In Response to Al-Jamil Al-Fadil and Omar Al-Qarrai: Does Quraish Still Lurk Within Us?

-Al-Rayah Abdelgadir- I do not disagree with Al-Jamil Al-Fadil and Dr. Omar Al-Qarrai on much of what they established regarding Mahmoud Mohamed Taha. Both affirm that he warned against the rule of the Islamic group and resisted its project; and that predicting a catastrophe does not mean wishing for it to happen; just as extracting lessons from tragedy does not turn pain into a virtue or blood into an acceptable price for knowledge. However, the problem lies in the way both esteemed writers framed my objection to Mahmoud's statement. Al-Jamil Al-Fadil's title, "When Does Insight Become an Accusation?!", is enough by itself to suggest that I am accusing Mahmoud's insight or judging him because he saw what others did not. As for Dr. Al-Qarrai, he depicted my position as if I were ignoring those who created the catastrophe and turning to condemn the one who predicted it. Allow me here to say without hesitation that the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood is the worst thing that has happened to Sudan and the Sudanese people. Their rule violated the Sudanese human being and cared nothing for their life or well-being; it ruined the state by destroying the civil service, corrupting the economy, and looting public funds; it destroyed the country's future by undermining democracy, confiscating freedoms, and ending civil rule; it corrupted religion by politicizing it, trading on it, and monopolizing the right to speak in its name; it dismantled the social fabric by stoking tribal and regional strife and igniting wars, which led to the separation of the South and the burning of Darfur; and it isolated Sudan internationally, compromised its sovereignty, and allowed its lands to be violated. The result is that they left imbalances in all aspects that are difficult to fix in the near term. If this is my opinion on the system of the "religious obsession group," how can I accept a statement describing their rule as something that would be "extremely useful"? There is no doubt in my mind that the piercing insight and the worthy warning, in my view, is to say, for example: "Do not let them rule you! Not only because their rule is the worst thing that can happen to you, but because you might become like them, or you might defend them, or help sustain their rule." But unfortunately, the discussion with the two esteemed writers became, in part, about my position on Mahmoud, not about his statement that I discussed. I do not want to be certain about what they intended, but I am struck by the impact this framing leaves: it places the critic in the position of the accused before the critique is even discussed. Was I accusing Mahmoud, or was I discussing the soundness of one of his statements? I did not say that Mahmoud ignited the fire, nor that he wished for the Sudanese people to suffer, nor that he invited the group to rule so that its true nature would be revealed. Indeed, I did not deny that he warned against it and resisted its project. However, that does not negate the question I posed: Is it enough for a destructive ruling experience to reveal the falsity of a political project for us to describe it as "extremely useful"? Does a catastrophe become an extremely useful experience just because some people gained knowledge through it that was not available to them before? There is a difference between learning from a catastrophe after it has occurred and making it an intentional means or an acceptable price for learning. We learn from disasters, but that does not make them necessary for knowledge, nor does it justify the lives, lifetimes, and property paid by the victims. The people are not a single body in which losses and gains are equal. Whoever has died, been displaced, or lost years of their life is not necessarily compensated by the knowledge gained by other survivors. Our people say: "Every sheep is hung by its own tendon." Thus, the moral question is not just: What have we learned from the experience? But also: Who paid the price for this learning, and who has the right to count the losses of some as a gain for others? This is the point to which I directed my criticism. I do not see how this question turns into an accusation against the author of the statement, or into an exemption for those who created the catastrophe from responsibility! What occupies me now is: Why is it sometimes difficult for us to discuss the statements of great figures? Why do we consider criticism an undervaluation and an accusation against them, or even "bad manners" towards them? A thinker may be great in the eyes of their followers, yet some of their phrases remain open to criticism from a cognitive or moral perspective. And when we place statements beyond the reach of criticism, the discussion ends, and sanctification begins. Similarly, the comparison between the insignificance of my contribution and the greatness of Mahmoud's contributions does not spoil the validity of my objection, because the validity of the question is not derived from the status of the questioner, and the argument does not derive its validity from the greatness of its speaker, nor is it invalidated by their insignificance. *Does Quraish Still Lurk Within Us?* The saying of Quraish about the Prophet (PBUH) comes to mind: "Muhammad insults our gods and mocks our dreams," as well as their objection mentioned in the Quran: "And they said, 'Why was this Quran not sent down upon a great man from the two cities?'" The problem for Quraish was not only in the content of the message; it was also in its bearer, and in the status they felt he did not deserve. They wanted a great man by their own standards, as if the truth is only worthy of those whose greatness they acknowledge, and as if criticizing what they believe in is an insult to them and the beliefs they inherited. I do not say that everyone who defended Mahmoud repeats the position of Quraish, nor that defending him is illegitimate. Defense may be necessary when a man is wronged or his history is reduced. But Quraish might lurk within us when love for a thinker turns into immunity for their words, when their status becomes a substitute for discussing their argument, and when we respond to the critic by focusing on the insignificance of their standing and the weakness of their contribution instead of answering their question. The irony is that whoever appreciates Mahmoud because he resisted an authority that wanted to impose its perceptions on people should be the most careful of people about freedom of thought and reviewing ideas. As for elevating his words above criticism in the name of loyalty to him, that is a mummification of the thinker and a humiliation of thought. Criticizing an idea is not a condemnation of its author, just as stating a flaw in a statement does not erase the history of its speaker. Rather, dealing with a thinker seriously requires that we do not pass over what they said without scrutiny. And in the end... our country continues to pay the price for wars, tyranny, and the sanctification of individuals. We need to hold accountable those who created the disasters; we also need to expand freedom in criticizing the ideas that accompanied the process of creating those disasters; and finally, we need to strip the halo of sanctification from all those who have passed through here. For what we are harvesting now is from what they planted and sowed. And we will not be able to sow, anew, a different crop if we do not learn from their mistakes. elrayahabdelgadir@gmail.com