No Man Owns God, Yet Some Speak As If They Do

The Monopoly on Truth Is Where Religion Becomes Dangerous, and So Does Speaking for God

Dr. Amir Hussein | Exclusive to iKurd.net
Translated by iKurd.net from Kurdish Awene

I Am a Creature

Everything that is created has a creator. From a religious point of view, human beings are created by God.

This is a simple truth on the surface, but it contains a complex paradox, especially when a person assumes the right to speak in God’s name, takes control of classifying and dividing God’s creatures, and decides on God’s behalf who is a true believer, who is a heretic or atheist, who is an infidel or unbeliever, who deserves respect and who deserves to be mocked, and even who belongs in heaven and who belongs in hell.

Extremist Muslim protest Sydney Australia Sep 15, 2012 — Muslim protest against the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims in Sydney, Australia, September 15, 2012. The signs reading “Behead all those who insult the Prophet” and “Our dead are in Paradise. Your dead are in HELL” Photo: Creative Commons/wikipedia

At this point, the question changes from “What does religion say?” to a more dangerous one: “Who has the right to speak in the name of religion?”

The problem is not the existence of religious or sectarian differences, because difference is a historical, human, and even divine reality, and it cannot simply be erased. The problem begins when the authority to interpret turns into a monopoly over truth, when a particular religious belief or sect becomes the standard by which everyone else is judged as a human being.

At that point, a person who is different is no longer simply a human being with different thoughts. Rather, in fundamentalist religious discourse, they become “the other,” someone who must be insulted, given a mocking name, or portrayed as a strange presence within society, as if having a different opinion or belief gives us the right to cast them outside the circle of humanity, as merely a “creature.”

The serious question is: How did difference among the creatures of one Creator become a crime deserving of contempt?

Religious authority does not become dangerous simply because it claims the right to speak about religion. It becomes dangerous when, from interpreting religious texts, it moves toward claiming ownership of the truth.

This is where the most dangerous relationship between religion and power becomes clear, when disagreement with religious figures becomes disagreement with the entire system of religious beliefs.

This is the frightening moment when the boundaries between Creator and creature are erased, the religious figure’s opinion becomes sacred, their authority rises above criticism, and every opinion that differs from theirs is no longer considered merely an intellectual opposition, but becomes opposition to religious discourse itself.

Violence does not always begin with physical blows or force. Sometimes it begins with words. The process starts by changing the name of “the other,” then mocking them, then taking away their legitimacy and pushing them to the margins of society, until they are portrayed as a threat.

In the end, attacking or destroying them is presented as a religious duty. Symbolic violence does not always require a stick or a weapon. It only requires the power to define “the other.”

This form of power does not operate solely through repression and prohibition. It also works by producing selective knowledge, classifying ordinary people, and determining what should be considered truth and what should be considered deviation. From this perspective, religious authority can be viewed as a force capable of producing a “social truth” about “the other” and then imposing that truth.

A religious figure does not simply say: “I do not agree with this sect or this way of thinking.”

Rather, indirectly, they tell society:

“That person, or that kind of belief, is not compatible with our religion.”

Islamist Hamas militants escort an Israeli female hostage reportedly after raping her in Gaza, October 7, 2023. Photo: Video/X/via iKurd.net

In this way, the difference moves from the realm of thought into a more dangerous realm, identity. Religious authority here does not merely prevent different thinking, it also determines how you should view a person who is different.

Therefore, it does not only impose how you should think, it also determines who deserves compassion and who deserves contempt.

In this way, describing “the other” as “strange,” “deviant,” or “an infidel” becomes a normal judgment. Society itself may even participate in reproducing this language and these labels without realizing that this is a form of participation in intensifying violence.

The problem is not with religion as belief and faith, nor with religiousness as a spiritual and moral experience. Rather, the problem lies in turning religion into a human authority that claims to speak in absolute terms. There is a profound difference between believing in God and claiming that God belongs only to you.

Religion can begin by freeing human beings from worshiping other human beings, but religious authority can reverse the equation and lead people to worship a human authority that speaks in God’s name. Here, obedience and unquestioning loyalty become absolute virtues, asking questions becomes a crime, doubt becomes deviation, and criticism becomes disrespect toward sacred things.

Accordingly, the relationship with God changes from a spiritual and moral relationship into a hierarchy built on obedience. The higher the religious figure rises within this hierarchy, the greater their power to define truth, identify the enemy, and distribute legitimacy.

From here, criticizing the dominance of religious authority becomes both a religious and an ethical necessity, because before anything else, it is an attempt to protect religion from those who want to turn it into their private property.

Islamic State militants killing Yazidi men, Sinjar, northwest Iraq, 2014. Photo: ISIS media/video/sm/iKurd.net

Before a person is Sunni or Shia, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or Yazidi, a religious believer or a non-believer, they are, without a doubt, a “creature,” that is, a human being. Before a person who is different is an “opponent of our beliefs,” they are a being, a creature, with dignity and the right to choose their own beliefs.

It is normal that you can reject their beliefs, criticize their sect, and argue that their ideas are false or empty. But you do not have the right to make their difference a reason to insult them. When you do that, you move from criticizing an idea to insulting a human being, a creature of God.

The religion that taught human beings that God is greater than humanity, and that only God is the Creator, must ultimately also teach us that human beings are not God, so that they do not give themselves unlimited permission to judge others.

Perhaps the most uncomfortable question for a religious figure who mocks someone who is different is this: If God is the Creator of everything, then He is also the Creator of the person you are mocking. So who gave you the right to do that? Or how do you dare to insult a creature of that great Creator, you creature?

This article was originally published in the Kurdish language in Awene Newspaper on September 7, 2026.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of iKurd.net or its editorial team.