It is a matter of fate for death to take away, both at the same time, Lebanese –Najafi authority Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah and Egyptian Azhari intellectual Nasr Hamed Abu Zayd. From the outside, there is nothing in common between the two figures, neither at the level of their studies nor at the level of their paths. Moreover, it would have been very difficult for the Najafi scholar and the Azhari intellectual to meet during their lifetime, since the first considered politics as part of his doctrine and direct communication with his audience and followers as part of his mission, while the second dedicated his life to academic work and through it, communicated with his students and readers. At the core however, both men tried to rethink and understand religious tradition in order to reconcile it with direct and every day modern reality. Indeed, although each of them worked in the context of a specific Islamic sect, the first in the context of Shiism and the second in the context of Sunnism, they were both complementary in terms of the goal. This complementarity is not institutionalized as it is the case with the inter-religious dialogue or religious rapprochement, and does not deny the specificity, traditions and course of each sect since this is a historical issue that cannot be shifted by any wish or will, regardless of how solid they are. It is a complementarity related to the relationship between humans – particularly the human mind – and religion, so that faith becomes a rational act rather than a folkloric one, with all that this entails in terms of conclusions exceeding frigid traditions. This may be the common accomplishment which cost Abu Zayd the accusation of heresy and Fadlallah the questioning of his religious authority. Nonetheless, these very accusations gave the two figures their intellectual values, since in both cases, their source resided in the most fundamentalist and radical within the Shiite and Sunni sects. These are the same factions which produced and justified extremism in all its forms, whether in the face of the other sect or the other religion, and fed the groups of religious violence. It is in that sense that Fadlallah and Abu Zayd have a lot in common, i.e. in being an intellectual and palpable target for the factions pulling modern human beings away from their reality and divesting them of their rationality. Therefore, these two men sought to immunize human beings through an approach which perceives the past as a historical and social evolution in certain circumstances, while rejecting irrationalism that cannot detect the drastic change affecting these circumstances. In other words, the two deceased figures, each in his own way and based on his own method, were at the core of the major intellectual struggle currently endured by Muslims, at a time when their role was as major as the challenge imposed by the extremist Islamic groups and their terrorism on the policies of Islamic countries. The accusation of terrorism stuck to Fadlallah because he sought the organization of a movement that would resist oppression and occupation, but what he was subjected to from inside his sect was even more painful because this sect was at the heart of his vision of religion and its practices. The same could be said about Abu Zayd and the suffering he endured at the hands of his sect under claims of heresy. Throughout their life, the opponents of the two men tried to “limit” their accomplishments and somewhat succeeded in doing so. The biggest proof for that is the continuation of the proscription affecting the minds in the Islamic world, in the hope that their concomitant absence will not stand as proof for the difficulty of getting rid of that proscription.
