Groups from the extremist religious right, which the media generally rank under the heading of Political Islam, have come to regard their societies as godless and heretical. The only salvation for these societies in the opinion of such groups is for them to come under their exclusive control, whether through the polls or by force. Their motto is either you let us rule you, or we'll kill you. Today, they are carrying out the latter half of this ultimatum. These groups have unleashed a massive and bloodthirsty campaign of murder and destruction in an attempt to spread anarchy and fear throughout the region. No country, from Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to Yemen and Egypt and westwards to Libya and Tunisia, has been spared their scourge. The ordinary person in these societies stands agape at images of suicide bombers, drive-by gunmen and militias attacking the army, police and fellow citizens, and he or she must surely wonder what would drive a person to blow himself up, to bomb a bus or a building, to kill a tourist or any other human being, and to so brazenly attack the most important principle in international human rights, the right to life. To risk one's life for a cause is often regarded as a noble act, and those who die for a cause are regarded as martyrs. However, this idea becomes grossly distorted when it is linked to some ostensibly religious belief that sees martyrdom as the ticket to paradise. There is nothing noble or morally praiseworthy in the suicide bomber or militia gunman who is driven by his beliefs to commit random acts of carnage that not even wild animals would contemplate. Such appalling acts naturally give rise to questions. Are these people from the same society as we are? Are they made of the same flesh and blood? Some will answer that they are the product of an environment that breeds terrorism. Others may say that they were created by Arab and international intelligence agencies and point to the so-called “Arab Afghans” that were originally recruited to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan but then turned against the Arab regimes. Others may take this argument further and maintain that these Arab Afghans were infiltrated into the revolutions of the Arab Spring in order to discredit them and sustain the momentum of the international war on terrorism or, put otherwise, to sustain the US empire's cooperative arrangements with dictatorial regimes that oppress their peoples, the yokes of which the people have been striving to throw off. How can these people create an environment that breeds those who have turned themselves into instruments to advance the interests of powers whose sole concern is to tame the Arab peoples, the proponents of this argument ask. However, whether these groups form a minority that is alien to their societies, or whether they express a small portion of them, the truth of the matter is that they are the epitome of religion turning against itself. In a sense, they take takfiri thinking to its logical conclusion. They imagine that an ultimate act of desperation against what they see as a wicked society on earth will automatically transport them to the gates of heaven. Yet, what reward can a mass murderer expect in the hereafter other than eternal perdition? At the same time, takfiri discourse is also the epitome of the logic of the Arab tyrant. Tyrants of all stripes do not like the ogre, as they see it, that reared its head during the Arab revolutions. They have a horror of the idea of people power, and they have been determined to erect a permanent and unbreachable wall between the people and authority, with the people on one side and themselves on the other. To wrest power from the people and secure it in their own hands, the Arab tyrant claims both unquestionable political authority, backed by such earthly forces as military and security might, and a self-acclaimed religious or spiritual authority. With this special blend of secular and divine authority, no one can escape their clutches, not in this world or in the next. This is the ultimate form of totalitarianism, and it is the favourite mode of political ideology and practice among Arab demagogues, who imagine that the only way to keep the people in their grip is to keep the heavens in their grip as well. All demagogues, whether from the Islamist camp or others, claim to speak in the name of the divine, which is why religious rhetoric has become so pervasive in politics. It is a variety of absolutist rhetoric, and there is little difference between one camp that claims to be in sole possession of the truth and another camp that rejects all truth among those who disagree with its opinions and outlook. In this world of absolutes, it is difficult if not impossible to have a positive dictatorial truth without a negative takfiri one as well. Religious discourse dominates, albeit in various forms, the mentality of politicians in this part of the world. It is an implicit but largely unmentionable condition of political life. Any serious dialogue should permit the expression of an opinion and its opposite. Yet, while hundreds stand ready to proclaim their takfiri views, no one dares proclaim his atheism. While all claim to subscribe to the principle of freedom of belief, no one dares to support this principle in practice. But freedom begins by breaking the chains of hand-me-down beliefs and practices. We will not be free until we have broken our intellectual chains. The reason why the takfiri groups are able to wreak their criminal assaults against our societies today is because for a long time in the past we let their political and ideological rhetoric prevail. If they are attempting to hijack society now, it is because we allowed ourselves to become prey to the logic on which Political Islam is based. To those in Europe and the West who may not be aware of it, the takfiris are an Islamist offshoot. They are emboldened in their actions today because they had been emboldened in their ideological encroachment against us in the past. Arab political elites found it convenient to co-opt takfiri discourse before the takfiris turned their terror against them. When an aspect of religious heritage mutated into a Salafist movement backed by petro-dollars and the ultraconservative Wahabist creed, the Arab political elites became mute and obedient, whether out of fear or because they thought it could advance their own interests. The political and cultural silence that greeted the takfiri discourse and, subsequently, the implicit or active adoption of this discourse lies at the heart of the tragic dilemma the effects of which are manifesting themselves today in savage suicide bombings and other atrocities. Yet, all takfiris bent on wreaking their atrocities against their own societies should remember that the Arab people will never forget those who have caused the deaths of their loved ones, or those who have sought to jeopardise their security, weaken their nations and harm the well-being of their peoples. These are the reasons for the historic animosity between the Arab peoples and Israel. Just as the Arab people will never forget the crimes of bloodshed that Israel has perpetrated against them, so they will never forget the crimes of bloodshed perpetrated against them by the religious right. There is no statute of limitations for such crimes. Nor can they be negotiated away or otherwise swept under the carpet, especially when it is obvious that they are meant to pave the way for another wave of Arab disintegration, weakness and partition. This is a wake-up call to Egyptian and Arab intellectuals, politicians, activists and revolutionaries. The time for profound introspection and the revision of our religious, political and social discourse is long overdue. In the interest of the national welfare, we need to mend the rifts that have rent our Egyptian and Arab homelands and to abandon, without a last look backwards, the futile and self-destructive dialogue with extremist Islamist thought that regards the principles of the nation state, national sovereignty and citizenship as heresies.
