Ahmad Hasan Ali al-Qabbanji is an Iraqi liberal Islamic researcher and writer. He was born in Najaf on January 2, 1958, and later moved between Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, and is now settled in his homeland, Iraq. He is distinguished by his different thinking and his boldness in presentation, flying far from the flock. It is enough to put his name in a search engine for titles that some consider controversial to appear, whether in his lectures, articles, or books. Therefore, if atheists and Muslims agree on anything, it will be their confusion and respect for Mr. Ahmad al-Qabbanji. We welcome you to the Arab Atheists Magazine and thank you for accepting the invitation.

In Najaf, you studied at the religious seminary and studied jurisprudence and its principles. What did this study add for you, and what is your opinion on religious education methods in general? And how did it benefit you later in the arena of society?

A: Naturally, studying at the seminary added many things to me that I did not know, especially in the religious field. But the question is about the benefit of this study for me and for society, and I say, unfortunately, that this study, which took many years, was of no benefit whatsoever, but merely a waste of time and a consumption of energies. However, I am now trying to benefit from it by criticizing it and exposing its falseness and lack of credibility, hoping that this will be a cause for bringing about a serious change in religious studies for the better.

Does al-Qabbanji see today that his ideas have reached the people, or are they still in the process of emerging? And what is your estimate of the size of your followers and those influenced by you, and do you see them as an active or dormant force? And is their presence limited to Iraq, or has it transcended geographical borders, in your opinion?

A: It appears that the ideas of modernity have reached people, whether through me or through other thinkers. Today we are witnessing an awakening of a new kind. People have come to see the emptiness and falsity of the claims of political Islam, as well as other ideologies, the latest being what we witnessed in Egypt and Tunisia with the rejection of Islamist parties. Indeed, awareness among people has reached a point where they have begun to criticize religious thought, jurisprudence, Sharia, and even the Quran itself. This points to the disappearance of sanctities, taboos, and red lines that used to shackle the Arab mind and make it subservient to the past and heritage. As for the followers and those influenced by the ideas of modernity, they are today an active and dynamic force, despite the scarcity of resources and the difficulty of working in the atmosphere of takfir, backward-looking culture, and sectarianism that Arab societies are experiencing. The best example of the strength of this rising enlightenment current, specifically in Iraq, is that Iran—which frightened the region's governments with its power, might, and intelligence services—feared the groups of intellectuals who came out in demonstrations against Iran in Baghdad and Basra and forced it to release me, even though the charges leveled against me were not trivial.

What is your future outlook for your ideas on the ground? Are you optimistic about them?

A: Optimism is not for the ideas themselves, but for the extent to which people absorb them and benefit from them in life. I believe we must be optimistic, especially since these ideas are in harmony with the age and consistent with the demands of reality, unlike the backward-looking ideas held by religious men, which are incompatible with reality and modern life.

How do we define al-Qabanji... is he Sunni... Shia... Mu'tazili... Quranist, or does he have a special classification?

A: Al-Qabanji rejects any framework that limits his humanity and rejects all sects. He believes that the Sunnis are on falsehood to the same extent that the Shia are on falsehood. Indeed, Islam today is not the Islam that is with God; rather, it is an Islam and a religion that is a product of society. It does not elevate a person in the stages of perfection, spirituality, and ethics, and it entrenches in a person fanaticism, ignorance, superstition, and sectarian strife. Today, it has become a factor in the backwardness of the nation and an important cause of barbarism and lack of openness to civilization and modernity.

Christianity and Judaism... how do you view them, and what is your opinion regarding the Baha'i faith, which has recently been spreading in Arab countries like Egypt?

A: Christianity, Judaism, as well as the Baha'i faith and all other religions and sects, are all not from God, including present-day Islam. As I said earlier, they are products of society, as determined by the German sociologist (Durkheim), for the purpose of preserving the fabric of society and strengthening the bonds among its members. The state of religion here is like that of nationalism, language, and homeland, in that they are elements for strengthening the social identity of a society's members. As for the divine religion, it is the pure faith that a person lives in their heart in the form of love for and trust in God, and commitment to moral values and human ideals. This is what we call conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in every human being, and every individual must move through their life by listening to the voice of their conscience, regardless of their religion or sect, because God looks at your hearts and does not look at your forms, as stated in the hadith.

You have mentioned in more than one forum and meeting that you reject the literal understanding of texts and doctrines. What is your view of the Quranic text and the concept of perfection attributed to it, and of hadith, Sunnah, and tradition... how do you view them?

A: We must adopt the mechanisms of the science of hermeneutics in understanding the religious text. Without it, we cannot grasp the purposes of revelation, nor can we understand what the Prophet brought, because the literal understanding of texts, as is prevalent in religious institutions, calls for stagnation on the ancients' understanding of the text, while truths and cultures change with the changing needs and ideas of people. Consequently, legal rulings and religious thought change, and this means:

1- It is impermissible to take the text out of its contexts and apply it to other circumstances that differ greatly from the past.

2- Acknowledging the influence of the interpreter's and jurist's foundational principles and presuppositions on their understanding of the text. Therefore, it is necessary to refine these principles and presuppositions, and they must be reasonable and appropriate for the age.

3- Not twisting the text's meaning to subject it to the desires of the reader or interpreter, thereby producing results that contradict reason, reality, and the purposes of the Sharia.

4- Understanding the metaphors and allegories contained in the text and undertaking a cultural translation of the text through the methodology of symbolism in the text, and not imagining that the words of the text are intended in their linguistic meanings or that they reflect and narrate external reality. What is intended is what lies beyond the text, of recommendations and creative decrees.

You often appeal to philosophy in your theses... what is the value of philosophy compared to other values?

A: The question involves some oversimplification, for we do not possess a single philosophy, but rather multiple philosophies, and there is no single philosophical criterion to which we can appeal. The utmost that can be said is that philosophy strengthens rationality in the human being, and this is what we need for understanding religion in the present age, after religious thought has been polluted by many superstitions and immoral beliefs. This is precisely what the clergy fight against with all their might—they forbid philosophy and warn against rationality, under the pretext that God's religion cannot be apprehended by the intellects and that the human mind is incapable of understanding religion and the Sharia. The result is that people remain backward, groaning under the shackles of ignorance and subservience to the sheikhs, and when a person's mind accepts superstitions in the name of religion, there is nothing to prevent him from becoming a terrorist later on.

Science today is even transcending the rational axioms of human beings. What is your view on the conflict between modern science and religious texts?

A: Science does not transcend axioms; rather, axioms themselves change. Every age has its own theoretical and practical axioms. At one time, Ptolemy's theory represented an axiom in the old science of astronomy, until Copernicus's theory came along and later became an axiom. The theory of shura (consultation) and bay'ah (pledge of allegiance) was an axiom in the past, and now democracy has replaced it. As for the conflict between modern science and religious texts, it is a definite issue, but it can be resolved by following modern methodologies in theology, through differentiation—sometimes in methodology, and at other times in the language of religion versus the language of science, or in the descriptiveness of science and the normativity of religion. That is to say, science describes natural phenomena and uncovers their laws, while religion enjoins human beings to follow a specific conduct. This means that science pertains to theoretical reason, whereas religion looks to practical reason. There are other theories in this field, but there is no room to mention them here.

There are many who speak of the scientific and rhetorical inimitability of the Quran. Do you agree with them? And where, in your opinion, does the inimitability of the Quran lie?

A: I have proven in my lectures and in my book *The Secret of the Quranic Inimitability*, with numerous pieces of evidence, that there is no scientific, rhetorical, or predictive inimitability in the Quran, as the scholars of Islam claim. There is no scope here to elaborate on this matter. As for the plausible Quranic inimitability, in our view, it is one of two things: 1. Al-Sarfa (the doctrine of divine prevention), as held by the Mu'tazila and al-Sayyid al-Murtada among the Shia. 2. Conscientious inimitability.

Al-Qabanji is distinguished by his unique approach to thinking and analysis. What is your concept and perspective on the unseen world in particular?

A: The unseen world is sometimes intended to mean metaphysics, at other times what lies beyond the manifest world, and at yet other times the knowledge that belongs to God alone. Sometimes the question refers to the ontological realm of the unseen, and at other times to the epistemological realm of the unseen. Does it even exist in the first place? And assuming it exists, what are the proofs that establish its existence? Also, can this be proven by reason, or must one resort to scripture? And what are the limits and scope of the unseen world? For this reason, we say that this question is ambiguous and requires clarification of what is meant by it. However, I will say a word so as not to leave the question unanswered: Materialists generally do not believe in a world beyond matter, whether it be the soul, God, or abstract beings, whereas the mystics of all religions and human cultures agree on the existence of another world within the interior of this manifest world. Everything—knowledge, the human being, the religious text—has an outward aspect and an inward aspect. We hold to this belief.

In your lectures, you have presented a qualitative distinction for the unseen view of the Absolute and the concept of its connection to the Divine. How does Ahmad al-Qabanji define God and the Absolute, and what is the difference between them according to his philosophy?

A: What is meant by the word 'between them'? The question contains no reference to the second term. Generally speaking, we see that the matter of connection with God is not an intellectual, cognitive, or theoretical matter; rather, it is an emotional, sensory, and heartfelt matter. Theoretical reason cannot intervene in this domain, as Kant proved. This is what the mystics among Muslims and others hold. At the outset, a person may feel within himself an inclination and desire for connection with God, then he proceeds along this path until the picture becomes clear to him, little by little. Faith in God does not come from the intellect, but from the human being's need for God.

God... how do you see Him... or how do you define Him?

A: The question requires a great deal to answer, and please refrain from asking questions of such depth and comprehensiveness as this one; rather, the intended query should be specified clearly. Because the word "God" itself is ambiguous, as is seeing and knowing Him. These matters are among the things that exhausted the prophets, mystics, and philosophers. However, one should speak about faith in God, not God Himself, for faith in God is more important than God because it is faith that determines a person's destiny and charts their life. God does not intervene in a person's life except through faith; a person communicates with God through their faith. So, one who has no faith in their heart has no God in their life, even if they believe in the existence of God in their mind. This means that faith is love, not belief in God; so, one who has no love in their heart has no God in their life.

What is Ahmed Al-Qabbanji's opinion of the Sunni sect?

A: Is the intended meaning of the Sunni sect from a doctrinal perspective? That is, speaking about the Sunni doctrine or Sunnis as individuals? And is the question about Sunnis in terms of their morals, the soundness of their creed, their belonging to their homeland, or their rationality? The question is also ambiguous and needs clarification of the intent, and I do not know why your questions are so vague. In any case, I said earlier that the Sunni doctrine, like the Shiite doctrine, is a human product and not from God. Sunnis may be distinguished from Shiites in that they took the political and governmental aspect of Islam, and therefore they demand religious government as a principle in the Islamic religion. Meanwhile, the Shiites took the side of opposition in the history of Islam, and therefore they are more emotional than Sunnis and, consequently, more superstitious than Sunnis. And Sunnis, in turn, are harsher than Shiites because governance necessitates that.

Thus, terrorism is more deeply rooted in the ranks of Sunnis to the extent that superstition is in the ranks of Shiites, and neither of them has anything to do with God. And since the Shiite doctrine was produced later and began as a political opposition, everyone who opposes the religious government and the caliphs joins Shiism, takes cover in religion, and accuses the authority of having departed from the religion so as not to be accused of apostasy and deviation from religion. Therefore, lying and forgery became widespread in their doctrine, while we find that the powerful, who are the Sunnis, do not need lying and exaggeration; rather, the government needs strength and the sword. From this perspective, we also find that Shiites rarely cling to the Prophet or the Quran because he was a ruler, and the Quran, in turn, supports strength, government, and the sword. Whereas Sunnis always cling to the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet because in them is support for their doctrine and the bestowal of legitimacy upon their government, even if Saddam Hussein were at its head.

Do you believe that God will take revenge on atheists because they did not believe in Him?

A: This is linked to our conception of God. If we conceive of Him as being like Saddam, forcing people to acknowledge Him and His leadership, then He will inevitably take revenge on you and on all who do not believe in Him, because belief in Him represents a perfection for Him and a necessity of His existence. But if our conception of God is that He created creation to bestow upon them from His generosity, magnanimity, and grace, this means that He loves all His creation. We believe in the existence of a moral law in the universe, just as there are natural laws in the world, and this moral law affects a person negatively and positively according to their deeds. If one does good, they will obtain good, and if evil, then evil. The atheist who does good and lives in love for others will obtain good in their life, and the believer who believes in the existence of God but does not act according to the requirements of this faith, does not perform righteous deeds, does not do good to others, but rather lives in selfishness and utilitarianism, will encounter evil.

How can you distinguish between a Muslim who follows Islam because they learned Islam on their own, and one who follows Islam through blind obedience?

A: Traditional and social Islam is what demands blind obedience from the individual. But whoever frees themselves from the pressure of society and social religion and returns to their conscience and reason will follow true Islam. This Islam is not through learning but through moving along the path of goodness and righteousness, and it may initially necessitate a conflict with society and the prevailing ideas within it.

What was your reaction when the invitation was extended to you to conduct an interview on the pages of the Arab Atheists magazine?

A: I felt no reaction because many of my friends are atheists, and my religion does not discriminate between people on the basis of creed, doctrine, or thought, but rather on the basis of humanity and moral values. I believe that atheism is a way of life just as faith is also a way of life. Whoever does not find God in his mind and his life has the right to deny Him; indeed, he must deny Him so as not to fall into the trap of duplicity. That is, the atheist does not find God in his world and does not need Him, so when he says that God does not exist, his statement is entirely correct. And when the believer says that God exists, that is also correct because he needs God and always finds Him in his world and his life. God is not of the category of things that exist in the world outside the human being; rather, He is connected to the human being's essence.

The Arab atheist... how do you view him, and what is your own perspective on him?

A: I consider this phenomenon a blessed matter, indicating the existence of an evolutionary movement within the Arab person, such that he has begun to emerge from the bottle and pays no heed to the pressure of custom, society, and the traditional religion imposed on the individual since childhood. I have said that this religion is not from God and may turn into an idol worshipped besides God. Every person who respects his freedom and his reason must exit this religion just as the early Muslims exited from the religion of polytheism to the religion of monotheism. The beginning of the movement toward perfection is for a person to reject the gods of society, whatever they may be—that is, to say (there is no god), which is atheism. Then this atheism becomes a prelude and a path to true faith. The atheist should not imagine that he has reached the final station. In this sense, atheism is a necessary prelude to faith. However, what I fear most for my atheist friends are two things:

1- That they fall into the snares of hypocrisy and duplicity out of fear of society's reaction toward them, so that fear of people dominates them and they do not declare their atheism. Thus, they will become entangled in the ugliest moral vice, which is hypocrisy. Either they must proclaim their atheism courageously, as is the case with some great figures such as the martyr Hussein Mroueh, Fahd, Hadi al-Alawi, and other communists of living conscience, or they must continue upon the traditional religion of the people. Because I believe that the most important thing for a human being is his freedom and independence; if he loses them, then everything else is the same. Atheism or faith, Islam or unbelief, Shiite or Sunni, intellectual or commoner. Their situation should not be like that of some contemporary communists who hang a banner on the door of the party headquarters: We offer condolences to the Imam of the Age (may God hasten his reappearance) and the wise religious authority on the martyrdom of Fatima al-Zahra (peace be upon her).

2- That their atheism stems from their desire to avoid responsibility and not adhere to moral values.

What is your opinion regarding the media spotlight on the recent emergence of Arab atheists?

A: I said earlier that this phenomenon is blessed and suggests the existence of a movement toward rationalism, civilization, and liberation from the shackles of custom and false sanctities.

In Egypt today, a new constitution is being written, and demands have emerged from Egyptian atheists for their representation in the constitution... What is your perspective on the issue of human rights and citizenship rights regarding the Arab atheist and his shy emergence on the political scene recently?

A: I do not agree with this demand from atheists. It is sufficient to demand secularism, which accommodates all groups without discrimination, so that atheists do not become a sect separate from society. Citizenship guarantees everyone their rights; this is from a political standpoint. However, work and movement under this name must be done on the cultural level to stimulate the Arab mind and break the cultural and religious stagnation. In any case, I consider what happened in Egypt in terms of a revolution against the religious party to be a key to progress, prosperity, and humanity. I believe that this revolution is the first revolution in the true sense after the French Revolution—that is, not driven by ideological and religious motives, but by human and rational motives.

If your son or one of your relatives confided in you that he is an atheist... how would that change your relationship with him?

A: It would not affect the nature of my relationship with him if his atheism stems from his reason and conscience—that is, if it is not a superficial atheism. Just as faith, in terms of its individuals, is divided into superficial faith and spiritual faith, so too is atheism divided into superficial atheism, which is born of whims and the desire to shed moral and religious obligation and avoid responsibility, and spiritual atheism, which is born of the human and conscientious sense due to the abundance of evils in this world and the lack of feeling God's existence in the mind or conscience, and because of what a person sees of killing, injustice, aggression, and the shedding of innocent blood in the name of God and religion. Such an atheist is driven by his conscience to deny the God of Islam or the God of other religions; he is a spiritual atheist.

Conclusion: What is the message you direct to readers, both atheists and believers, in the pages of our magazine?

A: I say: In this age we live in, with its indiscriminate killing, sectarianism, hatred of the other, and detachment from the human self, I see that we are in dire need not of religion, but of moral values, a return to conscience and love, and the consolidation of human values. That is, we are experiencing a real crisis in our human identity after false and unreal identities—such as religious, sectarian, and national identities and the like—have taken hold of us. Since the falseness of these identities has been proven, we must return to our true identity, which is the identity of humanity, so that we are human before we are Muslim, Shiite, or atheist.