If you are familiar with the writings of Rifa‘a Rafi‘ al-Tahtawi, Muhammad ‘Abduh, Ahmad Lutfi al-Sayyid, Taha Husayn, ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq, Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Kasim Amin, Tawfik Al-Hakim, Nagib Mahfuz and all the liberal intellectuals of Modern Egypt, you would definitely add the former chief justice of Egypt Supreme Court Said Al-Ashmawy to this great enlightenment movement - "tanwir". It is not fair to summarize this book or any of Ashmawy's like "History of Kilafa", "Gawhar Al-Islam", "Roots of Islamic law" or "Al-Sharia Al-Islamia", "Ma'alim Al-Islam" and "Political Islam"; you need to read them carefully. His books are meant to shock you if your Islamic teachings are limited to school books, Badawin TV shows or Friday prayer speeches. This writer has a message and he is risking his life for his ideas after a thorough research in International Law, Egyptian Constitution, Islamic Studies and Literature, Greek and Egyptian Ancient History and Philosophy. For the last 15 years, he has a body guard assigned by the Egyptian government ;

So what is he trying to say? After reading his books, here are some of the issues he addresses:

Islam is practiced now in Egypt more than anytime in our 1400 years History since the Kilafa of Siedna Ali and Egyptian Law applies over 95% of Islamic law while omitting women slavery, marital abuse, polygamy and raising the age of marriage, allowing women to work, travel and drive a car etc..

History of Higab and the emancipation of Egyptian women by 1919, How the Egyptian Constitution is Islamic and respects Sharia? Who is the source of our new Badawin? Who is the source of our "Dual Character" of modernism and the oil-financed "neo-Wahabism"? The history of political Islam in this century and how the British tried to lead King Foaud and King Farouk (al-malik al-saleh) to be the Muslims' Kalifa ? Islam is mainly a religion of mercy and morality and has nothing to do with terrorism and social unrest? The righteous, balanced interpretation of the Quran in relation to our national identity, respect to other religions and human rights. Your identity is your nationality -so declares Islam -and so states the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and how Islam differs from the Zionist-racist ideology of mixing religion and politics?

Judge Ashmawy provides his scholarly opinion that Egypt applies 95% of Sharia or Islamic law in a democracy unlike any period in the 1400 years of Islamic History. After Al-Kilafa Al-Rashida no Kalifa was ever elected but it was a kingdom from Amaweeon (Umayyad) to Abbasid Caliphate to Fatimiats to the Ottoman Empire and all Kalifas ruled for life by divine right....

His message is: do not look backwards but look forward, learn, ask for knowledge and only reject from the world civilization the small portion that is not compatible with our culture, respect yourself and your culture but do not dwell on the past. If you think Egypt and most Muslim countries are non-Islamic or Jahilia - because they separate religion from politics , think again; these countries - including Turkey - became secular after a long bitter experience of 1400 years of tyranny.

Ashmawy reminds Muslims that we recite before reading any Surah ÈöÓúãö Çááøåö ÇáÑøóÍúãóäö ÇáÑøóÍöíãö In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Rahma or Mercy -says Ashmawy - is repeated in the Holy Quran more than 70 times; Mercy and Morality are the message of Islam. æÇááå íÞæá : ( æãä íÞäØ ãä ÑÍãÉ ÑÈå ÅáÇ ÇáÖÇáæä ) "If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." [8:61] "Praise be to God, Lord of the Universe,the Mercygiving, the Merciful" He adds you need to read the Quran and the dependable "tafseer" like: Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtoby, Al-Zamakshary. We should never be misguided by the fanatics by taking the holy verses out of context to fit in our purposes and ambitions; we need to understand the circumstances and "Asbab al-nuzul" or reasons for revelations ( Is the purpose of the holy text is to answer a question? Is it addressing a particular person? Is it Makia or Madania? Is for a particular situation like war or peace or against a particular group? etc)....

Ashmawy clarifies -with examples and references -that Extremists or "Muslim Brotherhood Gang" benefit from people's ignorance and illiteracy and so they generalize and misquote the Holy Quran. Any of their slogans, if repeated often enough, can come to be accepted as true, especially in a society where half the population is illiterate and the other half displays only a very modest standard of education and culture. The advocates of Medieval fundamentalism speak in the name of God in their pursue to overthrough all governments that do not agree with their school of thought ; they are the sole speaker and interpreter of God's words. They advocate an illusion of a glorious 1400 years that would throw the Muslim World into the darkness and tyrannies of the Middle Ages.

I hope that the majority will perceive him as a religious nationalist who aspire after " an Islamic Rebirth that does not reject the civilization of the day but stands next to it, absorbs from what modern civilization has to offer and perceives Religion as a motivational, powerful force that can contribute to growth and advancement of our people and not to darkness and dependency", "Western civilization should be perceived as a continuation to Islamic civilization" Ma'alem Al-Islam 1988. Also in Reader's Digest he wrote: " This intolerance and violence is not Islam which inspires more than a billion people. The religion the extremists preach is a cover for advancing their political agenda and their lust for power."

Al-Ashmawy begins by explaining how the Ancient Egyptian religion was essentially monotheistic (even before Akhenaten) though there were many aspects of God. An Egyptian religious text that he quoted sounded almost exactly like it could have been an Islamic writing. He then goes on with a long list of similarities between the Ancient Egyptian religion, Judaism, and Christianity. His purpose in this discussion is to point out that since all these religions have a common thread these religions should be able to peacefully coexist. "One religion, many paths." It not a true Islamic belief to reject everyone that is not of the same exact faith, even though over the millennia religion has been one of the greatest causes for war and schism.

Muhammad Said Al-Ashmawy is a former chief justice at the high court at Cairo. Even though I'm sure that some would attack his views as "modernist", he is a true Muslim and extensively cites the Qur'an to justify what he is saying.

After going of the basics of Islamic history, he calls for the politics of a land to be more or less separated from the religion. There should be a civil code based on the religion and with the politics working within this code. Just because the Umma was controlled by the Caliphate in history does not mean it is the only kind of Islamic government. He shows that the Qur'an does not prohibit democracy. This is how he describes a government that will serve Islam: "This government will care about education, culture, science, art, history, literature and civilization. It will encourage cooperation, understanding, planning, constructive labor and self-sacrifice. It will understand Islam as mercy rather than a sword, amity rather than enmity. It will offer Islam to all humankind as a way to God, a method for progress and a path for mercy. This the new and true Islamic government."

In the third portion of the book Al-Ashmawi goes into detail on specific laws that the Qur'an provides. He mentions repeatedly that Shari'a means "path, method, or way" and that what is called Islamic Law today is something that evolved out of Islamic jurisprudence. There are only four ayahs in the Qur'an prescribing particular punishments for crimes. He goes through and explains all the basic legal tenets and their stipulations for being used (punishments, zakat, hijab, jihad, etc). He is not trying to change the Qur'an, only to look at it from a 20th century perspective instead of a 7th century perspective. He willingly admits that not all that was done in Islamic history was perfectly done, and that the key to the future is not necessarily to look to the past. In a very well written conclusion he explains the difference between fanatical, extremist, militant beliefs and the liberal, intellectual, enlightened approach.

"This movement believes that everyone has the right to free speech and to express ideas and opinions the way he or she chooses. If these opinions prove to be correct, they will benefit the community; if not, they should be debated decently and not suppressed by any means.

"Finally this movement believes that men and women have equal rights--the right to free speech, the right to work, and to drive a car. Women should never be under the custody of anyone. If humanity has obligations to God, it also has rights. Humanity's first and major right is to be free, with free mind and free conscience, rather than enslaved by anyone, any political power, any religious group or any false media.

"To the liberal, intellectual, enlightened movement, jihad is self control. If jihad applies to war, it should only be applied for self-defense. To the liberal, intellectual, enlightened movement, each human being is a word of God and is entitled to every human right. To this movement, justice precedes punishment, the spirit is more important than the text and humanity is one community."

I read this book as part of an ethics seminar at MIT, and I found it to be one of the best anthropology books that I've read in years. It opens with a strong summary of ethical issues by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, then David Price presents a well-documented and disturbing historical summary of the American Anthropological Association's covert relationships with the Central Intelligence Agency, Gerald Berreman further examines such relationships and others explore other ethical issues.

This book is a must read for any serious anthropologist.

This is a remarkable book that should be read my all anthropologists, or by anyone interested in ethics. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban opens with a comprehensive review of important landmarks in the development of anthropological ethics in America. Her observations of the American Anthropological Association's decission to remove language critical of secret research or espionage are chilling. But then the next chapter by David Price documents an instance of the American Anthropological Association's covert work with the Central Intelligence Agency. Very troubling. Gerald Berreman's chapter further illustrates the problems of covert research, while discussions of the Yanomamo disaster, NAGPRA and other issues makes clear that anthropologists are not removed from important ethical issues.

All anthropologists should read this and think about the impact they have on the lives they impact.