From: rached@blanc.eng.ohio-state.edu (rached)
Subject: Re: ARAB UNITY
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:16:51 GMT

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

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.
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.
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.
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 ?
>
>>
>>
>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...
>
>
>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.

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. 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. 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.
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.


rached