في خضم النقاشات المتصاعدة حول الهوية والانتماء، كثيراً ما يُطرح الخلط بين العقيدة الدينية والعقيدة الوطنية، وكأنهما وجهان لعملة واحدة. غير أن هذا التصور المبسّط لا يصمد أمام التمحيص الواعي الذي يبني الدولة ويحافظ على كيانها، ولا أمام الحقائق الاجتماعية، ولا أمام التجارب التاريخية. فبين العقيدتين اختلاف جوهري في الطبيعة، والمصدر، والدور، والأثر.
كما تعلمون فإن العقيدة الدينية تنبع من ضمير الفرد، حيث إنها علاقة بين الإنسان وربه، تتفاوت بين شخص وآخر من حيث المذهب، والممارسة، ودرجة التدين. الدين منظومة إيمانية روحية، لا تُقاس بالمظهر، ولا تُفرض بالقانون، ولا يُحتكر تفسيرها من طرف دون آخر، منبعها القلب، وغايتها الإخلاص، ومساحتها الضمير.
بينما العقيدة الوطنية وهي ركيزة بناء الدولة، فهي التزام جماعي ينبثق من الشعور بالمصير المشترك، والانتماء إلى كيان سياسي واحد «دولة». الوطنية لا تسأل عن مذهبك، بل عن ولائك، ولا تُقاس بعدد الركعات، بل بمدى احترامك للقانون، واستعدادك للتضحية من أجل وحدة وطنك واستقراره.
وإذا كان الاختلاف في الدين مقبولاً فطرياً وإنسانياً، فإن الاختلاف في الولاء الوطني يُعد خللاً في البناء الجماعي. وهناك تجارب واقعية تؤكد خطورة الخلط بينهما واعتبارهما واحدا أو تقديم العقيدة الدينية على الوطن:
• في لبنان، حين تحوّلت الطوائف إلى حصص سياسية، واحتكر كل مذهب تمثيل جزء من الوطن، ضاعت الدولة، وتفككت الهوية الجامعة، وتحول الوطن إلى «تحالف طوائف» بدلاً من «وحدة وطن».
• في أفغانستان، فقد حوّلت طالبان مفهوم الوطن إلى انعكاس لتصور ديني ضيق، فتم إقصاء فئات واسعة من المجتمع لا لشيء إلا لاختلافهم في التأويل، وكأن المواطنة لا تُكتسب إلا عبر «تذكرة فقهية».
وهنا تبرز الإشكالية الأخطر: حين تُختزل العقيدة الوطنية في شكل ديني واحد، فإنها تتحول إلى أداة إقصاء لا أداة وحدة. بل يُصبح كل مختلف في شعائره، موضع شك في ولائه. وهذا لا يهدد فقط التعددية، بل ينسف فكرة الوطن من أساسها.
«فالمسجد والكنيسة والمعبد... أماكن إيمان. لكن الوطن هو البيت الكبير الذي يحتضنها جميعاً».
إن الأوطان لا تُبنى بالشعارات الدينية، بل بعقود مدنية تحترم الدين دون أن تُختزل فيه. الدين يبقى في القلب، والوطن في المسؤولية المشتركة. فلا يجوز أن يُستخدم أحدهما لابتزاز الآخر.
حين نخلط بين العقيدة الدينية والعقيدة الوطنية، فإننا لا نخدم الدين، ولا نحمي الوطن، بل نفتح الباب لفتنة مستترة باسم الطهر، وتفكك خفي باسم الغيرة. إن حماية الدين تتم بتجريده من الاستغلال السياسي، وحماية الوطن تبدأ حين نُدرك أن وحدتنا لا تقوم على التشابه، بل على الاتفاق في المصير رغم اختلاف المسارات.
تركي الرجعان
العقيدة «حين تتداخل الأدوار وتنهار الأوطان»
29 مايو 2025 - 22:28
|
آخر تحديث 29 مايو 2025 - 22:28
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
In the midst of the escalating discussions about identity and belonging, the confusion between religious belief and national belief is often raised, as if they were two sides of the same coin. However, this simplified perception does not withstand the conscious scrutiny that builds the state and maintains its entity, nor does it hold up against social realities or historical experiences. There is a fundamental difference in nature, source, role, and impact between the two beliefs.
As you know, religious belief stems from the individual's conscience, as it is a relationship between a person and their God, varying from one person to another in terms of sect, practice, and degree of religiosity. Religion is a spiritual belief system that cannot be measured by appearance, imposed by law, or monopolized in interpretation by one party over another; it originates from the heart, aims for sincerity, and resides in the conscience.
On the other hand, national belief, which is the cornerstone of state-building, is a collective commitment that arises from a sense of shared destiny and belonging to a single political entity, the "state." Nationalism does not inquire about your sect but rather about your loyalty, and it is not measured by the number of prayers but by your respect for the law and your willingness to sacrifice for the unity and stability of your country.
While differences in religion are naturally and humanly acceptable, differences in national loyalty are considered a flaw in collective construction. There are real experiences that confirm the dangers of confusing the two and considering them as one or prioritizing religious belief over the nation:
• In Lebanon, when sects turned into political shares, and each sect monopolized representation of a part of the nation, the state was lost, the unifying identity disintegrated, and the homeland transformed into a "coalition of sects" instead of a "national unity."
• In Afghanistan, the Taliban transformed the concept of the homeland into a reflection of a narrow religious perception, excluding wide segments of society not for any reason other than their differing interpretations, as if citizenship could only be acquired through a "jurisprudential ticket."
Here, the more dangerous issue emerges: when national belief is reduced to a single religious form, it becomes a tool of exclusion rather than a tool of unity. Every individual who differs in their rituals becomes a subject of doubt regarding their loyalty. This not only threatens pluralism but also undermines the very idea of the homeland.
"The mosque, the church, and the temple... are places of faith. But the homeland is the great house that embraces them all."
Homelands are not built on religious slogans, but on civil contracts that respect religion without being reduced to it. Religion remains in the heart, and the homeland in shared responsibility. One should not be used to extort the other.
When we confuse religious belief with national belief, we neither serve religion nor protect the homeland; rather, we open the door to a hidden sedition in the name of purity and a covert disintegration in the name of jealousy. Protecting religion is achieved by stripping it of political exploitation, and protecting the homeland begins when we realize that our unity does not depend on similarity but on agreement in destiny despite differing paths.
As you know, religious belief stems from the individual's conscience, as it is a relationship between a person and their God, varying from one person to another in terms of sect, practice, and degree of religiosity. Religion is a spiritual belief system that cannot be measured by appearance, imposed by law, or monopolized in interpretation by one party over another; it originates from the heart, aims for sincerity, and resides in the conscience.
On the other hand, national belief, which is the cornerstone of state-building, is a collective commitment that arises from a sense of shared destiny and belonging to a single political entity, the "state." Nationalism does not inquire about your sect but rather about your loyalty, and it is not measured by the number of prayers but by your respect for the law and your willingness to sacrifice for the unity and stability of your country.
While differences in religion are naturally and humanly acceptable, differences in national loyalty are considered a flaw in collective construction. There are real experiences that confirm the dangers of confusing the two and considering them as one or prioritizing religious belief over the nation:
• In Lebanon, when sects turned into political shares, and each sect monopolized representation of a part of the nation, the state was lost, the unifying identity disintegrated, and the homeland transformed into a "coalition of sects" instead of a "national unity."
• In Afghanistan, the Taliban transformed the concept of the homeland into a reflection of a narrow religious perception, excluding wide segments of society not for any reason other than their differing interpretations, as if citizenship could only be acquired through a "jurisprudential ticket."
Here, the more dangerous issue emerges: when national belief is reduced to a single religious form, it becomes a tool of exclusion rather than a tool of unity. Every individual who differs in their rituals becomes a subject of doubt regarding their loyalty. This not only threatens pluralism but also undermines the very idea of the homeland.
"The mosque, the church, and the temple... are places of faith. But the homeland is the great house that embraces them all."
Homelands are not built on religious slogans, but on civil contracts that respect religion without being reduced to it. Religion remains in the heart, and the homeland in shared responsibility. One should not be used to extort the other.
When we confuse religious belief with national belief, we neither serve religion nor protect the homeland; rather, we open the door to a hidden sedition in the name of purity and a covert disintegration in the name of jealousy. Protecting religion is achieved by stripping it of political exploitation, and protecting the homeland begins when we realize that our unity does not depend on similarity but on agreement in destiny despite differing paths.
