I thought a lot before writing this article, and I concluded it was necessary to spread knowledge about this issue, because it is the most concerning one for Copts these days, because the Islamic political current has dominated the political arena in Egypt, and because the second round of the Egyptian presidential elections is near. I thought it was my duty to demonstrate certain important points concerning the tolerance of Islam, and in particular the Islamic Sharia Law, which the Muslim Brothers wish to apply. Furthermore, the Muslim Brothers adopt the project of the Islamic Caliphate, which is built on the concept of a single Muslim Caliph who leads the entire Islamic nation, which will encompass all countries with Muslim majorities. If this becomes the case, Egypt will be one Islamic state and not a sovereign country. All these projects that are defined by Islam as a motive and a characteristic stirred anxiety and fear in the hearts of non-Muslims. I mention Copts in particular because they are the largest minority in Egypt, and because I am one of them. On the other hand, Muslims in Egypt ascertained that they have lived with Copts as citizens for long peaceful years, and the Muslim Brotherhood ascertained that Copts have the same rights and same duties of Muslims, and they also have the right to refer to the Gospel in issues that concerns them in particular. Should these statements relive the anxiety of Copts? This is what I am going to discuss in this article.
For the reader to understand the rest of this article, they should be familiar with the concepts of Sharia, the principle of Al-Wala'a Wal-Bara'a, and the schools of the four Muslim Scholars. I also present herein my concepts of citizenship and a brief introduction of the basic human rights.
Citizenship
It is the belonging to one society that shares the same social, political and cultural frame in a certain country. Citizens in the same country are subject to one and the same legislation, and are absolutely equal to each other regarding the general rights and duties, allowing them to effectively participate in all aspects of the society.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
This declaration was issued by the United Nations in December 1948, following the World War II. It stated the basic rights every human being born on Earth should have. In general, it guarantees for human beings freedom (of thoughts, expression and religion) and dignity, rejecting any kind of racism or discrimination, and assuring the rights to live, marry, own, work, rest and learn, as well as the right to travel and have a citizenship. It prevented slavery, undue arrest and torture. It also stated democracy as a basis for ruling countries. Egypt agreed to these human rights when they were declared.
I believe that applying the principles of Islamic Sharia contradicts the principles of human rights, and discriminates between citizens on the basis of sex and religion. I also believe that applying the rulings of Islamic Sharia without restriction will only increase this contradiction and discrimination, and will only result in making non-Muslims 'second-class' citizens (or even 'guests' if I may use this expression) on the land of Muslims and under their protection. It is true that Islam does not order Muslims to fight those who want to be peaceful with them or those who made peace treaties with them, and does not order Muslims to be unjust to those, but it definitely does not equate Muslims to non-Muslims, and definitely disagrees with absolute equality and absolute justice.
I mention here-forth some aspects of discrimination:
Regarding absolutely authentic rulings with absolute meaning
This is what is being applied in Egypt these days, according to the principles of Islamic Sharia.
Religious discrimination
- A Muslim man is allowed to marry a Zhemmeya and is not allowed to marry one of the Koffar other than them. A non-Muslim is not allowed to marry a Muslim woman.
- Offspring of a Muslim man are necessarily Muslims, even if their mother is a non-Muslim.
- If one of the parents convert into Islam, the offspring follow the parent with the "higher religion". Since Islam is the highest religion in Islamic Sharia, the offspring become consequently Muslims, necessarily so if the father is the convert, but not necessarily so if the mother is the convert. When the offspring are grown up enough (the exact age varies from one scholar to the other), they are given the choice to stay in Islam or convert to another religion. Islam is considered the highest religion.
Sexual discrimination
- A man is allowed to marry up to four women at the same time in Islam, but a woman is not allowed to marry more than one man at the same time. Women get a lower share of inheritance than men. However, these issues concern Muslims in particular and not myself as a Copt. Therefore, I consider them none of my business as long as they agree to go by these rules.
Regarding the rest of the rulings of Islamic Sharia
This is what is going to be the case if Islamic Sharia Law got applied as many Muslims want, and if the word 'principles' got dropped from the phrase 'principles of Islamic Sharia Law' in the Egyptian constitution, or if it got replaced by the word 'rulings'.
- A Muslim is not allowed to convert to any other religion, and if he did so Muslims try to make him repent, and if he didn't repent he gets killed. On this issue, Qaradawi (one of the modern Muslim scholars) says that conversion from Islam is equal to major treason in the Islamic faith, for the loyalty is changed to another religion just as the traitor would change his loyalty to another country. So, Islam makes religion the basis for citizenship, as I will explain later.
-
Testimony is not accepted from non-Muslims on Muslims, except when a Muslim has chosen a non-Muslim to be a witness on his will when he (or she) is traveling away. In this case and only this case, if the traveling Muslim dies, the testimony is accepted from a non-Muslim, and this is so only in the Hanbali school, but in other schools the testimony is unanimously never accepted.
In situations other than that mentioned above, the testimony of non-Muslims on Muslims is never accepted according to all schools. The testimony of non-Muslims on each other is accepted only in the Hanafi school, but not in other schools. - The compensation for injury of death given to the Zhemmi and to the Kafir who made a treaty with Muslims is not equal to that given to the Muslim, except in the Hanafi school. In the Malki school and the Hanbali school, the compensation given to the aforementioned people is half that of the Muslim. In the Shafi'i school the compensation is two-thirds of a tenth (1/15) of that of the Muslim. The most accepted opinion is the second one. The Kafir who is not in treaty with Muslims is not given any compensation.
- Non-Muslims have to pay Jizya to the Muslim treasury in return for the protection offered by Muslims to the land, and non-Muslims are not allowed to fight in the Muslim army. With recent advances, some scholars said that Jizya can be dropped if non-Muslims participate in defending Muslim land, but this decision is totally left to the discretion of the Muslim decision maker. If the latter chooses to not allow non-Muslims to join the Muslim army, then they must pay Jizya, the exact amount of which is undetermined and also left to the discretion of the Muslim decision maker.
Problems of the concept of Islamic Caliphate
The concept of Islamic Caliphate makes Islam the principal criterion that joins the nation, and the principle of citizenship. It also puts the interest of the Islamic nation above the interests of the individual states within this nation. This concept was acceptable in the age of empires, but is totally unacceptable in our modern age. Common interests and general criteria of the people within the same country are governed by geographical boundaries more than anything else. Resources in the land, sky and sea, as well as weather depend on geography and nothing else. These resources are the determinants of whether or not a certain society will flourish, and how people will live in this socisty.
The Nazi way of thinking made a principal joining criterion out of the racial origin, on which Nazi Germany wanted to build an empire in Europe, and considered the Arian race the most superior of races on Earth. I do not see in the concept of the Caliphate anything other than a copy of the Nazi concept, with the substitution of 'Arian race' with 'Islam'. The danger lies in that inhabitants of the same geographical area are classified into a first-class superior rank, and a second-class lower rank, although all of them equally share the same resources. Making the interests of the first-class rank more prior to the second-class rank within the same geographical area is unfair to the latter. Imagine for example that we classified all nations into a first class, which comprises farmers, and a second class, which comprises everyone else, and we discriminated between the two classes regarding rights and duties. We all know that no nation can survive without farmers! How will second-class people feel, knowing that they work and produce and are as important as farmers in the community? And what happens if a tax (tax; not charity) was collected from the second class of all nations to help alleviate the suffering of farmers in Ethiopia who got hit hard by drought?
In the Caliphate, there is no democracy. There is only Shura. It is mandatory that the Caliph listens to the advice of his counselors, but whether or not the advice is binding to the Caliph is controversial. The first and traditional opinion is that Shura is not binding to the Caliph. Even if counselors unanimously agree on something but the Caliph sees a different opinion, he is entitled to do what he sees fit according to his discretion. The second more modern opinion (quoted from Qaradawi, a modern Muslim Scholar) states that the counselors' opinion is binding if it is unanimous. This point is still controversial, and the most accepted opinion is that Shura is not binding to the Caliph or the Muslim decision maker. In all circumstances, non-Muslims are prohibited from having any say at all, since the counselors of the Caliph or the Muslim decision maker must be Muslims.
The age of empires ended with World Wars I and II, then the many revolutions for freedom in the various countries of the world. Interests and citizenship now are governed by geographical borders, and most countries believe in human rights and total equality between citizens, and they do act on this belief. I refuse to turn time backwards and diminish my rights as an Egyptian citizen.
Summary
I appreciate the 'tolerance' of Islam, yet I am an owner of the house and not a guest. I do not expect tolerance and kindness, but rather equal rights and duties as all other citizens. For those who want to apply the Islamic Sharia Law with all its rulings to be brave enough to state that it discriminates against non-Muslims. The claim that Islamic Sharia is the essence of justice and that Nassara will never live safely unless they are under the umbrella of Sharia is ridiculous. Christians and others, including Muslims, live safely and happily, in prosperity and freedom, in countries that do not apply the Islamic Sharia, and most of their inhabitants are non-Muslims, thanks to the total equality in rights and duties. Please do not twist the words to hide what you want and show what you want.
As regards referring to the Gospel in what concerns Copts, it only includes civil affairs, in which the church does not discriminate between men and women.
Every Copt should realize the extent of damage that will affect him as a citizen consequent to the application of Islamic Sharia, and every Muslim should be truthful and brave enough to admit the full meaning of applying Sharia. It is not only penalizing theft and adultery or prohibiting the use of alcohols. Copts do not object to Sharia because they are thieves, adulterous or alcoholics, but because they are citizens who love Egypt, their country, and want to live in it with dignity, equal to their Muslim citizens. Those who promote the idea of applying Sharia should come forth frankly and say that non-Muslims will be discriminated against, or guarantee to us our rights as equal citizens, in which case they will have to go against some of the rulings of Islamic Sharia.
There will be another article about the difference between religious duties and obligations and religious privileges on one hand, and civil duties and rights on the other hand, for this seems to be the source of confusion for some.
No comments:
Post a Comment