President Abdel Fattah El Sisi got to the heart of the matter when he spoke about our need for a "Religious Revolution", a revolution against a legacy of sterile ideas. These ideas have been generating hatred, vindictiveness and envy that have been expressed in the killing, bombing and terrorizing of innocent people of every religion and race, including Muslims. President El Sisi's words ring true, not only because we are facing an acute intellectual and religious crisis, but also because any political, social or cultural reform will never succeed unless the necessary religious reform is achieved. Before addressing the issue of renewal, we must first point out that the influence of political discourse has greatly increased in Egypt and the Arab world. This is a logical outcome of the expanding role played, for the past 50 years, by some political Islamic movements and groups in shaping public awareness and determining its orientation and the choices it makes. They have abused religion as much as they have abused their nations and societies. When we discuss the concept and determinants of the religious renewal project, we must deal primarily with one of most important concepts, that is, the creed known as "Loyalty and Enmity". This creed forms the basis of the ideas and attitudes of extremist ideology. "Loyalty" here means loving believers, and "Enmity" means repudiating the non-believers. Non-believers are classified in three categories: In the first category are the Jews and the Christians, the tyrannical Muslim rulers who disregard God's statutes and befriend unbelievers and their aides: the scientists, journalists, media professionals, authors, intellectuals and employees, officially appointed and paid a salary to uphold falsehood, and encourage hostility towards believers and distortion of their image. In the second category are those advocating "the so-called reconciliation" with governments that do not abide by the Sharia law, to "resist the enemies of the nation". In the third category are "Mojahido America" that is, those groups and leaders who belong to Islamic movements that are loyal to the U.S. From the perspective of the "Loyalty and Enmity" advocates, these three categories are outside the faith of Islam, and must be fought to uphold truth and to empower religion. Those advocates quote some of "Ibn Taymiya's" oft-repeated cliché phrases, written at the time when the Tartar's attacked the Muslim lands and committed heinous crimes against the inhabitants. The advocates apply these same phrases to current events and declare their hatred of all non-Muslims. They make no distinction, as do our trusted Islamic scholars, between helping to hatch plots against Muslims and alignment with the aggressors on the one hand, and coexistence with those gentle and peace-loving people who live in other countries and those who share our land with us. For the advocates of "Loyalty and Enmity", a "Themmy" (Christian or Jew) must not assume a high-ranking position. It is also forbidden to build churches in the home of Islam. The advocates have used several events involving the second Caliph, Omar Ibn Al Khattab to support their point. These ideas were opposed by the renowned scholar, Sheikh Abdel Metaal Al Saidy, in his book, "The Quran and Colonial Rule". In this book he confirmed that the way that "Themmies" (Christians and Jews) should be treated should follow the example set by the Holy Prophet, (peace be upon him), and no one else, no matter how important that person may be. Sheikh Abdel Metaal explained that the second Caliph Omar Ibn Al Khattab, (may Allah be pleased with him), gave "Themmies" special treatment in the geographical areas where military camps were located and where no one was allowed to wear military uniform except the soldiers. This practice is still adopted by most governments. It is a criminal offence for civilians to wear military uniform. The Sheikh also presented a great approach concerning the treatment of "the People of the Book" (Christians and Jews) in the Islamic lands. This article is not the place to explain this approach in detail. Sheikh Abdel Metaal spoke with great precision about the concept of "citizenship" that should replace the concept of "Themmies". "Citizenship" ensures that all the people have equal rights and duties and it is an Islamic concept that does not clash with any doctrine or creed. The advocates of the creed of "Loyalty and Enmity" used the creed to launch yet another concept "Al Jihad". They encouraged Muslims all over the world to join a Jihad against the crusaders, and more importantly, against those Muslim rulers who provided the crusaders with logistical aid, which facilitated their wars against Muslims. Aside from our political analysis of the present situation, in which Islamists allied themselves with Americans in a huge plan to divide the Arab and Islamic countries in the framework of a "Greater Middle East", we would like to point out that these Islamists made the mistake of generalizing, for the billionth time. They generalized the concept of Jihad without differentiating between "Jihad on Demand" and "Jihad for Defense". They made no mention of what Islamic scholars concluded earlier. Leading those Islamic scholars was Dr. Mohamed Saied Ramadan Al Bouty, Dr. Mohamed Selim Al Awa, and countless other Islamic scholars and independent thinkers who are not on the payroll of any country or government. These Islamic scholars have all agreed that "Jihad on Demand" was proposed to eliminate obstacles in the way of the message of Islam reaching the countries of the enemy. "Jihad on Demand" has therefore become obsolete because Muslims have been able to reach those countries and are able to call people to Islam and to explain the principles of the religion. They have done this with ease and without being blocked or harmed by people of other faiths. Islamic scholars have also pointed out that people in the modern age use many advanced communication systems along with direct and secure communication channels such as the internet, the press, and the audiovisual media. All these methods have helped Muslims communicate their call to every part of the world without being exposed to any harm. Islamic scholars went on to confirm that the greatest Jihad after "Jihad of the Self" is "Jihad by the Word". The reference for this can be discerned in God's words to his Prophet (pbuh), urging him to use the words of the Holy Quran for Jihad. We are now only left with "Jihad for Defense". It is a solemn duty for every Muslim whose country is facing an external attack aimed at occupying the country and curbing its free will. This kind of Jihad was never disputed by the "Fakihs" (erudite Islamic scholars) or by ordinary Muslims. There are still some conditions to be met for this Jihad to be declared. These include the ability to undertake it, a guarantee that the act of Jihad will not boomerang and harm the nation's interests, good preparation and not depending only on taking up arms. The deceivers have limited Muslims to only two concepts. Either we take up swords and guns to fight the Christians, the Americans, the Europeans and all the inhabitants of the world who do not belong to "Islam" until they pay the "Jizya" (tribute), or we declare our loyalty to them and accept their rule, after joining them as "Kofar" or unbelievers. These are the pillars upon which advocates of "Takfeer", (banishing others, and considering them infidels), such as those who belong to the Muslim Brotherhood and the so-called ISIS, base their doctrine. One has to wonder, where does our Azhar stand with regard to this creed of "Loyalty and Enmity"? When will we hear one of its scholars counter these ideas with wise and sound arguments?
