Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter one: Our stance on secularism[1]

The vague or misleading idea concerning the link between Islam and secularism is attributed to the confusion of the Islamic reference, as well as another confusion that stems from judging Islam on the grounds of what have occurred in Christianity.

The confusion in the Islamic reference:

This confusion has stemmed from considering the rules set by religious scholars and imams since the emergence of religious doctrines in the third century of Hegira, and their followers who renewed thefiqh (religious jurisprudence) likeIbn Taymiya andIbn Hazm in the eighth century A.H., El-Sawkani in the eleventh century A.H., and M.Abdou in the fourteenth century A.H., and the leaders of contemporary Islamic calls (e.g. El-Mawdoudi - Hassan Al-Banna -Sayed Qutb ). The views of these scholars and thinkers were used to represent the Islamic standpoint towards secularism and other similar concepts.

This sort of confusion is understandable, as professors of religious universities perceive these ancient scholars as their grand masters, while professors of civil universities andorientalists perceive them as the authoritative references of Islamic thought. Consequently, all people unanimously agree that these ancient thinkers and scholars are the authoritative references that represent Islam

In fact, all these ancient scholars even the more renowned ones like the imams who founded the four Islamic doctrines, were subjected to a certain social, political and cultural climate, and they were influenced deeply by their environments. The documentation and writing of theSunna (traditions and deeds of Prophet Muhammad ), after nearly a century after the decease of Prophet Muhammad, made room for interpolating a large number of fabricatedHadiths (sayings of Prophet Muhammad ) -maybe hundreds of thousands. TheQuranic textual style that is based on figurative expression, musicality of language, and the psychological impact of diction, has made room for many interpretations, as well as the insertion of Israelite mythological stories in the authoritative volumes of interpretation. With the passage of time away from the era of the Prophet Muhammad, people were floundering in the miasma of the autocratic rule, the spread of ignorance, the control exercised by the Turks and the Persians on the Caliphate, and the divided Islamic rule. All these influences were reflected in the writings and rules of the scholars, as it is impossible that any writer might step out of the frames of his era and the level of understanding prevalent in his era. What proves this fact is that when forces of darkness and ignorance prevailed in certain eras, scholars themselves decided to close the field ofIjtihad (interpretive judgment), and this reflects the inability of thinking, and blind acceptance of what was passed down to them by their ancestors, which means intellectual bankruptcy.

Regardless of the truth of this argument, it is an elementary undoubted fact that Islam is truly represented by the Holy Quran. Hence, when we need to know the viewpoint of Islam concerning any issue, we should refer to the Holy Quran itself, not to its many interpretations rendered by many scholars, who were influenced by the above-mentioned factors, and whose interpretations do injustice to theQuranic text. The Sunna should be purified and purged from any interpolations and insertions that had crept to it by setting criteria based on theQuranic text, so that we could exclude fabricatedHadiths that are in fact contrary to the fundamentals set by the Holy Quran.

This purification process is extremely difficult, and it goes beyond theSalafist (ancestral; traditional) frameworks and rules already set by the four imams of the Islamic doctrines. Hence, writers on Islam andorientalists preferred to get their rules from ancient scholars who set them since over one thousand years, and these writers considered these rules as the viewpoint of Islam.

Hence, this is the source of the first confusion, and the source of the notion that people accept whatever said by ancient scholars even if it was contrary to the Holy Quran, due to the factors that influenced them, as we mentioned before.

The confusion of judging Islam by what had occurred in Christianity:

This second sort of confusion, concerning the viewpoint of Islam on secularism, is attributed to the fact that European writers applied their judgments concerning Christianity on Islam, despite the radical difference between them, or at least between Islam and the Christian church.

Those who studied the European civilization know that its real roots are Greco-Roman. These Greek and Roman civilizations were pagan civilizations - not in the sense that they worshipped idols - but in the sense that they ignore the idea of God as found in celestial religions, as well as life after death, and punishment and reward in the Afterlife[2] . These ideas were not just excluded from the Greek and Roman faiths, but they were contrary to the foundations of these two civilization. With the exclusion of the notion of God, these civilizations deified the human being. One of the first Greek philosophers expressed this idea clearly, when he said ''Man is the yard-stick of all things '', and this meaning was repeated by philosophers like Kant and Hegel in different ways of expression like ''Man is an end in himself ''. The European civilization is the legitimate heir of the Greco-Roman civilization, and the European Renaissance movement was a revival of the Greco-Roman civilization.

As the notion of the deified human being was formed in Athens and Rome, it was repeated in the form of the liberated individual, within the Bourg in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. in Britain and France. This liberated individual was the emblem carried by the contemporary European civilization which is based on liberty, not faith, on contracting, not commitment, and on the individual not the class, as in the feudalist system. Hence, the bourgeoisie emerged in its two sides: the political one, i.e. democracy, and the economic one, i.e. capitalism. It is so meaningful and telling that in the course of European history, since the Greeks until the Romans, we do not find any reference to Prophets of God, as philosophers, thinkers, and men of letters had replaced them, and set the human 'conscience' and enriched the human sentiments by the arts they have created.

In all cases since the ancient times - the Greek civilization - until the end of history, as Fukuyama says, the major goals in any civilization were pleasure, profit, power, freedom, and control. The main values prevalent in any civilization were liberty, power, and order (or law), and the European civilization was indifferent to values of mercy, goodness, forgiveness, and justice.

Secularism is major, inherent part of such civilization, and nothing else would replace it. Yet, something else emerged with the advent of Christianity, with its ideals and values that differ from those of the European civilization. Christianity as a religion does not aim to rule and control as this goes against its nature, and this is proven by word of Christ ''Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's '' (Matt 22:22), as Christ denied that his kingdom is in this world. However, what happened was that in the later stages of any religion, the religious institution emerged with its monopoly and profiteering, then clergy would appear in temples, then guardians of temples, then collectors of money who make profit from the doctrine of faith petrified by the church.

The nature of the religious institution differs, and largely contradicts, the nature of religions. Religious institutions are subjective by nature, whereas religions are objective by nature. Religious institution undergoes a process of psychological overlapping that merges the religious call and people who represent the religious institution, who speak in the name of religion and assume the role of faith advocates or representatives. Later on, those 'advocates' would themselves represent the call per se; hence, they project on the religious call human ambition and shortcomings.

This process repeats itself wholly in the political institution that applies the totalitarian ideology - e.g. communism, Fascism - as the political party assumes the role previously played by the church, and the leaders of this party would be like cardinals of the church who would monopolize the interpretation of the ideology.

Especially for Christianity, there were certain factors that made the church the only legitimate representative of religion. Certain conditions in the middle Ages in Europe made the church the only centralized authority among the archipelago of small states in Europe at the time. Each state was ruled by a duke, a count or a lord…etc. and guilds were spread in many cites separated by distances of geographical factors like mountains and rivers, before the advent of modern means of transport and communication…etc. Within such circumstances, the Catholic Church was the only power that had centralized authority and one head, i.e. the Pope, whose messengers and bishops roamed Europe, regardless of any frontiers among the states, and even some of the clergy ruled some states. The European public at the time regarded the church as'Our Mother the Church ', where children were baptized, marriages were contracted, and the dead were buried. The Europeans used to live their lives in close link to the church, which took control of the administrative division in cities and villages, by dividing them into parishes, and keeping records of births, marriages, and deaths.

The church worked to unify Europe on two occasions, the first one was the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 A.D. in France, and the church commissioned him to unify counties, provinces, states…etc. The second occasion was when the church attempted to end wars inside Europe among rulers, and to direct the united military forces of Europe towards the East. The Pope Urban II declared in 1095 A.D. the formation of the crusades that united arms of Europe against Islam[3] .

Some powerful kings attempted to break free from the authority of the church, but the church quelled and subdued them. This is exemplified by what happened to the Germanic emperor Henry IV when Pope Gregory VII excommunicated him. The Germanic emperor Henry IV had to go to village of Canossa, in Italy, to humble himself before Pope Gregory VII, and he stood by his door for three consecutive days before he was allowed admission into his presence and gained his pardon.

The period between 1077 A.D. and Mid-1700s was rife with disputes and conflicts, until Henry VIII of England succeeded in breaking free from the authority of the Catholic Church, and claiming the Latin title ''Fidei Defensor ''or in English ''Defender of the Faith ''. Martin Luther as well freed Germany from the authority of the Catholic Church. At last, the conflict was resolved to the side of monarchs and nations, especially after the French revolution.

The main reason behind the defeat of the church was that it resisted liberties: e.g., it opposed liberty of belief by establishing the Inquisition Courts, which was notorious for the use of torture with 'heretics'. It opposed liberty of thought by limiting printing of books and forbidding the circulation of any writings that oppose the viewpoint if the Catholic Church, according to a 'list' which was named in Latin ''Index Librorum prohibitorum '' which in English means ''Index of Forbidden Books ''. The idea of this list dates back to the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. when it prohibited the book titled "Thalia " written by the Greek theologian Arius of Alexandria. The exact appearance and application of this'index' dates back to the council of Trinity in 1564. This index was issued by the Pope himself and it was updated and printed every year. The index included titles of books which the Catholic Church prohibited its printing and circulation. Among these forbidden books some unauthorized texts of the Torah and some gospels, as well as scientific and philosophical works of Galileo, Hobbes, Descartes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Kant, Goethe, Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, Victor Hugo, Fourier, Marx, Bergson…etc. The Catholic Church stuck foolishly to the idea of the earth as the immobile centre of the universe, i.e. heavenly bodies and the sun revolve around it, while it does not move at all. The church considered this unscientific belief as a holy tenet of the Christian faith. The church usually stood by the side of the nobility and aristocracy against the masses. Bishops had special representation in the House of Lords, and they resisted the early popular uprisings in Britain, which held the appellation ''Peasants' Revolt ''in the fourteenth century. The Protestant church, headed by Martin Luther himself at the time, resisted thePeasants Revolt in Germany in the sixteenth century, and Luther called upon the nobility class to quell and crush this rebellion of farmers with utmost force possible.

The above-mentioned historical facts prove thatthe activity of the church and not Christianity per se was the decisive factor that made the theocratic rule. As for Christianity itself, it bears no relationship with political conflicts, on the contrary we find in the gospels this well-known statement of Christ '' Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's '' (Matt 22:22). The negative evidence signifies the result itself; i.e., the absence of the religious institution or its removal is what allowed secularism to thrive in Europe. The church was the main factor, positively and negatively, and not Christianity per se, as the Christian faith still exists in Europe and considered as one of the assets that built the European civilization beside other assets of the Greco-Roman heritage.

Conflict was bound to happen between the European society, whose roots are deep in the heritage of Athens and Rome, and the authority of the church, which came from the East. The European society, represented by its thinkers, resisted the church and its values until the French revolution in 1789, which was considered as a mark of victory of the European society over the church.

Gradually, the European society regained from the church authority and power, which the church used to wield and exercise over people. The church was not left anything beyond baptism, holding marriage ceremonies, and burials/funerals. When the church settled for its role, the secular European society gave it later a space among other institutions. For instance, in some European countries like Germany, authorities take certain percentage from salaries for charity and churches. Thus, secular Europe regained the origin of its civilization, i.e. secularism, but kept the church at the same time - as in ancient Rome when the Romans used to dedicate a monument for the unknown god[4] .

If we could imagine Christianity without the church, it would have been possible that long conflicts would not have been arisen. The aim of these conflict, more or less, was to regain this state of secularism, because Christianity, even if its values differ from those of European secularism, it would have been more beneficial if Christianity was confined to its call ''with wisdom and good advice '', and giving to Caesar things that are Caesar's. Yet, it was the church - and not the Christian faith - that aimed to assume authority, to resist scientists and thinkers, to establish the Inquisition Courts, to impose severe censorship over books and other publications…etc.

Europe had settled its account with the theocratic rule, by the French revolution and consequent events that put the church aside from participation in the ruling system or exercising control over thought. Yet, we find that the church in the Eastern societies has major influence and authority as it assumes responsibility of Christians' interests, their participation in the ruling system, and their status in the Muslim societies as they represent a minority in it. Being a minority justifies the role of the church in the East, but it creates sensitivities and troubles as the church assumes authority over secular matters of its followers, and it should leave these matters to civil authorities and the present political systems. If this cannot be done, the Eastern Church would retain some authorities and influence that would govern its followers, like the Western Church in the past times in Europe.

***

We have dispelled the first confusion and said we should make the Holy Quran our reference, and not the rules set by ancient religious scholars. We have dispelled the second confusion by saying that what was applied to the church cannot be applied to Islam, simply because Islam knows no such religious institution like the church. Hence, we have set the tone for tackling the concept of secularism and Islam.

The very first element that draws the attention is that Islam, in contrast to earlier celestial religions, did not rely on extraordinary miracles to prove its credibility, i.e. raising the dead, rendering the fire unable to burn, Moses' rod that was turned into a huge snake…etc. The miracle of Islam is the Holy Quran, and the means to attain faith is to recite this holy book. The Holy Quran refuses the demand of the polytheists who wanted Prophet Muhammad to perform miracles before them. "And so they say: O Muhammad, we shall not believe thee till thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth, or thou have a garden of date-palms and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst in a sudden rush, or thou cause the skies to fall down upon us in smithereens, as thou hast threatened, or till thou bring God and angels face to face before us, or thou have a house made of gold, or thou ascend to heaven- but nay, we would not believe in thy ascension unless thou bring down to us from heaven a writing which we could read! Say thou O Prophet: '' limitless in His glory is my Sustainer! Am I, then aught but a mortal man, an apostle? "(17:90-93). These verses do not just refuse the request of the polytheists who wanted miracles, but they acknowledge in an impressive simplicity the human nature of Prophet Muhammad:"Am I, then aught but a mortal man, an apostle? "(17:93).

The Holy Quran depicts the psychological nature of human beings at the time in many verses. ''Yet they say ' What sort of apostle is this man who eats food like all other mortals and goes about in the market places? Why has not an angel been sent down unto him to act as awarner together with him? Or why has not a treasure been granted to him by God? Or he should at least have a bountiful garden so that he could eat thereof without effort!' And so these evildoers say unto one another: ' If you were to follow Muhammad, you would follow but a man bewitched! '' (25:7-8) '' And yet they say ' why have no miraculous signs ever been bestowed upon him from on high by his Sustainer?' Say: 'Miracles are in the power of god alone, and as for me- I am but a plainwarner '. Why - is it not enough for them thatWe have bestowed this divine writ on thee from on high, to be conveyed by thee to them? For, verily, in it is manifested our grace and a reminder to people who will believe '' (29:50-51). The Holy Quran separates between the realm of miracles and our mundane world, and attributed the former to God, and says about Prophet Muhammad that he was '' plain warner ''(29:50), and it confronts the polytheists, saying that the Book is an enough miracle in itself.

Principles of the Secularism of Islam

First: the nature of Islam:

Islam has emerged in the Arabian Peninsula, where the desert extends like a sea, and winds move like storms, and among people who did not farm their lands or carried stones upon their backs, as the habitude of ancient people in bygone eras. These people did not submit to any monarch or emperor, nor did they comply with any ruling system. They were living in the Bedouin lifestyle, judging maters by intuition and natural disposition and simple conventions, withstanding scorching heat at day, and bitter cold at night. They used to worship gods of their own making; thus, these gods did not have the authority of allowing or forbidding things, nor even imposing a taboo of any kind. These people did not have any kind of mythology, that would have burdened their thinking, similar to the Greek or Hebrew one (i.e. the Torah, plus what was inserted in it like myths and legends),

Islam has adopted this nature, and it has emerged as a free, simple religion, with no complications, with nothing that oppose natural disposition and intuition. This simple nature makes Islam devoid of monopoly and exclusion, as these two notions are contrary to the free nature of the desert. God has chosen His Prophets to convey His message, nothing more, nothing less, for they had no authority of their own. Islam has not excluded from its call any category; on the contrary, its message has been directed to all human beings. The lack of exclusion and monopoly is the main feature of Islam.

The nature of Islam portraits in a symbolic way the place of worship, the mosque, as it considers the whole earth as a pure mosque, and one can pray anywhere. It is a familiar scene that a villager prays on the bank of the river Nile, or a Bedouin who prays in the middle of the desert. The mosque itself is nothing but a stretch of land surrounded by a fence, and it has no furniture, i.e. it has no crucifixes, paintings, alters, statues, psalms, offerings, incense, crowns,…etc. like the Christian church. Anyone can establish a mosque anywhere, and anyone who has learned the Holy Quran by heart can be an imam in the mosque. Prayer itself, despite prostration and kneeling, does not necessitate certain rituals or secrets, and anyone can perform it at home as well. Even the Friday noon prayer is no different prayer from the usual ones except for the sermon, which can be said by anyone who has certainknowledg ^m^pe of Islam, without wearing certain garment or assuming a clergy status. Hence, there are no differences between what is'civil' and what is'religious' . The simplicity of the mosque is part of the simple nature of Islam; the mosque is a place of worship and it is void of anything that might distract people who perform prayers.

There is a simple principle, as if it has been drawn from the uninhibited desert wind, which is ''the principle of the original innocence ''. It means that the original state of things is that it isHalal (lawful) and Islam does not forbid things unless this forbidding is stated explicitly, undisputedly in the Holy Quran. This principle resembles another Islamic one: ''Islam is the religion of human natural disposition '' and that each child is born Muslim, but the parents might convert their child intoMagianism , Judaism, or Christianity. Natural disposition, spontaneity and intuition are related to one another, as they lead to a certain degree of rationality that might be simple or naïve, but never deviant, and mostly right. Hence, Islam takes faith in the human heart, and perceives sin as what goes against the heart of the believer, and what no one would like others to know about. Islam perceives as well that honesty resides in hearts of believers, and Prophet Muhammad has told one of his companions''Trust the judgment of your heart, even if you listened to the judgment of others'' . Islam accepts the human body in the sense that believers are considered pure, and ways of cleanliness are nothing but methods of adopting clean habits for good health. Islam accepts as well the human nature and finds no qualms in the human need for nutrition and sustenance. "Say 'Who is there to forbid the beauty which God has brought forth for His creatures, and the good things from among the means of sustenance?' Say: 'They are lawful in the life of this world unto all who have attained to faith- to be theirs alone on Resurrection Day'. Thus clearly do We spell out these messages unto people of innate knowledge "(7:32).

The sexual natural disposition is no exception as well. Although some writings describe the sexual natural disposition as bohemian, Islam does not regard the human being as a flawless angel. The human natural disposition is sound, but human weakness and lust are ingrained in the human nature, and they might sometimes control people, as God has created mankind weak, but has guided mankind to differentiate the good and the evil. The attitude of Islam toward human behavior is rational, as human beings tend to be weak toward temptation and might succumb to it. Yet, this is not regarded as downfall, but as part of the weakness of human nature. When the believer sins and then asks God's pardon, God forgives the believer. God says that if people did not commit sins, He would rather bring forth new human race, which would sin, then ask God's forgiveness, which He will grant it. Islam perceives the sexual natural disposition in the human being as means to create progeny and to make love, a kind of sublime love that makes people reach the higher realm of happiness. Prophet Muhammad forbade believers to pursue a life of celibacy, and admonished those who fasted daily, those prayed night and day non-stop, and those who chose to remain celibate to the rest of their lives. Prophet Muhammad considered this as contrary to human natural disposition and to theSunna , and said that when one satisfy one's sexual urge within lawful marriage, one is rewarded in this life and the Afterlife.

Second: the absence of religious institution:

Although this kind of absence is negative, this element paves the way for secularism, and hence its importance. The existence of religious institution and its monopoly and hegemony in the fields of politics and thought was the primary reason behind the emergence of secularism as a reaction to it. Secularism helped the human thought to go on without being hindered by taboos.

Islam excluded the religious institution that monopolizes interpretation, forbidding and legislation, the one that stands as a mediator between the believers and their God, which has a certain place with certain conditions to perform functions, like temples and churches, and that forbids rituals elsewhere and by any laypeople. Islam considers that it is a kind of polytheism to allow clergy in Judaism and Christianity to assume the position of mediators between Man and God, and to assume the authority of legislature, forbidding…etc. Islam does not link rituals to certain place built by any religious institution.

One of the reasons for the absence of the religious institution in Islam is the simplicity and clarity of the idea of divinity, which is not based on theological thought that would be hard for any laypeople to understand, and needs specialized clergy.

The Holy Quran establishes the idea of creation as the premise of the belief in God, i.e. logically speaking; this universe has to have a Creator. ''Or do they deny the existence of God? Have they themselves been created without anything that might have caused their creation? Or were they, perchance, their own creators? '' (52:35).

This truth is the main reason behind the secularism of Islam, as it positively lacks theological complexity that makes ordinary people cannot understand their faith.

Islam does not encourage the establishment of a religious institution, and it launches in the Holy Quran a vehement campaign against clergy, considering them as a power that prevent guidance and distort the word of God.

-"They have taken their rabbis and their monks- as well as the Christ, son of Mary - for their lords beside God, although they had been forbidden to worship none but the One God, save whom there is no god: the One who is utterly remote, in His limitless glory, from anything to which they may ascribe a share in His divinity! "(9:31).

-"O you who have attained to faith! Behold, many of the rabbis and monks do indeed wrongfully devour men's possessions and turn others away from the path of God, but as for all who lay up treasures of Gold and silver and do not spend them for the sake of God- give them the tiding of grievous suffering in the life to come "(9:34).

- "Among those of the Jewish faith there are some who distort the meaning of the revealed words, taking them out of their context and saying, as it where, ' We have heard but we disobey' and ' Hear without hearkening' and 'Hearken thou unto us, O Muhammad'- thus making a play with their tongues and implying that the true faith is false, and had they but said ' We have heard and pay heed' and 'Hear us, and have patience with us' it would indeed have been for their own good, and more upright: but God has rejected them because of their refusal to acknowledge the truth- for it is in but few things that they believe "(4:46)

- "Then, for having broken their solemn pledge, We rejected them and caused their hearts to harden- so that now they distort the meaning of the revealed words, taking them out of their context, and they have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind, and from all but a few of them thou wilt always experience treachery. But pardon them and forebear: verily, God loves the doers of good "(5:13)

- "Can you, then, hope that they will believe in what you are preaching -seeing that a good many of them were wont to listen to the word of God and then, after having understood it, to pervert it knowingly? "(2:75)

Islam does not only exclude the establishment of religious institutions, but also did not give Prophets, who represent religion and conveying God's message to people, any authority except to convey and reveal the word of God, whereas guidance is from God alone, and Prophet Muhammad did not have the ability to force anyone by necessity to believe in God:

-"It is not for thee, O Prophet, to make people follow the right path, since it is God alone who guides whom He wills "(2:272)

-"Verily, thou canst guide aright everyone whom thoulovest : but it is God who guides him that wills to be guided "(28:56)

-"Is then he to whom the evil of his own doings is so alluring that in the end he regards it as good? For verily, God lets go astray him that wills to be guided, hence do not waste thyself in sorrowing over them: verily God has full knowledge of all that they do! "(35:8)

- "Dost thou, then, think that thou couldst compel people to believe " (10:99)

The Holy Quran says to Prophet Muhammad what to do when people whom he called to embrace Islam rejected his call:

-"And so, O Prophet, if they give thee the lie, say: 'to me shall be accounted my doings, and to you, your doings: you are not accountable for what I am doing, and I am not accountable for whatever you do' "(10:41)

-"Is it conceivable, O Prophet, that thou couldst omit any part of what is being revealed unto thee, because the deniers of truth dislike it, and because thy heart is distressed at their saying ''Why has not a treasure been bestowed upon him from on high? Or why has not an angel come visibly with him? Thou art only awarner , whereas God has everything in his care "(11:12)

-''But whether We let thee see in thy lifetime, O Prophet, the fulfillment of dome of what We have promised them, or whether We cause thee to die before this fulfillment- thy duty is no more than to deliver the message, and the Reckoning is Ours ''(13:40)

-"Hence, proclaim openly all that thou hast been bidden to say and leave alone all those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God "(15:94)

-"But if they turn away from thee, O Prophet, remember that thy only duty is a clear delivery of the message entrusted to thee "(16:82)

-"Fully aware are We of what they who deny resurrection do say; and thou canst by no means force them to believe in it, yet none the less remind through the Quran all such as may fear My warnings "(50:45)

-"Thus it is: never yet came any apostle to those who lived before their times but they said 'a spellbinder or a mad man!' Have they perchance handed down this way of thinking as a legacy unto one another? Nay, they are people filled with overweening arrogance! "(51:52-53)

-"Now as for those who take aught beside Him for their protectors-God watches them, and thou art not responsible for their conduct "(42:6)

-''Now as for him who believes himself to be self sufficient, to him didst thou give thy whole attention, although thou art not accountable for his failure to attain purity '' (80:5-7)

-"And so, O Prophet, exhort them: thy task is only to exhort, thou canst compel them to believe "(88:21-22)

TheseQuranic verses that confine Prophet Muhammad's authority to just conveying the message of God, say implicitly that others have the right to refuse, but their reckoning is left to God in the Resurrection Day. These verses tell Prophet Muhammad that he should not be sorry or upset by this, as God knows quite well the nature of the human soul, because He is the One who has created it, and He knows as well that too much urging or preaching might turn people off. Yet, when people are left alone to reconsider matters, they might repent and God will accept them and multiply their rewards and forgive their sins. God knows all things unseen by human beings like Prophet Muhammad. Those who rejected Islam might later on be true believers who would serve Islam as well. For instance, KhalidIbn El-Walid and OmarIbn El-Khattab used to be among the archenemies of Islam, but later they converted to Islam and had become among the most prominent figures in Islam.

Prophet Muhammad absorbed theseQuranic instructions, and he requested from the polytheists of the tribe ofQuraish ''let me meet freely with ordinary people'', because the polytheists used to prevent him from communicating with people by sending their servants to follow and hinder him.

We have to admit that the development of simple, limited societies that turned into huge ones with huge needs and issues imposed on societies a degree of specialization. When Islamic societies reached a certain degree of development, this necessitated the emergence of specialized religious scholars,not clergy. Yet, this major distinction between scholars of Islam and clergy of Christianity grew thin. Later on in history, the former resembled the latter in the monopoly of the religious 'profession' and their pretext was de-contextualizedQuranic verses, e.g. ''…if you have not yet realize this ask the followers of the revelation ''(16:43), and they perceive themselves as specialized people like doctors or engineers…etc. whom people consult when necessary for their specialized knowledge.

We should remember the story of humanity with religions. Once a religion emerged, came along with it clergy and guardians to protect religion under many appellations and forms, as long as the goal was to monopolize religion.

Yet, to be fair, we should say that the religious institution in Islam by no means resemble the one in Christianity; the former emerged by necessity of development and to satisfy the need for specialization, whereas the latter was based on religious texts and by means of historical circumstances of religion. Hence, no religious institution in Islam, directly or indirectly, tried to rule other believers as happened in the Christian church, as it ruled people and used to baptize and coronate monarchs, until this tradition was annulled by Napoleon Bonaparte. The religious institution in Islam did not have the authority to establish permanent courts to try 'heretics' and condemn them. When some ancient religious scholars condemned some people as deviant, heretics, or apostates, they were supporting rulers or trying to gain some degree of popularity.

Within the long history of the Islamic rule, some monarchs, caliphs, and princes were exercising control over religious scholars. Some religious scholars gained immense popularity and got appellations likeSultan or theEmir of the faithful, yet no one ofthen ever attained to power or even managed to exercise control over the ruler. Mostly, their highest achievement was to oppose a decision made by the ruler, who eventually discarded it when he would see that succumbing to the views of religious scholars would earn him popularity. Hence, rulers were eventually the only beneficiaries from religious scholars.

Third: Islam acknowledges liberty of thought:

One of the major factors that support the concept of the secularism of Islam is the notion of liberty of thought. We have mentioned that the attempt by the Christian church to quell thought and intellect by struggling against scientists and explorers in the fields of astronomy, physics, mathematics…etc. was one of the main reasons behind revolting against its authority. This was the reason as well behind establishing a society that acknowledges the liberty of thought and grants the freedom for all who seek to explore the realm of knowledge, secrets of nature, the powers of the universe, the inner layers of the human psyche, and the components of the human body.

In this field of the liberty of thought, Islam has contributed the support of the pillars of secularism by setting the ambience of liberty of thought to make Islamic societies have the distinguishing feature of freedom on many levels. Yet, it is noteworthy that this distinguishing feature did not last for long, as factors of deterioration and backwardness crept over Islamic societies, which led to an atmosphere that could not tolerate interpretive judgments and independent opinions and views on faith, or what is known asIjtihad .

One of the major points is that not only does the Holy Quran acknowledges the liberty of thought and belief, but also says explicitly that this issue is an individual one. That means that those who believe or disbelieve would be responsible for their choice individually in the life to come, i.e., this issue should not be the concern of the general ruling system that might justify the interference of authorities in the liberty of belief, contrary to the earlier traditions and customs, in ancient and modern times.

Here are someQuranic verses that explain this notion:

(1) Belief and disbelief are personal matters, without compulsion or coercion:

-''There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from the way of error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing ''(2:256)

-"Say oh Prophet '' O mankind! The truth from your sustainer has now come unto you. Whoever, therefore, chooses to follow the right path, follows it but for his own good, and whoever chooses to go astray, goes astray to his own hurt. And I am not responsible for your conduct "(10:108)

- ''Whoever chooses to follow the right path, follows it but for his own good, and whoever goes astray, goes astray for his own hurt, and no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another's burden. Moreover, We would never chastise any community for the wrong they may doere We have sent an apostle to them '' (17:15)

- ''And say: 'The truth has come from your Sustainer, let then him who wills believe in it and let him who wills, reject it. Verily, for all who sin against themselves by rejecting Our truth, We have readied a fire whose billowing folds will encompass them from all sides, and if they beg for water, they will be given water hot like molten lead which will scald their faces: how dreadful a drink, and how evil a place to rest ''(18:29)

-''Say O Muhammad: 'I have been bidden to worship the Sustainer of this City- Him who has made it sacred, and unto whom all things belong, and I have been bidden to be of those who surrender themselves to Him, and to convey this Quran to the world. Whoever, therefore, chooses to follow the right path, follows it but for his own good, and if any wills to go astray say unto him 'I am only awarner !' And say: 'All praise is due to God! In time, He will make you see the truth of His messages and then you shall know them for what they are. And thy Sustainer is not unmindful of whatever you all may do '' (27:91-93)

-"He who has denied the truth will have to bear the burden of his denial, whereas all who did what is right and just will have made goodly provision for themselves "(30:44)

-''He who made you inherit the earth, hence he who is bent on denying the truth, this denial of his will fall back upon him: for their persistent denial of this Truth does but add to the deniers' loathsomeness in their Sustainer's sight and thus, their denial of this truth does but add to the deniers' loss ''(35:39)

-''Behold, from on high have we bestowed upon thee this divine writ, setting forth the truth for the benefit of all mankind. And whoever chooses to be guided thereby does so for his own good, and whoever chooses to go astray, goes but astray to his own hurt, and thou hast no power to determine their fate ''(39:41)

(2) Guidance is from God, and it is done according to His will:

-"It is not for thee, O Prophet, to make people follow the right path, since it is God alone who guides whom He wills "(2:272)

-"How then could you be of two minds about the hypocrites, seeing that God has disowned them because of their guilt? Do you perchance seek to guide those whom God lets go astray - when for him whom God lets go astray thou canst never find any way? "(4:88)

-"And had thy Sustainer so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith: all of them: dost thou, then, think that thou couldst compel people to believe, notwithstanding that no human being can ever attain to faith otherwise than by God's leave, and that He wholays the loathsome evil of disbelief upon those who will not use their reason? "(10:99-100)

-"Verily, thou canst guide aright everyone whom thoulovest : but it is God who guides him that wills to be guided, and he is fully aware of all who would let themselves be guided "(28:56)

-"Is then he to whom the evil of his own doings is so alluring that in the end he regards it as good? For verily, God lets go astray him that wills to be guided, hence do not waste thyself in sorrowing over them: verily God has full knowledge of all that they do! "(35:8)

(3) Plurality and differences among people occur due to God's will, and He will judge people's differences in Resurrection Day:

-"Verily, those who have attained to faith in this divine writ as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, the Christians, and theSabians - all who believe in God and the last day and do righteous deeds- shall have their reward with their Sustainer, and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve "(2:62)

-"Furthermore, the Jews assert 'the Christians have no valid ground for their beliefs ', while the Christians assert 'the Jews have no valid ground for their belief ' - and both quote the divine writ! Even thus, like unto what they say, have always spoken those who were devoid of knowledge, but it is God who will judge between them on Resurrection Day with regard to all on which they were wont to differ "(2:113)

-"Say: we believe in God, and in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, and that which has been bestowed upon Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendants, and that which has been vouchsafed to Moses and Jesus, and that which has been vouchsafed to all the other Prophets by their Sustainer: we make no distinction between any of them, and it is unto Him that we surrender ourselves. And if others come to believe in the way you believe, they will indeed find themselves on the right path, and if they turn away, it is but they who will be deeply in the wrong, and God will protect thee from them: for He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing "(2:136-137)

-"For every community faces a direction of its own, of which He is the focal point. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works. Wherever you may be, God will gather you all unto Himself, for verily, God has the power to will anything "(2:148)

-"Say: we believe in God, and in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, and in that which has been bestowed upon Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendants, and that which has been vouchsafed to Moses and Jesus, and that which has been vouchsafed to all the other Prophets by their Sustainer: we make no distinction between any of them, and it is unto Him that we surrender ourselves "(3:84)

-"And had thy Sustainer so willed, He could surely have made all mankind one single community, but He willed otherwise, and so they continue to hold divergent views. All of them save those upon whom thy Sustainer has bestowed His grace. And to this end has He created them all. But as for those who refuse to avail themselves of divine guidance, that word of thy Sustainer shall be fulfilled: most certainly will I fill hell with invisible beings as well as humans, all together! "(11:118-119)

-"Convey into others whatever of this divine writ has been revealed unto thee, and be constant in prayer, for ,behold, prayer restrains man from loathsome deeds and from all that runs counter to reason, and remembrance of God is indeed the greatest good, and God knows all that you do. And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelations otherwise than in a most kindly manner- unless itbe such of them as are bent on evildoing. And say ''we believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us: for our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto him that we surrender ourselves' "(29:45-46)

-"Say: 'O God! Originator of the heavens and the earth! Knower of all that is beyond the reach of a created beings' perception, as well as of all that can be witnessed by a creature's senses or mind! It is Thou who wilt judge between Thy servants on Resurrection Day with regard to all on which they were wont to differ! "(39:46)

-"And on whatever you may differ, O believers, the verdict thereon rests with God. Say, therefore,' such is God, my Sustainer, in Him have I placed my trust, and unto Him do I always turn! "(42:10)

-"Say: 'O you who deny the truth! I do not worship that which you worship, and neither do you worship which I worship[, and I will not worship that which you have worshipped, and neither will you worship that I worship, unto you your moral law, and unto me, mine! "(109:1-6)

(4) There is no worldly punishment for the charge of apostasy:

-"Would you perchance ask of the apostle who has been sent unto you what was asked aforetime of Moses? But whoever chooses to deny the truth instead of believing in it has already strayed from the right path "(2:108)

-"But if any of you should turn away from his faith and die as a denier of the truth-these it is whose works will go for naught in this world and in the life to come, and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide "(2:217)

-"Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth after having attained to faith, and then grow ever more stubborn in their refusal to acknowledge the truth, their repentance shall not be accepted for it is they who have truly gone astray "(3:90)

-"Behold, as for those who come to believe and then deny the truth, and again come to believe and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth- God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way "(4:137)

-"O you who have attained to faith! If you ever abandon your faith, God will in time bring forth in your stead people whom He loves and who love Him - humble towards the believers, proud towards all who deny the truth: people who strive hard in God's cause, and do not fear to be censured by anyone who might censure them: such is God's favor, which He grants unto whom he wills, and God is infinite, all-knowing "(5:54)

-"The hypocrites swear to God that they have said nothing wrong; yet most certainly have they uttered a saying which amounts to a denial of the truth, and have thus denied the truth after having professed their self-surrender to God. For they were aiming at something which was beyond their reach, and they could find no fault with the faith save that God had enriched them and caused his apostle to enrich them out of His bounty. Hence, if they repent, it will be for their own good, but if they turn away, God will cause them to suffer grievous suffering in this world and in the life to come, and they will find no helper on earth and no one to give them succor "(9:74)

-"As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith- and this, to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, but only to him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth: upon all such falls God's condemnation and tremendous suffering awaits them "(16:106)

-"Verily, those who turn their backs on this message after guidance has been vouchsafed to them, do it because Satan has embellished their fancies and filled them with false hopes "(47:25)

It is noteworthy that theseQuranic verses are better than the article in the text of the Egyptian Constitution written in 1923, which was the most liberal form of any Egyptian Constitutions ever written. This article was number twelve in the 1923 Constitution under the title ''the absolute liberty of belief ''. The first phrasing of this article was done by a commissioned committee was ''the absolute liberty of religious belief ''. Yet, SheikhBikheet , a member of this committee that phrased the 1923 Constitution, did not approve of this phrasing by saying ''This present phrasing of the article cannot be approved by any celestial religion, as it might lead to chaos and anarchy. I demand thatthe text of the article should be confined to the acknowledged religions, celestial and otherwise, to avoid the establishment of new religions or the emergence of someone claiming he is the awaited Mahdi (i.e. the 'guided one' who is awaited before the end of days to restore the reign of justice, according to Islamic beliefs)and tries to set up a new form of faith ''. This suggestion was welcomed by his eminenceAnba Johannes who said '' This is a sound suggestion, for recently a man namedSergius rejected Christianity and tried to establish a new religion. He requested from the government a license for this, but his request was refused, and this was an evidence that the government cannot accept to license any religion except for those acknowledged by the state''. Sheikh M.Khayrat Radi omitted the word'religious' from the first paragraph and the sentence was ''the absolute liberty of belief '' and explained, '' Otherwise, anyone might reject one religion to embrace another without bearing civil or non-civil responsibility''. Ibrahim El-Hilbawy wondered whether the word 'belief' included religious belief or not, and SheikhBikheet answered him by affirming that belief is something, while religion is a different matter; for Muslims were divided into 73 divisions, to each one its belief, but they have one religion - Islam. In the session dated 28-8-1922, SheikhBikheet said '' to resolve this clash concerning the liberty of religion, I propose to omit the word'religious' from this article, and the sentence would be ''the absolute liberty of belief '' instead of ''the absolute liberty of religious belief ''. This suggestion was unanimously agreed upon.

The State Council ruling concerning the Baha'is in 26-5-1952 is a manifestation of this article in the constitution. The committee said about it '' This article protects Muslims who change their doctrine within Islam (Sunnite, Shiite …etc.) and Christians who change their doctrine within Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism …etc.), but does not protect Muslims who reject Islam, and makes them bear the civil or non-civil responsibility of their choice. This article does not tolerate that anyone might claim himself to be the proclaimed Messiah, Christ or the awaited El-Mahdi , nor even a new Prophet who preaches new religion and sacred book''. Thus those who thought the sentence'' the absolute liberty of belief '' is stronger than the sentence ''the absolute liberty of religious belief '' are wrong, as the omission of the word'religious ' means that liberty ofreligious belief is excluded. This explanation is still present in the current Egyptian Constitution, and this is exemplified in the ruling of the administrative court in the recent case of Baha'is, which is based on this explanation of the distinction between 'beliefs ' and 'religions '[5] .

The citedQuranic verses show explicitly three points: firstly; the liberty of religious belief, overlooked by the constitution, secondly; this liberty is absolute '' …let then him who wills believe in it and let him who wills, reject it …"(18:29), thirdly; the issue of belief and disbelief is an individual one, and the ruling regime should not interfere with it:

"Whoever chooses to follow the right path, follows it but for his own good, and whoever goes astray, goes astray for his own hurt .'' (17:15).

TheseQuranic verses are better manifested in the International Declaration of Human Rights, article no. 18.

***

Contrary to the belief of some people, the policy and behavior of Prophet Muhammad were application of theQuranic verses. When Prophet Muhammad entered the city of Medina, there were tribes' leaders who had high stature due to their wealth or lineage, and some of them did not welcome Islam or Prophet Muhammad as Islam shook their high status of authority, and made all people equal before God. The leader of these people was AbdullahIbn Obay of El-Khasraj tribe, and this tribe was preparing a crown to coronate him as their ruler, but with the advent of Islam, the ruler was Prophet Muhammad and his faithful believers.

Some people from this tribe joined the Jewish community in a pact against Prophet Muhammad with the purpose of laying obstacles before the new call and conspiring against it. AbdullahIbn Obay withdrew third of the forces under his command when Prophet Muhammad decided to fight the polytheists in the battle ofUhhud , and he remained in Medina. One of the methods of these dissenters was to pretend that they were Muslims at one time, and then declare they are non-Muslims, with the purpose of shaking the faith of steadfast Muslims, and to spread rumors. This type of people was called the hypocrites, whose truth was revealed by God in manyQuranic verses, and in the chapter of ''The Hypocrites" in the Holy Quran.

What did Prophet Muhammad with those people about whom the Holy Quran says "those who come to believe and then deny the truth, and again come to believe and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth "(4:137),'' they uttered a saying which amounts to a denial of the truth, and have thus denied the truth after having professed their self-surrender to God "(9:74), and '' Do not offer empty excuses!You have indeed denied the truth after having professed your belief in it"(9:66)? These verses tell us about those who turned apostate, after their earlier conversion to Islam. Prophet Muhammad treated these people kindly, and when the son of AbdullahIbn Obay suggested to Prophet Muhammad that he would kill his own father lest he should be killed by any other Muslim, which would make the son feel bitter, Prophet Muhammad said to him "No, we will treat him kindly".

***

We find other examples of apostates in the era of Prophet Muhammad, who did not get punished or killed, and no one offered them a chance to return once more to Islam, in the two cultural messages titled ''ContemporarySalafism : The Destination " and "Who are The Sunnite? " by M.Zaki Ibrahim, leader of ''Tribe of Muhammad'' group, and member of the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs. Here are a few examples:

- There were many people in the era of Prophet Muhammad , individuals or groups, who deserted Islam after embracing it, and Prophet Muhammad did not fight them or ordered Muslims to kill them, although many of them deserted Islam many times, fluctuating between belief and disbelief.

- A man who used to write the holy revelation of the Quran, later deserted Islam, and after returning to paganism he said shamelessly that ''Muhammad does not know except what I had written for him'', and this statement is found in many earlier books of heritage, like El-Bukhary , among others. Yet, Prophet Muhammad did not punish him and let him live freely, and that man died in bed a natural death. (See also the book titled: ''El-Bari's Guide on theHadiths Complied by El-Bukhary '').

- Twelve men deserted Islam in the era of Prophet Muhammad, and left Medina for Mecca, among them El-Harith Ibn Suwaid El-Ansari . Yet, Prophet Muhammad did not order Muslims to kill them; he just recited thisQuranic verse " If one goes in search of a religion other than self-surrender unto God, it will never be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the lost "(3:85).

-Obaidullah Ibn Gahsh deserted Islam after embracing it, as he immigrated to Habasha (what we call know Ethiopia) and converted to Christianity. Prophet Muhammad did not order Muslims to kill him, nor demanded his return from the king ofHabasha .

- There were two young brothers, who converted to Christianity, and their father complained to Prophet Muhammad and said, "Shall I let my two sons go to Hell?" Prophet Muhammad did not tell him to kill them, but told him thisQuranic verse ' There shall be no coercion in matters of faith.Distinct has now become the right way from the way of error"(2:256).

As for theHadiths attributed to Prophet Muhammad, in which he said that Muslim blood should not be shed unless in three cases: punishment for murder, punishment for fornication committed by married people, and the renegades who shun their religion, community and work against them, most religious scholars, especiallyIbn Taymiyya , said that what is meant by the renegades who shun their religion, community and work against them are those who fight against Islam after rejecting faith, but no one was ever killed just because he rejected faith.

The most powerfulhadith cited on this issue is ''Anyone who rejects his faith should be killed '', buthadith -collectorEl-Bukhary accepts and mentions thishadith from the narration of'Ekrema , whereashadith -collectorMuslim rejects allHadiths told by'Ekrema , saying he is not trustworthy, not to mention that thishadith is doubted because the behavior of Prophet Muhammad and his companions contradicted it. These companions later on did not accuse people of heresy who called to the doctrine of fatalism, i.e. God predestined every human being to a certain fate, and thus He made men different in belief and disbelief. Obedience and disobedience, like differences in other facial and bodily features, and man cannot control or choose his fate. When leaders of these various philosophical doctrines died, they received Islamic burial and funeral.

Even the group ofMu'tazila were not considered infidel, although they claimed many things contrary to Islam: that the Holy Quran is a creature of God, those who committed major sins are in the in-between status of being a Muslim and a non-believer, those who committed major sins would be in Hell for eternity, God does not predestine human beings to sin as they are responsible for their sins, and finally that the Holy Quran is not the word of God but one of his creatures.

Even the group ofMurge'a were not considered infidel, although they claimed many things contrary to Islam: faith is in the heart, not accompanied by good deeds, the mere belief in God and his Prophet Muhammad is enough in faith without prayers, and a believer is like angels and Prophets, i.e. in the same stature.

Even the group ofGahmia were not considered infidel, although they claimed many things contrary to Islam: there is no god on a throne to be worshipped, God did not reveal Holy Scriptures as His Word, and they denied the Night-Journey of Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem, and his ascension to Heaven. This group even denied the epithets of God mentioned in the Holy Quran, andIbn Mubarak said, ''We would better talk about the Jewish faith, and not about the doctrine ofGahmia ''. Yet, when the leader ofGahmia died, whose name isGahm Ibn Safwan , and his secretaryGa'd Ibn Dirham died as well, they had Islamic funeral and burial, no one charged them of being infidels, polytheists or apostates. It is noteworthy that these groups, and the ones that came after and before them, are said to be from the 72 group that left the general, mainstream Muslims and condemned to Hell in the well-knownhadith , if it is correct. Many scholars consider thishadith as a very weak one.

Ibn Taymiya said that Imam AhmedIbn Hanbal did not accuse these groups of heresy, and he prayed in the funerals of some of the men in these groups, whomIbn Taymiya described as ''aberrant and deviant groups'' [6] .

As for the so-called war of the renegades in the era of the caliphAbou Bakr , it is well known that most of the so-called renegades were believers who fasted and prayed, but they refused to pay Zakat (alms) and rejected the centralized power exemplified by the caliphAbou Bakr . Hence, this conflict was a military revolt against the state, while the renegade tribes revolted against the Islamic state as well, i.e., these conflicts were political and economic, not intellectual or related to faith.

Fourth: Islam acknowledges the principle of calling for doing the right deeds and forbidding wrong ones:

Islam has highlighted the new principle of public work; i.e., calling for doing the right deeds and forbidding wrong ones, and Islam considers this measure to be distinctive feature of theUmma of Islam. ''You are indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for the good of mankind, you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong '' (3:110). This principle precedes in someQuranic verses the mention of prayer and alms. ''And as for the believers, both men and women - they are close unto one another: they all enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and are constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues, and pay heed unto God and His Apostles. It is they upon whom God will bestow His grace: verily God is almighty, wise! '' (9:71).

This principle of calling for doing the right deeds and forbidding wrong ones is one of the guarantees of secularism as it is a license for the liberty of thought, and an affirmation of it. If this principle did not exist, it would be probable that many wrong deeds might infiltrate into societies without criticism or protest, and some wrong deeds might destroy liberty itself. Good deed, without this principle, might be rare or wrongly done without someone to rectify matters, and the general rule in the society would be''it is none of my business'' .

Yet, this principle might be misinterpreted and be a tool to abort the process of secularism, not a tool of guarantying it in Islamic societies. This misinterpreted view of this principle might be adopted by those who hold a unilateral vision and the motto ''one, unified stance'', and hence this misinterpreted view might be a lethal weapon that would be brandished to terrorize those who hold different views. This might not be very harmful if confined only to the intellectual level (i.e. verbally, like in the well-knownhadith : '' If anyone of you sees a wrong deed, one should try to change it by hands, if one cannot, then by tongue, if one cannot, then by heart, this is the weakest form of asserting faith ''). Some people leave the intellectual, verbal level and move on to the level of action or 'hands' and might resort to violence in the name of faith.

The phrasing of this well-knownhadith , which is the basis of this tendency, differs from the phrasing of manyQuranic verses, which calls for doing good deeds and forbidding wrong ones, whereas thehadith includes change by three levels. This different phrasing surely has proper justification.

In our view, thishadith includes change by 'hands ' in certain cases that leave no room for other alternatives; e.g. when someone tries to commit a crime like arson, beating an animal mercilessly, or committing suicide, then others inevitably have to stop this sort of crimes by hand or force. Some religious scholars wrongly believe that the change by 'hands ' means one's authority on others that gives one the right to chastise them, e.g., the patriarchal authority of a father on his son, or a husband on his wife. Yet, Prophet Muhammad had never beaten any one, wife or servant.

In our view,the interpretation of thishadith should be within the context of manyQuranic verses that define the means of conveying God's message by Prophets. We have mentioned some of these verses earlier, especially the ones that tell Prophet Muhammad not to be sad by the adamant refusal of the polytheists, and that he should try to gain believers by many different ways. It is unconceivable that any Muslim, from common people or rulers, might be ardently careful to protect Islam more than Prophet Muhammad himself, or might do things that transgress the limits ofQuranic teachings directed to Prophet Muhammad himself

Not all these levels might be absorbed by those who want to change things using action orhands , unless they have deep knowledge of the human psyche, but such comprehensive knowledge is very rare, and most people do not have but recklessness and zeal. TheseQuranic verses exemplify the principle of calling for doing the right deeds and forbidding wrong ones, by using one's tongue and heart, and never resorting to one's hands; i.e., by force, except when necessary, in the cases we mentioned before, otherwise resorting to force or violence would be contrary to the spirit of theQuranic verses. The one who is calling for doing the right deeds and forbidding wrong ones by force or violence would not be more caring about Islam than Prophet Muhammad who was commissioned to convey the message of Islam and accordingly would have been more passionate and determined to lead people to the righteous path. Yet, theQuranic verses tell him the following '' Although thou art not accountable for his failure to attain to purity '' (80:7).

TheseQuranic verses explain the application and control of the principle of calling for doing the right deeds and forbidding wrong ones. This would ease the formidable task of differentiating between the objective willingness to make a change or a difference, and inherent personal feelings and impressions, mingled with the desire of assuming authority, due to pride and arrogance, though pride is one of the seven deadly sins. Trying to impart the personal matter a public quality is considered a type of hypocrisy that crept into the human psyche.

Fifth: Islam acknowledges pluralism:

Islam calls for pluralism, which is a feature of secular society, in manyQuranic verses. This feature present in theQuranic verses was overlooked by ancient and contemporary Islamic writers, and some even called for things contrary to it, claiming that Islam, as the religion of the oneness of God, it assumes the oneness of everything; i.e., one God, oneUmma (Islamic nation), one doctrine, one party, one leader…etc. These writers overlooked that Islam acknowledgesonly the oneness of God, while acknowledges pluralism otherwise. Muslims proclaim, '' There is no god but God, He has no partners'', but otherwise, ironically, Islamic society is pluralistic, and consequently secular in nature. The very first Islamic society in El-Medina set by Prophet Muhammad in the document ofEl-Muwada'a was a pluralistic society that consideredAl-Muhajireen (immigrants),Al-Ansar (supporters), and the Jewish community that supported people of El-Medina, as oneUmma , where Muslims and Jews lived peacefully side by side, and everyone kept to one's religion. This ideal society would have been prospered, but for the Jews who reneged on their promises and pledges with Prophet Muhammad.

We acknowledge that this trend was not followed in later eras. Some sort of narrow fanaticism in Islamic societies prevailed and imposed 'oneness' in the sense that Muslims isolated themselves apart from others, as well as the fact that followers of every Islamic doctrine isolated themselves from the rest of Muslims; e.g., the Shiites isolated themselves from the Sunnites. Yet, not all this is attributed to Islam; on the contrary, these are influences of corruption that crept to the Islamic society and distorted many things such as the concepts of oneness,fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), Islamic rule, and the position of women…etc.

As for the Islamic society described in the Holy Quran:

''And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but He willed it otherwise in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie then with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return, and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ " (5:48). "And had thy Sustainer so willed, He could surely have made all mankind one single community, but He willed otherwise, and so they continue to hold divergent views. All of them save those upon whom thy Sustainer has bestowed His grace. And to this end has He created them all. But as for those who refuse to avail themselves of divine guidance, that word of thy Sustainer shall be fulfilled: most certainly will I fill hell with invisible beings as well as humans, all together! "(11:118-119)

It is noteworthy that later Islamic societies in history, though did not follow pluralism per se, but welcomed the non-Islamic communities, and allowed its existence, granting them freedom of faith and protection in return for the tribute, which was a meager sum of money, but non-Muslim old people, women, and children were exemptedform it. This rare image is considered 'advanced' in comparison to the conditions of Europe in the same eras, when European societies did not tolerate pluralism and eradicated Islam from lands they conquered. These European societies did not even tolerate pluralism within Christianity itself, hence the wars between the Catholics and the Protestants in theMiddle Ages in Europe, that has remnants in Ireland in the present day.

This kind of tolerance in Islamic societies was based on theQuranic teachings that urge Muslims to believe in the previous celestial religions, and Prophets of ancient times, as exemplified in many verses:

-"Verily, those who have attained to faith in this divine writ as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, the Christians, and theSabians - all who believe in God and the last day and do righteous deeds- shall have their reward with their Sustainer, and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve "(2:62)

-"Furthermore, the Jews assert 'the Christians have no valid ground for their beliefs ', while the Christians assert 'the Jews have no valid ground for their belief ' - and both quote the divine writ! Even thus, like unto what they say, have always spoken those who were devoid of knowledge, but it is God who will judge between them on Resurrection Day with regard to all on which they were wont to differ "(2:113)

-"Say: we believe in God, and in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, and in that which has been bestowed upon Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendants, and that which has been vouchsafed to Moses and Jesus, and that which has been vouchsafed to all the other Prophets by their Sustainer: we make no distinction between any of them, and it is unto Him that we surrender ourselves "(3:84)

-"And had thy Sustainer so willed, He could surely have made all mankind one single community, but He willed otherwise, and so they continue to hold divergent views. All of them save those upon whom thy Sustainer has bestowed His grace. And to this end has He created them all. But as for those who refuse to avail themselves of divine guidance, that word of thy Sustainer shall be fulfilled: most certainly will I fill hell with invisible beings as well as humans, all together! "(11:118-119)

-"Say: 'Who is it that provides for you sustenance out of the heavens and the earth?' Say: 'It is God. And behold, either we, who believe in Him, or you, who deny His oneness, are on the right path, or have clearly gone astray! Say: 'Neither shall you be called to account for whatever we may have become guilty of, nor webe called to account for whatever you are doing "(34:24-25)

-"Say: 'O you who deny the truth! I do not worship that which you worship, and neither do you worship which I worship[, and I will not worship that which you have worshipped, and neither will you worship that I worship, unto you your moral law, and unto me, mine! "(109:1-6)

The Holy Quran speaks fairly about Christians and Jews, and in an objective manner that should be taught as a lesson on unbiased fairness. The Holy Quran denounces the adamant fanaticism of the Jews, yet it acknowledges that some Jewish people are virtuous:

- "And among the followers of earlier revelation there is many a one who, if thou entrust him with a treasure, will faithfully restore it to thee; and there is among them many a one who, if thou entrust him with a tiny gold coin, will not restore it to thee unless thou keep standing over him- which is an outcome of their assertion '' No balm can attach to us for anything we may do with regard to these unlettered folk'' and so they tell a lie about God, being well aware that it is a lie " (3:75)

- "But they are not all alike: among the followers of earlier revelation thereare upright people who recite God's messages throughout the night and prostrate themselves before Him. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and vie with one another in doing good works: and these are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, they shall never be denied the reward thereof: for God has full knowledge of those who are conscious of Him "(3:113-115)

- "And, behold, among the followers of earlier revelation there are indeed such as truly believe in God, and in that which has been bestowed upon you as well as in that which has been bestowed upon them. Standing in awe of God, they do not barter away God's messages for a trifling gain. They shall have their reward with their Sustainer- for, behold, God is swift in reckoning! "(3:199)

- "Thou wilt surely find that, of all people, the most hostile to those who believe in this divine writ are the Jews as well as those who are bent on ascribing divinity to aught beside God; and thou wilt surely find that, of all people, they who say ''Behold, we are Christians'' come closest to feeling affection for those who believe in this divine writ: this is so because there are priests and monks among them, and because these are not given to arrogance. For, when they come to understand what has been bestowed from on high upon this Apostle, thou canst see their eyes overflow with tears, because they recognize something of its truth, and they say: ''O our Sustainer! We do believe: make us one, then with all who bear witness to the truth "(5:82-83)

The Holy Quran says with wonder how the Jews called upon Prophet Muhammad to judge among them:

- "But how is it that they ask thee for judgment - seeing that they have the Torah, containing God's injunctions …"(5:43)

The Holy Quran speaks about the Bible:

- "…the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah , and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious "(5:46)

- "Let , then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed therein: for they who do not judge in the light of what God has bestowed from on high- it is they, they who are truly iniquitous! "(5:47)

The Holy Quran admonishes the faithful to leave the judgment of other people to God alone: "Now those people have passed away; unto them shall be accounted what they have earned, and unto you, what you have earned, and you will not be judged on the strength of what they did "(2:134), "Verily, thy Sustainer alone is fully aware as to who has strayed from His path… "(68:7)

The Holy Quran says plainly:

-"O you who have attained to faith! It is but for your own selves that you are responsible: those who go astray can do you no harm if you are on the right path… "(5:105)[7]

-"Now those people have passed away; unto them shall be accounted what they have earned, and unto you, what you have earned, and you will not be judged on the strength of what they did "(2:134)

-"Say : '' Neither shall you be called to account for whatever we may have become guilty of, nor shall we be called to account for whatever you are doing "(34:25)

-"…thy Sustainer is fully aware as to who has strayed from His path, and fully is He as to who follows His guidance "(53:30)

-"Verily, thy Sustainer alone is fully aware as to who has strayed from His path, just as He alone is fully aware of those who have found the right way "(68:7)

Six: the principle of the original innocence:

Islam acknowledges this principle of the original innocence, a principle that is very significant, and it is the most precious expressions in the Islamic thought. Its significance is not confined to the aspect of allowing or forbidding things; but it expresses the Islamic understanding of Mankind and the human nature. According to this principle, the human being is originally innocent, but might occasionally sin if conditions and motivations are set in a certain manner. This is exemplified in the story of Adam in the Holy Quran. God created Adam, breathed soul into him, granted him knowledge, made him lodge in Paradise, crated Eve for him; thus Adam lived in a state of innocence for a period. Satan managed to deceive Adam, made him sin, but he repented, and God granted him his forgiveness. "Thereupon Adam received words of guidance from his Sustainer, and he accepted his repentance, for verily He alone is the Acceptor of Repentance, the Dispenser of Grace "(2:37). Whether Adam's repentance was from these words from God, or from the original innocence that led him to know that he had sinned, and then to repent, then he received words of God, all these lead to the same conclusion, which is the return to innocence, and repentance of sins. Innocence is the original status of human beings, whereas sin is accidental.

TheSunna asserts this idea presented in the Holy Quran, and its primary notion before religious scholars phrase the term 'the original innocence', as Prophet Muhammad spoke about "natural disposition". this term has the same connotations of the term 'the original innocence', and Prophet Muhammad asserts that Islam is the religion of the natural disposition, and every human is born in an innocent state, but non-Muslim parents convert their progeny to their religion, be theyMagian or Jewish…etc.

TheSunna did not coin the term 'natural disposition' , but it is aQuranic expression as in: " …the natural disposition which God has instilled into Man… "(30:30).

This accommodation of Islam to the human nature grants human beings liberty of taking the first step toward repentance and makes them confident that God will forgive them without the interference of priesthood. This feature of Islam supports the individual and the society, and leads to liberating human beings from any inhibitions. Human beings in Islam are innocent, but liable to err, and the innocence is linked in Islam to the natural disposition.

***

The principle of the original innocence entails that originally all things are lawful, and exceptions are due to incidental reasons; for instance, the following verse shows that forbidding of things in Islam is the exception and originally all things are lawful: "All food was lawful unto the children of Israel, save what Israel had mad unlawful "(3:93). This lawfulness in Islamic terms resembles the expression of liberty in modern writings.

TheQuranic verses show explicitly that unlawful things are not so many, and assert that God solely has the right to forbid things or make them lawful. TheQuranic verses denounce those who give themselves this right, and forbid many things and lie to God and say that their forbidding of things is according to God's teachings:

-"It is not of God's ordaining that certain kinds of cattle should be marked out by superstition and set aside from the use of man, yet those who are bent on denying the truth attribute their own lying inventions to God, and most of them never use their reason "(5:103)

-"Say: ''Who is there to forbid the beauty which God has brought forth for His creatures, and the good things from among the means of sustenance?'' Say : '' They are lawful in the life of this world unto all who have attained to faith- to be theirs alone on Resurrection Day. Thus clearly doWe spell out these messages unto people of innate knowledge! "(7:32)

-"Hence, do not utter falsehoods by letting your tongues determine at your discretion: ''This is lawful and this is forbidden'', thus attributing your own lying inventions to God, for, behold, they who attribute their lying inventions to God will never attain to a happy state! "(16:116)

-"Say: '' Have you ever considered all the means of sustenance which God has bestowed upon you from on high- and which you thereupon divide into things forbidden and things lawful? Say: ''Has God given you leave to do this- or do you perchance attribute your own guesswork to God?" "(10:59)

There are many otherQuranic verses that advise people to hold into the lawful, good things, to eat and drink without excess, and to beautifythemselves when they enter mosques…etc.

In order to limit the number of unlawful things, the Holy Quran forbids questioning that lead to increasing of the number of unlawful things: "O you who have attained to faith! Do not ask about matters which if they were to be made manifest to you in terms of law might cause you hardship, for, if you should ask about them while the Quran is being revealed, they might be made manifest to you as laws. God has absolved you from any obligation in this respect: for God is much forgiving, forbearing. People before your time have indeed asked such questions- and in result thereof have come to deny the truth "(5:101-102)

TheSunna affirms the same notion, as Prophet Muhammad said in hishadith , ''Do not pose many questions on what I have said to you; earlier people were doomed because they used to argue with their Prophets. If I ordered you to do something, then try to do it as much as you can, and if I forbid you from doing something, then do not do it ''.

In anotherhadith : ''What is lawful in the Book of God is allowed, and what is forbidden is unlawful, what is not mentioned is not unlawful and therefore it was not mentioned on purpose, and we should accept this grace of God, for God does not forget ''. This wonderfulhadith is great in its meaning and intention, clarifying in the graceful expression "…we should accept this grace of God … "The meaning manifested in the above-mentionedQuranic verses.

The meaning of thishadith was repeated in another one: ''What is forbidden and what is lawful are both mentioned in the Book of God, and what is intentionally overlooked is lawful ''. Prophet Muhammad asserted - and he is the one commissioned by God to convey His message - that what is forbidden or declared lawful, both are written in the Book of God- the Holy Quran.

There is anotherhadith that affirms the same meaning : ''God has ordained certain injunctions, do not neglect them, set limits, do not transgress them, forbidden things, do not commit the forbidden things, and overlooked some things on purpose to have mercy upon you, so do not ask about them ''.

Here is a last one: "the wicked of all Muslims is the one who keeps questioning something that has not declared unlawful, but due to his questioning was declared unlawful" (this Hadith is mentioned in the books of Hadiths of El-Bukhary and Imam Muslim).

Lastly: Islam is a religion and a nation, not a religion and a state:

What is strongly link Islam and secularism is what we reached by ourIjtihad (point of view), which is that Islam is a religion and anation , not a religion and astate . It is know that the essence of secularism is the separation between the state and religion, and this recentIjtihad agrees with the essence of secularism.

ThisIjtihad is based on the fundamental premise that authority corrupts ideology. The state owns authority, and accordingly, it might corrupt the ideology of Islam. This happened historically when the idea of selecting wise rulers in the early era of Islam was replaced by the system of hereditary caliphate or monarchism, this brought many problems in the Islamic societies.

This matter is not related to Islam exclusively, but includes as well all values like Christian or socialist values. In another book published by us on this subject, we have mentioned in a detailed chapter, how that the Christian authority turned the religion of love into the horrible inquisition courts. In another chapter, we have mentioned how authority turned socialism, which was the hope of workers, into a scourge that whipped workers, and into a totalitarian state that established the foundations of the totalitarian rule, absorbed by Hitler and Mussolini, as a general principle. Secularism is right in the idea of separating religion and the state.

This does not mean that the state in the IslamicUmma is secular, as there are a large number of factors that impose themselves in Islamic societies, and make the position of the state relatively different in comparison to the Western states.

No doubt that Islam has set social, political and economical principles of the welfare of society, but these principles are not presented to the 'state ', for the term never appears in theQuranic text, but to theUmma , a term mentioned about 50 times in theQuranic text.

In politics, Islam forbids injustice and tyranny, and calls for justice and consultation. In economy, Islam forbids usury, hoarding wealth without spending and exploitation, and calls forZakat (giving alms). In the social sphere, Islam calls for equality, and that no Arab is better that non-Arab or vice-versa except in the criteria of piety and devoutness.

It is taken for granted that a democratic state is the one that is responsive to its nation and rule according to the will of its nations. If this nation happens to be Muslim, there must be responsiveness and sympathy especially that Islam is deeply rooted in the psyche of its believers, and it is unconceivable that the state would assume a neutral position. In sum, the state should not undertake to perform Islamic duties and assume Islamic identity; yet, this does not mean that the state would be secular, as it could not be neutral to the sentiments of its nation.

Western states managed to be secular because religion does not assume a high status in the psyche of European people at present, especially that Christianity is not concerned with worldly matters, and did not present major outlines, as in Islam, that regulateZakat , and forbid tyranny, usury, injustice...etc. The faith, which is deeply rooted in the American/European societies, is paganism, which was a legacy of the Greco-Roman civilizations, which was one of the greatest components of modern civilization. The state institution in Europe, though secular, it rules by the faith deeply rooted in the European mindset, i.e., the deification of the human being. That is why secularism is compatible with the psyche of the European nations. In sum, the state institution in Europe and America sympathizes with the church, but it is independent from it, but this independence does not mean neutrality. There are instances when the state institution Europe and America supports many churches and assumes a hostile attitude toward other religions and calls, e.g., it supports the Zionism even at the expense of the liberty of thought, which constitutes the cornerstone in any secular democratic state.

Some writers would convey the impression that Western states are one hundred percent secular, but the truth is what we have mentioned before.

Hence, we cannot describe the state in an Islamic nation assecular , but the proper epithet would becivil , as the states of Islamic nations are civil ones that do not perform Islamic duties, rather civil duties like education, medical services, economical development…etc. Besides, this state cannot ignore the will of its nation, which wants to apply certain Islamic guidelines. The state has no option except complying with the will of its nation as the nation, and not the state, is the source of authorities.

This is the inevitable democratic route.

The term 'civil state ' bridges the gap between secularism, which is neutral toward religion, and the religious state that makes worldly realm in the service of religion. At the same time, this does not contradict the main principle of democracy: theUmma , and not the state, is the source of all authorities.

To achieve this, our constitution should remove the statement: ''Islam is the religion of the state '' and the principle that theSharia (Islamic jurisprudence) is the main source of legislature, as this might harm the civil nature that is required to the state. Such statements could be used by Islamist cliques that misinterpret Islam and might impose on the state what would oppose the liberty of belief and requirements of development and general welfare of society, not to mention that such statements provoke Coptic sensitivities. These real threats may paralyze the civil nature of the state. It is a deeply rooted myth in the Islamic thought that the state is the defender of faith. This false notion is not confined to Muslims, as Europeans believe in it as well, and some European monarchs are referred to as defenders of faith, yet, Europeans learned the lesson of development, while Muslims dwell in the old myth.

In our book titled ''Islam As a Religion and a Nation, Not a Religion and a State ", we explained that it is profitable to Islam that the state would give up the mission of defending it, as this would lead to nothing but evil and doom.

The scope of secularism in Islam:

Do the above-mentioned facts mean that Islam is secular as in the secularism in European societies?

Islam agrees with secularism in the separation between authority (government) and religion. Although Islamists would object to this, but the truth is that modern views on separating religion and government are sound and approved by Islam, as Islam is based on wisdom and good advice, and its real principle isfaith , which cannot be forced upon hearts. There is no room for faith amidst burdens of authority and its corrupting nature, which sometimes relies on terrorizing or artificiality. The natural, permanent place of faith is theUmma .

Yet, secularism has a side that is contrary to Islam, and this side has nothing to do with the state. This side is the fact that European secularism means sometimes worldly, mundane existence; i.e., confining oneself to life in this world while denying, overlooking, or being indifferent to the life in the Hereafter, to the extent that one denies the existence of God. This atheist attitude is mentioned in the Holy Quran: "And yet they say: 'There is nothing beyond our life in this world. We die as we come to life, and nothing but time destroys us. But of this they have no knowledge whatever: they do nothing but guess "(45:24), " And yet, whenever God alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who will not believe in the life to come contract with bitter aversion- whereas, when those imaginary powers are mentioned side by side with Him, lo, they rejoice! "(39:45).

Secularism in the sense of devoting oneself to this worldly life and denying the existence of the Hereafter is contrary to Islam. Islam believes in the Hereafter, reckoning, reward, and punishment in the Resurrection Day…etc. and this fact compels us to say that Islam has a civil nature, and it agrees with secularism in the notion of separating religion and the state, but it opposes the notion of denying the Hereafter and the existence of God.

It is well known that religious values (Christian or Islamic) do not agree with the confining secularism to worldly affairs. There is huge difference between a society whose members do not differentiate between the profane and the sacred, and do not care for anything but their own interests to achieve the utmost degree of free enjoyment, and a society that sticks to values which differentiate between good and evil, committing the human being to restrain and control lusts and individual demands. The major point here is that as long as religions call for wisdom and good advice, and leaving what belongs to Caesar, to Caesar, then this call is useful to form a state of balance to control lusts and excessive, chaotic freedom. Dialectic coexistence is easy to formulate between secularism and religions, which would be based oncomplementarity , which necessitates that the thesis and antithesis would form synthesis.

There is a difference between Islam and Christianity exemplified in their stances toward sexual relations. Christianity is influenced by the thought and attitude of St. Paul, the actual founder of Christianity, and it sees sexual relations in light of mere bodily lust. Since sexual desire is a dominant instinct, abstaining from it means craving and burning with this desire, and St. Paul had to accept marriage but with certain limits - one wife, and forbidding divorce…etc.

But in Islam, we perceive a more secular view, as it sees sexual desire as instinct created by God to preserve the human being from the danger of extinction, and one who has sex within lawful boundaries of marriage would be rewarded in the Hereafter, while the one who has illicit sex would be penalized in the Hereafter. The dominant notion in Islam is the idea of regulation and control, and Islam. Islam legalizes polygamy and divorce with certain conditions, and contracting marriages should be based on mutual consent.

This complies more with the human nature, unlike Christianity that forbids polygamy and divorce, and has to face illicit sexual relationships that replaced holy matrimony we find in Islamic societies. Eventually, many Western states legalized divorce despite the disapproval of the church.

Islam agrees with secularism in the point that it refuses theocratic rule, as ruling is a political contract, as if Islam has realized thesocial contract centuries before it is described by Jean Jacque Rousseau.

The only exception that mixed religion with rule is the followers of the Shiite doctrine that made their imams infallible rulers and formed a religious institution that has its own references and sources. This goes against what mainstream Muslims agreed on, and may lead to the establishment of theocratic rule, which prevents the emergence of secularism. This opposition was apparent long ago, whenIbn Taymiya was prompted to write his book on the legitimate politics to refute the ideas ofIbn El-Motahar El-Hally , who belonged to the Shiite imams' doctrine.

Mainstream Muslims refused the Shiite doctrine and the theocratic rule.

Yet, the Shiite state when it reappeared in the modern era, when the Khomeini revolution succeeded, it underwent a process of revision and correction to remove old unsuitable traditions and adapt to spirit of modernity.

Rule is not the only one that is based on contracting, for most economical activities are based on contracting, as well as marriage - despite its private nature- whose essence is a civil contract, which is based on mutual consent, among other additional conditions, excluding conducting marriages in a church by a priest.

Islam does not call us to overlook our share in life "…without forgettingthine own rightful share in this world "(28:77), "Say: 'Who is there to forbid the beauty which God has brought forth for His creatures, and the good things from among the means of sustenance?' Say: 'They are lawful in the life of this world unto all who have attained to faith- to be theirs alone on Resurrection Day'. Thus clearly doWe spell out these messages unto people of innate knowledge! "(7:32). Islam forbids monasticism and abstinence from things made lawful by God in this world, but Islam is not confined to life in this world - as we see in secularism - as it cares for life in the Hereafter as well. Hence, Islam calls people to care for both lives - in this world, and the next world. One should work in this life as if one never dies, and work for his life to come as if one would die the next day. There is no contradiction in this except what might lead to any form of transgression. If this transgression is in the human behavior, Islam has certain mechanisms for atonement, repentance, and asking God's forgiveness - i.e. doing good deeds so that God forgive one for committing evil ones. If this transgression is related to society, there are means of punishment to deter wrongdoers, but punishments should not be exacted in the name of injustice or exploitation, as Islam orders them in the name of justice.

From this presentation, we see the common points between Islam and secularism, especially in what is related to secularism of rule.

Three aspects to be taken into consideration

After the objective study of the relation between Islam and secularism, we see three aspects that should be taken into consideration; firstly, the scope of the purity in European secularism; secondly, the specific nature of Egypt and the Arab world; thirdly, the results of applying secularism in the Western society in the modern age.

A) The scope of the purity in European secularism:

In-depth studies on the modern European society reveal that this society has rejected the celestial religion, and has made up an earthly one. The modern European society denied the existence of God, the One mentioned in Christianity and Islam, and believed in other gods and idols brought by the movies, ruling systems, arts, and sports. Hence, the modern European society is not wholly secular in reality, as this secular mode is directed only to ancient religions. In contrast, the stance of the modern European society toward the new rising powers is the stance of a believer who worships these powers. Human beings naturally were neither gods nor creators of themselves or other things on earth, but they are the deputized creatures to own and use all things on earth, and these things have to have a Creator. Human beings' rejection of the idea of God happened in the ancient world and the modern one. In ancient Greece, poets created the set of gods on Mount Olympus, and wrote legends and literature on these gods, whose names were later given to Modern Europe. In ancient Rome, Roman emperors became gods, and the Roman senate used to 'appoint' those who deify the emperor from the great men of Rome. Before these civilizations, ancient Egypt was full of different gods: the god of the Nile, another of the sun…etc. All this was justified by feeling the innate need to have a Creator. The Holy Quran refers to this in a symbolic style: "And whenever thy Sustainer brings forth their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam, He calls upon them to bear witness about themselves: 'Am I not your Sustainer?' - To which they answer: 'Yea, indeed, we do bear witness thereto!' Of this,We remind you, lest you say on the Day of Resurrection, 'Verily, we were unaware of this' "(7:172).

Accordingly, once the secular West rejected the interference of religion in the society, it allowed the existence of other idols from within this society to fill the vacuum, like movies stars and famous people (e.g. when Rudolf Valentino died, many women around the four corners of the modern world committed suicide). Pin-ups of these famous heroines and heroes do exist in the walls and wallets of young people. These heroes include movie stars and sportspeople who get millions for their matches that make people glued to the TV screens, and they are more famous than scientists, ministers, or even presidents. In socialist societies that revolted against such 'bourgeois' idols, there are other gods. For instance, Lenin who was mummified and buried in a tomb that is similar to aPharaonic pyramid, and children stand in rows in the severe cold of winter to look at him. Similar position was given to Stalin, MaoTse -tong, and Ho Chi Minh. There are millions of Chinese young people, who regard the Red Book of MaoTse -tong as their holy book, as it got more popular than the Bible, and there are huge statues erected to honor these tyrants, and they are more colossal than statues of Ramses II and other Pharaoh kings and queens. Socialist societies rejected the worship of God, and it was considered something backward, created by the injustices of capitalism. Hence, the worship of individual replaced the worship of God, and this kind of worship has its own priests and clergy. There is no difference among the Politburo, cardinals of the Pope in Rome, and Ayatollah in the city of Qom.

These variations resemble the religious faith that was supposed to be contradictory to secularism, but in fact, these variations of strong quasi-religious beliefs flourished in all secular settings, be it socialist or capitalist, and the gods of such beliefs had their own hell and paradise in this world, not in the life to come. This paradise appealed to all secular idols like movie stars, sportspeople…etc. and it appealed as well to tyrant rulers who control destinies. This hell of these idols tormented workers in the inferno of the capitalist exploitation, before workers managed to form unions. This hell of these idols made the corrupt retinue of rulers in communist Russia and Nazi Germany throw the masses in prisons or concentration camps to work in forced, unpaid labor within vile conditions and in diabolical methods, far worse than the methods used by ancient Romans.

Thus, the modern Western society rejected Christianity but worshipped new idols and gods that it believed they would offer it pleasure or wretchedness. These idols were created by this society itself, as they bore the worldly quality, and this new 'religion' was nurtured in the midst of secularism.

We cannot apply the experience of European rejection of Christianity, when it adopted secularism, to our society, and claim that adoption of secularism might endanger Islam,for two reasons. The first reason is that the European society had many different theological doctrines and churches of many denominations. Even followers of one sect, i.e. the puritans, were those who immigrated to North America to flee persecution and to establish the new city of 'Zion', and these puritans were fundamentalists. The spread of Protestantism in Germany led to the flourishing of Christianity and the emergence of many religious groups and Christian political parties. Hence, we should not take for granted that adoption of secularism led to rejection of Christianity or religion in general.

The second reason is more profound and serious; which is that Christianity has included the Torah, i.e. the Old Testament, in the Bible. The Torah deeply influenced the European society, as it contains a kind of mythology that is filled with chronicles of wars, gods and goddesses, kings and queens, plots and intrigues, romances and sexual content. Greek mythology deeply influenced the European psyche and prepared it to accept the Hebrew one. Most European poets, writers, artists, and leaders were deeply influenced by the Hebrew mythology that contained gory events of wars, struggles, romances…etc. which paved the way to sympathize with Zionism that aim at occupying lands between the River Nile and the River Euphrates. Even Balfour, British Prime Minister Lloyd George, and American president Wilson supported the Zionist project on the basis of the claimed promise of God to Abraham and his progeny (i.e. the Jews)thousand of years ago to own these lands. Why would a secular country (Britain) establish a state (the Hebrew one) on a religious basis?

Another impact of the 'Hebrew mythology' (the name we called on the Torah in our book titled ''Islam as a Religion and a Nation, Not a Religion and a State ") was in the USA. It is exemplified in the emergence of Jewish/Christian fundamentalism (or rather Zionist Christianity) which called for the necessity of the Jewish presence in Palestine to pave the way for the Second Coming of Christ. The last four American presidents believed in this myth. The American support for Israel, which is the Hebrew state that is based on racial discrimination and religious one, is the evidence to prove the weak, shaky nature of the American secularism.

In France, the country of liberties and the French Revolution, the French government issued a law to ban any mention of the Nazi Holocaust that purportedly exterminated six millions of Jews. The French law prosecuted and condemned the French thinker, philosopher, and leader RogerGaraudy when he violated this cultural taboo.

B) The specific nature of Egypt and the Arab world:

Callers of secularism should fully know the religious nature of Egypt and the Arab world, and the impact of this nature on accepting the notion of secularism. This is the region, where Prophets of God were commissioned to convey the divine message, and people of this region in turn conveyed this message to the rest of the world. Since the early history of this region, especially Egypt, religion was the most significant feature of society, from which jurisprudence, rule, morals, conventions, traditions and customs were derived. The religion of the ancient Egyptians left us a legacy of pyramids, temples, and obelisks that now ornate some squares in Europe and America. In the Coptic era, the two leaders of early Christianity in Egypt were in Alexandria, i.e., Arius and Athanasius, and religion was the axis of resistance of Copts against the Byzantine rule, though Christian, but its doctrine differed from the one adopted by the Coptic Church. In the Islamic era, Egypt, under the banner of Islam, won victory over the crusaders and freed Jerusalem. Egypt saved the Middle East from the invasion of the Tartars, when it won victory over them in the Battle ofAyn Jalut .

In the modern era, sheikhs of Al-Azhar Mosque were the leaders of the popular resistance against Napoleon and thenKléber . They shook off the Turkish rule in 1805 when they refused the Turkish governor and appointed Muhammad Ali Pasha as governor of Egypt, when he pledged to rule according to Islamic jurisprudence and justice.

Al-Azhar Mosque remained the platform of the national call that led to the revolution of 1919. This is the place where Nasser declared the beginning of the struggle against 1956 aggression. In times of Prayers, the TV stops its transmission to present the prayer call (azan ) followed by a presentation of onehadith of Prophet Muhammad. Life in Islamic nations takes another form in the holy month of Ramadan. Feasts and holidays are originally Islamic ones (e.g. the LesserBairam , the GreaterBairam , the birthday of Prophet Muhammad, the beginning of a new Hegira year in the Islamic calendar…etc.) these festivities are kept even by governments that have no Islamic orientation, only under the pressure to gain popularity among common people and to gratify the masses.

Pioneers of the renaissance period in Egypt, also known as the enlightenment period, were in El-Azhar Mosque, like Sheikh El-Tahtawy , Ali Mubarak, and AhmedOrabi . The Egyptian society's reawakening was due to the call ofGamal El-Deen El-Afghani and his assiduous work in Egypt for eight years in El-Azhar Mosque, and hisAzharite disciple Sheikh MuhammadAbdou . The latter had disciples likeSaad Zaghloul , the pioneer of Egyptian liberalism, andQassim Amin , the leader of the movement of the liberation of women. It is known as well thatTaha Hussien and Ali Abdel-Raziq were educated in El-Azhar as well.

Pioneers of enlightenment did not denounce Islam; on the contrary, they declared their deep respect for Islam, the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad. This includes contemporary callers of secularism like lateFarag Fouda , and NasrHamid Abou Zayd . The late novelist and journalistIhsan Abdel-Quddous the owner of the magazineRose El-Yusuf said: ''I live as a Muslim, and my public and private lives are influenced by Islam. When I do something right, that is because Islam guided my way, and when I err, that is because I failed to follow the teachings of Islam ''[8] The Nobel-laureate novelistNaguib Mahfouz said in El-Ahram newspaper issue of 11-11-1994 in his word on the project of civilizations: ''to sum my opinion, the project of civilizations should be based on Islam and its development and dialogue with other civilizations ''. We will mention in the next chapter on nationalism, words of Coptic Christians on Islam. It is noteworthy that when leaders of Marxism criticize Islamic trends, they say that these trends have nothing to do with 'mainstream, genuine Islam', as if they are defending Islam in a certain way.

This basic truth differs radically to religious indifference in Europe, as well as the vehement attack against religion by communists who call it the opium of the masses, or by scientists of sociology and history who cast doubts on the existence of Christ itself, and the dubious history of the church.

No honest thinker can overlook the signs of this basic truth, as what is de rigueur in Europe differs from what is de rigueur in the Arab world.

C) The results of applying secularism in the Western society:

The glitter of progress, wealth, luxury, the spread of arts and literature, the high standard of living and the other manifestations of beauty makes researchers blind to see the other side of the coin. The societies of Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, the USA and Russia under the reign of czars had one common starting point to achieve progress: the looting and plundering of the East.

Britain and Spain exterminated the peaceful Indian tribes to seize their lands, throughout two centuries abducted 100 millions of Africans, as if they were beasts, and shipped them in huge floating prisons. The third of this number died during the journey to America and from forced work in enslavement. The rest were forced to unpaid labor in the fields of sugar cane, tobacco, and cotton. Capitalists, before laying their hands on the wealth of the East and enslaving its people, used to manipulate children and women of their societies in iron mines, coalmines, and textiles factories for three generations, before workers formed their unions to protect them against manipulation.

European countries waged war against one another, including World War I (1914-1919) and World War II (1939-1945), and other countries were drawn into these wars, which increased bloodshed. Forty millions died,no to mention the unprecedented amount of destruction.

In the contemporary era, Western societies suffer epidemic social crises, like organized crime (that includes unfamiliar fields like children prostitution and homosexuality), drug trafficking and distribution, political corruption, the hegemony of the rich and the major manufactures on elections, economic corruption, the control of media and its impact on the youth, and the hegemony of the international and multinational manufacturing entities on economies of their countries and overseas countries. Western authorities cannot control such rabid deviation that occur under the umbrella of liberty, and these authorities are enslaved by these powers by means of bribery and pressures to influence leaders and media, which in turn influence the public.

Some Arab thinkers who are influenced by the European civilization think that secularism unites, whereas religions divide, and that secularism means tolerance, whereas religions mean fanaticism. This is a grave error of judgment. Secularism is a dividing element more than religions as it allows excessive freedom for any individuals or groups to form an entity of any kind. For instance, in the USA, any mentally deranged charlatan or imposter might find supporters or disciples even if he ordered them to kill indiscriminately or to commit suicide. Pluralism reaches its highest degree in any secular society, whereas religions, even if they divide, are limited in number, as the whole world does not have but five major religions.

As for religion, what happens is the vast majority in a given country belongs to one religion, and there is no division, as it is takenfro granted that in the democratic systems, decision-making is for the majority, and the minority has to comply with any decision. Yet, Islam stands against the wild ambition of majority if it would do injustice to the rights of minorities. Islam gives religious minorities the liberty of belief and the freedom to follow their systems of marriage, divorce, inheritance…etc. Islam orders the Muslim majority to preserve the liberty of other religious minorities, who are protected by theQuranic text, and they are called in Islamic jurisprudencedhimmis (i.e. in Arabicahl el-dhimmah : people of the pact of protection). This expression might provoke the ire of some minorities who feel in it the idea of discrimination and division, but in fact, it is some kind of protection for them and an acknowledgement of their status which they try to evade - in vain - that they are minorities. If they try to get rid of the status ofdhimmitude that puts them in the protection of the Holy Quran whom no Muslim can contradict, so that they embrace secularism and the rule of the wild majority, they would be fleeing from the frying pan to the fire. They would undergo what happens to the Muslim minorities in Europe that claim to be secular but it rules by the Christian laws in matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance, despite the fact that this contradicts the faith of these Muslim minorities. It is acknowledged that the termdhimmitude is archaic and obsolete from bygone eras like tribute, slavery, spoils of war…etc.

If considering religions as sources of inspiration would divide people, then people would be divided into five major religions. As for Islam, it acknowledges and confirms that Muslims should retain peaceful relations with followers of other religions, and acknowledges all Prophets and messengers of God without distinction among them.

As for religious fanaticism, Islam is the last religion to be associated with fanaticism. The real fanaticism is racial not religious, and this was the feature of European societies since the era of the Greeks and the Romans, until the era of colonialism and the contemporary period. The recent image of this fanaticism was that of the Serbs against Muslims in Sarajevo. This fanaticism, either driven by the church or the conventions and customs, is what we find in Europe, and the whole continent remained silent before this barbarity due to the wide spread fanaticism.

Crises that befell modern European civilization and factors of deterioration were enough to destroy any civilization. Yet, the European civilization was spared a fate similar to what befell the Roman civilization because of liberty and knowledge that resisted factors of deterioration and degeneration, and enabled the European civilization to remain and resist extinction, but at a costly price that cannot be always paid. This shows that Europe is in bad need to religious values to protect it from decline and downfall. These religious values cannot be replaced by any other values, as they are divine, holy and objective, and therefore more powerful than any other values.

At the end, we find ourselves before a kind of irony. In Europe, where Christian values are contrary to the secular ones, we find that a kind of dialectical coexistence has occurred between secularism that prevails in the European society, and the church that tries to do its best to hold the reins. Yet, this is not wholly done, as the law of change is more powerful that the stagnation and the church had nothing but to accept its fate. This acceptance was easy as the church, through a thousand years in European soil, has gradually absorbed European values and it bore the appellation 'the Roman Catholic Church', as if is the legitimate heir of the roman civilization.

In the Islamic society, where Islamic values are compatible with secularism, though both differ in certain aspects, we see that Islamists and callers of secularism struggle against one another, as each group demands full control and does not believe in the dialectic complementary coexistence. The Islamic world cannot live in constant strife for long. We have no centuries' long struggle between religion and secularism as in Europe in theMiddle Ages. The synthesis aimed at in the Islamic world is the emergence of an Eastern version of secularism that keeps Islamic values as source of inspiration; hence, the balance between elements of stability and powers of progress and development.

It is supposed that those who claim to represent the 'Islamic call' would agree on this fair version, and reject the idea of reviving the past and backward notions, as this is an impossibility and of course not desired in the modern era.

The dilemma facing modern thought is how religious values (be it Islamic or Christian) can be revived and deepened in the souls of believers to ward off deviation and aberration, and to form inner conscience without mechanism to urge for righteousness ad goodness? If we create a certain mechanism, it would turn into a church or a religious institution, which would lead to the formation of clergy that would monopolize the religious calls - or at least control these religious calls, which is unacceptable.

Difficulty and complexity that surround the process of reaching a solution to this dilemma should not hinder exerting efforts to reach a solution, for this is not impossible, but it is inevitable, to make the issue of secularism a matter of civilization, not the concern of religious institutions. This issue should be tackled by society, not by the state. There should be room to develop a sort of Islamic secularism that retains the rational, liberal aspect of secularism as well as the main principle of faith, which is the belief in God, His Prophets, and the values of Islamic civilization.