From: ghassoun@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (George Hassoun)
Subject: Re: ARAB UNITY
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:45:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.003316.9016@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
rached@blanc.eng.ohio-state.edu (rached) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.163232.28699@ulrik.uio.no>
eliedw@hedda.uio.no (Elie Dib Wardini) writes:
>>
>>YEs Rached, I have read some Islamic law and I would not accept to live under
>>an Islamic state for many reasons:
>>
>>1- I am not a muslim thus I am not bound by Islam.
>
>And Elie, I repeat, you are not bound by Islam if you are a non-Muslim
                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>living in an Islamic State.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>You practice your own religion and you are bound by it.

Hi Rached, [please allow me a few comments]
How about the civil law, Rached? wouldn't that be a part of the
Islamic law, in an Islamic state? and wouldn't it be applicable
to me? (N.B. Christians, simply, do not have a ``Christian civil
law'')

>
>
>>2- Under Islam I am considered as a second class citizen.
>>  a- I am not equal to all citizens
>>  b- I am "protected" and not a free independant citizen
>>  c- etc. etc.
>
>Can you produce proofs of unequality ?
>As far as protected, Non-Muslims AND Muslims are protected by the state.
>A Non-Muslim is a free (he is not a slave) independent citizen as long
>as he/she obeys the laws (much like a Muslim).

Which laws are you talking about? If you mean ``the Islamic laws'', i could
see a big contradiction in your statement, can't you?

>You are equal to all citizens in that you have your rights and you have
>your oblgations, you are guaranteed not to have any of your rights
>violated and not to have any obligation imposed on you that will produce
>hardship on your part.
>about the tec. etc. unless you are more specific I cannot clarify them.
>
>>3- it is forbidden for Muslims to convert and become non-muslims
>
>Sure and that's not in the rights of Non-Muslims as much as it is in the
>rights of Muslims. Why should you (a Non-Muslim) feel threatened to be a
>citizen in a state where people from another group have some laws
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>applicable to them (that are not applicable to you) ?
               ~~~~                             ~~~

Don't you think that your statement, above, defeats the purpose of
``coutrymenship'' altogether?

It is my understanding that the prime objective of countrymenship is
the dissolution of the differences existing between several groups of
people and their fusion into *one and only one* solid and robust structure.

We, surely, can speak *today* about my and your differences. But i don't
think it is even allowable to build on those differences, in order to
design our *tomorrow* (e.g. any vision about the future of Lebanon). We
freely talk about the differences *today* in order to alienate them and
eliminate the psychological boundaries existing between us, not to build
higher walls.

If, in the context of the Islamic law, we will need to keep talking
about your obligations and rights as opposed to mine, this will be
enough reason for me to reject the concept altogether.
I don't think there is any room for compromise, when it comes to the
principles of equality and freedom.

>It seems to me that the Muslims should voice their objections (if any)
>to this. In fact, before becoming a Muslim you are told that you should
>be 100% sure that you are accepting Islam because you beleive it is the
>true religion and not for anything else. To make you understand the
>seriousness of that you are told BEFOREHAND that you may not go out ONCE
>you go in. You are left with your choice and you CANNOT be coerced to
>choose.
>

[...]
>>
>>elie wardini
>
>
> Rached

-- 
lakum lubnanukum wa li lubnani - Gibran Khalil Gibran
George Hassoun     (ghassoun@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au)