This is an incident that occurred at Al-Karma School in Damanhour.

An eighty-year-old man assaulted a five-year-old child with the help of the teacher and the principal.

This is the news as published in public media outlets.

What they are hiding is that this school is a Christian nun-run school, personally inaugurated by Tawadros in 2018.

The rapist and his accomplices are Christians, and the child is Muslim.

What is astonishing is that most media outlets avoided mentioning this, for fear of being accused of sectarianism—even though that is truly the nature of the school.

And some time ago, a rumor spread about a Qur’an memorization school, and the media made sure to emphasize that the accused was Salafi!

The fact that the child is Muslim and the perpetrator is Christian makes attaining justice difficult and requires persistence from the lawyer.

Because the “minority” complex will come into play, and the perpetrators will exploit it, claiming this is a hostile act against minorities, and many will remain silent for fear of sectarian strife!

This is the humiliation of the majority and the pride of the minority in the land of Egypt!

Had it been the other way around, the matter would have been resolved instantly—to prove to the West that we do not neglect the rights of minorities.

And it is very strange that Muslims place their children in Christian schools! But this is one of the effects of an inferiority complex—they consider it a good education due to its resemblance to Western education.

Allah Almighty said: “O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin” [Aal Imran].

In this is a lesson, and we ask Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, to strengthen the heart of the child and his parents, and to take vengeance on that vile criminal and on those who aided and covered for him.

Four jurisprudential schools and three doctrinal Sunni schools...

When the Syrian Minister of Religious Endowments stated that the Sunni schools are three; the Ash'ari, the Maturidi, and the Athari, and that anyone who objects to the figures of these three schools will be punished, I saw many people who were pleased with his speech, not because they know the true disagreements between the three schools, but because any speech calling for unity and the rejection of hatred, especially in the suffocating circumstances of the country, is appreciated. People are used to hearing this kind of talk in a positive context.

When scientific research is mixed with political interests, if you want to say that this statement is not true and that these schools do not converge, people will not see you as a researcher who has reached a conclusion, but as (a source of discord) and (a destabilizer of security). Therefore, you are left with the choice of either accepting a certain conclusion or remaining silent.

Thus, one cannot research outside the context of this tension.

In the past, when one would say (the three schools: the Ash'ari, the Maturidi, and the Athari), people would respond by citing the words of the scholars in their commentary on al-Safarini, and some would direct their words, but now, since this matter has been mixed with a political situation, it has become intimidating.

Therefore, the method of critique and deconstruction needs to be enhanced.

It can be said: The Shi'a also have a presence in the country, as well as the esoteric sects, and the potential for the doctrinal conflict with them to escalate into an intense armed conflict is strong, and even the People of the Book.

Do they have the right to demand a law that criminalizes declaring them as infidels or misguided or attacking their (figures)?

If the response is: Yes.

It can be said: What is the uniqueness of the Ash'ari, Maturidi, and Athari? Then let every person remain on their belief, believe inwardly that others are misguided, but not openly declare it.

This is an impossible fantasy.

If the response is: No.

It can be said: If the statement about declaring them as infidels or misguided does not lead to security problems, then the same applies to others.

In "Dhail Tabaqat al-Hanabila" [1/42], in a story involving reconciliation between the Ash'ari and Hanbali, it is mentioned: "Then Ibn al-Qushayri – who was the least respectful towards al-Sharif – stood up, and al-Sharif asked: Who is this? It was said: Abu Nasr Ibn al-Qushayri. He said: If anyone should be thanked for their innovation, it should be this young man, because he is open about what is in his heart, and he has not been hypocritical like these two. Then he turned to the minister and said: What kind of reconciliation is this? It can only be between those who are disputing over power, or worldly matters, or a dispute over sovereignty. But as for these people: they claim we are infidels, and we claim that anyone who does not believe as we do is an infidel. What reconciliation is there between us? This Imam is declaring openly, and his grandfathers – al-Qaim and al-Qadir – had publicly declared their belief."

This story contains a historical fact that cannot be denied, so if you go to any Hanbali jurisprudence book and look in the chapter on apostasy, you will see them mention the beliefs of the Ash'ari and discuss the difference between the proponent of these beliefs and one who follows them, and even the dispute between the Ash'ari and the Maturidi is strong for those who have researched it, and its effects are found in Hanafi jurisprudence books.

Allah Almighty says: {So if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Last Day} [An-Nisa 4:59].

The disagreements among people on beliefs are included in this verse without a doubt, and it is also certain that in the Ummah, some have returned to Allah and His Messenger and have been guided, while others have defied and neglected. Equating the truth and falsehood is an injustice to the truth and its people, and the state of truth cannot be established on injustice.

This division also accuses the scholars of all these sects of injustice and innovation, as they confined the truth to their own group, many of whom lived under oppressive political circumstances. In fact, you have now gone from three sects to six, because each sect will be divided into moderate and extremist.

Fantasy solutions that are impossible to achieve destroy rather than build, and the term "attacking figures" is a vague term that needs clarification. For one to accuse of misguidance or similar things in doctrinal discussions is common, and it is one of the necessities of any school of thought. If there is no misguidance and guidance, what is the point of knowledge and evidence then? What is the point of calling it a belief? What is the difference between it and the branches? Even in football, romanticism does not reach the point of accepting more than one winner in a match between two opposing teams.

Dr. Muhammad Ratib al-Nabulsi is a descendant of ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, who was a glorifier of Ibn ‘Arabi, and I think he too shows his respect for Ibn ‘Arabi.

When I read this statement, I remembered the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, as in Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā [2/98]:
“The reality of the doctrine of the Unity-believers—like the author of al-Fuṣūṣ and his likes—to which their words lead and which they explicitly state in places, is that realities follow beliefs. And this is one of the sayings of the Sophists, so whoever says something or believes something, then it is truth in the self of the one who said or believed it.”

This doctrine that Ibn Taymiyyah attributed to Ibn ‘Arabi (“realities follow beliefs”) is the same doctrine of the callers to pluralism, irreligiosity, and moderate secularism, the summary of which is:
“There is no true religion, so no one has the right to feel superior with their religion over others,” or:
“Even if there is a true religion, no one can prove it, or obligate others by it, or act upon it.”

And from here came the absolute condemnation of sectarianism. So whoever coined the term “condemning sectarianism” intended by it the condemnation of any distinction between the people of truth and the people of falsehood.
So even a Muslim refraining from marrying a Christian is sectarianism.

And I won’t speak to you about hadiths like: “Force them to the narrowest part of the road” and the likes of it—these today make hearts tighten.

And (he) has mixed between this and loving and hating for the sake of Allah, and (between) practices that lead to great security disruption and are not legitimate.
And with this mixing, moderate secularism entered upon many of the people—(such as) that the state should be at an equal distance from all religions.
And this is a fallacious idea, for secularism in itself is a religion, and it rules in issues of immorality by its own doctrine.
This is like a Muslim saying: “I am at an equal distance from all Christian sects that excommunicate one another.”

And even if we suppose the idea is possible—it does not conform to the Shari‘ah, and it is false, and it entails the loss of the religion for the sake of the world—and the world is the farm of the Hereafter, not the reverse.

And if it is said: He only intended the practices of sedition and problems.

It is said: Then why does he express himself in general terms that mislead the people in a time when this affliction is widespread among them?

And his saying: “No sectarianism and no distinction between them except by truth,” it is as if he took the phrasing of the hadith: “There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab except by piety” and applied it to religions!
But religions contain truth and falsehood, and are not like ethnicities.
So it is not said: There is no superiority of one upon another except by truth—between someone upon truth and someone upon falsehood!

All of this is a branch of a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truth, and it contradicts itself by claiming to be truth.
And upon this philosophy was built a political vision, so it is not fitting that we deal with this vision isolated from its philosophical root—especially with the fascination of many people with it.

And we cannot separate sects from their beliefs, doctrinal interests, and histories.
This is a lofty and numbing discourse—whoever indulges in it, is lost.

I saw this video by ‘Abdullah al-Sharif—may Allah guide him—where he discourages people from Hajj, and connects it to what is happening to our people in Gaza, so I recalled something I wrote seven years ago, where I said:

Indeed, the noble Prophet ﷺ performed ‘umrah at a time when the Ka‘bah was under the authority of Quraysh, who had expelled him, fought him, and surrounded the Ka‘bah with idols.

Nevertheless, the noble Prophet ﷺ went to the House of Allah, for it is the House of Allah, and he worshipped there and proclaimed Tawḥīd (monotheism) there, and he did not say: “I will not benefit Quraysh with anything when I come and enter their land, and perhaps buy and sell.”

For even if Quraysh benefits, the benefit of the believers in obeying Allah, the Exalted, is greater.

And this is Thumāmah ibn Uthāl—when he offered the noble Prophet ﷺ to prevent Quraysh from his trade, the Prophet ﷺ commanded him not to do so, and Ibn Ḥibbān commented in his Ṣaḥīḥ on this hadith saying:
“In this report is evidence for the permissibility of trade to the lands of war for people of piety.”

This is because the benefit is mutual—and this is in trade, so how about a matter that removes sins entirely?

And if you were to look into the book al-‘Iqd al-Thamīn fī Tārīkh al-Balad al-Amīn (The Precious Necklace in the History of the Sacred Land), you would find that some sects who held authority over the Two Holy Mosques, when they wanted to anger another sect, would prevent them from Hajj—knowing how venerated the House of Allah is in people’s hearts.

And only in our time have some people emerged calling for boycotting Hajj, under the pretext that the Sacred House is under a corrupt authority, and that it will profit from the money of Hajj!

And you—will you not benefit by having your past and future sins forgiven?
Had such a statement been said in any time other than ours, we would have found it less strange—especially since they call going to the lands of disbelievers “Hijrah” (migration), and live there, and the disbelievers directly benefit from their wealth, selves, and perhaps even their honor, and then someone says: “We won’t go to the House of Allah the Exalted because of so-and-so.”

This idea did not come from nothing—it came from layers of belittling obedience and the rights of Allah in comparison to human rights and human conflicts.
Even if they present it to you as religion, the greatest matters in their religion are material or social benefits, whereas matters of pure creed are trivial—unless they can be redirected to serve the first kind (i.e., material/social).

And now I add, saying: No one can boycott oil products under the pretext of necessity—and yet the money of Hajj benefits a vast number of Muslims who work in Hajj campaigns and service of the pilgrims.

And the author of the post himself pays taxes to the one who founded the filthy cancerous entity, and continues to support it.

These days, a tremendous dust storm struck our country. At its end, there was rain, then things subsided. I will not hide from you that I saw the matter as if it were a metaphor.

The storm is like the hardships and severe matters we go through in our lives, and the rain is the good that follows it and signals its end.

"Indeed, with hardship comes ease. Indeed, with hardship comes ease." [Ash-Sharh]

Then I looked into the matter and found that this type of storm is classified by specialists as a haboob, and it is called "quick to anger"—it comes suddenly, is strong, and does not last long.

It is associated with thunderclouds that bring rain in a way that provokes wonder. So what is the connection between temporary dust storms and rain?

That is the wisdom of God and the marvel of His creation—glory be to Him. In His creation is benefit, a lesson, and a warning.

Revelation has been likened to rain in the Qur’an. Likewise, there is no falsehood except that it comes alongside truth—and the truth is stronger and more lasting, even if little. Falsehood has its outburst, but then fades away.

In the illustrated article above, they quoted the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, saying that they liken these storms—which rarely last more than three hours—to the anger of a three-year-old child. Though angry, specialists say this has healthy indications.

Is he willing to be a servant of God?

Hussein Al-Husseini Al-Mu'addi said in his book "The Prophet ﷺ in the Eyes of Fair Westerners", p. 48:

"[The Centrality of God or the Centrality of Man]
The main problem in the West’s intellectual relationship with the Islamic world—and the West’s hostility toward the Prophet ﷺ—is the centrality of God Almighty in the universe for Muslims, which is embodied in the message of Muhammad ﷺ, in the religion of Islam, and in the reality of the Muslim Ummah, regardless of the level of religiousness and adherence among individuals in this nation.

In contrast, the West proceeds intellectually—across all segments of its societies and all its thinkers—from the idea of man being central to the universe, with the individual being the main focus of concern, and the aspirations, rights, and freedoms of the individual being prioritized above all else, even above acts of worship and one's relationship with God.

The West views that Muhammad ﷺ introduced a concept that could undermine Western thought at its core—namely, the centrality of God Almighty in human life—opposed to Western theories that revolve around man. Therefore, the West chose to place hostility toward Islam within its core value system, as a way to maintain man as the center of the universe in the face of the message of Muhammad ﷺ, which preserved the position and centrality of the Creator, Glorified be He, in human life.

On this point, the British author Karen Armstrong, writer of the book Muhammad, said:
“We must remember that the hostile stance toward Islam in the West is part of the Western value system that began forming during the Renaissance and the Crusades. These marked the beginning of the West reclaiming its own identity. The eleventh century was the beginning of a new Europe, and the Crusades were Europe’s first collective response.”

I say: this is a notion I have often emphasized.

It is that many Westerners—and those influenced by them among the publicly heretical or the hypocrites—have a problem with religion because there exists something called “the right of God,” and this right is greater than the rights of created beings.

It is deeply burdensome to their souls that leaving prayer or disbelieving in the unseen could be a greater sin than harassment, bullying, or theft—even though these are also forbidden in the religion.

We were raised to glorify the Western man as a free thinker who accepts only what is proven—yet this is false. Their minds accepted the Trinity and many other myths in the past. Today, most have accepted nihilism and ornate theories that ultimately approach the same kind of impossibility found in the Trinity—if not worse. It suffices to see how many have leaned toward atheism, whose essence is that something came from nothing, and that with time, everything accumulated and became complex through millions of fortunate coincidences!

In truth, overbearing souls begin by raising objections to ideas they dislike, just as the idolaters demanded signs from the prophets while having no evidence themselves for the polytheism they practiced.

Indeed, the general run of conflicting Western theories promises only immediate benefit to man. Therefore, the essence of the religious dialogue with them is to determine: Are they ready to be servants of God? Or do they want a religion that only gives and never asks of them—otherwise, they reject it?

Allah says:
“But if they do not respond to you—then know that they are only following their desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” [Al-Qasas 28:50]

And in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham, in the story of Al-Tufayl ibn ‘Amr:
“Then I called the tribe of Daws to Islam, but they were slow in responding. So I came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in Makkah and said, ‘O Prophet of Allah, Daws has overwhelmed me with sin (i.e., fornication); so invoke Allah against them.’ But he said: ‘O Allah, guide Daws. Return to your people, call them to Islam, and be gentle with them.’”

And many of those who say: “The world has reached such and such, and you are still talking about issues like the divine attributes, the Companions, purity, and so on...”—know that they are influenced by this worldview. This is not a doubt or objection in itself, and it is no reason to belittle the religion that it contains matters related to God’s right, which are deemed greater than matters of human rights that are agreed upon by both believers and disbelievers.

The sign of the true religion is that the greatest matters within it are those related to the right of God. What pertains to God is centered on His right; what pertains to creation revolves around creation.

This does not mean neglecting human rights as prescribed by the Shari‘ah. Rather, fulfilling those rights is an act of devotion to God Almighty. But the point is that you see them exalting every matter that brings human benefit, while anything they see as harmful or as elevating God’s right—they find unbearably burdensome.