the obedience methodology and turned into strangers from society, rather terrorists.. Or do we think and change, then we are accused of not having sufficient knowledge or knowledge that allows us to delve into what we do not know?!.
I said: Religion is in the place of man himself, my son, and his relationship with his personal and spiritual Lord, and his beauty in what he gives us of happiness, self-satisfaction, contentment and love for others and for life in all its forms; As for the conduct of people’s lives, positive law is the basis, and it is derived from values over which no religion differs. As for the political rule of the country, the citizenship and the rights of citizens belonging to different religions; The constitution is the basis, and no one has the right to impose his religion and conviction on others.
No one has the right to punish another citizen for what he thinks is a departure from his faith and belief, or for the state itself to do so against an opinion that differs in interpretation here or there.
Punishment and civil reward in its place is the judiciary, not the Dar Al Iftaa.
I invite everyone to reach a rule that enables us to live reason, thinking and faith together without contradiction, which we must strive for; We called it enlightenment, reform, scientific method, or development; It does not matter.. the important thing is the meaning that we agree on.
I think that the most threatening thing about Islam today is the fear of dialogue and the use of reason as if it were a religion that should be protected by specialists only, and it is the one who is protected by God Almighty as we understand.
The confused young man said: I mean, what are we doing?! We listen and obey, then we are accused of being like a herd, and some of us are recruited through the obedience methodology and turned into strangers from society, rather terrorists.. Or do we think and change, then we are accused of not having sufficient knowledge or knowledge that allows us to delve into what we do not know?!.
I said: Religion is in the place of man himself, my son, and his relationship with his personal and spiritual Lord, and his beauty in what he gives us of happiness, self-satisfaction, contentment and love for others and for life in all its forms; As for the conduct of people’s lives, positive law is the basis, and it is derived from values over which no religion differs. As for the political rule of the country, the citizenship and the rights of citizens belonging to different religions; The constitution is the basis, and no one has the right to impose his religion and conviction on others.
No one has the right to punish another citizen for what he thinks is a departure from his faith and belief, or for the state itself to do so against an opinion that differs in interpretation here or there.
Punishment and civil reward in its place is the judiciary, not the Dar Al Iftaa.
I invite everyone to reach a rule that enables us to live reason, thinking and faith together without contradiction, which we must strive for; We called it enlightenment, reform, scientific method, or development; It does not matter.. the important thing is the meaning that we agree on.
