From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islamic state and constitution
Date: 9 Apr 1992 20:31:55 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: burr.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Apr9.214852.5598@prism.poly.edu> ahussain@prism.poly.edu (Arshad Hussain) writes:
>>From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
>>Subject: Re: Islamic Law and Constitution
>>
>>>[Regarding non muslims] . They have freedom of religion
>>>except that they may build no more places of worship in
>>>Muslim majority localities, though they may maintain the
>>>ancient ones; and non-Muslims can freely change their
>>>religions to other non-Muslim religions or Islam, but
>>>no conversions away from Islam are allowed.
>>
>
>>You got some thing wrong here. It only refers to "new" cities
>>which Muslims specifically "build" for themselves. 
>
>You mean Islam permits apartheid???

What is aparthied?

>
>>Not refers to cities where Muslim and Non-Muslims have been 
>>"already" living togather. I am sure the injunction is
>>they cannot build (public) places of worships. It is
>>not applicable to their personal residences.
>
>So non-muslims cannot worship openly in 'new' cities.
>For example,Hindus cannot bulid temples in Islamabad. Right?
>

Can't you read? I have written above quite clearly the
qualifier with "build" which is specifically!
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now you tell me was "Islamabad" built ONLY for Muslims?

So, if you are "building" a city "specifically" for
"Muslims" then the "objective" of that city is to
provide some facility which is ONLY for "Muslims".

What is wrong with the above?

If a Muslim country wants to (say) build a "pentagon" type
facility and adjoining it, it wants to settle only 
Muslims concerned with "national security", then
I see no reason why it should allow any other
people who don't have "security clearance" or allow
activities that are in opposition to its objective!

You will find such cities in all  of the most
vociferous of "secular", "right-pandering"
nations, but I have never found you complaining
about that! You must remember that before you
can raise this question you have accepted the
"premise" that an Islamic state is an 
"ideological" state!

>
>>>Non-Muslims may not join the army, may not occupy policy
>>>making positions, must pay a jaziyah tax.
>
>>They can not join the army, because defending the country
>>is defending the "ideology" (state being ideological not
>>territorial). Does any one think that it is logical to
>>ask any one to defend an "ideology" on which he doesnot
>>believe? Because, defense of the country is only the obligation
>>of Muslims, it is perfectly judicial to ask the Muslims
>>to pay for the "protection" which is a natural outcome
>>of such defense.
>
>You believe that in 'Islamic State' non-mulim MUST 
> live as 2nd,3rd ..... class citizen. Am I justied in drawing
>this conclusion?

What is a 2nd rate, 3rd rate... citizen? Did the
book Islamic law and constitution defined such citizenships!

If not, first read the book on which this discussion is
being carried out and only THEN derive such conclusions.
And let me know the way you have defined this and on
what basis you have attributed these classes!
(Before I can answer your question, 
I will be waiting for your breath-taking definitions)

>Do you approve Israel's policy of not allowing its Arab citizens(our
>muslim brothers) to serve army and 'sesitive' posts ?
>That's what they have been doing. They do not let MOSQUES be repaired.

Irrelevant, side tracking questions. I would urge you
to read another posting which tried to take a question
related wiht Maudoodi's following position:

Maudoodi has no objection to treatment of muslim minorities in non-muslim
countries as Shudras !

What other people do with their minorities is their
problem! We will however point out the "hypocricy"
of their position through all international
means if they say some thing and do some thing else.
And if some one violates international norms.

We are not going to sacrifice our principles because
some one else is using terrorism or persecution.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan