SPECIAL PROJECTS

Joint Project 1995/96

BUILDING A BASE FOR COMMON SCHOLARSHIP AND UNDERSTANDING:
PALESTINE - JORDAN - ISRAEL
IN THE NEW ERA OF THE MIDDLE EAST

The Palestinian Team:

Dr. Mahdi Abdul Hadi, Head of PASSIA
Dr. Riad Malki, Director, Panorama Center for the Dissemination of Information, Jerusalem
Dr. Giries Khoury, Head, Al-Liqa Center for Religious and Heritage Studies in the Holy Land, Bethlehem
Sheikh Jamil Hamami, Director, Islamic Cultural Society, Jerusalem

The Jordanian Team:

Dr. Mustafa Hamarneh, Director, Center for Strategic Studies, University of Jordan, Amman
Hani M. Hourani, Director General of Al-Urdun Al-Jadid Research Center, Amman
Musa Shteiwi, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Faculty of Arts, University of Jordan, Amman

The Israeli Team:

Dr. Asher Susser, Senior Fellow, Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Benyamin Neuberger, Professor of Political Science at the Open University of Israel, Tel Aviv
Dr. Martin Kramer, Head, Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University

Canadian Embassy:

Mrs. Sandra McCardell, Canadian Dialogue Fund, Canadian Embassy, Tel Aviv

Summary:

Religion and State - A Palestinian Christian Perspective
by Dr. Giries Khoury

The topic on today's agenda is very sensitive and important. As a Christian, I cannot just talk about my faith without carefully considering the context. Judaism and Islam are major topics, widely discussed in this country, while Christian issues are rather marginalized. For Muslims, Islam is the eventual solution, while for Jews, it is Halacha. Christians live within this context and have to deal with it, taking into consideration the biblical and political background. The four topics to be looked at closely are: religion and state; church and state; believer and state (on the individual level); and religious minorities in the state.

In Verse 1 of the New Testament (Mark 12,17) it is written that Jesus was given a coin and was asked what he intended to do with it. His answer was: give to Caesar what is for Caesar and to God what belongs to God. This is a political message. The Jews lived under the Roman Empire ruled by Caesar but they were also subject to God's rules. Jesus said: "Having faith in God does not mean that you have to believe in a political order or a particular state. God and faith are above space and time and politics. As a citizen however, you have political responsibilities." While the New Testament provides that God is God for all people with no exclusivism, one can read in the Old Testament that God is the God for the chosen people. Jesus discontinued this philosophy by preaching that God does not select but is for all people. He thus overcame the theocratic characteristic of the Old Testament. Jesus did not come to establish kingdoms or political systems. He stated: "My kingdom is not in this world." Jesus wanted to avoid ties between politics and faith; he did not call for a theocratic state nor for revolting against the political state. He made a clear separation between the two spheres.

The first three centuries of church history were influenced by the Roman Empire which suppressed the church. The religious vision was opposed to the state vision. The former was characterized by a heavenly piety which made the Christians accept suppression and suffering because they believed that eventually their kingdom would come (Matthew 5).

After 1300 AD, the state and the church merged, with the latter being liberated after 300 years of oppression. The Roman Emperor became a Christian but the Roman mentality did not Christianize. The Emperor wanted both power and faith. He controlled the Church using the justification that he was a member of the Christian community. The second step was when the western Roman Empire perished and the church filled the political vacuum, marking the beginning of the conflict between the papacy and the state/emperor.

At present, we have some countries where Christianity is the official religion of the state but both church and state have their own responsibilities. The differences lie in the ways they are cooperating. The state is built on a political system, which is accepted by the church unless it suppresses faith. Christian parties have a negative implication for Christians because Christianity is a faith and not a political program.

Despite the separation between the faith and state, believers are still members of the state and agree with or reject the state's policy ('religion is from heaven, believers are from earth'). The problem is that religion is often misused and conflicts are being theologized, with the Bible and the Qur'an being exploited for political purposes or other human goals.

Palestinian Christians are a religious minority. I wish to see a Palestinian democratic system in which all religions are accepted and respected on an equal basis, and in which people of all faiths are granted their basic rights such as freedom, the right to criticize and to raise the voice. The Christian faith is a revolutionary one and this is why I believe in a Christian-Palestinian contextual liberation theology. Democracy does not mean minimizing the importance of faith. Christianity itself has been built on democratic principles and in a pluralistic context. Jesus gave the message that one is free to follow him but will not be forced to do so. In an Arabic-Islamic state on the other hand, an Arab Christian will not feel equal. Only a real separation between state and faith will allow the full and equal participation of all members of society regardless of their faith.

Discussion: Muslim-Christian relations in the Holy Land; Omar Ibn Al-Khattab Covenant in the past and today; Christian quota in the Palestinian elections; Christian dogma vs. Muslim culture; Palestinian Christians as a minority; Islamic fundamentalism in the Arab world; Christian participation in the emerging Palestinian political system; future state's way of dealing with matters such as divorce and marriage, education, etc.

Religion and State - An Israeli Perspective
by Dr. Benny Neuberger

In an Israeli context, the topic should read Religion-Nation-State: most government crises in Israel have occurred due to religious issues and not political ones. The Israeli case is different from the Christian case because we are dealing with a one-religion nation. The word 'nation' in a Jewish context is always related to religion. There are three general observations to be made:

• The Israeli Declaration of Independence is very secular in its wording but does include religious phrases linking the people to the land.
• Religion is a unifying element in Israeli society and politics.
• In Israel, a phenomenon - known in sociology as civil religion - is very widespread: traditional religious symbols become symbols for people regardless of their religious origin. Hardly anyone knows the meaning of the Menorah, for example, but it is accepted as a symbol of Israel.

Five main groups can be identified within the Jewish population:

• Secularists, i.e., non-believers; only 'civil religion' in terms of holidays, Shabbat as the day off.
• Liberals, believe to some extent/might go to synagogue; believe that the state has to be secular while religion is part of the private sphere.
• Traditionalists, believe that the state should be separated from religion but against civil marriage and reform-Judaism; quite happy with the status quo.
• The National-Religious camp, wants a religious state; religious Zionists; ready to cooperate with government.
• Ultra-Orthodox (Haredim), anti-Zionist, believe that only the Messiah can found the Jewish state; reject the establishment of the state of Israel as an irreligious act.

At their time of founding, none of the religions was democratic. Liberalism and civil rights are therefore not part of the Jewish religious system. What we have in Judaism is freedom of religion (i.e., the freedom of worship for all religions) and freedom from religion (i.e., the freedom to be non-religious). The system of marriage and divorce is bound to Orthodox procedures, often violating individual rights, especially those of people with no religion.

The widespread acceptance of the status quo in Israel is mainly in order to avoid conflicts. All governments stress that they will maintain the status quo, the formula of which goes back to 1947 when certain promises were made in order to obtain the support of the religious camp for the establishment of an independent state. These "promises," the interpretation of which causes problems until today, included:

• the commitment to observe Shabbat as the day of rest;
• the commitment to follow Kashrut laws and to serve only kosher food in public;
• the exclusion of the possibility to introduce civic laws concerning marriage and divorce.

Among possible Israeli tactics to deal with such status quo problems are the following:

• to transfer the issue of conflict to the local public/respective municipality (allows for differentiation between secular and Orthodox neighborhoods);
• to transfer the issue to courts (ruling precedences, e.g., on whether TVs may be switched on on Shabbat or not);
• to transfer the issue into an informal debate within the coalition (trying to find a compromise).

The Israeli system is one of recognized religious communities, all of which have the right to autonomy regarding their own institutions and procedures for marriage and divorce. Institutions include: Chief Rabbinate; religious courts; local Rabbinates and the religious councils; Ministry of Religious Affairs; schools (state school/religious-Zionist state school/ schools for the ultra-orthodox).

The main issues of conflict in Israel include the following: The 'Who is a Jew?'-conflict; conflict regarding the Marriage and Divorce Law; Shabbat-conflict; conflict over army service for Orthodox; conflict regarding dietary laws; other disputes such as autopsies, abortions, archaeological diggings, the non-existence of secular cemeteries.

Religion and State - A Palestinian-Muslim Perspective
by Sheikh Jamil Hamami

Living conditions in the Arab Peninsula at the time when Islam appeared:

Islam came to transform the marginalized Arab society that was mostly distinguished by the following features:

• Ignorance: some scholars interpret 'ignorance' as the opposite of knowledge, others as the opposite of tolerance.
• Previous civilizations: sculptured stones dating back to 1200 BC prove that civilizations existed in the Arab Peninsula at that time. The Al-Ghasasenah monarchy for example, established a semi-autonomous system protected by the Byzantians and under the Persians, the Al-Hira monarchy lived in Iraq. In these systems, the social life was closely linked to the political one.
• The character of Al-Hijaz: Al-Hijaz is distinguished by the fact that Al-Ka'ba was established in its most famous city: Mecca. Before Islam, Arabs traveled there to honor and glorify it by performing the haj. They visited the place where Ibrahim and his son Isma'el built the base [for the Ka'ba]. The existence of town and other councils, alliances and tribal customary law prooves that a special system governed the life and relations of the people. Islam gave them the responsibility to spread the new religion, its doctrine, worship and system. The cohesion between these three pillars enhanced the society's stability, strength and solidity in facing difficulties, and spread the foundations of justice, security and stability in people's life.

The Islamic Governing System's Foundations:

The governing system in Islam is set up on solid foundations that leave room for action only within the space specified by the wise legislator (God). The source of all legislation is God. The Mujtahid (diligent) can judge on the basis of interpretation of the four usul and only within certain boundaries so that the judgment is not subject to human inclinations and moods. The most important foundations for governing in Islam are:

• Freedom of religious belief: everyone enjoys the freedom of thought, belief and behavior on the condition that it does not violate the freedom of others. Islam was possibly the first system to introduce the concept of freedom in society. Islam laid down freedom of the individual, freedom of religious belief and social and political freedoms 1200 years before human laws - dictated by the desires of their legislators - were written down. In the Holy Qur'an, God says: "There should be no compulsion in religion." Islam emerged in an environment of monotheistic religions; their believers were described as 'people of the book.'
• Political freedom: special attention was given to this freedom so as to allow the expression of ideas without fear and suppression.
• Al-Shura (consultations): consent and general acceptance with regard to certain issues are needed in order for the people to feel safe and justly treated. Islam legislated the principle of Al-Shura for guiding people's life like a basic law. It examines different ideas and viewpoints in order to be able to choose the best. As the Holy Qur'an tells the prophet: "and consult with them on the matter."
• Justice and equality: when Islam came people belonged to the classes of the masters or the classes of the slaves, who were obliged to serve the former without compensation. Islam introduced the concept of justice and equality regarding rights and duties - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - and put the principle of piety (i.e., commitment to God's rules) above everything else. Only then did the society of the Arab Peninsula stabilize. The absence of security in today's societies, as well as trust between the ruler and the ruled, is due to the fact that oppressive regimes are prevailing.

Discussion: minority issue; religiously determined places of conflict (e.g. Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi); Jewish Halacha and Islamic Shari'a; Dawla Islamiyya and Dawla Yahudiyye; constitutions and basic laws and their role vis-à-vis religious issues; Islamic political parties; Islamic state-building; religious legislation; Palestinian draft constitution.

Religion and State - A Jordanian Perspective
by Musa Shteiwi

The more we witness a rise of Islam the more is the Arab-Islamic world challenged, especially against the background of a worldwide democratization process and pressure from within our states to initiate such a process following a long period of non-participation by citizens.

The Relationship Between State and Religion and Legitimacy:

Religion has always been an important source of legitimacy for the Hashemite rulers in Jordan. The Hashemite dynasty traces back to the Prophet's family and due to this descendance the Hashemites claim to a certain degree the "divine" right to rule the country. The Jordanian monarchy did not get its legitimacy from the people but from this lineage. On the other hand, the Jordanian constitution was imposed through the Hashemite relation to the British and is, therefore, rather liberal. The government has taken a dual position. The incorporation of Islam into the state occurred due to its highly ideological nature and has repeatedly been used to counter other political trends.

State, Religion and Constitutionalism:

As a constitutional monarchy, Jordan concentrates the power in its government with the King on top. The Jordanian constitution is largely liberal, guaranteeing equality for everyone in the eyes of the law, although Islam is the official religion. At the end of the 1980s, Jordan faced a socioeconomic and legitimacy crisis which led to the suspension of the constitution. This crisis led to the drafting of a feasible political program by a gathering of various people; the outcome was a covenant which states in Article 4 that Islam is the main source of legislation in Jordan. In brief, Jordan is heading in two directions: towards developing a modern legal system which governs the political (democratic), social and economic domains, and towards strengthening the Sharia, ruling over religious and related issues.

The State's Relation to Official, Religious and Islamic Movements:

The state used religion for its own purposes. The Ministry of Religious Affairs, for example, is in the hands of the government. Thus, while the state is subservient with regard to the implementation of religious programs, it controls the religious sphere and its institutions. The Islamic movement, (i.e., Muslim Brotherhood), was the only group allowed to operate publicly, allowing it to become strong and efficient. It did not present itself as competitor to the state nor did it pose any threat, so the state supported it and used the movement to fight other threats such as communism (carrot-and-stick policy). When the Islamists won over 30% of the votes (1989), they began to act politically; consequently, the government began worrying and arrested several members of the Brotherhood. The peak of the Islamic rise was at a time when Jordan faced a serious economic crisis and during/after the Gulf War. Later, when political parties were legalized and the peace process began, the influence and strength of the Islamists gradually declined (currently 16 seats in the government).

The Presence of Religion within the State and the Society:

The prominence of religion within the state's structures indicates the need for the state to be identified with religion. Examples: Ramadan (working hours and length of university/school classes, no sale of food, smoking, drinking and eating in public); places for prayer in schools, universities and other public institutions.

Restrictions on Religious Freedom in Jordan:

Muslims are restricted from changing their religion; Muslim women cannot marry a non-Muslim; women inherit less than men (non-Muslims nothing); women cannot transfer citizenship to non-Jordanian husbands.

Jordan could play a major role in the region by reforming the country but is still reluctant to do so. The struggle between the Islamists and the state is not religious: the Islamists do not try to force the state to run according to traditions but attempt to achieve more political power/influence. The state has enforced the move towards civil society and democracy, but oppression occurs, resulting in an "empty" democracy. The state is at the threshold of political modernity but does not dare to cross. The reason is that the state is unable to create legitimacy as long as it relies on religion, from which it is not yet ready to disengage itself.

Discussion: Constitutions/PLO National Covenant of 1964; Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan and its role in the 1989 elections; the question of Jerusalem and the city's religious significance; Hashemite family and its history; King Hussein's legitimacy; religious nature of Israel and Jordan; prospects of the peace process.