From: ghassoun@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (George Hassoun)
Subject: Re: ARAB UNITY
Organization: Electrical & Electronic Eng., The University of Adelaide
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:59:16 GMT

In <1992Nov23.041651.22061@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
rached@blanc.eng.ohio-state.edu (rached) writes:

>In article <1992Nov23.014506.29772@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
ghassoun@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (George Hassoun) writes:

>What I meant here is the following:

>Laws applicable to Muslims will not be forced on Non-Muslims, let me
>give an example to make it more clear. A Muslim cannot eat pork. A
>Non-Muslim (Christian) is allowed to eat pork. This means that the state
>will allow the Non-Muslim to eat pork and does not have the right to
>prevent him/her.
>A Muslim can marry more than one wife and can divorce, a Christian
>cannot mary more than one wife and in some cases cannot divorce. Thus
>the state will treat each according to his religion and will not have
>the right to impose any legislation that contradicts that religion.

My concern is about the issue of homogeneity of the people in a
prospective Islamic state. In essence, you are talking about different
civil laws, under the same flag. My contention is that this is
detrimental to the future attitudes of the people living under such
system. Simply because it is based on the differences between the
different groups not on their common traits.

>Now about the laws that do not conflict with the religious practices
>then the Ruler of the Islamic State must put them based on the benefit
>of ALL citizens of the Islamic State.

This is another important point. In true democracy, the people, themselves,
take part in putting the laws, not just ``the Ruler'', giving more
comprehensiveness to these laws, based on the saying: ``@a'lak brasak
tneyn bidirook''.

>An example from the history of Umar Ibn El Khattab is when he saw an old
>Jew begging, he asked about him and was told that he was Dhimmi. He then
>ordered for that Dhimmi to be given a constant allowance from Baytul Mal
>and he said what I recall to be: " We take from them when they are able,
                                    ~~           ~~~~
>it is only fair to give them when they are needy". Thus here a law was
                         ~~~~      ~~~~
>initiated for the benefit of a Citizen of the Islamic State, an elderly
>Dhimmi who has as much right for the state to satisfy him and prevent
>him from begging others as a Muslim citizen has.

While this story is a very valuable lesson in human compassion, i fail
to see that it is a lesson in promoting patriotic feelings. Just imagine
yourself to be that Dimmi. Of course you would be grateful to see the
Khalif ordering an allowance for you. But the very fact that he had to
``justify'' his action would, most certainly, make you feel that he is
doing a *favour* for you. In actual fact, what you got should not be
considered a favour but a citizen's right. Once again, in a healthy
``countrymenship'' environment the ``we_N_them'' song should have little
room, in my opinion.

>Also about Christians not having a civil law, I remember that Christians
>follow the same laws as the Jews with some modifications and you
>(Christians) consider the old testament as your book also that was
>modified by the new testament. Am I right here or am I way off base ?

My decent understanding of my religion tells me that Christianity is another
completely new dimension to Judaism. While the relationship between the
two religions is clear and best manifested by the ``parallelism'' between
many incidents in the old testament and many incidents in the new testament,
the *new* message of Christ is clear.

I don't pretend to be a reference on Christianity, but i can safely say
that, while the message of the old testament was based on limited and well
defined rules built on the classical ideas of *right and wrong* (the 10
commandments), the message of Jesus (new testament) is that of breaking
these classical ideas and providing new horizons, as limitless as the
concept of *love* could be.

Only in this framework we could explain the idea of ``turning the other
cheek'' (spiritual strength as opposed to the physical one), and the
acceptance to be physically humiliated, spat upon and crucified. The
message being: ``Do not let yourself be limited by specific, quantitavely
defined, worldly rules. You can reach higher horizons if you activate
your spiritual abilities''. That is why i say that Christians do not have
a set of specific laws, in their new testament, to follow. There are
guidelines of course, but those guidelines are flexible enough to
accommodate the development of humanity.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>Which laws are you talking about? If you mean ``the Islamic laws'', i could
>>see a big contradiction in your statement, can't you?

>I meant the laws that do not deal with religious aspects, like following
>traffic lights, paying taxes etc...

My understanding is that paying taxes, in an Islamic state, is subject
to religious considerations: Zakaat as opposed to Jazia. Another one
of those ``we_N_them'' songs.

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

>Well George, even in many of the democratic countries that are
>considered the "state of the art" countries we have groups.
>Afro-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, White, Men, Women, Middle
>Class, Rich, Poor, Homeless, Homosexuals, bisexuals, etc... are but a
>few of the existing groups in USA. No matter what is done an afro will
>still be black and an Asian will still have his eyes in a different
>shape than mine. Does this mean that we should strive to be equal by
>forgetting about those differences.

Of course not. We can not forget about the physical differences, but
we can refrain from designing laws emphasising them, and building
upon them.
How many laws, in the US there are for Men that do not apply to women?
Are there specific laws based on the fact that Blacks are generally
louder than whites? Of course not. The tendencies are to
play down those differences and strive to build on common factors.
As far as religious differences are concerned, i believe we have a
bigger margin of flexibility. We could do a lot in terms of equal
rights and responsibilities. As a Dhimmy (if that's my new title in
an Islamic state), i would like to feel that my intellectual rights
and responsibilities are exactly the same as yours. Not even the Dhimmi
characterisation is acceptable to me.

When the rate of our common factors outweighs the rate of our
differences, we will start to appreciate the diversity and uniqueness
reflected by those differences, instead of wondering about the (presumed)
injustice inflicted upon us by having to endure their results.

>In Lebanon we will always have our
>differences as long as you go to your Church on Sunday and I go to my
>Masjid on Friday. That does not mean that we should embark on the task
>to merge all Masjids and Churches and merge all religions. This task is
>impossible since every religion has its own distinct feature and claims
>to be THE truth.

Merging religions is not on my agenda :-) However, building on common
factors between religions seems to me an achievable task. Certain
compromises would, certainly, be appreciated to facilitate the task
of bringing people together. Isn't that one common goal for all
religions, after all?

>As a Muslim I beleive that Islam is THE true religion
>and the truth is in it. As a Christian I think that you beleive that the
>truth is in Christianity. Otherwise we'd better search for the truth and
>stick to it.

``Truth'' could be reached by following one of several paths, i believe.
The existence of your path does not necessarily exclude the existence
of mine. (The solution to a science problem could be reached following
several alternatives, couldn't?).

>Therefore instead of trying to ignore those differences, the Islamic
>State assures that the groups within its boundaries will each know its
>rights and obligations and assures that the ruler nor any majority can
>change those rights and obligations because it is Allah (SWT) that put
>those rules and no majority (even 100%) can change those rules. This way
>each group is guaranteed its rights and obligations and thus oppression
>from the ruler will not be rightful at any time. In an Islamic State the
>judges are independent from the ruler and he has no power over them.
>Thus they will rule according to the law and not according to the
>desires of the ruler. In that state also any citizen can take the ruler
>to court as was done with Ali Ibn Abi Talib and the Jew when Ali (The
>Khalifah at that time) claimed that the "Dir3" with the Jew is his. The
>judge asked Ali if he had any proof that this "Dir3" is his. Ali
>couldn't find any proof so the "Dir3" stayed with the Jew.
>That's how the Islamic state differs from current democracy, no majority
>can impose any obligations or take any rights from a minority.

You are dealing here with a question of faith and choice, Rached. I
personally believe in the rule of the majority because, i think that
this concept has proven itself and, most importantly, its ability to
reform is tremendous, compared to a law that was given by God once
for all. This is not to say that God's words have little effect on me,
but i believe that God provides each generation the exact amount its
brain cells can process. And i believe that the brain cells of those
living in the seventh century were qualitatively different from our
brain cells today (due to worlds development not to some mysterious
gene), and that it is unfair to blindly and literaly apply the rules
of the seventh century to the generations of the twenty first.

>rached

Regards,
George
-- 
lakum lubnanukum wa li lubnani - Gibran Khalil Gibran
George Hassoun     (ghassoun@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.lebanon