Why Not The Islamic Rule?

Hi Amr, how are you?
I listened to your answers, thank you.
it's interesting because the other guy that I interviewed has different ideas. He's turkish but religious, he would like to have sharia states in the arab countries. (What are your thoughts on that?)

Luca

----

Yes, i have family in Egypt. I am Muslim by my upbringing, but i am rather agnostic now. I have removed myself from practice while i ask questions, reflect, embrace different view points a long process that will hopefully end up in a conscious decision about belief. Not your typical Egyptian Muslim.

You will find a lot of people pro Islamic rule and they will have their reasons. those reasons usually revolve around Islam being the sober system that grants fairness, equality, decency etc.. to the society. I agree with all that, however, when you surrender the rule of a country to a religion, you'd be ruling by the ruler's interpretation of that religion. You'd be putting a ceiling to people's freedom to question whether a rule is OK to apply to their society today. that's because you'd be ruling by the irrevocable, nonnegotiable word of God.

If it were so black and white, it would have been fine, but it isn't, especially when you try to address contemporary issues with a seemingly ancient law. And of course there are models as extreme as the Taliban, and the Ayatollahs of Iran to validate that when such a law is left to the interpretation of the ruler, unquestionable because he is applying the so-called word of God, then you have fanaticism breeding on every corner. These examples are as bad as what used to be the case in medieval Europe under the rule of the Church. Today, it's easy for any European to realize that he or she wouldn't have enjoyed as much freedom of anything had he or she lived back then.

This is the scenario that a civil rule hopes to avoid. How? Civil law is subject to the creation and tweaking of people of today's society, and while it's open to interpretation, it is ALSO open to amendments and changes to which opposition is an equal participant, a scenario which a religious law doesn't entertain. The law itself could be modified in order to grant as much equilibrium within the society. Just to be clear, this is all idealistic, but it's closer - i believe - to the fair middle ground that the diverse population of a country like Egypt with its Christian minority may accept. The last thing you want after a revolt is to censor people's expression under the flagship of any kind. You want to facilitate and lubricate dialogue as much as possible without hitting the wall of violating someone's beliefs, or being dismissed as an infidel, etc.

I am yet to see a country ruling by a religious law that truly revives the aura of the early Islamic society of Al Madina. The historic accounts depict a rather Utopian image I'm reluctant to believe it can be reproduced today, especially with such lack of adequate education, open mindedness and farsightedness.

One more thing. I have noticed by living in a society like the Dutch one how being more permissive actually curbs the appetite to violate other people's rights. I have also noticed by living in a society like the Egyptian one, how being more forbidding (by emergency law, conservative tradition, social taboos, etc) actually invokes the appetite to violate other people's rights. It's a matter of handling power: the power to dictate rules, police others and play guard. All this creates a disparity between the life of the ruler who exercises such powers, and the ruled, who typically have to suffer a much less humane, expressive, full life than their ruler.

hope this helps.

amr