The Invention of Divinity

 God is as old as humanity. Indeed, the idea of God is older than just early man: it is older than any form of civilization. Even before we became Homo sapiens, even before we were modern human beings, the idea of ritual behavior was already involved in structuring human societies. For millennia, the idea of God has been employed by those in power to control, manipulate and dominate people. In the past, it was used to achieve this through the threat of eternal punishment. Today, it can help to create a feeling of comfort or hope, as well as fear. In this way, the idea of God continues to structure human behavior. Whether it is fear of punishment or comfort and hope provided by the possibility of an afterlife, God has been used as an instrument of power. It continues to structure behavior today.

 This chapter, in part, endeavors to unravel all of this, to promote the clarity and liberation that science and the firmness of belief in Naturationalism bring along, and to highlight how a God-religion fiction has been used as a tool of social engineering and of hierarchy-imposition, through looking at the historical context and the psychological dynamics of religious belief.

 In contrast, we will look at Naturationalism and how it can provide a more rational and empirical worldview. Because Naturationalism starts with the assumption that the natural is primary with regard to the explanation of phenomena, it can provide people with a much more coherent understanding of our place in the Universe. Why must there be a supernatural, or any other kind of metaphysical world? Why must we add unnecessary extra layers of complexity to what is already known about natural phenomena? Why neglect the obvious? Why treat others of our kind as anything but our equals? Why deny people a sense of personal agency and a sense of responsibility for themselves and the world in which they live? Naturationalism invites you to become an independent person who moves about the world freely and who plays a role in shaping the nature of that world without concern for divine judgment or fate.

Historical Chains of Control

The idea of God, at least as it has manifested itself throughout the history of humanity, has functioned as a uniquely formidable tool for the political and social control of people’s minds. Certain of the most influential religions and civilizations have long witnessed spiritual ascendancy merged with political power, with a consequent and usually highly effective exploitation of divine power as a means of social control. This was as true in ancient Egypt as it was in medieval Europe. In such societies, the fusion of civil and religious authority was a force so overwhelmingly powerful that it was difficult, at best, to oppose it.

 The pharaohs of ancient Egypt, for example, were not only human kings but also living divinities, whose divine status legitimized their virtually unlimited sovereign power over their subjects by bringing together the sacred and the secular. In medieval Europe, the doctrine of the divine right of kings held that kings received their authority directly from God and hence could exercise their sovereign power unchecked.

 The instrumental use of godliness to conceal actions that might otherwise seem indefensible is a recurring pattern in history. In a way, there seemed to be no end to what political or civil entities could do to one another, especially when logic tied these actions to some form of divine sanction. So any form of dissent or challenge to the status quo had to be seen not only as a political transgression but also as an offence against God.

 Defiance of the these theocracies meant more than just challenging an earthly ruler; it was an affront to a divine sovereign. With their judgments simultaneously in this world and the next, it was hard to make sense of where exactly one ended and the other began. Political dissent was inseparable from blasphemy, and blasphemy – in some cases – was punishable by death. Rulers had the power to mete out such retribution for any perceived threat to their dynasty, making resistance to divine kingship an incredibly risky proposition.

 Political tyranny bound to religious absolutism creates an imposing example of how religion has been used to quash critical thinking and open intellectual enquiry. When political authority is equated to divine will, an obsequious, unquestioning attitude towards leadership is deemed justified. This leads to a form of intellectual and which challenging the status quo is not only hazardous but also treated as a sin.

 Even in more modern contexts, however, as societies have adopted certain elements of democracy and the rule of law, religious institutions have often retained a strong impact on political systems, educational structures and the fabric of social mores. This continued influence of the long liberation of religion on modern society is an intricate and nuanced phenomenon that reflects the deep entrenchment of faith in human culture and history. In some places today, this influence is overt and omnipresent, theocratic governments and states with official religions feature religious doctrines that pervade the legislative process, educational curricula, and social expectations. A primarily religious basis for the justification of civil authority in such instances often creates an interconnection of religious and civil power that cast a wide net of influence that can touch nearly every area of a citizen’s life, from personal intimacy to public policy.

 Elsewhere in the world, the power of religious institutions is more insidious, but no less consequential in forming cultural and legal norms. Here, religious values and traditions frequently provide the backdrop to, or influence, social attitudes and behaviors in less overt ways. This might include policy disputes over social issues, voting patterns at elections, or cultural norms in family structures and gender roles. In allegedly secular societies too, the legacy of past theology is evident, whether in legal frameworks, ethical structures and cultural traditions.

 This continuous religious force, either overt or sublimated, brings into play significant issues about the limits of religious freedom and secular government, and the rights of the individual. It reflects the ongoing tug-of-war between tradition and progress, faith and reason, that will define the global society of the future.

 

In contemporary discourse, a troubling trend has emerged, particularly among progressives and left-leaning intellectuals: Many progressives mistakenly equate Islamic criticism with racial discrimination. The political left views any kind of critical analysis about Islamic teachings and customs as bigotry which manifests as xenophobia and racism against people of color. Intellectual laziness together with moral cowardice has generated a thoroughly dishonest and counterproductive atmosphere that impedes meaningful dialogue on topics like religion, freedom, and human rights.

The primary source of this misunderstanding stems from the belief that any critique of Islamic beliefs or non-Western ideologies automatically becomes an act of racial discrimination against Arabs and Middle Eastern people. The assumption shows a dangerous double standard because Islam represents a belief system that people from diverse ethnic backgrounds follow rather than a race. Scholars who critique Christian teachings and Catholic customs along with Jewish religious beliefs seldom face accusations of racism or cultural domination. As soon as Islam becomes the topic of discussion a defensive barrier emerges which brands anyone who critiques the religion as hateful or racist.

Let’s be clear: religion is a set of ideas. People deserve respect; ideas do not. Society must evaluate ideas regardless of their popularity or sacred status since protecting religious beliefs from criticism contradicts the principles of an open and free society. The necessity to critique religious beliefs becomes both logical and ethical when they serve to support misogyny, homophobia, violence, censorship or political oppression especially prevalent in many Islamic settings.

Progressives who identify as champions of women’s rights and LGBTQ+ equality along with free expression find themselves ironically at odds with conservative Islamic law interpretations. The left abandons its core values to embrace a shallow multiculturalism that confuses moral relativism with tolerance whenever Islamic issues arise.

An atheist displays stronger criticism towards Islam compared to Anglicanism. People often suspect that such focus indicates an underlying hatred toward Arabs or Muslims. But this accusation collapses under basic scrutiny. The scientific community does not label cancer researchers as “anti-human” when they choose to study lung cancer instead of skin cancer. Atheists or secular thinkers often show more concern for Islam because it currently represents a stronger and more dominant religious force compared to other religions in various parts of the world. Islamic religious teachings control how over a billion people live and what laws they follow while several Muslim-majority countries enforce death penalties for apostasy and blasphemy offenses. This issue extends beyond theological eccentricity and represents a fundamental life and death matter.

What prompts many people on the left to instinctively defend Islam? A sincere wish to shield minority groups from hate and discrimination explains this protective stance in part. The lasting effects of Western imperialism in our post-colonial world create an instinctive responsibility to protect marginalized groups from additional harm. Positive intentions frequently fail to produce beneficial results. The outcome of this dynamic creates a patronizing infantilization of entire communities which portrays Muslims as vulnerable individuals unable to withstand intellectual challenges that other groups routinely face.

A false sense of unity under the guise of solidarity creates more damage than it offers support. The Western left’s refusal to critique oppressive systems results in silencing important voices from Muslim communities including ex-Muslims, reformers, feminists and human rights activists who risk their lives to oppose these systems. When you state you support the oppressed you have to support those who fight against oppressive religious regimes instead of backing the ideologies that support that oppression.

I speak from first-hand experience rather than from an external perspective.

As a native Arabic speaker with brown skin I engaged deeply with Islamic scholarship. My criticisms of Islam developed not from ignorance or prejudice but through deep understanding and extensive study which eventually led to my disillusionment. My departure from Islam stemmed not from a desire to adopt Western ways or gain approval from a hypothetical white audience but from my inability to align its teachings with logic and ethical standards as well as personal liberty.

Does that make me a racist? By rejecting oppressive doctrines I face accusations of Arab self-hatred? Is it possible that the left would accept my criticisms if I wrote only in Arabic? Would they feel relief if I shared these opinions in Arabic because no Western audience could challenge their perspective through such a language barrier?

These questions address the core paradoxes we currently face. The modern left supports “lived experience” narratives until they contradict established ideological principles. When an ex-Muslim shares their personal experience it is commonly rejected and labeled as internalized colonialism by those who hold opposing ideological beliefs.

The principles that liberal societies promote such as free speech and personal freedom should not be mistaken for exclusively Western traditions. They are universal human aspirations. The argument that Islam criticism amounts to hating “brown people” demonstrates intellectual emptiness while offending countless brown individuals who seek nothing more than to live in a society characterized by freedom, rationality, and justice.

The question “Why do you guys hate brown people so much?” functions as a dismissive tactic to end dialogue instead of promoting mutual comprehension. The implication that outspoken critics express their views out of prejudice fails to recognize their true motivation which stems from dedication to human dignity alongside freedom and truth. This mindset serves to destroy bridges instead of building them.

The left needs to recover its ability to lead progress and justice through an honest examination of all belief systems including religious ideologies. The struggle for human rights goes beyond the limits set by cultural sensitivity. Remaining quiet in the conflict between established beliefs and rational thought turns into an act of treachery instead of a virtue.

 

في الخطاب المعاصر، برز اتجاه مقلق، لا سيما بين التقدميين والمثقفين ذوي الميول اليسارية: إذ بات الكثير من التقدميين يخلطون عن جهل بين نقد الإسلام والتمييز العنصري. ترى التيارات اليسارية أن أي تحليل نقدي لتعاليم الإسلام أو عاداته الثقافية هو بحد ذاته تعبير عن التعصب والكراهية للأجانب والعنصرية ضد ذوي البشرة السمراء. هذا الكسل الفكري، المقترن بالجبن الأخلاقي، خلق بيئة مشوهة وغير نزيهة تعيق النقاش الجاد حول مواضيع جوهرية مثل الدين، والحرية، وحقوق الإنسان.

ويكمن جوهر هذا الالتباس في الاعتقاد بأن نقد العقائد الإسلامية أو الأيديولوجيات غير الغربية هو تلقائيًا فعل عنصري ضد العرب أو شعوب الشرق الأوسط. لكن هذا الافتراض يعكس ازدواجية خطيرة في المعايير، فالإسلام ليس عِرقًا بل منظومة عقائدية يتبعها أفراد من أعراق وجنسيات متنوعة. فالعلماء الذين ينتقدون المسيحية أو التقاليد الكاثوليكية أو اليهودية نادرًا ما يُتهمون بالعنصرية أو بمحاولة فرض هيمنة ثقافية. أما حين يكون الإسلام هو محور النقاش، تنهض جدران دفاعية سريعة لتصم كل من يجرؤ على انتقاده بأنه كاره أو عنصري.

لنكن واضحين: الدين ليس إلا مجموعة من الأفكار. الناس يستحقون الاحترام، أما الأفكار فلا. يجب على المجتمع أن يُخضع جميع الأفكار للتقييم، بغض النظر عن شعبيتها أو قداستها. فحماية المعتقدات الدينية من النقد هو نقيض لمبادئ المجتمع الحر والمنفتح. وعندما تُستخدم تلك المعتقدات لتبرير كراهية النساء، أو رهاب المثليين، أو العنف، أو القمع، أو الاستبداد السياسي – كما هو الحال في العديد من السياقات الإسلامية – يصبح نقدها واجبًا عقليًا وأخلاقيًا.

ويا للمفارقة: كثير من التقدميين يزعمون أنهم مناصرو حقوق النساء والمثليين وحرية التعبير، لكنهم حين يتعلق الأمر بالإسلام يتناسون تلك القيم ويتبنون شكلاً سطحيًا من التعددية الثقافية التي تخلط بين النسبية الأخلاقية والتسامح.

يتعرض الملحد الذي ينتقد الإسلام بشكل أوسع من نقده للأنغليكانية، مثلًا، للشكوك والاتهامات، وكأن تركيزه هذا يعكس كرهًا دفينًا للعرب أو للمسلمين. لكن هذا الادعاء ينهار عند أول تمحيص. لا أحد يتهم باحث السرطان بأنه “كاره للبشر” لأنه يركز على سرطان الرئة أكثر من سرطان الجلد. كذلك، فإن الملحدين أو المفكرين العلمانيين قد يركزون على الإسلام ببساطة لأنه أكثر قوة وتأثيرًا في حياة الناس اليوم مقارنة بديانات أخرى، ويسيطر على حياة أكثر من مليار إنسان، وتفرض في عدة بلدان إسلامية أحكام الإعدام على المرتدين أو المجدفين. هذا ليس تفصيلًا لاهوتيًا هامشيًا، بل مسألة حياة أو موت.

ما الذي يدفع الكثير من اليساريين إلى الدفاع التلقائي عن الإسلام؟ ربما يكون الدافع نية صادقة في حماية الأقليات من التمييز والكراهية، وهو شعور مفهوم في عالم ما بعد الاستعمار الذي لا يزال يعاني من إرث الإمبريالية الغربية. لكن النوايا الحسنة لا تضمن النتائج الجيدة. والنتيجة هنا هي تحويل مجتمعات بأكملها إلى كيانات طفولية يُفترض أنها غير قادرة على تحمّل النقد الفكري كما تفعل المجتمعات الأخرى.

هذا النوع من “التضامن” الزائف يولّد ضررًا أكبر من الدعم الحقيقي. فرفض اليسار الغربي توجيه النقد للأنظمة القمعية الدينية يسهم في إسكات أصوات مهمة داخل المجتمعات الإسلامية، من مرتدين، ومصلحين، ونسويات، ونشطاء حقوق الإنسان، الذين يخاطرون بحياتهم من أجل مقاومة هذه الأنظمة. إذا كنت تزعم أنك تقف مع المظلومين، فعليك أن تقف مع الذين يقاومون القهر، لا مع الأيديولوجيات التي تبرّره.

وأنا لا أتكلم هنا من موقع خارجي.

أنا شخص عربي، ذو بشرة سمراء، لغتي الأم هي العربية، وتعمقت سابقًا في الدراسة الشرعية الإسلامية، فقد كنت رجل دين. لم تأتِ انتقاداتي للإسلام من فراغ أو كراهية، بل نتيجة فهم عميق ودراسة طويلة انتهت إلى خيبة أمل فكرية وأخلاقية. لم أترك الإسلام بدافع رغبة في التغرب أو التودد إلى جمهور أبيض وهمي، بل لأنني لم أعد قادرًا على التوفيق بين تعاليمه وبين العقل، والأخلاق، والحرية الشخصية.

هل يجعلني هذا عنصريًا؟ هل يُتهم من يرفض الاستبداد الديني بأنه يكره نفسه كعربي؟ هل سيرضى اليسار عني إذا كتبت مقالاتي بالعربية فقط؟ هل سيشعرون بالارتياح إذا عبرت عن آرائي بلغتي الأم، حيث لا يستطيع الغرب فهمها ولا مجادلتها؟

هذه الأسئلة تسلط الضوء على التناقضات العميقة التي نعيشها. اليسار المعاصر يدّعي دعم “تجربة الحياة الشخصية”، لكنه يتخلى عنها بمجرد أن تتعارض مع مبادئه الأيديولوجية. وعندما يروي مرتد عن الإسلام تجربته الذاتية، يُرفض ويُتهم بأنه ضحية “الاستعمار الداخلي” من قبل من يرفضون سماع الحقيقة.

القيم التي تتبناها المجتمعات الليبرالية – من حرية التعبير إلى كرامة الفرد – ليست حكرًا على الغرب، بل هي تطلعات إنسانية عامة. الادعاء بأن نقد الإسلام يعني كراهية “أصحاب البشرة السمراء” هو تهافت فكري وإهانة لملايين الأشخاص ذوي البشرة السمراء الذين لا يريدون سوى أن يعيشوا في مجتمعات حرة، عقلانية، وعادلة.

سؤال مثل “لماذا تكرهون أصحاب البشرة السمراء؟” ليس سوى وسيلة رخيصة لإسكات الحوار بدلاً من تعزيزه. هو اتهام خبيث يُراد به تشويه نوايا المنتقدين، رغم أن دافعهم الحقيقي هو الالتزام بكرامة الإنسان، وحريته، وحقه في التفكير والنقد. بهذه الطريقة، لا تُبنى الجسور بل تُهدم.

إن كان لليسار أن يستعيد دوره كقوة من أجل التقدم والعدالة، فعليه أن يسترجع شجاعته في انتقاد كل الأيديولوجيات – بما فيها الدينية. فالنضال من أجل حقوق الإنسان لا يجب أن يتوقف عند حدود الحساسية الثقافية. وفي معركة العقل ضد الدوغما ، فإن الصمت لا يُعد فضيلة، بل خيانة.

 

Secularism, in its essence, emerges as a force that defies the confines of geography and geopolitical boundaries. It is a philosophical stance that rises above the mundane divisions of nations and states, seeking to navigate the intricate tapestry of human existence under the guise of various epithets, notably “Globalization” or the more nuanced “Planetaryism.” The relentless march of economic globalization and the relentless stride of technological progress, entwined with the convoluted narratives of fundamentalist ideologies, particularly those stemming from the Islamic tradition, have seduced certain minds into believing that these phenomena alone suffice as catalysts for the construction of a shared global arena. This envisaged domain, they propose, would not only render national values obsolete but also herald the dawn of a new era, one characterized by the emergence of the “global citizen.”

 

As elucidated by Dr. Murad Wahba, the contours of human perception have undergone a profound metamorphosis, veering away from erstwhile paradigms. Where once our gaze fixated upon the cosmos from the vantage point of Earth, there has been a seismic shift in perspective. Now, we find ourselves peering back at our terrestrial abode from the boundless expanse of the universe. This inversion of outlook heralds a momentous reorientation, inviting introspection into our place within the cosmic tapestry and prompting a reevaluation of our relationship with the cosmos.

 

The cultural and intellectual homogenization arising from this perspective dismantles the intrinsic value of nuanced diversity championed by secularism. Idealistic philosophical doctrines, intertwined with religious mythologies, adhere staunchly to a framework of sweeping generalizations and unyielding absolutism. Devoid of contextual relativity and analytical discernment, these doctrines conspicuously eschew the virtues of dialectical engagement and robust debate. Instead, they propagate a monolithic narrative that stifles dissent and suppresses dissenting voices, thereby obliterating the very essence of intellectual discourse and philosophical inquiry.

 

The quandary confronting proponents of the global paradigm lies in its detachment from its economic underpinnings and its extrapolation into the realms of ideology and culture. Advocates clamor for the establishment of a uniform cultural milieu that obliterates the distinctions between individuals of diverse origins – be they Chinese, Japanese, Egyptian, Iraqi, American, or otherwise. This fervent plea for homogeneity overlooks the rich tapestry of human experience and negates the intrinsic value of cultural diversity, relegating it to the annals of historical oblivion.

 

This rallying cry for the creation of an ideal global citizen resonates eerily with the fervent calls of religions to disseminate their beliefs worldwide. But what truly distinguishes them? The divergence lies not only in the outward appearance of the global individual, divergent from their devout counterparts, but also in the fervor with which they both strive to propagate their ideologies. While one may don the cloak of globalization and espouse a veneer of modernity, the underlying drive remains akin to the religious zealot’s mission: the erasure of diversity in favor of a singular, homogenized worldview.

 

Secularism, with its intricate spectrum of beliefs and principles, inherently recognizes the significance of national identities as anchors of cultural heritage and historical legacy. It operates on the premise of coexistence, emphasizing the importance of respecting and preserving the diverse fabric of human societies. However, the proponents of globalization, in their pursuit of a homogenized global culture, often overlook the nuanced intricacies and unique characteristics that distinguish one nation from another.

 

The danger lies in the erosion of national values and traditions, as well as the dilution of cultural identities under the banner of a universalized worldview. While globalists may not explicitly advocate for the abolition of national identities, their vision of a borderless, interconnected world risks diminishing the cultural richness and historical depth that have shaped civilizations over centuries.

 

When prioritizing a uniform global identity over the richness of individual cultures, there is a risk of undermining the inherent diversity that contributes to the tapestry of humanity. Secularism, on the other hand, celebrates this diversity and recognizes the value of preserving cultural heritage within the framework of mutual respect and understanding.

 

Embracing diversity and fostering mutual respect, coupled with unrestricted economic interaction, represents a departure from the notion of imposing a singular ideology on all. Economic openness serves as an opportunity to leverage national resources and effectively promote them on a global scale.

 

This model of economic engagement transcends borders and fosters interdependence, allowing each nation to capitalize on its unique strengths and resources while contributing to the global marketplace. It underscores the importance of collaboration and exchange, promoting mutual prosperity while preserving the distinctiveness of each cultural identity.