← Back to Videos
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Is it better to stop criticizing democrats now?
Personal Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/EyadQunaibi4
Twitter account: @EYADQUNAIBI
Personal Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/EyadQunaibi4
Twitter account: @EYADQUNAIBI
Peace be upon you and the mercy of God, my dear beloved.
Some people are calling for postponing the discussion of the mistakes of the parties involved in the democratic process in Egypt, out of consideration for the sensitivity of the current situation of tension between these parties and the new Egyptian president on one hand, and the military and judicial institutions on the other hand, as reported by the media. Our brothers see that talking about these mistakes adds to the burden on the parties, which are already exhausted in their battle against the military.
Here, I would like to emphasize some important points:
We believe that talking about the parties' mistakes increases in importance in this decisive stage that determines the features of the system of governance, the constitution, and the relationship of the parties with the judicial and military institutions, as well as the Arab systems and international powers. This tension with the Egyptian military and judiciary is expected to result in one of the following divergent outcomes:
And through our criticism, we rely on the latter category; we address them, strengthen them, and encourage them. Our criticism is directed at them to contribute to correcting the course, and to the common people to remove the conceptual confusion caused by the parties' wrong practices. The goal is certainly not to weaken the parties in front of their opponents from the military, the judiciary, the secularists, and the remnants; but our speech aims to correct the parties' course themselves and repent to their Lord, not to be uprooted by the hands of their enemies.
For us, what happened a few days ago with the approval of Article Two - for example - in the form it was in during the days of Hosni Mubarak and Anwar Sadat, with a condition that does not benefit or satisfy hunger, which refers to Al-Azhar in its interpretation, but with its text on the laws of Christians and Jews without any ambiguity, in contrast to the use of the gelatinous word "principles" with the Sharia of Islam; this in itself is an indication of a great methodological confusion among the parties.
Some people see our talk about the mistakes in this stage as a diversion of efforts and a spoiling of the gains, such as reaching the presidency and attempts to restore parliament. And we reiterate that we do not see any gain in any of that as long as it is based on the rules of legislative democracy, the sovereignty of the people, the sanctity of their will, and the respect for the status quo judiciary; these are terms that the people have always mocked. But we see this path as a corruption of religion and a waste of lives and efforts.
So, whoever blames us for talking should discuss with us this view; for his confirmation that our presentation spoils the gains and diverts efforts is of no use as long as we do not see his gains as gains, but we see his path as a waste of efforts and lives, and that it will never lead to the exaltation of Islam.
This philosophy - that this is not the time to talk about mistakes - has so far contributed sufficiently to causing masses of Muslims to fall into confusion and methodological and doctrinal intellectual confusion. Some Islamists practice and make statements such as "political taqiyyah," which sow intellectually polluted seeds among the general public, then the general scholars remain silent out of consideration for the critical situation and fear that their weapons may be directed at the Islamists, so these practices appear to be consensual in the eyes of the general public, or at least they do not feel the extent of their danger.
Thus, what is not subject to disagreement becomes a matter of disagreement and consideration, and the polluted seeds grow and take root because they have not found anyone to uproot them. And I think this explains - but does not justify - the silence of the general famous scholars about many wrong practices.
And from my experience with some scholars, when we ask them to denounce some of the statements and practices that are misleading to the people, even if only hinting without mentioning the names of their owners, we say to them: "Doctor, state that we disassociate ourselves to God from such and such a presentation, and our creed in this matter is such and such, so that the matters are not confused for the general public," but unfortunately this concern has prevented them.
So let us remember in this regard the words of Imam Ahmad denouncing the scholars who remained silent during the fitnah of the creation of the Quran, which is a fitnah much less than the contemporary fitnah of democracy. Our disagreement with these parties is not about individual sins or personal rights that we can hide so as not to help their enemies against them; the matter is a matter of clarifying the religion and removing confusion from it, and we cannot give it up, otherwise we fear that we will be afflicted by His saying: {Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of the clear proofs and guidance from after We made it clear for the people in the Book - those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse}.
So we say to those who blame us for clarifying the mistakes of the parties in this stage: your efforts should be directed towards these parties to deter them from their mistakes and concessions, not to leave them to practice their practices that we criticize and then expect us to betray the sincerity of the knowledge that we learned and remain silent about these mistakes.
We have affirmed and we affirm that there is no greater corruption than the corruption of confusion in matters of creed and tarnishing the status of tawhid, and we have presented it in the episode "The Corruptions of Islamocracy" which has no equivalent benefit. And we do not rule out that after this clash with the military and the judiciary, the concessions and mistakes will increase in the next stage under the pretext of the difficulty of the battle, the severity of the pressure, the ferocity of the attack, and the preservation of the gains, and with that, our demand for silence and postponement of the statement will increase under the pretext that "no voice should be louder than the voice of the battle."
We must raise our voices to the parties: Do you think these enemies of the Sharia will be satisfied with you until you follow their religion? The clash with them is inevitable, and the solution is not to make concessions to them, otherwise, my brothers, what would please the eyes of our enemies with us! For they will not mind if these differences with the new president occur if they lead to him becoming in the eyes of the people the sole legitimate representative of the Islamic currents, and the Islamists themselves take care of silencing the voices rejecting democracy.
Then, pressure is put on the president and negotiations are conducted with him and the parties, concessions are made, and plans are passed, until they get what they want and get rid of the greatest danger represented in marginalizing what they call "Islamic fundamentalism," the enemies turn against these parties themselves and are not satisfied with them unless they follow their religion.
And the studies of American strategic planning centers are clear in this regard; they classify Muslims into: (fundamentalists, traditionalists, secularists, and modernists). If the arena is emptied of these fundamentalists and their voices are weakened and their call is lost, the next step is to marginalize these parties and turn against them and support the modernists and secularists against them.
Therefore, they look at these traditional parties as a temporary tool and do not accept their presence in power in the long term. And it stipulates in its studies the necessity of tarnishing the reputation of traditionalists and attributing them to backwardness and economic weakness so that it becomes possible to weaken their popularity and give precedence to modernists and secularists over them at the end of their role.
Studies by the strategic planning center "RAND" (RAND) outline this approach to dealing with Islamic orientations, such as studies on:
If the voices of those opposing democracy and concessions are subdued, the role will fall on you, oh parties; the attack on you will intensify, the need to negotiate with you will decrease, and the enemy's options for dealing with you will expand.
This nature of the battle is clearly illustrated in two verses:
The path of concessions will never lead to dignity and empowerment, but rather it leads ultimately to abandoning the religion of Allah and following the ways of His enemies. Either this ominous fate, or Muslims will awaken and call for these paths, holding fast to the Sharia of their Lord.
Our mission at this stage is to expose the falsity of these concessions and these paths, and to say to the people: "Come to us, away from the abyss." As for silence under the pretext that "the darkness of the group is better than the clarity of the individual," and under the pretext of the sensitivity of the situation and the severity of the attack, this silence will only hasten Muslims towards the abyss; for there is no warning cry nor an advisor who warns.
For all of this, we say: It is not in our hands, nor is it our right, nor is it in the interest of Islam and the Muslims, nor in the interest of those we criticize from the parliamentary parties, that we cease our call at this stage; but we will explain and warn, and we will err and correct, asking our Lord - the Most High - to rectify our intentions and the intentions of the Muslims, and to guide us and them to what He loves and is pleased with.
And Allah, the Most High, knows best. Peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions.