In December, the Sunni Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) took over Syria in an internationally-backed offensive. HTS was formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) before that. Today, their leader Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani) signed a new declaration of an interim constitution.
The actual constitution doesn’t appear to be totally written at this point, interestingly enough, despite being made law of the land. There is a seven person committee appointed by the HTS to draft it, with the stipulation that the country will be placed under Islamist rule for the next five years, ahead of another future final constitution going into effect.
The declaration places certain conditions on the constitution, including a requirement that the president of Syria must always be a Muslim and that Islamic Law will be the main source of jurisprudence.
The council is made up of Sharaa, the interim foreign, interior, defense ministers, and the head of the intelligence agency, along with two legal experts.
Abdulhamid Al-Awak, a constitutional law expert and professor in Turkey, was installed as one of the members of the constitutional committee. He has said that the constitution, despite being Islamist in nature, will enshrine freedom of the press and freedom of expression. It will also reportedly retain terms from the previous Assad-era constitution guaranteeing women the right to work and participate in the economy.
Previous comments from the HTS-dominated committee members are that Syria will have no system of federalism, and that power will be consolidated under the national government. Federalism is seen as an option to protect religious and ethnic minorities within Syria.
Last week’s massacre of Alawites by the HTS in northwestern Syria have put a lot of the country’s religious minorities on edge. A new explicitly Islamist constitution is probably only going to add to those concerns, and the HTS goal of unity under central government control looks a long way off.
Interesting interpretation of the prophecy by Drakus 1173 at Song Meanings.com, especially near the end about a Pol as Pope (John Paul II) and a split area reuniting (fall of Berlin Wall a few years after assasination attmempt), and the two in the west brings fear to those in the east (Putin/Trump and Xi ?) though others will say that words are interpreted to fit one's presumptions
Assad's fault. That's why Assad had to go. Did I mention that he gassed his own people? …I know. I know. But if any of it were lies, they were white lies. Some people may argue they were good lies because look at all the good that came out of it.
It would be more like the wahhabist Rule disguised as Islamic…!
Under Islamic rule – does that mean under US rule since the US used ISIS or AlQaeda outfits for their trampling of the Middle East?
Will the new rulers to throw the US out, every last soldier, "peace maker", meddler?
Wahhabist supported by Saudis…!
Many Arab secular governments preamble their constitutions with "Islam is the Supreme law of the Land." Why is the West so perplexed and hostile to the people of the Middle East and the will of the majority? In the West there is this hollow pride in "freedom" and individual rights. Yet, the people are divided and fickle. Most of them are like zombies consuming capitalist marketing, while their elites rob and murder the world. Those who speak out are marginalized and targeted. The only thing in common between the zombies and those who speak out is both are ignorant of and despise Islam.
Why does it hurt some people so much to see a nation of people struggle to preserve a true and tried tradition, be free of oppression and outside intervention?
This disingenuous advocacy for minorities is rubbish as long as one doesn't give a damn about the aspirations of the majority of the people.
@disqus_qhuce9v5DO:disqus@disqus_4TWxi8WlTO:disqus@disqus_cWEo452Cca:disqus@disqus_yQfZ1jQKBt:disqus
“The west” is, at least in theory, hostile to the idea of any religion as the basis of law.
In practice, that varies — some “western” regimes still have “established” religions that receive state support, and in all of them religion remains a powerful force in framing law.
Personally, I’m fine with people whose political beliefs are informed by their religious beliefs, but if they want Policy X, I expect them to justify Policy X on a rationa basis rather than on “the scriptures I choose to believe tell me that a deity commands it.” And I never assume the majority is right just because it’s the majority.
I agree "the West" is a poor term because I am of the west and western civilization begins in the middle East anyway. Some like to use the term "Euro-American"
Ok, so you agree that in theory it is hostile to the idea of any religion as the basis of law. In Islam "deen" amounts to the basic human core belief of one's worldview, morality and actions.
We then have a fundamental disagreement. For some reason the West thinks that if a person's deen is religious e.g., an unseen god exists, that's somehow inferior to western secular liberalism. First of all its not true and may even be proven to be false.
As for legislating and policy on a rational basis, Muslims consider Islam rational.
And I agree that the majority should not be assumed to be right. The majority in the ME want peace. The majority in the ME are being oppressed. The majority in the ME want to live their tried and true tradition.
In human practice and experience the minorities will not be the majority. What they deserve is fairness, peace and enough freedoms to lead a dignified life. My point also is once the oppressed majority achieves its self determination, the friction between the minority and majority will alleviate naturally.
It’s not about whether a religious worldview is “inferior,” it’s about whether a single religious worldview should be the basis for law binding people of more than one religion, and whether, as the Quran happens to forbid, there should be compulsion in religion.
Let’s assume, for the moment, that there is a deity or deities, and that that deity or deities created the universe and everything in it.
That assumption happens to be irrational, which is not a condemnation. Irrational just means “not based on reason.” That assumption is based on faith, not reason.
BUT:
Since the deity or deities in question created the universe and everything in it, the rules of that universe — including the applicability of reason/logic — are the will of that deity.
So if a law or policy doesn’t pass the test of reason/logic, that law or policy is, by definition, in defiance of the will of any deity which could have created reason and logic.
And if a law or policy does pass that test, resort to claiming the approval of a particular deity or deities isn’t just unncessary, it’s antagonistic to those who call the deity or deities by a different name.
Human beings are endowed with reason but they certainly don't always exercise it. Has the elite and powerful of Euro-America exercised reason and rationality to a greater degree than Muslim intellectuals?
They are good at greed, accruing power and harming others because they are able to. And Muslims are certainly not totally immune from these vices. However, objectively speaking what one finds in the Quran is a call to a dignified living and a command to be fair and take care of the weak and poor. In total its practice makes it overall a better system for humanity. And unlike anarchism, has been practiced and has had success to differing degrees.
The question is whether compulsion in religion is acceptable. Both “western” secularism and the Quran say it isn’t.
Freedom of thought is as natural as existence. Persecution of thought is not acceptable. Humans persecute each other for thought out of weakness. Islam doesn't need to be forced on anyone. Its strength is in its ability to bring justice. In part Muslims are ineffectual in part because they have been lax in pursuing justice.
it's about whether a single religious worldview should be the basis for law binding people of more than one religion
I see your point. The problem is that has been the reality of humanity since the beginning, i.e., groups dominating others. What I am saying –and you seem to agree– is that religion isn't by default because of its "irrational" basis inferior.
If liberalism was supposed to mature humanity in order to overcome empires, warfare, oppression, disease, poverty, etc., it mostly has failed.
For example, as great as anarchy is in theory it is not practical or universally accepted, and given the trajectory of human development it doesn't seem we are heading in that ideal path.
Islam understands the constraints of human beings (e.g., imperfection, weakness, limitations, etc.) yet provides the antidote.
If the metric is universal acceptance, then Islam doesn’t meet that metric either.
I disagree that anarchy isn’t practical — it’s what most people live most of the time.
I disagree that anarchy isn't practical — it's what most people live most of the time.
Yes, Within societies ruled by governments.
As theists, Muslims, Christians, Jews and people like you make up most of the world. You are not opposed to the much good that these faiths call for.
One need not be opposed to those faiths or to the good that they call for in order to be opposed to their use as excuse/justification for coercive rule.
Mixing state and religion pollutes the latter with the former’s inherent immorality/amorality while improving the former not at all.
Many Arab secular governments preamble their constitutions with "Islam is the Supreme law of the Land."
If the 10 commandments were the supreme law of the land, I'd have a hard time thinking my government was secular.
Exactly. Muslims did not have the same experience with the conflict of reason and faith (church and state). Islam is viewed as natural, not in conflict with reason. The sacred and profane are not misaligned. Implementing Islamic law does not equate to a theocracy.
If Islamic law is rational, then there’s no need to trumpet it being Islamic law. And claiming a basis in Islamic law does not stop a theocracy from being a theocracy. Iran, for example, legally forbids conversion from Islam to another religion and persecutes the Bahai, the Mandaeans, and others as heretics. That’s theocracy.
Not theocracy in the strict sense. Yes in Iran it is the clergy that rules. However, in Sunni Islam that is not the case. The Islamic movements that the west despises so much are not the clerics. They are civil society. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood leadership is made up of lawyers, doctors, journalists, and very few religious scholars.
For example, the Muslim Brotherhood leadership is made up of lawyers, doctors, journalists, and very few religious scholars.
What's the difference between lawyers, doctors and journalists enforcing Islamic law instead of religious clerics enforcing Islamic law?
Again, Islamic law is viewed as natural law. The make up and form of government is left wide open as long as the principles of the shariah and the penal code are implemented. There is no pope in Islam and the Quranic principles have been preserved and are the basis for legislation, e.g., while murder is punishable by death, if the estate of the deceased forgives the penalty is not implemented. And for example, minority communities are able to produce and consume alcohol which is prohibited for Muslims.
Furthermore, an Islamic government can be a republic, a democracy, etc. Early in history the Umayyads made the office of the Caliph hereditary. Many Muslims today oppose this.
Religious clerics would say they are in the best position to interpret and implement the law.
Before the protestant reformation and the destructive wars in Europe between the Pope and the kings of Europe, the church governed and ruled peoples' lives.
In Iran it is the religious class (the Ayatollahs) who rule. While in Islam there is scholarly religious class, nothing mandates that they have to rule.
Ahmed Ashara' (Abu Mohammed Al jolani), began studying journalism before he joined the Iraqi resistance to America's occupation of that country.
Egypt's 2012 constitution's preamble read as follows:
"We the People of Egypt, Believing in God and His messages, Recognizing our responsibility towards the homeland and the (Arabic or Islamic) community (umma), Conscious of our national and human responsibility, Commit to being guided by the principles of this Constitution, which we adopt and grant ourselves, affirming our steadfast determination to submit to it and defend it, and pledging that all state authorities as well as the People shall guard and respect it."
http://wipolex-res.wipo.int
Again, Islamic law is viewed as natural law.
By whom? Not me. I suppose Christians can say the same about the 10 commandments. And I wouldn't agree with them either. Where do Atheists fit into this natural law? Would I be accepted?
Yes of course Christians. And Aristotle believed in Natural law and opined it can be ascertained by reason.
Atheism is actually an isolated modern phenomena in the long arch of history.
If you mean where would they fit in an Islamic state, theoretically they would be left alone unless their agenda is to attack the Muslim community.
And if we are talking about say a westerner who comes to live with Muslims –and who champion justice such as the Palestinian cause– would be welcomed with open arms.
Islamic law of worship and prohibitions doesn't apply to People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and by extension other protected dhimmis living in an Islamic state. In fact there is a difference of opinion among Muslim scholars as to whether the hudud (penal law) applies to them or not. For example, they are allowed to consume alcohol and eat pork. If they are part of a dhimmi community that has its own laws, those courts would administer punishment.
In general, unless these groups availed themselves to Islamic courts or their violations of Islamic law impinged on public morality they would be left alone.
Its not always black and white. And what some communities do is not a reflection of what Islam calls for. However, the higher sharia goal (maqaasid al shariah) are meant to be just and protect five objectives 1- Religion 2. Life 3. Intellect 4. Lineage and 5. Wealth.
In other words everyone has a right to their belief system, their lives, their freedom to think, their freedom to family and marriage and their property.
I guess I look at countries that make women "cover up" and generally treat them as if they are less human then men. I can't imagine if I was a woman atheist (I'm not), that I would be able to express myself without fear of reprisal in most Muslim countries that I'm familiar with.
Conservative cultures are sometimes shielded from the realities of the west. But they know enough that women are asked to be both women and have to prove themselves and end up competing with men. the situation in the west is not ideal for women.
In terms of treating the "less than human." That's just not true. Muslim societies are protective over their women. It just makes sense.
I said "less human than men". There is a difference. I believe in equal rights. I don't believe women have equal rights in Muslim dominated countries.
noted. In the sight of God they are both exactly the same.
Oppression of women is by no means limited to Muslims or religion, the west oppresses women in so many ways.
The difference in physiology, disposition, emotional expression, etc. necessitate a difference in roles.
Islam is pretty liberal on this issue depending on the circumstances.
in May 2001 pope John Paul II visited Syrian Arab Republic, to the delight of the many christians there, and visited damascus mosques and held a huge outdoor mass at a soccer stadium. these things are impossible now. as an American and a christian I am completely disgusted & horrified what my country has done to the Syrian people.
I'm sure the Christians, Alawites, Shia and non secular Syrians are absolutely thrilled by this prospect. Ready for more refugees EU nations? Nice job USA…
The vast majority of refugees to Europe are radicalized Sunnis, those who support these bearded barbarians. The persecuted Christians and Alawites usually escape to Lebanon or stay and suffer
God help the remaining Christian families in Syria now. I guess they will be forced to renounce their Christianity on pain of death, not that the evangelical Protestants in the US would care about that.