Alexandre Seroufian Quotes

The Muslim Brotherhood had won the Presidency in the first Egyptian democratic election shortly after the ouster of Mubarak when they were the only party that was organized. However, after one year of government, their performance was so bad that critics like El Baradei offered strong public criticism—especially of the preoccupation with Islam with little government attention given to freedom, human rights, and the economy which was in terrible shape. This was the focus of the pointed article title. A few days after this article was published there was an insurrection of huge crowds of Egyptians and the Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi was forced to resign.

Muslims are divided about the role of the Islamic religious courts. Some believed that these should be the only courts and should govern all law, religious and civil on the grounds that there are no real differences in Islam. Others believe, as Jammal put forth, that religious courts should only deal with religious and personal matters. Still others believe that these is no place in modern society for religious courts. This debate echoes the debate that took place in Christianity and Judaism, but the vast majority of these have concluded that there is no place for religious courts

This problem which was so well described over a century ago in Egypt, still vexes most of the Islamic world.

Theological & Legal Expert. A fatwa is a religious legal ruling. The frequent problem of Muslim men who marry American women, and if there is a divorce, the man kidnaps the child and returns to an Islamic country where the wife never gets to see the children causes a very difficult problem for American diplomats because even though there is an American court decision against the father, the very act of taking a custody dispute to a civil court contravenes Islamic law so there will be no extradition as the Islamic country takes the position that there was never an original legitimate court decision.

This principle explains why so many Islamic governments are monarchies and dictatorships. Islamic legitimacy requires the ruler to be sure that the society functions according to Sharia (Islamic Law). It is better if the ruler is selected by the senior and responsible members of society but that is not required. He could be a king or a dictator. And it is irrelevant how he comes to power under this interpretation so long as he rules following Islamic law. Saudi Arabia is an excellent example of a dictatorial monarchy which is considered legitimate since it follows Islamic law. Some modern Muslims do not support this traditional view and believe that a legitimate ruler must be selected by the will of the people.

There is relatively little freedom of speech in Egypt and most Islamic countries where the traditional Sharia laws prohibiting blasphemy and the tradition of not publicly embarrassing the Caliph or the Sultan, combine to protect the modern Islamic state from criticism. Turkey, Tunisia and a few other Islamic states are exceptions. Under this Egyptian law anyone could be jailed for bringing “shame” to national and Islamic values. On September 6, 1981, the Egyptian Director of Public Health, Dr. Nawal El Saadawi was actually arrested and jailed for three months for saying that women were ill treated in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world. See {586710} for the kinds of statements for which Egypt would jail leading citizens.

He covers the Middle East.

The doctor argues that the problem of public health in the Islamic world is in large part due to the fact that health care is not organized any more under the control and governance of an Islamic institution—one which is guided by the Koran and Islamic tradition. Other physicians and public health experts believe one central obstacle to public health in Muslim nations is the strong influence that the Mullahs have over the behavior of the population and the medical and health practices that are acceptable and desirable to them are those of the Arabian Desert of the 7th Century or in some more modern interpretations, the medicine of the Islamic world of the 12th century when Islamic Medicine was the best in the World.

There are fundamentalist Muslim nations and subunits throughout the world, which make it a criminal offense for a women to exercise what, in the West and according to the UN International Charter of Human rights, are her legitimate rights. The punishments in some of these communities are very brutal and barbaric. Under Canadian law and policy a person who is in fear for their safety and/or life because they are exercising a fundamental right are eligible for political asylum and immigration status in Canada. Mayfield and a few other conservative Canadian legislators do not see the issue of women’s required dress as being in the same category of freedom of speech, criticism of the government, or the practice of one’s chosen religion. The same people generally favor more restrictions on immigration anyway, and they would not give Canadian asylum to women so aggrieved. Those legislators seem all to be men. The women in Parliament and the majority of the men do not agree, have maintained the right of women to seek asylum for these reasons.

While it is true that the English wanted a legal system that would enforce modern western views of business and property, there was another major reason that the British wanted special courts. There were many British businessmen and civil service who insisted on their rights as Englishmen. These were not provided by traditional Islamic law (Sharia). On the other hand the British wanted to give the Egyptians a great deal of autonomy and the compromise was to have two legal systems—one for each culture. This is a solution that has existed many times and many places. The most common is when the U. S. has a military base in a foreign country and agreement is entered into as to what laws will govern the Americans. Even in the United States it was common for many years for Indians accused of a crime on an Indian reservation to be tried by the tribal council while whites accused of the same crime would be tried before a Federal Magistrate. Even today there are conflicts between the legal systems and traditions of some tribes and the United States Constitution which also protects all Indians.

In most of the world this is an accepted truism. However, where there is judicial independence as in the United States, Israel, Norway, England and other countries, those who appoint judges have little or no control over a judiciary that has lifetime tenure and a tradition of non-interference. The influence is limited to the appointment of a judge with a particular philosophy. However, in some countries, not only do the courts follow the lead of the government but if they do not the judges themselves might be jailed or worse. Borelli’s principle therefore holds there.

A fatwa is a religious legal ruling.

Theological & Legal Expert. The Sunnah, like the Koran, has statements of the Prophet, Mohammad. A fatwa is a religious legal ruling. This particular Fatwa shows the great difference between the Islamic State and a Republic or Democracy. In the latter forms, any religious practices must be consistent with the Constitution. Even though blasphemy might be prohibited by a religion, the United States Constitution for example protects anyone’s right to be blasphemous. In the Islamic system any constitution or law is subservient to and must be consistent with, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. In that sense, unless the Muslim populated nation is secular like Turkey, then the governments are partial or total theocracies.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. The Sheikh along with many other Muslims called for the death penalty for the cartoonist who was exercising his Danish right of freedom of expression.

Pakistan follows a version of Islamic Law—Sharia—which provides that a man can be convicted of rape only if there are at least 4 male witnesses. Since it is virtually impossible to ever get 4 witnesses to a crime like that, there will never be a conviction. However, the complaining victim runs two additional dangers. First she is admitting to fornication and or adultery and can be jailed or even killed for that. Further, Pakistan males regard her as a prostitute and the police will also rape her very often.

While this hadith has been used to justify murdering converts or even those who criticize actions taken in the name of Islam, this statement should be seen in historical context whereby Christians also commonly murdered “heretics,” and during the Protestand reformation, both Catholics and Protestants routinely murdered not only converts from their faith, but non believers such as Jews and Muslims. The Old Testament also advocated death for heretics.

This quotation of a very popular Muslim cleric illustrates the wide range of political views of Islamic leaders and authorities. Whereas most shun democracy as placing public opinion over the word of God, there are many like al-Qaradawi who have a modernist interpretation of Islam.