Secularism and its relationship to religion and the state

Dr. Mohamed Abdel Aziz Rabee

Determining the relationship of secularism with religion and the state requires defining the relationship of secular thought with religious jurisprudence and matters of politics. That is why we will try in this paper to talk about three basic issues: the history and development of secularism; secularism and the jurisprudential heritage in Islam; And the relationship of the secular concept based on separating the competencies of the religious institution from the competencies of the civil state with Islam. On the other hand, the majority of jurists and imams of mosques claim that secularism is an idea of ​​atheism that is hostile to religion; But secularism is a philosophy, including social and political, that seeks to reform society, achieve equality between people, and protect public freedoms, including religious freedom. In its pursuit of achieving these goals, secularism urges the individual and society to use reason, science, and human experience as a basic reference for judging matters of life and religion. And secularism can be defined, as stated in the Wikipedia encyclopedia, as “a socio-political philosophy that believes that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, must be free and not subject to a religious or ideological point of view.” As we will explain later, the separation of religion from the state in the countries of the West had the greatest merit in liberating man and his mind from the influence of clergy and the state alike, establishing the principles of justice, equality and participation in governance, and establishing democratic systems of government that are more just and respectful of the rights and humanity of the individual than all the ideological systems that have emerged. Throughout history. In the context of analyzing these issues, we will try to clarify the way the faith reason behaves when faced with scientific challenges that use logic and seek to serve the public interest. The faith mind The faith mind is an ordinary human mind that may be smart and may be dull, but it is a mind that has been besieged.

It is subject to criticism or questioning, and it is brought up to adhere to poorly developed traditions and values. By instilling such ideas and values ​​in the child’s mind before he opens up to the world and wanders through its hills and hills, the owner is deprived of roaming in the wide world of thought and imagination, and isolates him from what he lives outside, from Its sciences are its own narrow world of ideas, sciences, traditions, beliefs, and lifestyles. Although the faith-based mind is a human mind that often sympathizes with those with material and spiritual needs, it clings to beliefs and traditions that are hostile to freedom, and rejects the principle of equality between people and the legitimacy of the beliefs of other people. In order to tame the faith mind to domesticate isolation from the world of thought that is free from prohibitions and imperatives, it is linked to a group that believes in its ideological beliefs and ideas, and adheres to the traditions and attitudes it adheres to. This makes the faith mind live in a cultural ghetto that prevents it from seeing what lives behind. The boundaries of his world of cultures, values, sciences and theories are different from what he has. Since the world that lives behind the walls of cultural ghettos never stops transforming and evolving, the faith-minded mind finds itself making it feel with the passage of days, falling behind day after day from the world that surrounds its life and affects it with more alienation from the world and its sciences, alienation from it, and hostility. him sometimes. The transformation of the innocent, childish mind into a mind of faith leads this mind to spin around itself in an involuntary movement due to the weakness of its ability to conscious thinking, and works to undermine its ability to deal with the complexities of daily life and face future challenges realistically and scientifically. The decline in the ability of the mind to think, the mind becomes unable to determine its positions impartially on various societal issues, including scientific and humanitarian issues; Which pushes him towards discrimination against those who disagree with him in opinion, convictions, and positions; This is a distinction that leads some people of faith to hate the other and to be hostile towards him. Therefore, we notice that the mind of faith in general tends to doubt the positions of other people, questioning their beliefs and intentions, and often resorting to myths and legends in order to protect itself from ideas outside itself. These are behaviors that would perpetuate his convictions, values, and concepts. Time and scientific development gradually reveal their defects and falsity in most of them. Since it is the nature of faith convictions that they do not develop sufficiently to coexist with their commitment, every new thought contradicts them or questions their integrity. From one point of view The view of the faith mind is mere lies or illusions that reflect the ignorance or misguidance of its owners. The steadfastness of faith and ideological beliefs in general, and their non-subordination to the cosmic, scientific, cultural, social and economic laws of development, makes the faith mind weak in its ability to develop to realize the nature of major changes, as well; This makes it difficult for him, by virtue of his emotional composition and significance. With the succession of days and years, the mind of faith is banished from history, which makes it resort to the past and heritage in order to throw itself into its arms, and hide behind its walls from the bright lights of life and its growing complexities. Because the faith mind is unable to realize that the past is the moment that we transcend every moment of the life of time, and that the next moment is part of the future that hundreds of millions of people contribute to shaping it. In the light of the unconscious escape from the present to the past, the faith mind finds himself forced 3 and to submit to injustice as a divine or inevitable will, to surrender to the judiciary and fate, and the trend towards historical dependence. Thus, the faith-based mind renounces its divine right to use its faculties and talents that God has bestowed upon it to enrich its life and the lives of other human beings, and to secure a better future for it and its descendants after it. This is the dilemma of Muslims with the imams and jurists themselves. The right to use their intellects, and to come to decisive judgments as sharp as the sword of intellect, is incumbent on every person who is free to use his intellect, and to be excommunicated if he dares to contradict their rulings that contradict the logic of history and science, and may contradict God’s law that He created a mind for man to use it. Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion is very similar to the opinion of (Anselm), one of the eleventh century Christian priests, who said, “I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but rather I believe in order to understand … I believe that I have to, otherwise I will not, if I believe first, I understand,” as if He says that whoever does not believe in Christianity cannot understand worldly sciences. This means that, according to the priest Anselm and Ibn Taymiyyah, faith precedes understanding, which makes faith the only way to realizing the truth. Although it is possible that faith helps a believer to realize the divine truth, However, faith alone cannot help a believer to recognize the worldly scientific truth. Therefore, we notice that the believer wants to believe, and does not want to think. Because faith, contrary to thinking, is easy and would comfort the soul and remove the specter of challenges. But the reality indicates that the most puritanical believers and dependent on transmission in Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the most backward followers of those religions in terms of culture, economy and science. The development of secular thought when the followers of Christ asked their prophet about his position on the Roman Caesar. He said his famous words: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and what is God’s to God.” What made this saying become an example that contributed to laying the foundation for the principle of separating matters of religion from matters of government. It reflects Those words convinced the Prophet Jesus that there are two spheres of life: the second is worldly and one of them is religious, and one is religious, and one is the competence of the religious institution that follows the law of God and the state that follows the law of the ruler, and that the righteousness of the nation can only be achieved by separating the two from each other. With the arrival of democracy in Europe in the second half of the eighteenth century, the law of the ruler became 4 completely submissive, and the law of the people was subject to the law of the majority of the people; As different stipulations, the people’s later democratic constitutions stipulated that the people are the source of all powers. And since the Messiah, like all the prophets, did not come with judgment without the permission of his Lord, then isolating the matters of religion from matters of governance must have come with a revelation from God. And although the churchmen, after centuries, took advantage of the circumstances of the decline and weakness of the state to dominate politics And the permissibility of people’s rights and their enslavement sometimes is that the man who re-introduced the idea of ​​separating religion from the state in Europe was a priest and was not a philosopher or n, which confirms that separating religion from the state is part of faith, politically and not something contrary to the teachings of my father. That priest saw that non-interference of the religious establishment in matters of governance and daily life is the only way to stop the devastating religious wars, and to restore peace and stability to Europe. Later on, that development led to the liberation of man from the futility of churchmen and statesmen alike. The message of Islam came similar to the message of the Prophet, good tidings and a warning, when God sent the Prophet Muhammad to the Arabs. From Surat Al-Shura, God says, “And their command is a council, among them 82 Jesus; As it came in the verse and in harmony with this verse, it came from the Prophet’s tongue, as the history books say, two hadiths, one of which says: “You know best,” and the second says, “From something, how much, and if I command, And with it your trap is a debt from a mother with something, how many times have you passed if a mother, how many evils, but I am with matters. And he made them the source of all powers, liberating the peoples of Europe from the domination and sway of the Church, in addition to the reasoning, Ibn Rushd said, because the philosopher can, using his mind, instead of revelation, reach the idea of ​​God and the reality of his existence without the need for revelation, and this is a saying that agrees with the thought of God. Or the common people, as Ibn Rushd put it, cannot, the Mu’tazilites who preceded him by centuries. However, ordinary people can reach the divine truth because of their limited intellectual capabilities except through revelation, which makes them in need of revelation, and then for clerics. This means that the philosopher’s realization of the reality of God’s existence It is possible through thinking, contemplation, and the use of reason, but the common people’s realization of that fact is only possible through faith, which needs clerics to explain and interpret it. That is why Ibn Rushd called for separating the logic of the philosophical mind from the logic of faith religion. In the context of this approach of thinking, Ibn Rushd said the need to focus on intellectual analysis and the use of reason and logic to understand the Qur’an, hadith and religious heritage. “God is not God, and that is why Ibn Rushd said that he can give us minds and give us laws that are contrary to him,” which made him urge people to emphasize that thinking and using, studying philosophy and resorting to thinking and using reason. Rather, it is obligatory for everyone who can practice it. The mind is not an optional act and in line with Ibn Rushd’s saying that “God cannot give us minds and give us laws that are contrary to Him.” We affirm from our side that it is not possible for God to grant freedom to man and then entrust it to men. Religion and politics that they take away from it in the name of God’s law or the law of a tyrannical ruler. The law that robs people of their freedoms, deprives them of their rights, and confiscates their will is a law of oppression and slavery, not a divine or earthly law of justice. (Muhammad Abdel Aziz) 27-27. Rabi`, p. 7020, Culture and the Crisis of Arab Identity, Forum of Arab Thought, despite the importance of Ibn Rushd’s ideas and the depth of his philosophical analyzes and his scientific humanistic view, but the Arabs neglected his ideas and chased him, which forced him to flee from Andalusia and take refuge in Marrakesh, where he lived for the rest of his life and died there. . Ibn Rushd’s escape came in fear for his life after he had been excommunicated and his books burned. While the puritanical Islamic thought continues to reject Ibn Rushd’s ideas, the Arabs are proud of the contributions of that able scholar to the intellectual and political renaissance of the West. However, the Arabs’ recognition of the importance of a particular thought does not necessarily mean that they are ready to use it. A tool for studying their living conditions and identifying the reasons for their lagging behind human civilization. The fact that the jurists of the sultans criticized and defamed all enlightened scholars and thinkers in the past and present alike, and denounced their scientific ideas and rational stances, made the general Muslims and Arabs fail to absorb the dimensions of every philosophical, scientific and human thought, and benefit from it in developing their concepts and outlook on life and other human beings. 6 It can be said that the exodus of the Arabs from Andalusia at the end of the fifteenth century marked their departure from civilized history, and that despite the many challenges that the Arabs faced from that era to the present day, the Arabs are still thinking outside that date in a state of conscious coma. It is Comas whose owners are aware of the place in which they live, but they do not have the ability to be aware of the nature of the time that surrounds their lives and plays the greatest role in determining their destinies as peoples, states and a nation, and influencing their international standing, their standards of living and the future of their future generations. He said, addressing anyone, and before Ibn Rushd’s departure from Andalusia, he burned: “If you weep over the condition of the Muslims, then know that when his students saw him weeping while he was watching the books of his teacher about the seas of the world, tears will not suffice you, but if you weep over burnt books, then know that ideas have wings and they fly to their owners.” What the philosopher has of awareness, and the need of every nation, regardless of time and place of its existence and religion, for philosophers and thinkers who are able to read the future. The separation of religion from the state in Europe did not cause a decline in influence, and as history clearly indicates, religion or a decline in people’s enthusiasm for it, rather the opposite is true. As Christianity continued to preach and grow to become the largest religion in the world, making the number of Christians exceed one and a half billion at the beginning of the twenty-first century. As for Judaism, its ancient books stipulated that the Jews should not establish a state of their own, and that they should live in the shadows of other countries, which made the orthodox Jewish groups refuse to recognize the State of Israel, accuse it of violating religious teachings, and demand its dissolution. This means that the separation between Religion and the state in Judaism came from the beginning, but Judaism as a religion is one thing and Zionism as a racist settler colonial movement that employs religion in the service of politics is another. The British writer George Jacob Holyoake was the first to use George Jacob Holyoake to express his views that called for the establishment of a new social order (Secularism) in 2272. The word secularism is parallel to religion, but does not seek to belittle religion or question its teachings. Although Holyoke did not believe in Christianity, rather, he said that secularism is not a monotheist who believes in the existence of God only a philosophy contradictory to Christianity, but rather a stand-alone philosophy that does not aim to question the assumptions on which Christianity is based. Secularism, according to him, is a “philosophy.” Social does not deny the existence of light or unseen power and that this light, but it believes that there is light and guidance in the eternal worldly truth as well, guiding the universe governed by conditions and laws independent of religion. As for the relevant worldly knowledge, it is the knowledge that exists in this life, and is harnessed to serve this life. It is related to how this life is conducted, and it has the ability to pass the test of life.” Here we would like to remind the reader that the separation of religion from the state occurred before a general use, which makes the tendency of secularism to adopt the principle of separating religion from Holyoke 700 A secular word more than the state does not constitute innovation or heresy, but rather a qualitative leap in political thinking. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Secularism Professor Barry Cosman, founder of the “Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture” at the American Trinity College, says that secularism is divided into two types, rough secularism and soft secularism, or what can be called the secularism of confrontation, and the secularism of coexistence. While the rough secularist looks at Religious assumptions do not have epistemological legitimacy based on reason, science, or human experience. The soft secularist looks at religion as a social philosophy that enjoys legitimacy, because knowing the absolute truth in this universe is something that is not possible. Therefore, secularists call for coexistence to arbitrate the values ​​of tolerance, reason, and criticism in a study Science, religion and life alike. (Same as the previous reference) Therefore, we notice that the peoples who use their minds in managing their life affairs raise themselves above the level of superstition and conflict, and see the grace of God on the faces of their children without the need to beg Him and beseech Him. As for the peoples who do not use their minds and do not listen to the facts of science and the rule of time, and say that everything in life is predestination and predestination, we notice that they are characterized by intellectual, cultural and economic backwardness, and lack of understanding of religion and life, which makes them live a life that is not suitable for the person of this era. That is why we have to. To realize that most of what afflicts a person in life in terms of poverty, misery, disease, wars, and advancement are afflictions and achievements made by humans themselves, and that it is not possible to get rid of afflictions and achieve more achievements except by using the mind, resorting to science and human experience, and living in the time that surrounds human life and coexist peacefully with it. For example, when the peoples of Europe resorted to reason, science and philosophy and separated religion from the state, they were able to avoid many calamities and wars, and overcome most of the social and economic pests and diseases that afflicted them, while the peoples who neglected their minds and fought against thought, science and philosophy could not overcome A scourge of its time. However, there are those who say that the Muslims’ departure from their religion was the reason for their backwardness. This means, from their point of view, that during their history, Muslims adhered to their religion, which made them an example for all mankind in terms of the rule of justice, equality, freedom and progress, and the absence of injustice, poverty, ignorance and tyranny in their lives. On the other hand, the German experience proves that philosophy neglects the mind, and thought lags behind. Without philosophy, it is the best use of reason, science and economics, and it becomes impossible to conduct research that leads to results that serve life or religion. The importance of philosophy and thought in the development of science and the advancement of peoples Western universities have led to granting each doctoral degree the title of Doctor of Philosophy. But the faith-based mind, which is incapable of practicing scientific thinking by the nature of its cultural formation, considers every field that it cannot delve into as a field outside of religion and the jurisprudential heritage. Secularism and the jurisprudential heritage The study of secular philosophy and the follow-up of its path showed that the secular, civil state has never taken a hostile stance against religion, not even against it. Likewise, examining the verses mentioned in the Holy Qur’an related to the principles of consultation and consultation and the role of the Messenger in people’s lives, And reading the hadiths attributed to the relevant messengers, it will become clear that the principles of separating matters of religion from matters of life and governance, in managing the affairs of government, are part of the teachings of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. 8 Secularism can be defined, based on what came in the Wikipedia encyclopedia, as an idea that seeks to “liberate man from religious authority and the teachings of the religious institution, and from the state’s imposition of a religious vision on citizens, while adopting a neutral position on religion itself.” “As for the secular state, it is that state that is not biased towards any religious or non-religious group, and treats all citizens, while taking a neutral position on the various religions and religious rites, on the basis of equality in rights and duties. The secular call stems from the conviction that the state treats its citizens equally, Respect for their choices in life is a vital matter for the stability and progress of society, and securing social peace, and that this matter can only be achieved if the decisions and positions of the state are not subject to the teachings of a religious or non-religious ideological institution. Here secular philosophy meets the idea of ​​democracy. Democracy is a system of government “from the people, by the people, and for the people,” which makes it an intellectual and practical system that is neither hostile to religion nor in competition with it, but rather allows for different ideas to exist side by side in one society. In its endeavor to liberate man, reason and thought from the domination of the religious and political authorities, democracy converges with secularism on the principle of separating religious matters from matters of governance and life. Democracy, like secularism, is a socio-political philosophy that focuses on public freedoms, which allows it to accommodate religion in all its sects, and secularism. With its divergent intellectual spectrum, democracy opens the way for secularism to coexist with religion, and faith with atheism in a free society. This makes democracy a fortress that protects, while encouraging all ideas to interact, freedom of thought and belief together, building a service for all humanity, bearing in mind that democracy does not have a single formula to achieve these goals. Some intellectuals and jurists who agree with the idea of ​​separating religion from the state say that the separation should be between religion and politics and not between religion and the state. However, this is an opinion based on a wrong understanding of the meaning of the state and politics, and the relationship of the state and politics to democracy. It is not possible to provide freedom and ensure its continuity in the absence of democracy and the participation of the people in the political process. And since the separation of religion from politics, the separation, which means preventing the establishment of political parties with religious reference from participating in the electoral process, may weaken the chances of the establishment of truly secular regimes. The Egyptian regime during the Mubarak era tried to separate religion from politics by enacting legislation prohibiting the formation of political parties on religious grounds, but the experiment failed because the ideologues formed ideological parties under secular names, just as the Salafists did by establishing the Nour Party. The result was the persistence of tyranny, the spread of corruption, the backwardness of the country, and the occurrence of a popular revolution that caused the destruction of what existed without building what should have been. As for the separation of religion from the state, it means the separation of decisions and legislation related to all matters of life and governance from religious legislation. The democratic state is a state of law that represents all sects of the people and their social and cultural groups. As for the religious state, it represents only one religious sect or religious grouping, which makes it impossible to establish a democratic state on religious grounds. A democratic state can, and also has the right, to adopt legislation that reflects the spirit and principles of religion, but it does not adopt such legislation because of its source. 9 religious, but rather for its ability to respond to the needs of society and serve the public interest that reflects the interest of all sects and groups of people; This gives the state the right to abolish such legislation when it becomes obsolete, and replace it with legislation that is in line with the changing conditions of life. In addition, the democratic state is not committed to promoting any ideological or non-religious ideology, nor is it committed to applying religious limits on how punishments are served, because The civil law issued by the people takes care of that, the violators are in the public interest and keep up with time and science. Secularism means standing before the Creator in reverence, but without fear or remorse, because God creates what He loves, and He loves what He creates. And since man is part of what God created, the human relationship with his Lord transcends the barriers erected by humans such as mosques, churches, temples and rituals. These remind man of the necessity of communicating with the Creator, but they do not mention places that necessarily bring him closer, but are far away from him, because the rituals and discourses that take place inside them sometimes constitute barriers that prevent man from God, which leads to alienation from Him. It also often causes the believer’s loyalty to be distracted between God, the imam, and the ruler, and convinces most believers that God’s pleasure with them passes through the satisfaction of jurists, imams of mosques, priests, and rulers. Direct communication between man and his Creator makes belief in God and God’s religion stem from sound awareness and a living conscience, and not constructive. Most of them are on a list of theological commands and prohibitions, and often serve only their human companions. As long as God is capable of everything, it is illogical for man to employ people to speak in his name and act on his behalf in shaping the believer’s conscience and shaping his spiritual experience, and enabling him to communicate with his Creator and obtain His approval. As for the beginning of the secular idea that called for separating matters of religion from matters of life and governance, it appeared in the form of a socio-political philosophy in Europe with the establishment of the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century. However, the roots of that idea go back more than two thousand years ago, as the word attributed to Al-Sayyid, in which he said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and what is God’s to God” to express the idea of ​​secularism, Christ, peace be upon him, in the best expression. This means that the first confirmation of the principle of separation of religion from the state came before the revelation came down to “Sunnah.” As for the Prophet, peace be upon him, he said in a hadith attributed to him: 100 The Prophet Muhammad is about evil, but I am only human.” Something that passed, if or how much, made it lay the foundation for separating matters of religion from matters of life and governance in a clear manner that does not bear interpretation. As for this process of separation, it actually began in Europe following the end of the religious wars, as stipulated. While the sayings of Christ and the Prophet Muhammad in 2162 contributed to the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended those wars in the year 2000, many Arab and European philosophers contributed to establishing the principle of separation of religion from the state. Ten in crystallizing this idea and explaining the reasons for calling for it, the Arab philosopher Ibn Rushd came at the forefront, and he was followed after centuries by the French thinker Voltaire, the German Kant, the American Thomas Jefferson, the British Bertrand Russell and others. Matthew Tindal, the British philosopher, said that Christianity is as old as 2280 years. Earth. Tyndall says, “The true religion stems from the nature of God and nature itself, and it is an eternal, universal, simple and perfect religion, and that this religion is based on simple principles consisting of duties towards God and others towards man, and that duties towards God are carried out through the performance of man for his duties towards himself”; This means that the duties that God requires of His servants to perform are the duties that people’s lives necessitate in a just society, which necessitate a person to use his mind, enjoy his life, take care of his health, and show empathy and sympathy for other people. Therefore, Tyndall criticized Christianity and denounced its resort, with good behavior, to priests as mediators between God and people, accusing Christianity of distancing itself from God. Among what came in the criticism of the church and its religious heritage is that Tyndall raised questions that boggle the mind: “Among them, and obliging him to think about them and make him, God gave his revelation to one small people, the Jews, then he sent his son to them with another revelation that after a thousand and seven hundred years is still limited.” , confined to them four thousand years? on a minority of the human race. What kind of god could be this god who used such sick ways when God used a nation with such imperfect results? For priests are his mediators instead of n speaking directly to every human soul. And terrorism and war, he allowed his religion to become a tool for a specific people of persecution, so that people would come out after centuries of this divine arrangement more ferocious and cruel than they were under pagan worship? The true revelation is found in nature itself, in the mind of man given by God; And the true God is the God whose existence was revealed by Newton, as the architect of a wondrous world that works with greatness and majesty according to an established law. Virtue is the life of the mind in harmony with nature; Whoever regulates his innate inclinations in such a way that they lead to the maximum use of his intellect and the preservation of his health and the pleasures of his senses, he must expect, since He governs all things according to their natures, that He is confident that He cannot trust any of His creatures. The sane person is to act according to these natures… That is the true virtue, and true Christianity, as ancient as creation.” Thus, Tyndall defined the “religion of monotheism” as knowledge based on experience, science, rationality, and contemplation of the universe, which made him reject what is not compatible with the mind of knowledge attributed to revelation. 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Tinda This Tyndall agrees with the sayings of the French philosopher Voltaire, who lived in the same period of the Enlightenment. Voltaire strongly defended freedom of worship and opinion, and the separation of religion from the state, stressing that religion has its domain, and the state has its domain, and that the integrity of matters requires separating the two from each other. Therefore, Voltaire said, as stated in the book The Story of Civilization, “If only England had not allowed a religion other than One, the government would most likely have become despotic; And if there were only two religions, people would be slaughtered: they would all live in happiness and peace.” (The story of civilization, each other; and there are so many religions, vol. 35, chapter 4, the age of Voltaire: Religion and Philosophy (However, Voltaire adhered to the faith in the Catholic religion until the end, which means that he believed in the non-contradiction of religion with reason. And that separating religion from the state does not contradict faith, but rather protects freedom of religion, opinion, and science. In his defense of freedom of worship and opinion, Voltaire said his famous words: “I am ready to die in order to let you speak freely with my complete opposition to what you say.” (ibid.) What Tyndall and Voltaire said in the eighteenth century is not different from what Abu Bakr al-Razi said, who lived in the tenth century AD, that is, eight centuries before Tyndall and Voltaire. Nor does it differ with what was said by Ibn Rushd, who lived in the twelfth century, that is, about six centuries before Tyndall and Voltaire. When Al-Razi said, “Where do you derive from that God singled out a people for prophecy over another, and made them guides for them, and the people most need them? And from where did you pass in the wisdom of the wise that they have over the people and exalted one another over the other, and affirmed between them the enmities, and multiplied the warring ones, and destroyed by that, choosing for them that) (Al-Razi and Criticism of the Eloquence of the Qur’an, The Civilized Dialogue 8- People?) (Kamil Ali, Balaghat Al-Qur’an) In an attempt to emphasize the importance of the mind and its being the supreme reference, Al-Razi said that we should “not make him, and he is, but rather refer to him in matters and rely on him.” Ruler Wikipedia (%83%D8%B1_%https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%88_%D8%A8%D9) As for Ibn Rushd, he said that “God cannot D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%8A To give us intellects and give us laws contrary to them.” Therefore, Ibn Rushd called for the arbitration of reason and the separation of religion from philosophy as two different paths to reach the reality of existence God. While the first camp accepted the religious idea and participated in its social and cultural activities based on its belief in religious teachings and the sacred books it brought, as Voltaire did, the second camp because it recognized its right to practice, rejected the religious idea and criticized it, but without fabricating battles with it, its activities and promoting its ideas The experience of democratic countries, including the American experience, indicates that secularism does not mean atheism, and does not contradict or be hostile to religion. For example, a presidential candidate cannot guarantee success and the support of the majority of participants in the electoral process without announcing his commitment to religion and the US constitution. Simultaneously, a constitution based on the separation of religion and state. Based on the position of the first camp on religion, it can be said that secularism is a human movement based on belief in the existence of God, but it rejects religious sayings that it considers contradictory to science, reason, perfection and human freedom in opinion and thinking. While these secularists acknowledge that the universe and what is in it are creatures and things that are made by God alone, they believe that the perfection of the universe means the perfection of the laws that govern its movement and maintain its balance. Contrary to what the clergy generally claim, and the faithful masses believe in, therefore in the East and West, the secularists reject the claim that God interferes in the affairs of people, life and the universe. This belief stems from a scientific understanding of the laws of nature that control the movement of the planets, the earth, night and day, the sun, the moon, and other things. Therefore, secular philosophy says that it is unreasonable for God to change the laws that he has established since eternity, in response to the pleas of a believer, whether Wealthy or poor, weak or strong, because any interference leads to an imbalance in the existing balance in the universe. The Qur’an affirms: And since most of the jurists, imams of mosques, and preachers have always interfered in the Muslim’s relationship with his Creator without being mandated by God, and without authorization from the believers, these men and women confiscate a large part of the believer’s will and question his mental abilities and his ability to act based on his own will. Therefore, secularism insists on separating matters of religion from matters of life and governance and liberating, first, the human being from the domination of the religious institution and its men and the oppression and tyranny of the state and respecting human humanity, secondly, and developing his mental abilities to think and reflect. Thirdly, as the modern history of Europe indicates, the peoples of that continent could not be liberated From injustice, slavery, and the feudal system that tyrannical regimes nurtured and blessed by the secular institution, except after separating religion from the state. If we look closely at these ideas and attitudes, we will discover that they derive their vision from the spirit of the Islamic religion. Islam came to liberate women and slaves, and to encourage knowledge and learning. On the other hand, the separation of religion from the state in Europe and America caused the return of religion to the exercise of its constructive social role, urging people to do good and shun evil, encouraging the rich and powerful to sympathize with the poor and the weak, and live together under civil laws that guarantee respect for each citizen’s rights of others. people, and enjoy freedom of opinion, worship, and work. Because of the separation of religion from the state, the countries of Western Europe considered it their duty to grant political asylum to about a million Syrian refugees, and to provide them with material aid, while not a single Islamic country took the initiative to take a similar position, with the exception of neighboring countries that Provided material aid to those in need, forced by their unexpected displacement. When the Prophet set out to build a state that would unite the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula around Islam, he saw that achieving that goal required political acumen to use the message of Islam well. And since his followers did not find a leader, knowing that he would listen to him and take comfort in his opinion and wisdom, they tended to obey him, and a guide better than him, which made the Companions differ with the Prophet in opinion on more than one issue. As they were every word, not an agent over them who commanded them with something ambiguous between religion and the world. They ask him: Is this from the revelation? If it was from the revelation, they accepted it, and if it was from him, they discussed it, to the point where they disagreed with him, as happened in the Battle of Badr and the Trench. And the Companions relied, repeatedly in their position, on the hadith that says: “I am only human.” Like you, if I order you to do something related to your religion, then follow it, and if I command you to do something related to your worldly affairs, then I am only human.” There are Muslims who wonder about the rule of what is permissible and forbidden in religion, and about the authority responsible for applying the legal limits. Religion and the State (26-27 and the Application of Sharia, Center for Arab Unity Studies, pg. In order to clarify the relationship between religion and the state and the application of Sharia, we refer to some of the decisions taken by Umar ibn al-Khattab and the consequent legislation that aimed at the public interest, which includes bringing benefit and warding off harm. For example, Omar made a decision not to distribute the land of Iraq to the fighters, contrary to a clear text of the Qur’an, and to resort instead of distributing the lands to imposing taxes on them. Omar said to the Companions who objected to his decision: “If the land of Iraq is divided by its heights and the land of Levant by its heights, then what will the gaps be filled with?” And what will happen to the offspring and widows in this country and in other people of the Levant and Iraq? (Ibid., p. Although the Qur’an permitted Muslims 15 to marry the daughters of the People of the Book, whether Jews or Christians, Umar forbade it for fear that Muslims would want to marry such women because of their beauty, and the social problems that might result from that leading to the prevalence of spinsterhood among Muslim women. Islam and secularism Many jurists and imams of mosques say that secularism contradicts Islam, and that it is a movement based on atheism and hostility to religion. It is certain that there is a difference between jurisprudential interpretations and secular thought, but the contradiction between Islam and secularism as principles of governance and the view of man is almost non-existent. Secularism is a liberal social philosophy that calls for the separation of religion from the state, because it believes that man is capable of and has the right to manage his life affairs by himself, and to deal with the problems and challenges that may come his way by managing his life himself. The credit for this goes back to God who endowed man Mental and spiritual faculties, learning and creativity abilities. Therefore, secularism calls for the development of sciences and knowledge of the laws of nature made by God, and the employment of those sciences and laws in the service of man and life. It also calls for the use of reason, reference to human experience, arbitration of logic, and resorting to dialogue to resolve differences between people in peaceful ways, and to reach solutions. Process for their problems, and face the challenges of their lives and time. When secularism calls for the separation of religion from the state, it practically calls for the separation of religious preaching activities from delving into life and political matters, including enacting laws, drawing education policies, and managing economic and international relations. On the other hand, secularism rejects the imposition of some people’s beliefs on others. from humans by force of coercion; It also rejects the state’s interference in religious matters. This is because God did not appoint the Messenger as a ruler over people or as their agent. Since there is no, it is compatible with the position of Islam one Qur’anic text indicating that God is on the contrary, it is healthy. On the other hand, Islam urges people to consult, as the Qur’an says, “And their affairs are consultation among themselves,” which means that people have the right to consult on all matters that concern them; These include matters of life, religion and politics, and everything related to them in terms of laws and social, cultural and economic relations. Shari’a, all the jurisprudential interpretations and the entire religious heritage have been subject to processes of review by the people, which makes limiting the jurisprudence to a small group of jurists an act contrary to the principle of consultation enshrined in the Holy Quran. Finally, freedom becomes one of the 16 most important principles of Islam, and the use of reason becomes the logical method to reach the scientific and worldly truth alike, and establish the principle of peaceful coexistence between different people, ideas and religions. Therefore, it was imperative for the caliphs to block his path and outlets in front of the people, that the most dangerous of them was the science of politics and with regard to the judiciary, Sheikh Abd al-Raziq said, “If we want to derive something from his system, may God bless him and grant him peace, which was transmitted to us from because, rather, it is not possible, Eliciting something from that that is not easy in the judiciary, we find that the hadiths of the prophetic judiciary do not reach to give you a picture of the mandate of the Messenger of God. His saying: “He had a system, followed by the subordination of the body, and its subordination is a sincere and complete submission, its origin is the faith of the heart, over his people a spiritual guardianship dependent on subjugation of the body without having a connection with the hearts. God and guidance to Him, and this is a mandate to manage the interests of life and the building of the earth. This is for the world, and that is for the father (Muhammad Futaish: Summary of the Book of Islam and the Principles of Governance, Think Without Restrictions) https://fakkerfree.wordpress. com/2014/06/12/%D8%AA%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B5%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%A7% D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9 %84%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE/ The separation of religion from the state does not detract from the value of religion, nor does it diminish its importance In the lives of believers or its role in the life of society, it rather protects religion from the futility of politics and politicians, and lays the foundation for the liberation of all citizens, including clerics, from the power of the state. The European experience in governance shows that the separation of religion from the state preserved the values, rituals, sanctities and position of religion in life. Christian communities, but it led to the deprivation of churchmen from interfering in the affairs of government and politics. The state’s protection of religion in the shadow of secularism is evident in all democratic countries considering freedom of worship as an essential part of the public freedoms that the state is committed to providing and protecting. This is what I personally witnessed not only in Europe and America, but also in South Korea. 17 That is, practical experience, a difference between the movement of life. Sheikh Muhammad Metwally Al-Shaarawi says that Islamic, scientific, and materialistic, and the movement of human desires, and that religion came to regulate the movement of desires, not the movement of life. He also says that God intervenes through religion to direct people’s desires away from the movement of life that he left for the activities of the minds and the aspirations of the human soul that include material, scientific and experimental activities, because heaven and revelation do not interfere in experimental activity. Al-Shaarawy adds that God wants humans to They meditate on the universe, its laws, and the creation process in order to derive from it what benefits them and makes them happy in life. That is, its systems had to be isolated from human desires and rulings, and in order for matters of life and the world to be straightened out of religion, from the activities of the human mind and its fields, i.e. science and thought. As for the interference of religion in innovations and industrial products, it is limited to directing these innovations to serve humanity, do good and make people happy, and not to exploit them and destroy their lives. Therefore, Al-Shaarawi also said: “I hope that religion reaches the people of politics and that the people of religion do not reach politics.” As for the accusation of atheism that some people level against secularists and secularists, it is a false accusation based on falsifying history and facts of reality and hostility to freedom. The roots of the call to separate religion from the state go back to the saying of the Prophet Jesus, which we referred to, and which the hadiths attributed to the Messenger came to organize it. On the other hand, the project of separating religion from the state came in the middle of the seventeenth century by a priest, not a ruler or an atheist, because there was not a single person in Europe at that time known for atheism. Despite the separation of religion from the state in 2162, only The Inquisition courts, which used to prosecute, excommunicate, and sometimes burn those accused of atheism, continued their activities until the middle of the nineteenth century. Perhaps Karl Marx was the first openly atheist in modern history and his rejection of religion to escape punishment. The reason for Marx’s survival is that he was born a Jew and not a Christian. In fact, the atheism movement as we know it today did not begin in the West until the second half of the twentieth century, and the books of Hadin did not spread widely until the last quarter of that century. However, it must be acknowledged that some Muslims and Christians who call for the separation of religion and state are either atheists who do not recognize a religion, or monotheists who believe in God, but do not believe in a particular religion. The fact that secularism is a humane philosophy based on belief in reason and science, and calls for human liberation makes it the only refuge for those who take a position of rejection based on religion. Since human equality is not an ideological organization dominated by leaders with ideas, secularism is a universal intellectual philosophy, not one, the door remained open to everyone who believes in the necessity of separating religion from the state in order to belong to that liberal philosophy. For this reason, secularists were divided into two groups, the coexistence group. He believes in religion and seeks the coexistence of politics with it, and a confrontation team that rejects the interference of religion in matters of life and takes an anti-religious position. Nevertheless, there is no Arab or non-Arab secularist who works to create imaginary battles with religion, or calls on the state to fight it or exclude its followers. This means that there is no contradiction between Islam and secularism, while there is a contradiction between the jurisprudence of transmission, ignorance and tyranny, and the thought of reason, science and freedom. In fact, the Islamic jurisprudential heritage is not much more than the sayings of men who lived a simple life that did not know natural science, nor philosophical thought, nor 18. Rather, it knew a science of speech that was not based on cosmic or scientific facts or laws, a productive economy that approximates the divine universe that was discovered after their death. For centuries, jurisprudence is just opinions, most of which came within the efforts of the jurists of the sultans who were employed to serve the ruler, not in order to rule with justice among the people, but in order to practice oppression, oppression and exploitation, and violating human values ​​and divine desire in the name of religion. When a person is a member of a religious sect that closes in on itself, or in a hierarchical ideological organization, he is deprived of the freedom to speak on behalf of and express his opinion, because the linguistic vocabulary that he has to confiscate his right to freedom of thought and expression. The system of beliefs, values, rituals, and commitments that are religious or non-religious does not deprive him of his freedom, but also his ability to understand, to express his opinion only the belief as he sees it. and assessing its ability to respond to his psychological and living needs. Every belief group, by virtue of the nature of its formation and organization, makes it imperative for every member of it to understand the belief as the leaders of those leaders see it in terms of instructions. While the leaders detail the commands and prohibitions and abide by the organization in a way that enables them to control followers who are predominantly ignorant and weak-willed, and employ them in the service of interests that often conflict with the interest of the general public and society. Whoever studies the state of legislation in Arab countries that are subject today, as in the past, to religious or quasi-religious political authority, discovers that the religious institution enjoys only a little freedom, and that many of the legislation it issues come in response to the wishes of the rulers, and not in response to the needs the people . This means that not separating religion from the state in the Arab countries does not provide freedom for clerics, but rather makes them employees of the state, which requires them to adapt their opinions and the Friday sermon in particular in a way that serves the ruler and his immediate goals. This often requires falsifying the believers’ awareness and diverting their attention from life’s vital and pressing issues. On the other hand, most thinkers and intellectuals in the West say that the separation of religion from the state has protected the religious institution, and the maintenance of sanctities and houses of worship from the power of the state and its interference in religious affairs. Others say that the separation process paved the way for the spread of individual freedom and democracy and the crystallization of the principle of citizenship, which is based on the existence of a social contract between the political authority and the citizens that defines the responsibilities and rights of each party. However, the separation of religion from the state in Europe and America has achieved both goals. As for whoever studies the state of legislation in the democratic countries of the West, he will discover that the religious institution enjoys complete freedom in the field of its work, and that the secular state does not only interfere in its affairs, but also secures and protects freedom for that institution. And guarantee the right of its men to promote their ideas. For example, although Germany is a secular country to the core, the state spends sums of money and the Ministry of Education, which supervises affairs, annually repairs churches and religious archaeological sites that need maintenance on a regular basis. Rather, it is much more than that, as the German government gives 19 different churches the opportunity to collect the fees that it imposes on its followers within the tax collection system approved by the state, and gives churches the freedom to dispose of their money. As for France, which was one of the most important starting points for the secular movement and is still a fortress of Its castles, where the state pays the pensions of teachers who work in religious schools, just like other professors working in public schools. This shows that secularism is not an anti-religious movement, or an atheistic movement aimed at abolishing religion, but rather a system of government that protects religion and freedom of worship, but it differs from Religion is that it makes the people, in all their political, religious and cultural sects, the source of legitimacy. Dr. Muhammad Abdel Aziz Rabie www.yazour.com As for France, which was one of the most important starting points for the secular movement and is still one of its castles, the state pays the pensions of teachers who work in religious schools, just like other professors working in public schools. This shows that secularism is not an anti-religious movement, or an atheistic movement targeting The abolition of religion, rather it is a system of government that protects religion and freedom of worship, but it differs from religion in that it makes the people, in all their political, religious and cultural sects, the source of legitimacy. Dr. Muhammad Abdel Aziz Rabie www.yazour.com As for France, which was one of the most important starting points for the secular movement and is still one of its castles, the state pays the pensions of teachers who work in religious schools just like other professors working in public schools. This shows that secularism is not an anti-religious movement, or an atheistic movement targeting The abolition of religion, rather it is a system of government that protects religion and freedom of worship, but it differs from religion in that it makes the people, in all their political, religious and cultural sects, the source of legitimacy. Dr. Muhammad Abdel Aziz Rabie www.yazour.com