Shari‘a to me means the provisions from the Quran and Sunnah to regulate human behavior and transform individually and collectively in the public sphere. The linguistic meaning of the term Sharia is a non-exhaustive source of water from which people satisfy their thirst, while Fiqh another term often confused with Shari ‘a, means to achieve a deep understanding and insight of Quran and Sunnah. Fiqh is the work of trained specialists known as Faqihs and remains subject to challenges and corrections as fully human endeavor. However, in the Western scholarship, the word Shari ‘a is commonly translated as “Islamic law” and fiqh is translated as “Islamic jurisprudence.” Many Muslim scholars and intellectual would likely regard these translations rather misleading. Since Muslim scholars are the ones who have struggled with the meaning and relevance of Shari ‘a and Fiqh in the modern context.

There is a distinction between Shari‘a and Fiqh. Fiqh is an important component of Shari‘a (Islamic doctrine of duties, a code of obligations but not limited to Islamic law). The Shari’a is based on revelations in which the knowledge is only obtained from the Holy Quran or Sunnah (the tradition of the prophet pbuh).

The Shari‘a is the body of revealed injunctions found both in the Quran and Sunnah and it includes the following three main components: Al-ahkam al-I’tiqadiyyah or aqidah (the provisions relating to beliefs), Al-ahkam al-akhlaqiyyah (the provisions relating to morality, ethics, Tehdib and Adab), and Al-ahkam al-‘amaliyyah (provisions relating to the sayings and doings of the individual and his relationship with others) which is also called Fiqh. Therefore, Fiqh is a subset, a component of Sharia provisions derived by the fuqaha (jurists) from these sources according to a specified ijtehad methodology (usul-ul-fiqh) including qiyas (analogical deduction), ra’y (subjective opinion),istehsan(moral or social preference),istidlal (inference), maslaha al-mursaleh(public interest) ijma’(consensus of opinion), and several other methods of deductive reasoning. The Sharia comprises only about 30 verses of the Qur’an and about 70 sayings of the prophet bearing upon various socio-political aspects of community life.

In summary, Shari’a is the whole divine law and values as given by Allah and Fiqh is the opinion on law, extracted by jurists and fuqaha from the sources of Islamic law. Thus, Fiqh contains human involvement which is required as juristic interpretations come in. The terminology of ‘Islamic law’ as used by many scholars often refers to this meaning of Fiqh. However, it must be noted that the demarcation line between Sharia and Fiqh is not clearly drawn, thus the two terms are being used interchangeably and many times confused.

There are many competing, legitimate views about Shari‘a but in this writing mainly Nurcholish Madjid’s and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim’s views are being discussed. The Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet are immutable texts, but every interpretation of Shari‘a is an exercise in human judgment. Thus, those interpretations should not go unchallenged because every judgment represents some human fallibility.

Consider the prevalence of human interpretation in the following example: Historically, ijtihad (an effort of interpretation of sacred texts) has been exercised where the Qur'an and Sunnah do not provide express ruling; but just as ijtihad is an exercise in human judgment, so is determining where the texts govern a specific issue. Thus, all interpretations and implementations of the Sunnah and the Qur'an are the result of human interpretation in a specific historical context – and not a specific decree by the divine will of God.

The general canon of Shari‘a is that Muslims are guaranteed freedom of action or omission unless there is a contravention of Islamic principles in those actions or omissions. Change is certainly always possible. But that change must be rooted in each Muslim community so that a new consensus may form, and any reform must not contradict the general tenets of Islam.

Despite the premise that a state should be secular, the state is inherently influenced by religion and politics.

First, the state is unavoidably political because all state action is actually people acting in the name of the state. Second, even though secularization separates religion and the state, a secular state would not bar religious arguments from the political arena and formulation of public policy opinion. Thus, the question is how to negotiate the overlapping realms of politics, state, and religion while maintaining a balanced secular state.

The tenets of constitution, human rights, citizenship and a requirement of civic reason provide a framework for the debate about Islam's role in politics and the accompanying effect upon the state. These tenets are based in Islamic history. Freedom of debate and consensus, which is similar to the requirement of civic reason, allowed modern Shari‘a principles to form, as some views accepted today were once considered heresy.

Furthermore, the idea of inclusive debate that embraces differences and ensures rights of people from all beliefs is based upon the Islamic principle of reciprocity (mu'awada), which can also be described as the Golden Rule.

Secularization (passive secularism) and the four tenets listed above provide a peculiar ability to unite; as such secular thinking allows diverse communities to co-exist in the same state.

Constitution serves every Muslim majority nation by ensuring that government adheres to the rule of law and acts in an accountable, responsive manner. Muslim nations can form a constitutional government to fit their specific local needs, and the only immutable edict is that a constitutional government must serve the views of all the people who do not actually control the state on daily basis.

Advocating human rights also lines up with Muslim culture. As stated, Muslim-majority states have begun accepting international human rights norms. But Muslims should insist upon advocating human rights in specific local contexts so that international whims do not undermine human rights' protection. These human rights can spring from international conventions, but Muslims may also base those rights in the teaching of Islam.

Advocating citizenship is merely a means to guarantee that all Muslims stand on equal ground in the move to reform. Equal citizenship for all persons concurs with the Islamic principle of reciprocity. And active citizenship promises that government officials will act with accountability and transparency, as an effective state needs the cooperation of the people, who will cooperate only if given some role in the state's governance.

Civic reason is the mediator. As emphasized here, a secular state needs to be religiously neutral, but religion naturally plays a large, public role that affects the formulation of public policy opinion. Civic reason allows for open debate where persons can present ideas based upon any number of concepts, including religion. But civic reason precludes charges of religious piety, as religion cannot serve as the sole basis for public policy. Civic reason is rooted in Islamic ideals. Early Islamic scholars gathered ideas from a wide variety of subjects, and civic reason's championing of dissent follows the historical evolution of Islam - several prominent Islamic scholars were once considered heretics because their views conflicted with those in power at the time. Further, civic reason ensures the separation of religion and the state, which protects Muslims' rights, and other believers /non believers to form independent opinions.

The state should not dictate the function of civic reason. Rather, the state should merely provide a framework for inclusive, internal discourse.

First, a secular state would not exclude religion from the public life of society. Oftentimes, Muslims object to the notion of a secular state because of the negative connotations associated with some Western cultures and their “radical secular states." But, with a balanced secular state, Islam and Sharia ‘a would have a public role. Separating religion from the state does not mean complete separation of religion and politics - Muslims and non-Muslims alike will naturally seek to shape their lives around their own beliefs, and the citizenry generally want their political leaders to possess morality and legitimacy.

There have been two types of secularism. In the US, for example, the dominant ideology is what is [AHMET KURU] called “passive secularism,” which allows public visibility of religion. [according to AHMET KURU] The dominant ideology in France and Turkey, however, has been “assertive secularism,” which aims to establish a secular public sphere and confine religion to the private domain. This was certainly the case during the first 70 years in Turkey but in the last decade, “assertive secularism,” of Turkey has been transformed into “passive secularism” by the ruling Justice and Development Party with Islam flourishing in the public and private spheres. KURU uses two main criteria to evaluate state-Islam relations at this time: a) whether Islam is an official religion and b) whether Islamic law is the basis of the legislature and courts. KURU notes that out of 46 Muslim-majority states only 11 are “Islamic states” (fulfilling both criteria), 15 are “states with Islam as established religion” (fulfilling the first criterion but not the second), and 20 are “secular states”.^**

A secular balanced state does not follow an absolute (laic or radical secular) definition of “assertive secularism.” Rather, instituting a passive secular state is a constant exercise in negotiating the relationship between religion and the state. The only normative content of a secular state is the attempt to keep religion separate from state action; therefore, the secular state imposes a minimal ethos on its population and embraces mediation and balance.

The political crises facing the Muslim world provide the impetus for change. Further, the changing social norms of the Muslim world show that Muslims will certainly accept and promote change for the better.

Consider that several Muslim-majority countries have signed treaties that forbid discrimination on the grounds of religion or sex. Certain historical interpretations of Sharia had placed women and People of the Book in secondary positions within society, but those interpretations arose from past cultures and are not inviolate rules for today’s times. Accordingly, Muslims should mold new interpretations of Shari‘a that better represent modern times and the 21st century.

To be legitimate and sustainable, the change must be grounded in the culture itself. Therefore, internal discourse among members of each community is the avenue for change. Civic reason, as discussed here, provides an inclusive avenue, and Muslims should champion secularization because separating Islam and the state is a safeguard against the political abuse of Islam.

Lastly, any reform must be systematic and thorough, harnessing Islamic principles so that the reform can be properly rooted in Muslim societies.

The idea of an Islamic State to begin with was derived from the unique position that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) held in Medina, where he concurrently exercised political, military and religious leadership. But conflating religion and the state is untenable in this day and age. Muhammad (pbuh) only because of being the Prophet (in the 7th century) was capable of holding all of that authority at once, and Muslims today do not expect or even accept the possibility of another Prophet in this age or in the future. However, the compact of Medina (first written constitution in the world) gave equal citizenship to all believers and non-believers in the 7th century. The Prophet laid the groundwork for an all inclusive “universal community” that was subsequently corrupted by the political imperative to subdue people of other faiths and by a mis-reading of traditional sources lost sight of their original pluralistic intent over the centuries.

By reclaiming the true Islamic belief today that all human beings are “equals in creation,” the Muslim community has the potential to serve as a model of a religious faith that also calls for justice and fairness in society through the creation of pluralistic, democratic institutions. [1]

It is apparent that the idea of an Islamic state in modern times is not borne from Islamic culture. The idea stems from a European view where law is positive and the state is totalitarian entity that seeks to form society in the state's image. Historically, Islamic societies have differentiated between state and religious institutions, and permitting a state to force its view upon unwilling citizens violates the principles of Islam that teach individuals to live through personal choice and accept differences and disagreements with others.

Religious and political authorities are fundamentally different. Religious authority comes from personal, subjective judgments about a scholar's religious piety and knowledge. Political authority is determined on an objective basis as people assess a leader's ability to exercise power and administrate effectively. Additionally, religious authority invokes divine power, which transcends human challenge, whereas political authority is supposed to represent the views of the population and is thus based upon human judgment which can be challenged by other human beings.

Also, the flexibility of Shari‘a conflicts with the state's need for practicability and stability. As demonstrated here, Shari ‘a is subject to changing human interpretations, and if Shari ‘a is the entire basis for a state's law, then that law could be undermined by the potential for wholesale change. Further, Shari ‘a does not provide effective guidance for the state on practical issues like daily administration, technology and international trade.

Practices of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) support the idea that a state needs skills that stand apart from religious authority. The Prophet repeatedly appointed a man as commander of the Muslim armies even though the Prophet was dissatisfied with the commander's religious piety.Just like there is an inherent connectedness between religion and politics, there is interplay between religious and political authority. For example, a political leader may have a degree of religious authority. But the fundamental differences between religious and political authority mandate separating the two precepts.

In his most recent book, Islam and the Secular State, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im a professor at the Emory University School of Law in the USA, presented Islamic arguments for the separation of Islam and the state, while regulating the relationship between Islam and politics.[ 2]

I do not believe, Professor An-Na`im intended to present a final and complete answer to the question of Shari ‘a in his book. Rather, he encourages discussion about negotiating the future of Shari ‘a. Reputable institutions in the Islamic world, like the Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences and its website as an affiliate of the institute, in my opinion, will be one of the best sites where Muslim intellectuals of Pakistan and from around the world would feel welcome to voice their opinions and engage in further debate about this issue of Sharia - an issue that is at the root of many of the political crises and confusion consistently facing Pakistan itself and Islamic societies throughout the world.

Because the Islamic canon is not written like legal textbook, Muslim scholars disagree on the tenets of Sharia and how they should be applied to modern systems of law, said al Naim,"Sharia is not law at all. It's a religious normative system," according to Prof. al -Naim. "So it does not become state law unless or until a state constitutionally or legally establishes system of enacting law and adopts a Sharia norm to make it part of the law of the land constitutionally." And when Sharia principles are incorporated into a statute, they are no longer Sharia. They are simply the law, stripped bare of their erstwhile religious significance.

The base of this part of discussion here is Professor An-Na`im's belief that the state should be secular (i.e. neutral about religion) and not an enforcer of Shari‘a.

First, the state should not commandeer Shari‘a because Islam decrees that Muslims practice their religion through personal, voluntary conviction without the influence of state coercion. Additionally, the idea of a secular state is more consistent with Islamic history than the notion of an Islamic state that conflates religious and state institutions.

Second, state enforcement of Shari‘a undermines the religious authority of Shari ‘a and leads to possibilities of hypocrisy (nifaq). For example, consider how some Islamic scholars assert that apostasy (heresy) is punishable by death although the Qur'an does not provide any legal punishment for apostasy. Thus, if a state enforced the views of those scholars, then some Muslims may be forced to contradict their own beliefs, violating their personal freedom of religion, and undermining the credibility and coherence of Islam itself.

Firstly, the link between Islam and the state's legitimacy is well-grounded in history, although some states have sought to enlist Shari‘a to bolster political authority.

Secondly, as literacy has risen, modern Muslim intellectuals should seize the ability to form independent beliefs. Today, ulama alone no longer have an intellectual monopoly.

Thirdly, the worldwide arena pressures compliant state action. The international practices of equality and non-discrimination influence all states to adopt those measures even if those rights are not part of the state's agenda. Fourthly, the state's standing is naturally dependent upon society. Public policy inherently favors the majority, as a state's legitimacy and power relates to its acceptance among the people. Thus, the state is always acting based upon its underlying need for persuasion and approval. However, the secular, constitutional, human rights, citizenship and requirement of civic reason tenets should prevent the majority from imposing its own religious and cultural identity upon the minorities. Nurcholish Madjid, who played a critical role in transition to democracy in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, provided valuable insights from this vast multi-ethnic society. His experiences as a student leader, an Islamic activist and opponent of both the Sukarno and Suharto regimes but also of the in-fighting and inability of Islamic political parties to work together led him to conclude that the mixing of state and religion was counter-productive for Muslim societies. As his well-known slogan says, "Islam yes, Islamic political parties no".[3]




Insisting that no Quranic basis exists for the creation of an Islamic state, Nurcholish warned that modern constructions of an Islamic state reduced Islam to a profane ideology, easily manipulated by those who want to impose their own views in the name of heavenly religion. He equated it with the sin of polytheism (shirk) or idolatry.[4] Thus, he also rejects modern Islamists’ contention that imposing Sharia as the rule of law is necessary to make Indonesian or any society more Islamic, insisting instead that true spirituality and religiosity comes from an inner transformation (individual and national/collective). Rather than imposing Islamic law, what is needed is a spiritual and cultural path that fosters ethics in public sphere rather than an Islamic state.[5] The primary means to this path are education, to transform individuals and society, and dialogue, an open exchange, to improve relations between Muslims and other religious communities as well as between the Muslim world and 'the West’.[6] Nurcholish Madjid, influenced by his own multi-religious society, advocated a secular democracy incorporating a strong policy of religious pluralism. He denounced those that oppose multi-cultural, multi-religious, and multi-national life, noting that the Quran states many times, ‘If God wanted, he could create you to be one nation, but he wanted you to be different nations.

Madjid was a prominent advocate of democratization, believing that democracy has Qur’anic precedents, implied in Quranic and traditional Islamic notions of deliberation and consultation, (musyawarah and shura). However, he believed that no single model of government exists or is required; instead different Muslim countries need to formulate models appropriate for their own environment.[7] Madjid insisted that religious pluralism and tolerance were not simply a theological issue but a divine mandate, rooted in Quranic passages (2:62; 5:69) that teach that all believers, including Jews, Christians, and Sabians, will be rewarded equally in the next life. All religions are on a par with Islam and God gives salvation to anyone regardless of his/her religion.[8] So too, since all religions are committed to ethical values and social justice, all, not just Islam, have a role to play in the implementation of universal values such as social justice and democratic governance in politics and society.

One of the hallmarks of Islam has been the belief that Islamic principles and values govern all aspects of life and that Sharia acts as a framework for all human activity as Muslims, whether in public or private realms. This belief counters the idea that a modern state’s legislation should not be dependent on any religious tradition. Thus, at stake is not only how one understands secularization but also how Muslims conceive of the Sharia and its ability to change and adapt to contemporary concerns and conditions; that the purpose of jurisprudence is to make things easier for people, not difficult and that the job of legal experts is to facilitate change rather than simply cling to the past and oppose reforms. Thus, in penal law, Qaradawi maintains that the least rather than maximum punishment should be applied; repentance, for example, is sufficient to rescind the had punishment (amputation for theft, stoning for adultery …); and the punishment for drinking alcohol ought to be regarded as discretionary.[9]
Shari’a has been based on time-bound religious interpretations from scholars of previous eras. These antiquated interpretations have many shortcomings, such as the relegation of women and non-Muslims to the role of second-class citizens in society amongst many other issues discussed here.

The struggle of how to implement sharia still preoccupies a great many Muslim activists. However, in political platforms there is no need to include Sharia any longer.In the public sphere however, the term invitation fits in with education about sharia. Utilizing invitation (Daawa) as a means of the purification of human beings based on their natural tendencies (fitrah) makes a great deal of sense. Becoming God’s servants who also serve as good examples and enjoin the good in order to strengthen moral foundations of individuals, society and the nation as a whole. Promoting freedom to all citizens to embrace and practice their religion with mutual respect.
Sharia is mercy for all creatures and the proper understanding of sharia will not bring discrimination. Its understanding everywhere will provide the solution for the current multi dimensional-crisis. However, it must be done in a peaceful and constitutional way, not through violence or compulsion. Furthermore, in a different expression, which carries the same meaning, we don’t need to use sharia as a political commodity because it saddens us that many activists of political parties strongly demand and want to impose sharia in Muslim countries but they themselves do not even practice it.

Lack of a proper understanding of sharia is the main obstacle in promoting its best societal practice. Many enlightened Muslim activists have begun to formulate their strategy for promoting Sharia’s positive image. Understanding and practicing sharia is certainly not to impose a set of Islamic laws but rather it entails all positive aspects of human values and behavior. Universal morality and values must take first priority in solving political and economic crises all over the world.

In order to gain better understanding and support, society is to make sharia more applicable to day-to-day matters. The meaning of sharia has been widened in scope to include more substantive and practical issues. Corruption, collusion and nepotism are terrible diseases to combat, so that clean government, justice and welfare are considered to be the main ideals deriving from sharia. The public campaign for sharia should be directed towards achieving prosperity, security, justice and peace around the world. In its simplest form, preserving public facilities, such transportation, parks, roads and toilets is obligatory for members of human family.

In fact, we must try to spiritualize all profane activities within realm of Islamic universal values and indeed all can be justified by religious universal values. In order to provide the religious grounds for these issues, the arguments are based on the Qur’an and Sunnah and as well as on the public interest (maslahah). Preserving individual and public rights is important, since Allah in the Qur’an (XXVIII: 77) states:” …and desire not corruption in the land. Indeed, Allah does not like corruptors.

It is indeed a fact that most people still have insufficient information about sharia and tend to see it from a negative point of view. They understand it merely as a legal system that prescribes the severe punishment of crimes under the hudud laws. The problem is that when too many people talk about sharia, they mean cutting off hands and wearing (head) scarves. Our main objective should be how to make people better off, how to get justice.

In order to make, both Muslims and non-Muslims, comprehend the concept and essence of sharia, three steps in socializing sharia are: educating Muslim masses, providing good examples and creating dialogue with non-Muslims:

1. Educating Public on Sharia: Reformulating the meaning of shariah into more practical avenues suitable to Muslim societies in public sphere is most important. By educating masses about the “essence” of sharia, it is hoped that the Muslim nations will not hesitate to put it into practice in public realm. And when societies support the practice of sharia, and public is ready to bring the aspirations of its constituents into the legislature as attitudes are always determined by the acceptance of the masses.

Sharia contains aspects that apply not only to the legal system but also to economic progress and social solidarity. It is true that hudud has been part of sharia but a just economic distribution for the masses is even more Islamic. Unfortunately, the aspects of punishment within sharia of 7th century are more dominant than efforts to encourage wealthy people to help and lift up the poor. If this most important aspect of sharia is truly practiced and people gain prosperity, there will be no thieves and consequently the cutting off of hands will never be implemented.

2. Being examplers: Besides educating masses about the “true meaning” of sharia, Islamic activists and imams must offer themselves as living examples. Every Muslim is expected to practice sharia (Al-ahkam al-‘amaliyyah) and to ensure that Muslims and non-Muslims feel secure and comfortable with the concept. Sharia must avoid any possibility of causing discrimination against any people, regardless of religion, gender or political persuasions and that sharia must be seen as an alternative solution for all. Beginning by and expected to practice sharia in their daily activities and to demonstrate it to others around them. They must feel happy and satisfied carrying out sharia so that others around them will be interested and follow them by their example and character. Sharia practice must lead to achieving welfare and prosperity for all. The Medina Charter, which gave the same freedom to all religions to carry out their teachings ad practices. Even the prophet of Islam did not support any idea to impose the implementation of sharia because it would be un-Islamic and undemocratic. He preferred to see the government and the Muslim community strongly committed to the upholding of Islamic values. The Medina Charter as discussed earlier was the first “constitution” regulated by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to knit all the inhabitants of his community into a single polity. Sharia allows the same and equal opportunities for women and men to be involved in politics and in the broader arenas of life. Many nations have begun the empowerment of women by proposing them as members of the legislature. However, the role of women in the World and also in the Muslim world is still far from satisfactory. When men and women are being treated equal under the constitution, the constitution guarantees such a practice, and every one naturally is to follow the constitution. Even though some Islamic movements in Islamic countries still campaign for the implementation of Islamic law , I argue against it since people already practice sharia which is mostly non-legal issue to begin with , there is no need to be talking about Islamic law or consider that its introduction is mandatory. It is true that some parts of sharia have been adopted by the state, such as the regulation of marriage and the laws of inheritance and endowment, however, for some, the essence of shariah is still wanting.

3. Dialogue with Non-Muslims : Many reforming activists believe that in order to explain the “true” meaning of sharia, a dialogue with non-Muslim organizations and communities needs to be established; as long as non-Muslims are honest about their religion and understand the issue of sharia properly they will not oppose its practice. Through dialogue, common values among the religions everywhere will emerge. By dialogue a communication is established among different groups, including non-Muslims, if they are fair in dealing with this issue and are not overwhelmed by suspicions, even though it may raise some dispute and disagreement, we will develop common agreement and mutual respect. For instance, whoever lives in countries rampant with corruption must agree on the need to combat corruption to bring justice for all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. To protect people’s rights, property and souls is the basic thing that all people must agree upon. Is not respect for others’ rights in worship and the practice of their religions part of Islamic teaching (sharia)? It certainly is.

Conclusion:

The influential Islamic intellectual-scholars, religious leaders, neo-traditionalists, modernists and post modernists across the Muslim world must engage in a process of rethinking Islam’s relationship to Sharia, secularism and modern Muslim state as well as issues of citizenship in the Muslim nations and non-Muslim secular countries of the West.

Citizenship in countries in which Muslims are a majority reports that, if they had their way, they would opt for greater political participation, freedoms, rule of law but not for an “assertive secular” state. Although Muslim perceptions of what the Sharia represents and the degree to which it is possible to integrate its rulings in society varies enormously, most Muslim believers desire a system of government in which religious principles and democratic values coexist. In other words, most Muslims do not view religious authority and political authority as mutually or totally exclusive and foresee a role for religious principles in the formulation of state legislation when necessary.

Muslim reformers in the 21st century, whether secular or Islam oriented, contend with two realities or hurdles for reform: (1) broad-based Muslim public opinion that favors both greater democratization and Sharia not as law but as “a” source of law and (2) the need to address the continued centrality and authority of the classical religious tradition linked to the secular state.

While laic secular reformers ignore or wish to dismiss the relationship of religion to the state in arguing that today Muslim countries can also be secular, many others while admiring and desiring many of the principles and institutions associated with secular democracies neither want a radical (aggressive) secular nor an Islamic/theocratic state. Instead they opt for a state that reflects the importance and provision of Islamic principles and values as they proceed to engage in wide ranging reformist thinking. [10] Successful reformers and social movements, from traditionalist to more liberal orientations, who are engaged in rethinking Islam and its relationship to secularism and democracy, will have to continue to give importance to their framing narratives to legitimately mobilize popular support.


















References:
^**- http://www.changingturkey.com/2009/09/27/interview-dr-ahmet-kuru-about-secularism-2/

1. Abdul-Aziz Sachedina, the Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 17.

2. An-Na‘im, Abdullahi Ahmed.Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Sharia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2008.

3. Barton, Greg. “Peaceful Islam and the Lasting Legacy of Nurcholish Madjid. Paras Indonesia 7 Aug 2005

4. Barton, Greg (1999) Liberal Islamic Thought: A study of the writing of Nurcholish Madjid, Djohan Effendi, Ahmad Wahid and Abdurrahman Wahid] Jakarta: Paramadina, 609 pp

5. Sikand, yoginder. Review of “The true Face of Islam: Essay on Islam and modernity in Indonesia” by Nurcholish Madjid
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/SeptBore2y5.htm

6. Bartoin, Greg. “Indonesia's Nurcholish Madjid and Abdurrahman Wahid
Intellectual ulama: The meeting of Islamic Traditionalism and Modernism in Neo-modernism Thought.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations (Oct.1997):
323-350

7. Ibid. p. 329

8. Ibid p. 333

9. Qaradawi, Yusuf. The lawful and Prohibited in Islam
(Indianapolis, IN: American Trust publications, 1980), p.14

10. For a taste of ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq’s views on the authority of the Prophet, see
“The Caliphate and the Bases of Power” in Islam in Transition: Muslim Perspectives, eds. John J. Donahue and John L. Esposito (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982, pp. 29-38.