|
Who is “Oppressed”? Is this “Scandalizing”?
Among what we heard are the following issues: They claim that we scandalized someone and oppressed him when we published a book that calls to account and refutes his ideologies and statements. We would like to say the following:
1) We never wished to discuss who the oppressor or the oppressed one is because the issue is not essentially personal. When it becomes personal, its tackling and discussion in such a method becomes unjustified. The discussion should have involved the wronged truth which is intended to be hidden from the people who have full right to discover it, to own it, to be fully familiar with it, and to be acquainted with its minute details. Likewise, we do not wish to discuss the oppression of one who, under the guise of justice, oppresses. Nor do we wish to discuss the oppression which some people label as forgiving and overlooking the scapegoat, as we hear some people repeatedly say...!
But if it is the discussion of an oppressor
who assumes the guise of piety, one who commits his crime from the position
of mercy and benevolence, so that he may be godly, not thinking of the
minute and marginal issues..., we cannot imagine anything like this to take
place except in a reviving revolution of ideals and concepts, one which the
advocates of “modernity” consider to be a legacy of the ancient past. No matter what, what is required is that the truth should not be dealt with unjustly, nor should the values and supreme principles be oppressed. Such would be worse than any oppression to be discussed.
2) Since we have no choice except to refer, against our wish, to what we have been asked to refer, we would like to say the following: We find it odd that the oppressor becomes the oppressed one, while the oppressed one becomes oppressed to the extent that these folks object to the publication of a book that refutes someone’s statements, rather than confront him with their objection for having made certain statements and disseminated them. This comes despite our invitation to him to discuss such issues before the scholars and the thinkers prior to presenting them to ordinary people. He responded to us in the Bayyinat newsletter of October 25, 1996 saying, “I do not believe that the public are commoners and that we should keep them ignorant... I find it wrong to put forth issues only at private meetings. Rather, we have to discuss them at public meetings.” We, in this regard, are like what the poet described thus:
He oppresses me, then he calls me oppressor; He condemns me, then I am called the one who condemns.
3) As regarding scandalizing, if there were such thing, it is obvious that someone had himself initiated the casting of doubts from the pulpits, on the radio waves, in books, newspapers and magazines, etc., about issues which do not accept doubt due to their clarity and to the irrefutable proofs which confirm them. Let us also not forget that naming him publicly was done by those who defended him on his own behalf. He also is the one who has been publicizing for and circulating these statements as is evident. |