When Father Zakaria Boutros attacked everything that was written in religious books, he triggered no more than a few laconic responses, as nobody bothered to refute what he had said.
However, when Islam Beheiry, a Muslim specialist, did the same, al-Azhar demanded that his television program be shut down.
I have here the following observations:
1. We should not ban any thoughts. And those debates are a waste of time compared to other more important challenges. They only benefit our weak media, that makes a living out of scandals and gossip, instead of educating and enlightening the public.
2. Assuming al-Azhar succeeds in gagging people, would that not be the same as burning the books of Ibn Rushd? Whoever does not like what Beheiry is saying can simply switch the channel or use his mind to refute what he says.
3. Our competent institutions are wrong, when they say that such arguments are not worth responding to, especially when the level of culture and education rises in the future.
4. If al-Azhar decided to fight with Beheiry, it should do so with the moderation and tolerance that it claims are part of its nature. It should say in an official statement that Beheiry’s blood should not be shed, because anything that happens to him would be because of al-Azhar’s position in the first place.
5. The Islam of Beheiry is no different from that of others. He just uses his mind to discuss the texts that were written by humans, worshipped by others.
6. His method may be provocative and condescending, which, in my opinion, is not very different from that of the extremists, but he does not force anyone to buy what he says.
7. Is it a sin to prove that true Islam knows no killing, burning or terrorism?
Edited translation from Al-Masry Al-Youm
