PA daily: Israel is "an immoral state committing atrocities and discriminates against non-Jews"
“The Bir Zeit University Debate Club, together with the Institute for Women’s Studies, yesterday held the eleventh session of its series of regular debates under the heading ’There is no contradiction between implementing Islamic law and maintaining a civil state.’
The debate centered around a discussion that became heated between the two sides – the side supporting the idea that ’there is no contradiction between implementing Islamic law and maintaining a civil state’ presented by Samih Hamouda who teaches political science at the university, and the opposing side presented by Majid Shehadeh who teaches international relations...
The opposing position, [presented by Dr. Majid] Shehadeh … relied on the moral view that ‘Israel’ is a religious state, but is an immoral state committing atrocities that violate human compassion and discriminates against the other ‘who is not Jewish.’ Shahadah claimed that on the basis of our repudiation of the idea of a Jewish state, we must repudiate the idea of an Islamic state. He added, ‘In an Islamic state, a Christian or a woman cannot serve as head of state, for a dhimmi (i.e., a Jew or a Christian) may not rule over a Muslim, and a woman may not rule over a man, so how could there be a civil state if its starting point discriminates among citizens?’
At the end of the debate and after hearing questions and comments from the audience, the side supporting [the proposition that there is no contradiction between implementing Islamic law and maintaining a civil state] won 62.8% of the vote, versus 37.2% who opposed. It should be noted that the Debate Club system gives equal weight to the audience and to the judges when determining winners, and the supporters of the proposition won only 23.8 % of the judges’ votes versus 26.5% for the opposition, whereas the audience voted 78% in favor and 22% against.”
The debate centered around a discussion that became heated between the two sides – the side supporting the idea that ’there is no contradiction between implementing Islamic law and maintaining a civil state’ presented by Samih Hamouda who teaches political science at the university, and the opposing side presented by Majid Shehadeh who teaches international relations...
The opposing position, [presented by Dr. Majid] Shehadeh … relied on the moral view that ‘Israel’ is a religious state, but is an immoral state committing atrocities that violate human compassion and discriminates against the other ‘who is not Jewish.’ Shahadah claimed that on the basis of our repudiation of the idea of a Jewish state, we must repudiate the idea of an Islamic state. He added, ‘In an Islamic state, a Christian or a woman cannot serve as head of state, for a dhimmi (i.e., a Jew or a Christian) may not rule over a Muslim, and a woman may not rule over a man, so how could there be a civil state if its starting point discriminates among citizens?’
At the end of the debate and after hearing questions and comments from the audience, the side supporting [the proposition that there is no contradiction between implementing Islamic law and maintaining a civil state] won 62.8% of the vote, versus 37.2% who opposed. It should be noted that the Debate Club system gives equal weight to the audience and to the judges when determining winners, and the supporters of the proposition won only 23.8 % of the judges’ votes versus 26.5% for the opposition, whereas the audience voted 78% in favor and 22% against.”