Some of the modernists view the Islamic heritage as human judgments governed by human minds and understandings - on the one hand - and a special reality on the other hand, and therefore they are subject to acceptance and response. Because it is human jurisprudence, and because it is linked to a particular time and place and may not be commensurate with others. In fact, most of these people turned their backs on all this heritage and stripped it of any sacred religious character, and the utmost respect for this heritage - according to these - is just a call to reformulate it in its entirety and its parts in a form that is compatible with The era, for example, Taha Hussein calls for the Holy Qur’an to be subject to criticism like any literary text, and Arkoun calls for criticism of the Islamic mind, meaning everything that had a role in shaping the Islamic mind from the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the jurisprudence of previous scholars, Nasr Abu Zaid considers the Qur’an to be special texts that were revealed To deal with specific facts for specific people and times, and it is not correct - in his view - to generalize on other than these facts, and like them Muhammad Shahrour and others who are called modernists, and what they have in common is that they subject the entire Islamic heritage, including the Qur’an and Sunnah to criticism, veto, take and reply, meaning that the Islamic heritage - For them - it is all history and there is nothing sacred in it.