In December of 1881, Imam Mohammed Abdu, Grand Mufti of Egypt, wrote in the Egyptian National Democratic Party program that "it is a political party but not a religious one. It is composed of men of different faiths and doctrines. All the Christians and Jews, and all who are plowing the land of Egypt and speak its language are members. The party does not differentiate between various beliefs, and knows that all humans are brothers and equal in their political and religious rights". So what happened after less than a quarter of a century? When The Imam was dying in 1905, he quoted a poem: "I do not care if it said that Mohammed.. is careless or overwhelmed by grief... But I want the well fare of this religion.. and I fear that it will be doomed by turbans" The difference between these two scenes, is the nonstop conflict between two sides who walked side by side in the intellectual life in Egypt, especially with regard to religious thought and Al-Azhar: they are the renewing, enlightening trend, that was represented at the time of Imam Mohammed Abdu, and the traditional conservative trends that prevailed at the time and took control of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif. The conflict has continued at its peak after his and their "departure". The problem in my opinion is complex. To have access to a society able to process religious reform requires the presence of a modern tolerant religious vision. Imam Mohammad Abdu wrote, while struggling with traditional conservative supporters, stressing on the fact that the Islamic approach does not depend only on the mental evidence, and does not know of miracles. His words were a heavy blow to the mentally sick and authoritarian minded people. The Imam declared that believing in God is to believe in the faith, the prophets and what was revealed to them in the Holy Book and the General Wisdom. By doing this, Mohammed Abdu elevated the power of the mind and made it a guide, as faith is reached only through the mind. We can only know God through it, as ordinary Egyptians say. Faith does not reach us through oppression and coercion. It is a result of reflection and consideration, and the logical outcome of the mind's effort within a context of freedom and awareness. (Muhammad Abdu: Islam between science and civilization p. 74). What Imam Mohammed Abdu said seemed different from what was prevalent for many centuries. It doesn't mean that he was mentioning things that were not stated in Islam, but in fact, trying to remove a lot of rust accumulated through centuries of decadence and isolation, when people preferred safety and mental laziness in choosing the inherited beliefs of religion while ignoring reason and free meditation. Mohammed Abdu belongs to this community of enlightened imams, who believe that meditation is the origin of Islam. He preferred to rely on his mind rather than argue over differences in Sharia. The Imam says: If the mind and received information are conflicting then it would better to believe what the mind can understand and adopt. "Reconciliation" with the mind is the second basis of the Islamic doctrine, after the freedom of choice in advocacy and life. Opposing the mind is the hurdle that should be removed. With these two integrated and comprehensive bases; freedom of choice and reconciliation with the mind, we can reach the third basis. As the Imam says: "Avoid calling someone an infidel: if a man says something that is considered irreligious but at the same time contains faith, it should not be misconstrued as infidelity (77)". Differences between human beings are the norm, and no one should claim the monopoly of certainty or the possession of absolute truth. Islam does not oppose free thinking of the human race. In fact, it opens the doors, and those who dare to discuss it with different perceptions are not sinners. Those who tried to ponder and reached the right path, get an additional reward, and those who worked hard and got it wrong still get their reward. Al-Gahez, Al-Anbari among others believe that those who discuss religion are not sinners while the stubborn ones are. Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltout says that those who do not believe in God and His Messengers are not sinners: "the provisions of Islam are not imposed on the Muslims and they are not required to commit to God's Canons and worships. (Mahmoud Shaltout: the doctrine of Islam and Sharia p. 112). Infidelity is when someone denies the faith while he knows the right path to it, or when he is convinced but refuses to believe as he is looking for money or prestige, or out of fear of blame. But those who think and search hard even if they are mistaken until death do not deserve to be considered infidels (ibid., p. 20). In light of this understanding, according to Imam Sheikh Shaltout, we should reconsider all the verses about war in the Quran. The verses about religious freedom too. So where does our crisis lie today? The real crisis is that advocates of the conservative and conventional trends who fill our lives today after the death of these great scholars, Muhammad Abdu and Shaltout and Al- Saidi, are just reiterating doctrines in the books of our great ancestors without regard to different historical backgrounds and temporal circumstances. Should we do something to combat these kinds of perception before it is too late? Or are we to say as the Imam said in his last days: "I want the well fare of this religion.. and I fear that it will be doomed by turbans".
