Posted by Julia from graendal.at.northwestern.edu (129.105.39.118) on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 12:26PM :
In Reply to: to Julia, re: rant posted by Jeff from bgp01107368bgs.wbrmfd01.mi.comcast.net (68.42.59.180) on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 9:43AM :
: Julia,
: In response to your rant, I ask:
: First of all, what are "Islamic" Nations? Are they nations which have a government composed of Islamic clerics, or are they nations which have a population, the majority of which is Muslim?
>>>A country with a predominately muslim population is not an Islamic country by my definition. I would argue that an Islamic country is one where the ruling apparatus integrates Islamic law into its legal framework for governance.
Additionally:
1) Egypt's law: based on English common law, Islamic law, and Napoleonic codes
2) Jordan's law: based on Islamic law and French codes
3) Lebanon's law: mixture of Ottoman law, canon law, Napoleonic code, and civil law; no judicial review of legislative acts; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction **
**= I was wrong about Lebanon, because it says that their law is not based in part on Islamic law.
4) Syria's law: based on Islamic law and civil law system
: I don't believe that Lebannon, Jordan, or Egypt should be considered Islamic countries.
>>By my definition I would include Jordan and Egypt as Islamic countries, but not Lebanon - thanks for clearing that up :)
: Also,
: Would it be ridiculous for me to "rant" that the nations with a majority population that practices or identifies with one type of Christianity (forget the denominations)... the "christian" (Western) nations should step in and stop the violence in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants? How about stopping the other wars in which "Christian" countries are invo lved?
>>> What Hamas et al are doing is an attack not only on Israelis, but on the sanctity of Islam itself. By continually invoking Islam as a basis upon which suicide bombings take place, they are corrupting the religion of Islam (according to most Muslims). Additionally, heads of state that officially identify islam condemn these attacks. I believe that these attacks then are attacks on Islam, and because of that any state that legally (*officially*) identifies itself with
Islam (i.e. relying on Islam in constructing and interpreting its legal codes)has a burden of defending it to contain the aggression made against Islam. What did we see happen to thousands of innocent Muslims around the world? They were attacked, harassed and their religious places desecrated all because a minority of supposed muslims are making attacks against innocents in the name of Islam. Innocent, non-agressive muslims were put in a position of danger by their counterparts who are distorting Islam for their nationalistic endeavors. I believe that it is not only in the interest of Islamic states (the way i define it) to fight the corruption of Islam, but it also is in the interest of the Palestinians, whose likelihood for statehood dwindles with each suicide bombing.
I probably didn't answer your question but I have to go now - in any case, we can talk about this later. I didn't know that anyone was reading that rant :)
-- Julia
-- signature .
Follow Ups: