Ibrahim Issa and "the myth of Isra and Mi'raj" have the United States encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine?

The fierce campaign against our fellow writer and journalist, Ibrahim Issa, including the filing of accusations and the investigation with him by the Egyptian Prosecution, is an unjust and reprehensible campaign without a doubt, and it is also certain that it will not make the story of the "Isra and Mi'raj" a reality for those who believe It is just an illusion and a myth, and it really is, according to my opinion, and it will not deter or intimidate those who use their minds and think freely and conscientiously. But it will only harm Egypt and its judicial system and make it a blatant example of schizophrenia and duplicity.

While I believe that what moved this issue in the first place was the harsh criticism directed by Ibrahim towards the position of a cleric and thus towards the Al-Azhar institution (which is an institution affiliated with the government), and it is not necessarily his talk about the story of the Isra and Mi’raj, which came as an accident, but the whole issue brings us back again To square one, which is contempt for religions!

Coincidentally, I was a guest on Professor Ibrahim Issa's program that he presented on Al-Hurra TV, "Disputed On" last September, and the topic was the charge of defamation of religions included in the Egyptian Penal Code, and almost in most of the laws of Arab countries in different formulas and forms.

It was not difficult to deduce at the time, as is the case today, that this article is primarily a form of terrorism that belongs to the times of the "hisba" and the "inquisition courts", as it was designed in a way that makes it loose and pliable and used by the judges of the Sultan however they like. And for what purposes they wanted to achieve.

Secondly, it is, in this way, a sword hanging over the necks of writers, thinkers, and researchers who dare to question and criticize, and venture to present a summary of their conclusions and opinions, even if they contradict what is “necessarily known from religion.” The adjective “known” here is not Make him infallible or exempt him from criticism, except for those who believe in him and believe in him. But for those who research the history of religions or criticize them, they must question this “known” in order to know its source and see whether it is the son of its time and context, and whether it has a basis of truth and logic.

The job of the researcher, in general, must allow the circulation of as much diversity as possible in opinions, ideas, and possibilities regarding the subject of research, and this is what gives meaning to freedom of thought, opinion, and belief.

As is the case with many stories that are full of books of religions, which from the point of view of the believer in them are “knowledgeable from the religion of necessity” and a fact that does not accept doubt, but from the point of view of those who do not believe in them, they are just stories that contradict reason and logic and are impossible for them to happen. Rather, there is no evidence of its occurrence in the first place. There are also those who consider it a mere metaphor whose aim is to clarify, explain, and demonstrate, nothing more, nothing less.

In other words, the aim here is not to offend religion itself (if there is any), as much as it is related to the fact that we are in an era in which we cannot avoid free discussion about religion and all matters related to it, especially with the insistence of its followers And with them the ruling authorities, to involve it in public affairs or the common space of all citizens.

This insistence is what makes such a discussion possible, and even obligatory, although it may sometimes go to undesirable areas.

But if religion were just a personal matter related to each individual, as is the case in secular societies, no one would be exposed to it. In Western countries, no one discusses whether the miracles of Christ are real or not, or whether the Jews lived in Egypt or not, except for academics or those interested in history, and even those do not do that except when new traces or evidence are discovered that suggest this hypothesis. Or that, and these topics rarely become public issues.

There is respect for people's beliefs and religions as long as these beliefs are practiced in their own sphere, that is, at the individual level and within their own institutions, and do not seek to impose themselves on the public sphere.

This is what we hope that Arab and Islamic societies will develop towards one day, and there is no doubt that they are moving towards it in one way or another. But until that happens, it is clear that we will witness noisy media, cultural and political battles and debates about religion and everything related to it. And because time does not go in the interest of the clergyman and his job, which is no longer fit for consumption, and because it is difficult to adhere to and defend the superstitious and anti-scientific side of religions, this makes some clerics take sharp stances towards their opponents and turn the political authorities against them, especially those who are able to make their voices heard to others. as many people as possible. This is what is happening today in reality and is part of an expected reaction. It will escalate with time as change accelerates and the members of the new generations are able to form their opinions and convictions without the need for clerics.