That’s what the lawyer said – ARAB TIMES
The great sin and fatal mistake we have made over the decades is the inclusion of the phrase “Islam is the religion of the state” in article two of the Jordanian Constitution, which must be amended. as the first step towards the civility of the ‘just’ state we want.
This article contradicts the first clause of article six of this constitution which states that “Jordanians are equal before the law, and there is no discrimination between them in rights and duties, even if they differ by race, language or religion ”.
When the state constitution states that a specific religion is its religion, it does not differ in terms of absurdity from the state declaring, for example, that the sex of the state is white skinned or that the fruit of the State is the apple, or saying that the hair of the State is curly brown hair and that Liverpool are their supportive football team.
We remind people that the state is not a human being living with a religion, a favorite food and a pet. Rather, they are devices and institutions whose function is to ensure a just rule to protect the rights of citizens, regardless of their political affiliations or beliefs.
This article of the constitution should have declared that the identity of the Jordanian state is Arab with an Islamic history, culture and heritage that we cherish and are proud of along with the other components of this heritage of other religions and sects. , not to say that the state embraces a particular religion.
A modern righteous state is not allowed to align with one of the religions and not with the others, even if it is the religion of the majority, and that state is not allowed to align with the ‘one of the races or races without the others, even if that race or ethnicity prevails over the others, otherwise it is a racist state which discriminates against its citizens on grounds that have nothing to do with the collective identity of its nationals.
Imagine if we weren’t involved in this article since the fifties? Imagine what our situation would have been if a certain political current had not been able to rise up against you every time its affiliates remember the sanctity of the constitution and throw the sentence at you: “The constitution is clear and says that the religion of the state is Islam. .
You tell them to lower the volume of the speakers to respect the comfort of the people, their children and their patients, and they tell you: “Islam is the religion of the state”. You tell them that it is not allowed to close the streets under the pretext of praying in the mosque and they remind you: “Islam is the religion of the state”.
You tell them that it is not permissible to teach children so-called hadiths which incite to fight with all mankind, then they tell you: “Islam is the religion of the state”. You tell them that it is not permissible to demand a ban on music and the arts and once again you are reminded that “Islam is the religion of the state”.
You tell them that it is not allowed to fight against “segregation” and to impose the wearing of the veil; again, they claim they are doing it because “Islam is the religion of the state”.
It was this section of our constitution that allowed this blatant intimidation of others in the name of religion, and what people should understand is that the origin of the role of the state in constitutional law jurisprudence is that this state be a fair and egalitarian arbiter. of all citizens, not to be an opponent who adopts a specific character from the characteristics of a group of people without the others, even if this group has become predominantly numerous because this bias necessarily calls into question the concept of equality between citizens and is fatal.
For example, a football referee is expected to be fair and impartial when two teams are playing. What if he openly declares that he supports a particular team and even wears that particular team’s uniform?
This illogical article of the Jordanian constitution, which the founders neglected when it was drafted in good faith, did not seem to them to put us in a dilemma, the negative effects of which on the structure of the state and the mentality of a large group of its citizens can not be imagined.
Today this article hangs like a sword over the heads of those who demand a modern civil status and this same sword is used by those who want to take advantage of this vague phrase about their Jordanian constitution.
To demand a civil state is to demand that the state refrain from affiliating to any religion whatsoever. The civil rights of citizenship of a Jordanian citizen, with respect for all religions and beliefs, should flow from the man-made laws agreed to by the people and from the citizens’ commitment to them and the extent of the fulfillment of duties to this state, and no sect affiliation.
This is what Zaid Omar Al-Nabulsi wrote. Does anyone agree with him?
E-mail: [email protected]
By Ahmad alsarraf