In the Arab world remain mutual suspicions between Muslims and secular. Among them there is a crisis of confidence that did not evaporate with the passage of time, despite the opportunities for collaboration and opportunities for mutual understanding that the challenges at home and abroad have offered. In some areas of the Arab world, the crisis remains around its normal value, without achieving dramatic, while in others the contrast reaches more serious tone that borders on the fighting. There are many factors that lead to this situation of mutual distrust, and which exacerbate the deficit of trust between the two sides. Here we are interested in what I consider the most important cause of this mutual distrust, the question concerning the participation of Islamists

in politics and the "Democratic Party", and the contrast between the two sides about the legality of that aspiration. Some atheists (especially among nationalists) recognize the right of the Islamic movements to participate in the political parties forming and participating in electoral competition, as well as recognize their right to have the executive power through the election. But the majority of lay people (liberals, leftists, and some members of the nationalist camp) do not recognize this right to the Muslim because he believes that their participation in political life and their power-sharing pose a threat to the democratic regime, and even for the secular nature of the political system. A minority of the secular front tends to express this in terms vague and ambiguous, but most do not scruple to give public in a very clear and not without a degree of verbal violence. Lay people bring into question the loyalty of Muslims to the democratic choice, understood as the only instrument of political confrontation, just as they try to convince the public of the sincerity of their choice. Secularists believe instead that the Islamists pursue an agenda that would represent their unreported real program, the same program on the foundations of which they can mobilize the masses to their people, as part of organizational life inside their movements. This program is to use democratic means in an opportunistic way in order to come to power, and then implement a program of Islamization of the state and society, destroying the foundations of the secular political system. For their part, Muslims do not see only the original principle of secularism in the secular West which provides for the separation of religion from the political sphere and the neutrality of the state in the face of the various religions and faith groups, but tend to paint secularism as nothing 'nothing but atheism and hostility to religion. In the eyes of Islamists, the secular front wants to finish what the colonial invasion had begun, finally breaking the strong bond that exists in Islam between religion and state, and by imposing laws and value systems that are not based on law and on Islamic principles, but are taken from other sources of inspiration that are the expression of other cultures. But the Islamists go even further in asserting that the aversion that lay people express to them is an aversion to Islam as such - which the Islamists have made themselves champions at the social, political, and cultural - and not only an aversion against movements that represent political Islam. Muslims also consider it in support of his distrust of the secular camp, there is only the fact that it will promote a model of social, political, and civilization that offends the values of Islam and that is imported from outside the cultural context of Islamic civilization, but there is also the propensity of elites to ally with secular despotic power in their hands, for the simple reason that they claim to support the modernity and seek to deprive Muslims of their right to take part in political life. This alliance, according to the exponents of political Islam, comes sometimes to the limits of collusion with the regime in order to prevent the Islamists from exercising its right, thereby conferring legitimacy to the policies of oppression carried out by some of these schemes. E 'this barren and sterile confrontation between two mutually hostile political and cultural factions that we are witnessing for decades. What it really is hidden and the clash for power, but is exacerbated by its indispensable component of cultural and ideological. Putting aside the political and cultural center of this controversy, we make some observations on its ideological nature and artificiality of the discourse that follows, starting with the question: the prejudices that each of the two sides is constructed, with respect to itself and opponent really corresponds to reality? The first observation that we can do about it is that some lay judge Muslims according to the logic of those who want to make these accusations. But in this case we exit from the political discourse to enter into that of "divination politics. A process can be carried out only on the basis of the facts, and this condition is still not satisfied. The second observation we can make is that some members of the front lay claim to give lessons in democracy to the Muslim, but I suggest that in the political biography of the Marxists or nationalists there are no facts to enable them to impart lessons of the sort. Like the Islamists, in fact, only recently they have embraced the democratic thought. The third point is that secularism is tantamount to atheism and hostility toward religion only in the ideological consciousness of those who want to take advantage of religious sentiment to incite the masses collectively against a particular class of citizens, which considers that the scope of politics and the state is a time frame that is administered on the basis of conciliation and compromise, and that there is nothing sacred because it represents the sphere of its interests and worldly. The fourth point is that all supporters of secularism blame for the wrongs committed by some who have supported the repressive policies of the schemes and attacks on democratic legitimacy (which brought Islamists to power in Algeria and Palestine, for example) is an action that can make only one who wants to falsify reality, and corresponds exactly to the position of those who accuse all Muslims for the actions committed by terrorist groups. We have defined the controversy between secular and Islamic countries as barren and fruitless, since it produces nothing and does nothing but going around in circles around themes no real meaning. Add that this controversy is purely ideological since those who devote themselves to it adopt an attitude that is - precisely - ideological, emphasizing its merits and faults of the opponent, and hides his own faults and virtues of their own political antagonisms. The two opposing sides, therefore, do not compare in an objective manner, instead engaging in verbal altercations with no real content.