One person's definition of “security” is not necessarily the same as that of another, and if we fail to agree on the terms we use when communicating with each other we will be in danger of getting stuck in a vicious circle of non-dialogue. This happened when the NATO-Mediterranean dialogue was launched in the mid-1990s. In recent months, we have been witnessing what might amount to intellectual strife in Egypt between the civilian mainstream and what is commonly known as the Islamic trend. Egyptians today need to agree on their definitions of certain political terms, such as Islamism, secularism, liberalism, and so on. This is of paramount significance, since some political forces have used uncertainty over the meaning of certain political terms as a way of manipulating them, defaming those who use them as infidels, non-Muslims, traitors, and so on. My hope in this article is to dispel some of this uncertainty and remove the obstacles that have been fuelling what the famous journalist Fahmy Howeidy once called “an intellectual civil war” that can be traced back to the era of the founder of modern Egypt, Mohamed Ali, more than 200 years ago. Let us agree that culture and religion have always been mixed up with each other. Culture is a lens through which we can absorb, understand and handle the divine message of religion. Although the basic norms, rules, requirements and pillars of Islam have been the same since the emergence of Islam 14 centuries ago, the way Muslims perceive and understand their religion has differed from one historical epoch to another and from one geographical spot to another. Doubtless, you could easily notice some differences, and similarities, between the attitudes and ways of thinking of Muslims in Egypt when compared to Muslims in India, Nigeria or Europe, for example. Simply put, cultural factors, which are an amalgamation of historical, geographical, and societal experiences and heritage, are reflected in attitudes, thoughts, and dealings with others. For instance, in some African countries some Muslims routinely drink alcohol following prayers despite the fact that Islam completely forbids this. The fact that this nevertheless takes place is a result of the determining influence of local customs. Extrapolating from this, it can be recognised that certain terms, such as liberalism and secularism, may have different connotations for different people and that these political terms may have been subject — as has been the case with the divine message — to the impacts of local cultures with all their various and intertwined factors. Political terms such as “secularism”, which advocates the separation of state and religion, can thus have different interpretations. The main aim of secularism is to prevent the repetition of the catastrophic events that took place in Europe when religion was mixed with politics. However, this term, the product of the human mind and just as flexible, can be perceived differently in an Eastern context. The importance of religion in Eastern countries does not allow for such a complete separation, which is why the majority of secularists in these countries may only hope to rationalise the role of religion, and not to deny it completely, in running state affairs. The same thing is true for “liberalism”. This also emerged in a European context, and it was consolidated by the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the former Soviet Union. It must have a different meaning, like secularism, in different contexts. In general, liberalism entails a democratic system that includes free-and-fair elections and a constitution that unconditionally protects fundamental human rights and prevents any infringement by the majority on minority rights. In some Western countries, this package of individual rights might be extended to allow for homosexuality or apostasy and so on. In Egypt, however, liberals may not go that far in defending individual rights, recognising that limits must be put to make this package of values appropriate to society's heritage, needs and interests. If we see secularism and liberalism in this way, we shall not find any contradiction between them and the conceptual basis of Islam, since the latter states that “there should be no compulsion in religion,” and it protects numerous human rights, including the right of expression, belief, privacy, and so on. Islam also by its very nature forbids the development of any form of priesthood or monastic institutions, thereby preventing religious institutions or layers of clerics from intervening in worldly affairs, at least any more than is necessary, by taking advantage of their religious identities. There is no need for anyone to feel a surprise or contradiction in considering himself to be an observant Muslim and a secularist and liberal at the same time. Only when Egyptians recognise this fact, and their leaders stop playing on prevailing preconceptions and misperceptions of these terms, will societal dialogue lead to fruitful political results. The writer is a political analyst.
