Saturday, November 01, 2008

الرد على ابتهال الخطيب

Ibtihal Al-khatib is a very beautiful looking woman, shes also very intelligent and outspoken. Therefore too many of those women in society is dangerous. That was a joke:)

Ibtihal asks a very difficult question, a question that made me think for 5 minutes, literally 5 minutes, before I can come to a conclusion. Her question is as follows;

If you asked people about their religious authorities their sheikhs, mullahs,ayatollahs, whatever… if your religious authority were to issue a fatwa,which runs counter to the interests of your country, who would you follow?

So my answer to her question would be as follows;

So what if your country acts against the interests of your beliefs, who would you defend? Your country or your beliefs?

Both questions lead to a downward spiral.

I personally believe in God. I also believe in justice and beauty, the current model of a civil state and nationalism needs to be re-examined they are very alien and the move to them was very radical in recent history. As Arabs we lived in shapes of autonomous communities, small sheikdoms and micro communities all over Arabia, there was no "state" therefore we do not really understand what a state is, and what does it want from us, what is our obligation toward it; which can lead us to the understanding of why we refuse to pay tax to our states moreover we find it morally accepted not to pay tax to our states, not to confuse tax with Zakat. If I had the choice I wouldn’t want to be part of any state. I simply want to live in accordance to the commandments of god.

PS.
The attachment to desire and the possible failure for the quest of liberty of mental sovereignty
I do not think that humans are liberally mentally sovereign because of their attachment to desire therefore leading humans to misjudgment is very possible.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

She sees injustice on the part of a religious state with regards to disallowing minority religious groups/sects their "rights" because, to begin with, she has already interpreted, understood and defined "justice" through a secular, and perhaps even nationalistic outlook.

One could argue that her whole methodlogy is to do so through a secular nationalist lens. In this way, she argues for the imposing of the state's values on the different religions, all the while describing this as nothing more than the establishment of "equality."

It's hypocritical, to say the least.

This notion of equality has been elevated to such an extent that it is used as the standard by which to measure the amount of justice in a society, yet the dominant religion of Kuwait, Islam, and the Sunni sect of Islam, to be exact, places value not in "equality," but in how well its religious precepts are being fulfilled both on the level of government and society.

Whether or not the rights of the Shi'ah, Christians, or whomever, are being taken care of, in the sense that their own Zakat laws are being implemented for them along with other such things, is irrelevant, for the Sunni sect of Islam views all of these things as tantamount to disbelief, anyway.

Had the laws of the Shi'ah along with those of the Sunnis been mixed in the government legislature, the Sunnis would decry this as an act of injustice on the grounds that Truth has been mixed with falsehood.

To get back on track: Al-Khatib is misusing her notion of "equality" by using it as the be all, end all standard by which justice is measured in a society.

As a result, much irony ensues, for the religious groups amongst whom she wishes to spread this equality are now finding their society to be one lacking in justice.

She has, in a sense, argued the same argument of those she is arguing against. I've rambled enough.

Rock A Bye said...

mz. khateib needs to stick to what she knows best - being a mediocre Kuwait uni professor (at best) - and leave politics to those who know a thing or two about it. I'm tired of this attention whore.

Mohammad Al-Yousifi said...

i agree with her

and now we have to define...country

is it the land or the ppl living on the land

error said...

bsrrkr
Hehe. You sure did however your conclusion summed it all, that she used the same argument she argued against. How ironic is that!

rock
Hehe. Don’t be so mean..

ma6goog
There is no such thing as a country "dowla", there is the community "umma" which matters

Rhazes said...

I am an atheist and have been ever since I can remember. The idea of being constricted by religion goes against logic and reason and anything that goes against those two is immediately removed from my life.

I admire your sincerity, that Arabs are too primitive to know what a state is. It pleases me to inform you that Kuwait is not a state. It's an oil company where everyone rushes to get their share of oil.

I've gotten mine and I'll move on to a real state. If my country did something against my beliefs I'd go against my country then again....I control my beliefs. Not some idiot religious person who lacks background knowledge of the basic sciences.