For many years, religious innovators have been fighting with Muslims over the Qur’an and the Sunnah, a struggle that was caused by the failure of the secularists to directly confront Islam and Muslims. When the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan, the secularists again raised the question whether the direct destruction of Islam and Is killing Muslims a strategic and “rational” option to eradicate Islamism or not?
In response to this challenge, the secularists are divided into two groups as before: the first group still insists on the continuation of massacres, military campaigns, and occupation, but the second group considers direct confrontation irrational and a cause of incitement and unity of Muslims, and on the other hand, “religious new thinking”. They suggest curbing and gradually erode Islam. Later, with the defeat of America and the end of the occupation, this theory was strengthened.
The current of religious innovation believes that in order to create a black army, in order to strengthen its discourse, it must attract a large number of young people to its side in order to have a sufficient speaker for the gradual erosion of the Islamic discourse. But the main challenge of “religious new thinking” is rationality. Considering the important position of rationality in Islam, how can neo-thinkers convince Muslims to accept a discourse that contradicts rational teachings?
Muslims and neo-thinkers have the same claim, they both claim to be rational, the verses of the Qur’an are understood by reason, and the Qur’an introduces one of the differences between believers and infidels, the use and non-use of rationality; So, the basic question is not whether reason is useful or not? Rather, the question that should be raised is whether reason should be used in the direction of “understanding and implementing” the Qur’an or in the direction of rethinking and interpreting it? Because whether we want to believe in the Quran and whether we want to distort it from its meaning, we need thought and creativity, which obliges us to use reason.
In dealing with religious innovation, Muslims are faced with these kinds of questions: Is it basically a rational thing to remove the Qur’an from its meaning? Can following a distorted Quran save us from eternal hell? Will God punish us in the hereafter for not believing in a revised Quran?
Imagine that we rethought the meaning of God from the single essence of God to an abstract concept such as “love” or “love”. On the Day of Judgment, if for example Zaid says, “I do not believe in God, but my god is love and I acknowledge the divinity of love.” Will God regret be sending him to hell? How to rationalize these contradictory propositions?
Therefore, the neo-thinkers knew that inevitably “belief in the afterlife” is a definite obstacle against encouraging Muslims to change the word of God; Therefore, in order to solve this challenge, they suggested “gradual distortion from the sub to the original”; They believe that if the gradual distortion is developed from aspects such as the sanctity of music and is gradually expanded to the principles of religion, then the meanings of prophecy, resurrection and even the nature of God can be reconsidered and a modern understanding of it can be presented.
That’s when the minds after leaving Islam will be ready to accept a cultural version of Islam, in which “God” can be reduced to an abstract concept like love, not the essence that one should love him and fear his punishment! The hereafter can also be interpreted as defeats and victories in this world.
In this way, neo-thinkers will gradually be able to create beings that neither fear hell nor hope for eternal heaven. It is natural that a being who neither fears God nor believes in the existence of hell does not shy away from distorting the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Because his biggest hell is living among Muslims and his biggest paradise is scholarships and taking asylum in countries that disbelieve.
But the challenge of rationality still remains. Is the distortion of Islam really worth eternal hell? Is it really a rational thing to prefer this world over the hereafter? Is it possible to combine disbelief and rationality? In response to such questions, new thinking (Navandishi) has nothing to say except for scholarships, giving fame to personalities and granting asylum.
But the challenge facing us Muslims is how to bring the new thinkers back to rationality? Isn’t new thinking a threat to us Muslims considering the history of active Jihad and Sharia shutdown and also theorizing the military and cultural occupation of the West? How to identify new thinkers and purge them from the Islamic society and especially the educational system?
Certainly, the only way of Islamic development and removing obstacles to development is to answer such questions, which make the rationality of Muslims to strive and think of solutions.
By 
