Discussing The Republican Brothers [a Reformist Movement in Sudan] Citing the Arabic translated ver

06:33 PM October, 25 2018

Sudanese Online
سعيد محمد عدنان-UK
My Library
Short URL

Deen Hamid El Hashimi of Paul J Magnarella’s English Account on the subject.


By: Saeed M. Adnan – London – UK

A friend of mine watsapped me an Arabic version of that essay of El Hashimi on the subject above, which intrigued me to its mixture of controversies: bright human rights, what they call religion, which I don’t object to, with a dark base of philosophy, I may shun it as a wish narrative.
Dr. Magnerella probably well-deserved the PhD of Harvard University in Law and probably anthropology: no matter what, but a sheer academic valour. As to Islam and the Republican Brothers, I blame the sources to his comments as he evidently does not know much about Islam, save those who passed it to him, who must be seriously shallow about Islam, like most of the Politicised Islam advocates. I will not wholly attack them, or I may only reproach them in some basic Islamic definitions, as it is more of philosophy than Politics or movements of reform. So, I start by giving them the following:
That, Islam, the Religion (but not Islam the Faith), is an earthly practice (I personally refrain from calling it Islam, but Islamic religion can be tolerated, because of fear of ambiguity with the Islamic Faith). Religion of a person is what a person personally believes in its virtue. One can say it is part of my religion to go to watch the birds feed their litter, as it gives me peace and satisfaction; or it is in my religion not to dip in hot conversations, to keep my cool; and there is no reason why you cannot amalgamate it with religious restraints, to be your wholesome religion. That agrees with Al Hashimi’s definition, which I wholly endorse.
I also give them the truth that there is a lot of deviation from the High Islamic Ethics, and defamation of its Maxims that Shariaa, which is the code of practice of rights and correctional ingenuities, has societally become a source of embarrassment than a beacon of valour as it should be.
I also give Mr. Al Hashimi that Missionary Movements to call people to Islam must conform to a scientifically featured and challenging evidence ethically coherent with the high rationale enveloping the Message of Islam.
Muslims and Christians kept losing vision
Jews, Magis used to lose their trail
Two are men, one rational with no religion
And the other religious void of rationale

Abul Ala‘Al-Ma'arri
(A translation by me from Arabic)
Now we come to the controversies: Islam, the Faith, is not ours to muddle with, for either we take it or leave it. For before you engage with it, you need be mentally clear to admit into your thoughts its teachings of High Morals of philosophy, then cure its credibility with your gifted insight (Al Huda), submission to the limitation of your brain to challenge high concepts of it and your sincere intention to learn. That is where Allah rescued you with the huge treasure of His virtual verses, sealed with it His own promise, (Letter of Credit), of His assurance of the eternity of His words [His verse 15:09 “We did descend the Quran and We do stand to guard it”].
These are the gates to procede through with one’s belief in God and make sense of what one’s mind does not come to decipher: where did we from and where are we going؟ What is life and death, and why؟ Where everything started from؟ And where it all ends؟ That’s easy and all human beings set to question that, but they kept trapped to what their limited vision could throw the dice to. But you are with that verse and a whole book of ordinances from That God you came to believe in. That is Islam, the Faith.
Once that vow is taken, you cannot go back to muddle with it. That’s where the People of the Book fell into, but did not have that trump card, the eternal Quran. Their assurances of the Message (which by the way is the same as that of the Quran) was given to them in the form of miracles performed to support the word of their prophets. But in Islam, there is one miracle for all the Muslim, now and then, to see: The Quran, being the end Message.
That being The Core of Islam, how can anybody muddle with it (add to it, cut from it or reform it) in any way: A God/Human interface؟ A joint reform؟ But that is not believing his book that he is one and the only God, that he is the Wisest and the Most Knowing.
That is where the politicised Islam comes through. In all philosophies, Maxims and High ethics, Virtue, being all names of the one thing, must prevail and stand to judge, but not punish or reward. In modern politics it is mainly a constitution, which is agreeable to all the worldly gathering of people of common interests, (who responded to their Lord and held Prayers, and who conduct their affairs by consultation), Al Shura, verse 38. In that the most revered philosopher of the Enlightenment, Emanuel Kant, in worldly curing the bible verse: 10:16, “Be as guile as serpents and as harmless as doves” where power and ethics are morally married in that sense, had to have a practicality that makes it doable. So, he stated that: Politics (art of search for power) and the social contract it lays conversant with Ethics (Maxims that observe and judge answering to duties) cannot marry into a quorum entity.
To find a solution, the constitution, which constitutes the red lines that all the cosignatories (the public) abide by. That faces the cunning of man of defining, redefining, interpreting, where a supreme court where most bipartisan and of figures of a grand history of achievement and purity would sit. That still is a problem where man is very cunning, like what we see of legal and ethical trauma the USA is falling into because the president, who happened to be the chief of staff, has dropped all those enlightenment achievements of separation of Faith from Politics and pleading only to Ethical Ground ordained by religions.
That’s where ordinances of God are to sit, guide and judge from above. Correct interpretation of God’s ordinances needs not be gauged by the Arabic concepts developed afters but must be referred to the basics of the Arabic tongue. That interpretation is open to anybody, Muslim and no Muslim, Arabic or otherwise, man or woman, and therefore can be challenged by anybody, as the Message is not sent to a religion, cult or gender, but to all the world, present and future.
The source of the Message is detrimental to be defined to rank with God’s ordinances and be observed, without falling into Polytheism. Now remains only that everyone should observe his own rituals interpreting how to practice worshipping of the Lord as per His own direction, void of imposition of mediation, pushing, or encroachment from anyone).
The message is thus one for all times; you cannot divide it into first stage or second stage, old or new, simplistic or trendy. The coping with the trend of the society is an earthly task, commendable only by agreement and do-gooding. So it is part of the religion but not the Message or Islam.
The Shariaa would be practised in the courts to reserve the rights and apply the correction (within Limits – Hudude – and which is currently misinterpreted as punishment: Hudude are Maxims, meaning highest limit if you had to apply: still not exonerating you from seeking the most just way of resolving it.
As to considering Islam being two messages is the hard work of the Republican Brotherhood, as God declared that Islam is the one and only message that was sent to man from creation till today. You do not have jurisdiction to split it into two, not forgetting it is thinking God is not strong minded that He would foresee what is needed now and what is needed then. Forgetting that this message sent to man since thousands of years ago, remained revered and is failing now the las millanium.
This of course is expected from all religious political movements, where they ordained God’s ordinances, but allowed themselves to stand judges in His place. Mostly they sneaked unto the Prophet Mohammed’s, PBUH, to relate quotations to him without even evidence conversant with God’s directions. God demanded that evidence be placed in any claim as follows:
Four witnesses (in adultery): to testify in evidence of adultery
Two witnesses (in disputes): to testify in proving execution of deals or statements related to any mutual actions.
One Witness (in co-damnation): one to attest one’s own truthful statement and attest to be damned if the other party would attest similarly
That is when one accuses another without solid proof, by open defying by honour.
Justice towards women is deep in the Islamic Message. The roles, of man and woman and the Shariaa dealing with the two genders in heritage, testimony, polygamy, and social standing, is clearly just, and is pivotal into laying solutions to even more complex social complications not known and others probably denied and pushed under the carpet. I have touched on that before in an individual subject, but I surely will have to try to cover more on it.
This second sourcing, not befitting any human dealings, let alone answering to God, is roguely practised soon after the death of the Prophet, causing the Grand Sedition between Sunnites and Shiites because of a political fallout about who should rule! And up to now it is the main curse that is befalling all the Muslims, wrecking their homes and wealth, killing their children and wasting their women, and worst of all feeding the rogue and wicked enemies of God and humanity. The recent shameful atrocities and roguery are headed by Muslims for the whole world to see.
As to types of ruling the requirement is choosing the best that fair and most attainable representative of everyone in the society (Abiding by Shura ordinance), all rights and personal freedom with commitment to avoid offending others or interfere with their belongings (where a code of tolerance needs to be adjusted to limit freedom from harm). Most important is to keep Ethics in a supervisory role ordained from the book and guarded by individuals of clean and indisputable calibre, while faith and its practice is left to the individual to search its limits from the words of the book, which attainable to everybody , God’s verses in Al Qamar, verse 15: “We certainly simplified the Quran if any one is to heed it”.
Mr. Ali Dahab went a bit too far in challenging God’s words that in each of the cases of previous prophets, they taught their followers their religion was Islam, while Dahab says the three religions of the Book, Judaism, Christianity and Islam converged to make the one Message, inferring that Islam and its Message, the Quran, is not complete and has to be fudged with the other two religions to make a whole one! He says the second Message (just like that, presumably Islam) does not represent God, represent؟ – Represent Him where؟ No message represents God. Messages are ordinances of God. They don’t advocate for him. He is the Judge and Ruler. Even the Prophet dare not represent God. He is His servant worshipper and Messenger.
In defending women, the Republican Brotherhood indiscreetly insulted women. They advocated “…. Basically, that does not infer women are originally inferior to men, for we do believe they are equal to men; but we also realise that women of the past eras were inferior because they lacked the intelligence and strong personality, the two of which are attainable by experience”. So, it is an insult to the female gender and a disgrace to the Brotherhood, for intelligence and strength of character are not experience borne. They are part and parcel of the persona of the human subject heritage.
Now I am writing essays on the scientific interpretation of the Quran, and I intend to discuss most of the common follies of the Islamic movements of all types and the epidemic of annihilation of the Belief of all Muslims by roiling the clear Message and twist the ordinances of God with the help of tribal heritage. I shall go into more details of this rather precise account of the follies of the Republican Brotherhood and together with the Muslim Brotherhood, being the main two Ideological Politics going Theological.