In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful
Al-Hassan Jroudy
One of the signs of the fragility and weakness of those who are called strong is their hypocrisy towards the weak
Hypocrisy is defined linguistically as “a person showing something other than what he conceals.” As for its terminological definition, it is characterized by fencing the linguistic definition with the requirements of religion, thus classifying it into two types:
The first category is doctrinal, and it is the greatest hypocrisy in which the person who commits Islam reveals himself and conceals disbelief. This type is expelled from Islam, and its owner will remain eternally in the lowest level of the Fire, in confirmation of what God Almighty says in verse 145 of Surat An-Nisa: “Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest level of the Fire, and you will not find for them a helper.”
The second type is practical, which is what is called minor hypocrisy, which is doing something of the actions of the hypocrites while keeping faith in the heart. This does not take the person out of Islam, unless hypocrisy prevails over faith, in which case he becomes a pure hypocrite, according to his saying, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him: “Four of He is a pure hypocrite in him, and whoever has one of these traits has a trait of hypocrisy in him until he abandons it: when he is trusted, he betrays, when he speaks, he lies, when he makes a covenant, he betrays, and when he quarrels, he is unjust.”
So far, I have not come up with anything new worth writing except that I have quoted some of what is common regarding the definition of hypocrisy, but by delving into this topic I would like to urge the honorable reader to consider the reasons and reasons that force individuals, groups, and systems in particular to practice hypocrisy in the current international context. This is because hypocrisy, in its conventional sense, was essentially linked to the civil era after the strength of Islam and Muslims became stronger and became a threat to the beliefs and interests of the infidels, which made hypocrisy, after the balance of power became unfavorable to them, the only way out for preserving it, and this is something that is logically understandable as long as it is practiced. By the weaker party in its confrontation with the stronger party, but the result is that it has become practiced by the party that is believed to be the strongest towards the party that is labeled as weak, similar to the hypocrisy practiced by the “great powers” such as the United States, France, England, Germany, and others, towards the weak countries and their peoples in general, and towards The Islamic peoples in particular, which constitutes an ambiguity, if I do not say a mystery, that work to be solved by the oppressed is considered a civilized duty, and legitimate in the case of Muslims, if they desire actual liberation from the restrictions of these “superpowers” that combine, in dealing with them, material domination. Through the direct use of force, and between moral hegemony and the adoption of various methods and mechanisms in which hypocrisy plays a fundamental role in domesticating and drugging peoples, which applies to the system – I say a system, not an organization – the United Nations, whose mechanisms have been harnessed, such as UNESCO, UNICEF, UNRWA, and the United Nations Population Fund. , the World Food Program, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development… to adopt programs and projects that concern most of the vital fields, such as education, health, agriculture, and housing… Their apparent meaning is to help poor countries overcome the imbalances they suffer from in these various fields, while their inner meaning is to deceive them with the aim of perpetuating their dependency and preventing their independence. Actual materially and morally, so that it can tighten its grip on the peoples of these countries who are led to believe that their interest requires jumping on their constants and beliefs, and work to embody a number of concepts that are intended to be passed through these programs and projects, which lose their slightest meaning for these forces once they conflict. With its interests. It is known that reality abounds with enough, and more, examples to prove that hypocrisy is the backbone for generating these concepts and ensuring their spread in these countries, including the example of the United States, which pays lip service to equality, while it, along with four other countries, has the right to veto. The example of France, which in dealing with the issue of the Moroccan Sahara relies on double hypocrisy in its dealings with both Morocco and Algeria, and the example of France with regard to dealing with the 1905 law, according to which France became a secular state committed to neutrality towards various religions, while inventing reasons and pretexts to exclude the spectrum of religions. A large number of adherents to the Islamic religion, and an example of France, the United States, England, and Germany… in its dealings with the events in Gaza, because at the time when it demands to stop the war and provide its people with food aid, it continues to provide the Zionist enemy with food, equipment, and even soldiers, and stops its contributions to funding the agency. United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees UNRWA…
I do not want to continue listing examples of the West’s hypocrisy, described as force, towards vulnerable nations, as much as I want to extract some indications that this hypocrisy can be considered an indicator of, especially since it has become one of the most important features of international relations in general, despite the difference in naming it.
I will limit myself to three meanings, each of which relates to a specific field or level, and they are as follows:
On the material level, it is noted that the West’s material power is not intrinsic, but rather derives from its usurpation of the natural resources of the conquered nations. After the end of the period of forcefully seizing them during direct colonialism, it was necessary to adopt various hypocritical mechanisms, to prevent the total recovery of the peoples of these nations. And then ensuring its continuation of plundering it, through the so-called partnership agreements, development, and other diplomatic terms that are based on trickery and hypocrisy. On the doctrinal level, their knowledge of the power of Islam in confronting its opponents of different faiths and sects by adopting rational evidence can be considered one of the motives. Basic, because they resorted to plotting against him, through hypocritical practices such as Orientalism, and international laws to which associations and organizations were recruited, to work to establish them in Islamic societies in place of the requirements of Islamic law. On the moral level, it seems to me that they know with certainty that they are not as strong as they are. They made the oppressed peoples imagine them as such, and we have evidence of their weakness in front of the peoples when they regain their self-confidence, and so they resort to a mixture of Material force on the one hand, and hypocrisy on the other hand, to influence the moral side of these peoples, and to maintain, as much as possible, that image that the psychologically defeated take as a pretext for surrender and submissiveness, which prolongs the life of their control over them, and over everyone who has been loyal to them. Otherwise, their steadfastness in the face of the awakening of their consciences Nations, led by the Islamic nation, will not last long.
In conclusion, I believe that hypocrisy has a close connection to the balance of power at all times and places, so that the city’s hypocrisy remains a model for investment in dealing with the opponent, within the framework of the data provided by the renewed reality, and therefore, any opponent’s resort to his opponent’s hypocrisy is evidence of his sense of weakness, if he is not actually weak. No matter how much he overexploits all available means to appear strong and invincible, he does not accept anything less than surrender and submission, which cannot be avoided except through thoughtful stages, the first of which is awareness of the opponent’s weak points and searching for outlets for confrontation in them.
Al-Hassan Jroudy