(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - Four bloodied bodies were dragged along the streets of the poor Egyptian village, Zawyat Abu Musalam. The scene was horrifying as crowds trampled over the bodies, kicked them, and some even spat at them. Witnesses of the shocking atrocity expressed how the victims were accused as being “infidels spreading debauchery”. But were they really so?
What offense could someone possibly commit to deserve such an excruciating punishment? “They were Muslim Shiites;” a witness explained. Even the police who were summoned to stop the massacre stood there watchingas the men were being brutally hit, wounded, and eventually martyred.
The massacre committed against the four Muslims, who constitute a minority in an overwhelming Sunni community, was committed by ultraconservative Salafi groups and denounced by Egypt’s prime minister who proclaimed that he is “closely following the investigation into the incident to ensure that the culprits are punished.”
Amidst such a critical time, one cannot help but remember the words of His Eminence, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (ra), who is deeply missed and needed. In an interview with Assafir Newspaper in 2007, His Eminence said the following:
The Muslim and Arab regions are witnessing an on-going escalating of sectarian incitement whether between the Sunnis and the Shiites or between the Muslims and Christians. This escalation has reached a level of igniting a civil war that represents a threat that no sect or confession will not be affected by. But why is partisan, religious or racial incitement that easy in our world? And why does sectarianism represent the weakest point that the international and regional intelligence agencies could break through to incite discord between the followers of the same religion or the same country to promote the former’s interests?And why do the masses respond automatically and spontaneously to such incitement, in a way that could develop to become a danger on itself, in addition to its country and nation.
Following are some points that try to answer these questions:
Firstly: The religious guidance of some religious leaders, especially those who act as employees to certain political parties, does not rely on reason in their discourse, or positions, making it, the discourse, largely superficial and formal, which will make the masses grow accustomed to such method and adopt it in analysing all its affairs and problems.
Most of the political discourse too is usually superficial and making light of the people's minds. So much so that the people have become addicted to such a discourse, to the extent that they started to accuse those who talk to their minds of being unrealistic or treacherous.
What has made the matters even worse and more dangerous is that some of those who although not qualified, are in leading positions, whether religious or political, have begun to exploit the dedication of the masses to their superior causes to keep them in the dark, since if these masses learn the truth they will no longer believe in the legitimacy of these leaders.
Secondly: This methodology that has characterized the oriental mentality or the so-called Third World has become the basis of political and social loyalty, turning it into an institution that makes the loyalty to a person, party and group based on emotions and instincts that are in turn based on historical or political fanaticism, in a way that does not consider pluralism a source of enrichment to each individual in the community. It rather cancels the role of reason by making the public respond emotionally to any sectarian slogan or goal.
Moreover, it does not leave any room for presenting agendas that could be objectively evaluated. Thus, this institution continues to reproduce the superficial and mistaken awareness, but by means that seem to be in harmony with the modern institutions.
Thirdly: The addiction to sectarian or fanatic loyalty has created a fertile land that the political parties make use of to make political struggles look like sectarian ones, and making the entire picture more blur in the eyes of the masses . This is especially true when the rulers loose their popular base and their objective legitimacy. Thus, they will resort to sectarian, racial or regional incitement aiming to win an added value through the use of the sacredness of the partisan affiliation, and adding additional impetus to the role of instinctual fanaticism.
Fourthly: What aggravated things even more, was the emergence of the Takfiri groups that imposed its superficial understanding of the religious issues and its defining of the "rules of engagements" on all the Muslim and Arab world, especially that they depend on sectarianism to win the masses to their side, and benefit from mistakes the other parties might fall in, or from claiming to fight occupation.
These groups have been able to win a sectarian following that neutralized any criticism or rejection to its methods.
In this respect, the most dangerous thing is that the leadership of this or that sect have become afraid of the people and do not dare to clash with them in their religious or sectarian discourse. Thus, the base is now the party that directs the leadership instead of the opposite, which is the norm. This in turn led to giving a kind of sanctity to the sectarian state, blocking the way towards any rationality and openness.
On this basis, we are all called upon to uphold our responsibility in rationalizing the religious and sectarian thought away from any fanaticism, and ossification.
This can be done by way of focusing on the principles that we agree on, whether in the religious sphere or in the tools we use to evaluate, so that the dialogue will be the adopted method to manage our differences which are a part of the nature of mankind. In this way only, we can turn differences into a means of richness and diversity. Moreover, these common factors enable us to evaluate any political development based on objective standards, preventing any identification between corruption or treason and sectarian masks, or between crime and political leadership. Corruption has no religion or sect, just as treason injustice and deviation.
It is necessary that everybody in our Muslim and Arab world should strive to prevent the phenomenon of turning any partisan or political affiliation into a fanatic following; thus preventing any internal diversity. They should base such a following on ideological and rational thoughts. Such a solution enables us to be tolerant towards diversity and even encourage it as a source of enrichment. It also allows individuals to criticize any idea or project that his own party has come up with. And adopt any idea that he finds in the general interest of the nation.
Belonging to a political or social group is an organizational institution that is in a continuous state of dialogue provided that the group does not deviate from its general principles and agenda. Such a dialogue enriches the community and produces new leaders for the nation and the homeland.
/129
What offense could someone possibly commit to deserve such an excruciating punishment? “They were Muslim Shiites;” a witness explained. Even the police who were summoned to stop the massacre stood there watchingas the men were being brutally hit, wounded, and eventually martyred.
The massacre committed against the four Muslims, who constitute a minority in an overwhelming Sunni community, was committed by ultraconservative Salafi groups and denounced by Egypt’s prime minister who proclaimed that he is “closely following the investigation into the incident to ensure that the culprits are punished.”
Amidst such a critical time, one cannot help but remember the words of His Eminence, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (ra), who is deeply missed and needed. In an interview with Assafir Newspaper in 2007, His Eminence said the following:
The Muslim and Arab regions are witnessing an on-going escalating of sectarian incitement whether between the Sunnis and the Shiites or between the Muslims and Christians. This escalation has reached a level of igniting a civil war that represents a threat that no sect or confession will not be affected by. But why is partisan, religious or racial incitement that easy in our world? And why does sectarianism represent the weakest point that the international and regional intelligence agencies could break through to incite discord between the followers of the same religion or the same country to promote the former’s interests?And why do the masses respond automatically and spontaneously to such incitement, in a way that could develop to become a danger on itself, in addition to its country and nation.
Following are some points that try to answer these questions:
Firstly: The religious guidance of some religious leaders, especially those who act as employees to certain political parties, does not rely on reason in their discourse, or positions, making it, the discourse, largely superficial and formal, which will make the masses grow accustomed to such method and adopt it in analysing all its affairs and problems.
Most of the political discourse too is usually superficial and making light of the people's minds. So much so that the people have become addicted to such a discourse, to the extent that they started to accuse those who talk to their minds of being unrealistic or treacherous.
What has made the matters even worse and more dangerous is that some of those who although not qualified, are in leading positions, whether religious or political, have begun to exploit the dedication of the masses to their superior causes to keep them in the dark, since if these masses learn the truth they will no longer believe in the legitimacy of these leaders.
Secondly: This methodology that has characterized the oriental mentality or the so-called Third World has become the basis of political and social loyalty, turning it into an institution that makes the loyalty to a person, party and group based on emotions and instincts that are in turn based on historical or political fanaticism, in a way that does not consider pluralism a source of enrichment to each individual in the community. It rather cancels the role of reason by making the public respond emotionally to any sectarian slogan or goal.
Moreover, it does not leave any room for presenting agendas that could be objectively evaluated. Thus, this institution continues to reproduce the superficial and mistaken awareness, but by means that seem to be in harmony with the modern institutions.
Thirdly: The addiction to sectarian or fanatic loyalty has created a fertile land that the political parties make use of to make political struggles look like sectarian ones, and making the entire picture more blur in the eyes of the masses . This is especially true when the rulers loose their popular base and their objective legitimacy. Thus, they will resort to sectarian, racial or regional incitement aiming to win an added value through the use of the sacredness of the partisan affiliation, and adding additional impetus to the role of instinctual fanaticism.
Fourthly: What aggravated things even more, was the emergence of the Takfiri groups that imposed its superficial understanding of the religious issues and its defining of the "rules of engagements" on all the Muslim and Arab world, especially that they depend on sectarianism to win the masses to their side, and benefit from mistakes the other parties might fall in, or from claiming to fight occupation.
These groups have been able to win a sectarian following that neutralized any criticism or rejection to its methods.
In this respect, the most dangerous thing is that the leadership of this or that sect have become afraid of the people and do not dare to clash with them in their religious or sectarian discourse. Thus, the base is now the party that directs the leadership instead of the opposite, which is the norm. This in turn led to giving a kind of sanctity to the sectarian state, blocking the way towards any rationality and openness.
On this basis, we are all called upon to uphold our responsibility in rationalizing the religious and sectarian thought away from any fanaticism, and ossification.
This can be done by way of focusing on the principles that we agree on, whether in the religious sphere or in the tools we use to evaluate, so that the dialogue will be the adopted method to manage our differences which are a part of the nature of mankind. In this way only, we can turn differences into a means of richness and diversity. Moreover, these common factors enable us to evaluate any political development based on objective standards, preventing any identification between corruption or treason and sectarian masks, or between crime and political leadership. Corruption has no religion or sect, just as treason injustice and deviation.
It is necessary that everybody in our Muslim and Arab world should strive to prevent the phenomenon of turning any partisan or political affiliation into a fanatic following; thus preventing any internal diversity. They should base such a following on ideological and rational thoughts. Such a solution enables us to be tolerant towards diversity and even encourage it as a source of enrichment. It also allows individuals to criticize any idea or project that his own party has come up with. And adopt any idea that he finds in the general interest of the nation.
Belonging to a political or social group is an organizational institution that is in a continuous state of dialogue provided that the group does not deviate from its general principles and agenda. Such a dialogue enriches the community and produces new leaders for the nation and the homeland.
/129