This article discusses the serious problem of the shift in critical discourse within contemporary Islamic contexts from its reformative and constructive function to one of incitement that perpetuates hatred, threatens social peace, and undermines the foundations of the desired civilizational project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The article begins with the premise that “civilizational Islam” does not view criticism as a threat, but rather considers it a necessary tool for correction and renewal, provided it adheres to a system of ethical and legal controls derived from the Quran and the Sunnah (Prophetic traditions).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The article seeks to deconstruct the psychological and social mechanisms that transform criticism into incitement, employing the tools of fundamentalist and purposive analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It concludes by presenting a civilizational Islamic model for restoring the ethics of disagreement, based on the concepts of wisdom, justice, mercy, and prioritizing the public interest, thereby contributing to rebuilding the lost societal trust in conflict environments such as the Syrian case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A deeply rooted culture of difference and criticism has existed at the heart of the civilizational project adopted by Islamic civilization throughout its history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Criticism has been a driving force behind the development of Islamic and humanistic sciences, from the science of Hadith and its evaluation to jurisprudence and its principles, and even philosophy and urbanism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, what is noticeable in our current reality, especially in contexts of sharp polarization such as the Syrian situation, is the transformation of this civilizational mechanism into a tool of incitement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Criticism no longer targets ideas to refute them, but rather targets individuals or groups to demonize and exclude them, creating an atmosphere of moral civil war that paves the way for physical conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Syrian Future Movement, which adopts the vision of “civilizational Islam,” believes that this phenomenon transcends being a temporary moral lapse; it is a manifestation of the “civilizational eradication” to which the nation has been subjected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Incitement is a social scourge that undermines the “Islamization of society” by transforming religion from a unifying force for people into a divisive one. This vision stems from a profound understanding that Islam, in its essence, is a message of peace and coexistence, and that the verses that address debate and critique (such as: \u201cAnd argue with them in the best manner\u201d – An-Nahl: 125) establish a strict framework for keeping differences constructive, not destructive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Criticism (and Review): In a civilizational context, it is a process of evaluating an idea or scholarly effort with the aim of correction and arriving at the truth. It is based on respect for differing opinions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This has been expressed by fundamentalists as \u201cadvice,\u201d which is a pillar of the religion. They have made debate a means of deriving legal rulings, reflecting the idea that truth is born from disciplined disagreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Incitement: This is a mobilizing discourse that targets emotions, not intellect. It aims to incite hatred against others and strip them of their humanity and right to exist. In the Quran, incitement is often linked to sedition and transgression, as in the verse: \u201cIndeed, those who brought the slander are a group among you\u201d (An-Nur: 11), where a false piece of information was transformed into a campaign of incitement against the Prophet’s household.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fundamental difference is that criticism engages reason and seeks the truth, while incitement paralyzes reason and seeks to mobilize against a fabricated \u201cenemy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By analyzing the incitement discourse prevalent in the Syrian arena, three dangerous psycho-social mechanisms can be identified that have led to this slide:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n First: The \u201cmeans\u201d overshadow the \u201cpurpose,\u201d where criticism is transformed from a means of reform into an end in itself, namely, the triumph of the collective \u201cself\u201d over the \u201cother.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here, the validity of the idea is irrelevant; what matters is embarrassing the opponent and demonstrating the group’s superiority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second: The principle of exaggeration and generalization, whereby a statement or action is taken out of its context, amplified, and then generalized to serve as evidence of the opponent’s betrayal of religion, country, or values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is a distortion of the scientific methodology of criticism and evaluation, which was based on scrutiny, not sensationalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Third: The exploitation of “holy anger.” Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this is the cloaking of political incitement in religious garb. When criticism of an idea is portrayed as an attack on the very foundations of religion or treason, the critic becomes an apostate or a traitor, thus legitimizing the shedding of their blood and the violation of their honor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This transforms the intellectual arena into a battlefield, which contradicts the Quranic principle that considers sedition worse than killing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From our perspective on “civilizational Islam,” restoring constructive critical discourse requires activating a set of principles derived from the essence of Islamic law:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The principle of justice and equity: This is based on the verse: “And let not the hatred of a people prevent you from being just” (Al-Ma’idah 5:8). Political or sectarian hatred should not become an obstacle to fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the principles of civilizational criticism is giving the opponent their full due and presenting their idea honestly before refuting it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The principle of wisdom and good counsel: Civilizational criticism is not shouting and incitement, but rather a gentle discourse that engages minds. Wisdom means placing the idea in its context, understanding the background of its proponent, and knowing the appropriate time to present criticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As for incitement, it is a characteristic of intellectual recklessness that seeks to provoke rather than persuade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The principle of public interest and the principle of blocking the means to evil: The science of objectives (maqasid) provides us with a powerful tool for evaluating discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Any critical discourse, however “scientific” it may seem, is forbidden, based on the principle of blocking the means to evil, if its outcome is sedition, division of the nation, and tearing apart of the national fabric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The civilizational interest in Syria today necessitates a discourse that unites rather than divides, and that strengthens trust among the components of the people, considering this a priority of “bringing benefits and averting harms.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The principle of distinguishing between the idea and its proponent: In the Islamic civilizational heritage, a jurist could vehemently refute his opponent’s idea, yet at the same time pray behind him and preserve his dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This “jurisprudence of disagreement” is what must be revived to defuse the crisis whose dangers we foresee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, incitement begins precisely when “judging the statement” is confused with “judging the speaker,” by issuing accusations of apostasy or treason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Summary of the Discourse of Renaissance \u2013 From \u201cThe Jurisprudence of Incitement\u201d to \u201cThe Jurisprudence of Civilization\u201d:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Escaping the quagmire of incitement requires an awareness that criticism is a constructive function, not a weapon of war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian Future Movement, as it looks forward to building a post-conflict Syria, believes The task of establishing a “civilized Islam” begins with purging our discourse of the scourge of incitement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The project of revival cannot tolerate the logic of “either us or them,” but rather requires all energies in the process of building a national consensus on the foundations of justice, freedom, and citizenship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For criticism to become a tool of incitement, reason must be absent and “holy anger” must prevail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For criticism to return to its civilizational origins, reason and moral conscience must be present, and the great values \u200b\u200bof Islam must be revived: mercy for all humanity, dialogue in the best manner, and kindness towards those with whom we disagree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The path to a modern civil state inevitably passes through the rehabilitation of the culture of difference, placing it at the service of humanity and civilization, not at the service of hatred and destruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The article explores the differences between criticism and incitement, and the importance of ethical controls in Islamic critical discourse.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":65745,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4674],"tags":[4718],"class_list":["post-65747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-scientific-office-en","tag-articles"],"yoast_head":"\nCivilizational Islam:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
List of Sources and References:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n