Questions and Answers
View New Question ( Last Update: 3/May/98 )
New Question And Answer
The Question:
Dear Sir
I checked your web site including your "Questions Answers section, and I have the
following three questions to ask:
1-- Is the SSNP considered to be on the right or left side of the political spectrum. In
other terms, is it Leftist
or rightist. ?? To my Knowledge Saadeh founded it to be pro-right, but it started to be
leftist in the 60's.
2-- Does the SSNP believes the inhabitants of Great Syria to be Syrians or Arabs??
Actually I know, you believe that they are a mixture of races that interacted over a
period of somewhat centuries, but my aim in asking such question is to see whether the
SSNP believe the people of great Syria to have an ethnicity, culture, and race,
significantly different than the people of the Arab peninsula or not... For example if
Syria gets unified, will it be referred to as Syria, or Arab Syria???????
3-- Finally, today's SSNP claim to represent all sects. But my observations when I was in
Beirut were that it is
dominated mostly by 2 sects: Druze of the Yezbaki clan, and Greek Orthotox. All other
sects are minorities in it.
Why is that??? That was not the case when Saadeh founded it.
Hussam
The Answer:
Dear Hussam
The following are our answers to your three questions:
Question 1.
No where in the doctrine of the SSNP or in its Aim is there any reference to the party as
being a Leftist or a Rightist party. Sa’adeh established a party to see the
realization of a Syrian renaissance. The party was described by some, as being to the
right or left on the political spectrum based on political stands that the party took at
certain times in its history. “Right” and “Left” are political
variables that do not answer to one universal definition. It is best, in my opinion, to
evaluate the SSNP on the merits of its aim, doctrine and struggle to realize them.
Question 2.
You are right, we look at the final outcome of millennia (rather than centuries) of social
interaction among a wide array of ethnic groups. While the Arab waves that settled in the
Fertile Crescent might constitute one of the largest elements in our social mix, it is be
no means the only one. Hence when we speak of Syria and the Syrians we are not talking
about a race or an ethnicity, but an all inclusive social character. This social character
is not only influenced by the constituent elements alone, but by the natural environment
in which, and with which, those elements interacted.
As for the second part of this question, we do not have to wait until Syria is united to
declare that it is an Arab nation. It is now one of the four Arab nations that comprise
the Arab world namely: Syria, The Arabian Peninsula, The Nile Valley, and the Great
Maghreb. This does not deny Syria its unique Syrian heritage that goes back to the dawn of
history, but emphasizes the cultural and economic ties binding us with the other Arab
nations.
Question 3.
I am sure you will agree with me that your impressions do not constitute a scientific
survey to conclude that, “That was not the case when Saadeh founded it.” The
party never conducted a sect-based census among its members; it never will. We don’t
know what were the “percentages” at Saadeh’s time, nor do we know now, nor
will we ever care. Saadeh founded a party to unite us around a new ideal, our social unity
and national identity. This is what really matters. I think it is much more important to
understand the concept of “Social Love” that brings the Syrian Nationalists
together, than probing into their sectarian backgrounds. Kindly refer Sa’adeh’s
story “Faji3at Hubb.” and his philosophical work, “Intellectual Struggle in
Syrian Literature,” for elaboration on this concept.
Regards,
Oussama
Previously Asked
Questions:
The following are questions sent to us by browsers of the SSNP site. If you click on any
of these questions you would be able to read the answer. If you have any question to add,
please feel free to contact us and we will be
more than happy to respond to any type of question as long as it abides by the general
rules of politeness and self respect regardless what the topic of the question might be.
Q4: What is the relationship, if any, between Antun Saadah and Freemasonry ? (28/3/97)
QUESTION1: It has been 65 years since the establishment of
your party one can say instead of progress you're experiencing deep division. Why and
what's been done to counter that?
Answer #1
The first thing I want to say in this regard is that this question has
been repeatedly raised not only by mouwatineen, but by zealous Roufaqa' eager to find an
answer for our current self-inflicted predicament. It is a question that strikes at the
heart of everyone of us.
The second thing I want to say is that the answer to this question will vary from one
rafiq to another depending on each person's reading of history and expectations for the
future.
Let us break the question up into different segments:
1. To suggest that progress has completely eluded the party would be a misrepresentation
of the facts. On the contrary, its contribution to and influence over the political and
cultural life of the Near East has far exceeded that of any other party. Nonetheless, the
party has fallen short in many other respects. I think the main point here is how to
define "progress." If by "progress" we meant how much the party has
been able to bring about concrete change along its ideological line of thinking, than it
has clearly failed. There have been minor moments of glory for the party, but nothing as
spectacular as Sa'adeh would have hoped. To that extent, real progress (as opposed to no
progress at all) has indeed eluded the party.
2. To deny that there has not been any division in the party, as some idealist and
dogmatic roufaqa'a do, is an act of blasphemy. There has been division in the party since
the martyrdom of Sa'adeh both openly and behind closed doors. This sick state of mind is
the result of several factors:
1. Lack of real leadership.
2. Ideological deviations.
3. External political pressure.
What we have to remember, though, is that national revolutionary parties such as ours are
bound to experience turbulent periods during their struggle. It is a natural part of life.
It is important, though, not to let matters get out of hand as the case has been with us.
3. Even if we accept the assertion that "instead of progress you're experiencing deep
division" on its face value, it does not necessarily detract from the accuracy of the
party's ideology. The SSNP may have experienced many problems, but this does not make its
ideology irrelevant or wrong. Its problems rather have been primarily in its persona and
administration.
4. Those who want to question the integrity and achievements of the SSNP should perhaps
first start by questioning their own.
5. As for the last part of the question, I don't think there is really any serious attempt
thus far to rectify the problems of the party. There have been sporadic efforts to reunify
its ranks, but nothing else beyond that. It may hurt to admit this, but it is the fact.
I hope my answer is adequate.
best regards
R. Adel
TSWYS
Back To Top
Answer #2
My name is Oussama El-Mohtar. I live in Canada and your question has been forwarded to me
for an answer. Should you have a follow up, please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you.
Needless to say the SSNP divisions have been and continue to be a source of anguish to all
party members. The SSNP which brings a new conception of Life based on unity, new moral
values and mentality, still lives in the midst of all the ailments that it came to rid the
nation from. Sometimes the ailments seem to overwhelm the cure.
Allow me to mention, in passing, that in spite of the divisions that have plagued the
Party since the Forties of this century, the SSNP remains one of the most important
parties in Syria and the Middle East. Its impact on all aspects of cultural, political and
ideological fields is undisputed. Its impact in the Lebanese war, both as an Oasis of
secular tolerance in the midst of sectarian madness, and its role in preventing Lebanon
from becoming an Israeli vassal, could not be overlooked.
There has been several divisions in the SSNP history. Some took place while Saadeh was
alive and he personally dealt with them. The most important of those was known as the
"Case of Nehmeh Thabet and Fayez Sayegh." Saadeh elaborated on this division in
the "Ten Lectures". If you read Arabic, please refer to lectures 1 and 2 in that
book. The causes of this division were political and personal, camouflaged in
philosophical issues.
The second split was in 1956. The causes for this split were also political and personal
combined with a strong desire on the parts of some external forces to finish off the Party
in Damascus, where it had gained tremendous strength in the 1950s. The mechanics of this
division shed a great deal of light on some of the constitutional gaps that needed to be
filled after Saadeh's execution. Many believe that these gaps still exist and need to be
dealt with. They have to do with the divisions of powers within the Party structure A good
source on the mechanics of this division with lots of documentation is to be found in a
book titled "Al Hasad Al Murr", Bitter Harvest, by Ibrahim Yammout.
There were two more divisions that took place in the mid Seventies and mid Eighties. The
first one ended in the "unification" of the Party in 1978. It did not last long
and division ensued a few years later. The causes for these two divisions are numerous and
complex. The were born out of the general climate surrounding the Lebanese war which did
impact the Party as you know.
If we look at those four divisions we find the reasons to be: lack of ideological
anchoring; lack of institutional understanding and lack of moral fiber among those who
have caused the divisions and allow their continuation.
There is a genuine desire, among most Party members, within all groupings, to finish this
state of existing division. There is also serious attempts to understand the sources of
such divisions and plug them once and for all. I think that a new understanding of the
Party constitution, its objectives, methodology, and moral values will contribute to such
results. I hope that the new generations entering the Party now will, in deed, achieve
that.
Thank you.
Back To Top
Question2: "I do agree that at certain points throughout history, the Syrian
Nation as defined by the SSNP did exist. Nowadays, considering the new neaps of
communication (Global Village) and the fact that the different parts of this Nation have
been divided for so long, Why do we still make that claim?"
Answer
We still make the claim for a united Syria because:
1. The Syrian nation is a historical and social reality which nothing could ever erase. It
is true that this nation is divided into different entities, but that does not necessarily
efface its reality or identity. In contemporary history, many nations have gone through
long periods of division (Italy for example) or have been under occupation or submerged
into a bigger entity (the nations of the former Soviet Union for example), but that did
not erase their will and eventually their right to a separate national existence.
2. The remarkable advancement in the means of communication does not stand in the way of
national reunification. On the contrary, by bringing people in closer communication and
contact with each other it actually facilitates the national integration of our people.
3. If we accept the present political division of Natural Syria as a faite accompli, than
we must accept that for ever our destiny would be determined by foreign wills - a very
undesirable state of affair by any people's standard.
4. If we continue to think that the reunification of Syria is a dream, the alternative to
it - its perpetual division - is a nightmare as the past eighty years have clearly shown.
5. The social and political benefits of national reunification, despite its difficulties,
far outweigh the existing state of national division.
a. It fosters our people's confidence in themselves as opposed to the present skepticism.
b. It gives us strength and control over our own destiny as opposed to the present
mockery.
c. It retards other countries from interfering in our internal affairs.
d. It gives us a far better chance to carry out an effective counter-campaign to the
Zionist peril.
e. etc...
The national unification of Syria is an inevitable fact of life. We can never change or
erase this fact even if we chose to.
I hope my answer is sufficient. If there is any point that you would want me to elaborate
further on, please do not hesitate to ask.
best regards.
Adel
Back To Top
Question3: "I
believe in the Ideology you or someone stated that Syria is for Syrians, so why go and
take my country (Lebanon) if you have your own country. I guess you are not satisfied of
what you have, you have to go and insult us and bug us at the check points that are put in
Lebanon. And those idiots sitting at our own airport in Beirut asking everyone for their
passport, where do you guys get off?
Why do you have to attack our country and sit in it and say you are there for peace, well
everyone knows your not, you Syrians want to take our money and run our businesses. We
Lebanese didn't do anything to hurt you why should you hurt us. And keep blaming Israel
for everything guys, o.k. I would like you to e-mail me back and explain to me why Syrians
should stay one more minute in Lebanon.
P.S Tell your president that Syria & Lebanon are two separate countries.
thanks
from a Lebanese Canadian human being
Answer
Dear Lebanese Canadian Human Being:
Greetings:
Your letter has been sent to me for a reply. I am like you, a Lebanese Canadian Human
Being. The difference between you and I is that I believe in Syrian Unity but you do not.
Of course, when I say Syria, I do not mean the current state know as the Syrian Arab
Republic. I mean natural Syria that extends from the Mediterranean to Iran, and from
Turkey to Saudi Arabia.
You might say, this is not my country and I have nothing to do with it. Well, since you
are in Canada, let me give you a Canadian example that will illustrate my point. As you
recall, couple of years ago, we in Canada went through a gut wrenching experience when our
Canada almost disintegrated. Had Quebec separated at the time, it is possible to conceive
of a new reality whereby a number of the Canadian provinces would have joined the USA, or
became independent states.
In such a scenario, most analysts agreed at the time, the standard of Canadian living
would have deteriorated overall. Others argued it would have led to a civil war.
Now, imagine some Canadians trying to urge their ex compatriots to rejoin a Canadian
unity, pointing out to the benefits of such union, and to the high regard Canada had as a
country. We the Syrian Social Nationalists, whether we come from Lebanon, like myself, or
others who come form Palestine or Jordan or the Syrian Arab Republic or Iraq, or Kuwait,
are all working towards such a noble goal.
I have given you the Canadian example, but there was a more horrifying one that we can
also examine. During the civil war in Lebanon, the country came to the brink of division.
Had that happened, how would you have felt? I don’t know how old you are, but I would
have taught my children that Lebanon was divided against the will of its people, and no,
we are not two people but one divided into two states. Would you have not done the same?
Believe it or not, this is what my parents taught me about Lebanon and Syria. You say in
your letter that the Syrians want to take your country. What if I demonstrated to you that
it is Lebanon that had taken Syrian lands.
There is a book called "Beirut Our Memory". It is a collection of pictures of
Beirut between 1850 and 1930. In it, almost every picture and postcard is designated
Beirut-Syria. Until 1920, Beirut was part of Syria, so was Sidon and Tripoli and the whole
of the Bekaa valley. In other words the four provinces, other than Mount Lebanon, i.e.
Beirut, the South, the North, and the Bekaa were all taken away form Syria and added to
Mount Lebanon to create what the French termed "Le Grand Liban." If you would
have been frustrated with the division of Lebanon into two states, you can imagine the
frustration of my parent’s generation when Lebanon was severed from Syria, as was
Palestine and Jordan and Iraq and were turned into independent states.
As for the presence of the Syrian Army in Lebanon, it is useful to remind you that in
1976, and maybe you were a little bit too young at the time, the Lebanese government, and
those who claim to want an "independent" Lebanon, invited the Syrian army to
stop the civil war. The Syrian army remains in Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese
government. I have no doubt that the minute the Lebanese government feels that the Syrian
presence is no longer needed, the Syrians will depart.
How about Syrian check points? I was in Lebanon recently and there are very few check
points left. Those that remain, mostly belong to the Lebanese army. I agree that it is a
nuisance to have any kind of road blocks inhibiting movement of people. Security
requirements however, sometimes dictate things that we don’t like.
You ask us to tell "our President" that Lebanon and Syria are two countries not
one. I think that both Presidents Hrawi and Assad recognize that. They also recognize that
we are one people living in those two countries.
I hope I have answered your many questions in your letter. And by the way, it is only
appropriate to introduce oneself when one wants to speak to others. Last but not least,
saying please when one would like to request something from another, also helps.
Respectfully,
Oussama El-Mohtar
Back To Top
Question 4: What is the relationship, if
any, between Antun Saadah and Freemasonry ?
Answer
I shall respond to the following: did Saadeh join the
Freemasons? Why? Why did he leave? How was his relation as a Party leader with the
movement?
It is a known fact that on May 24, 1926, Saadeh submitted to the Masonic Lodge of Sao
Paolo, a lengthy letter of resignation both from his position as Secretary and as a member
as well. He wass 24 years of age. This letter is published in the first volume of Saadeh's
letters, Beirut 1978, p.p. 1-4. In it, he explains his reasons behind joining the Masonic
movement and his reasons for resigning from it. According to Nawaf Hardan, in his book
Saadeh Abroad Part 1, Brazil, 1921-1930, page 36, Saadeh stayed in the Masonic movement
for about a year and a half.
Why did he join?
In his letter of resignation, Saadeh outlines his perceptions of the goals for which
Freemasonry was established as such: (This is not an official translation, but a summary
of 10 points that he lists.)
1. "...to free the peoples of the world from tyranny, and the human mind from slavery
to falsehoods and legends.
2. To achieve its goals the fraternity historically resorted to politics, science, economy
and war;
3. to achieve this power is needed, material and spiritual power.
4. The Lodges are the real power centers of the fraternity and their responsibility is
great and grave.
5. The growth of Freemasonry has lead to the almost complete independence of its major
parts. Each part is now growing in its own sphere of existence. Hence we find the French
Freemasonry primarily involved with French affairs. The same could be said about American
Freemasonry.
6. It is terribly unfortunate that the Syrian Lodges have not, to date, unified themselves
in an independent Orient as did Lodges of other nations.
7. Not giving priority to the unity of Syrian Lodges is a grave mistake that needs to be
corrected very soon.
8. Since Freedom is the first principle of Freemasonry, it is then the first obligation of
all Lodges to work for freedom. The natural place for Lodges to exercise this obligation
is in their homeland. Apart from being a national obligation it is also easier. The Syrian
Lodges must follow this rule.
9. Several Lodges have neglected their responsibility and accepted many who are not worthy
of being admitted as members. This has caused its failure in discharging its sacred
duties. Many Syrian Lodges have committed this mistake as well.
10. To work in the spirit of Freemasonry should be an ongoing obligation. Limiting
activities only to rituals means nothing more than deterioration."
Saaadeh then summarizes his direct reason for joining as such: "Working for the
National Cause is what prompted me and many others to join the Star of Syria Lodge.
However, the logic used in this Lodge, namely, staying away from politics has shattered
our hopes..."
Why did he resign?
The letter continues: "...The worshipful Master mentioned in his own letter of
resignation last month, that if the Lodge decides that not interfering in politics is
better for its own well being, then the Lodge should stay away form politics. I agree with
his assessment and acknowledge his wisdom. "
"However, and since first and foremost I am a politician, I have been engaged in
political activity outside the Lodge. This political activity has increased to the level
where it is occupying almost all of my time. Hence, I find it necessary to submit my
resignation both as an executive and an ordinary member. I hope that the Lodge will accept
my resignation since I will be no more than a dead weight from here on, and since the
Lodge has no use for the work I had hoped to achieve through its ranks, and which kept me
patiently waiting until today..."
Saadeh founded the Syrian Social Nationalist Party in 1932 to serve the Nationalist cause,
the cause for which he dedicated his life as we can read in the Oath of Zaamah.
On March 21, 1949, less than four months before his execution, he writes the following
letter to Ameed Ad-dakhiliah (the Party equivalent to Minister of the Interior) apparently
in response to a question regarding Party members who are also Freemasons. He says:
"In response to your memo numbered 140/2/17 dated January 3, 1949, regarding the
Freemasons, I hereby inform you that:
The international (generalist) and ambiguous objectives of Freemasonry are in direct
conflict with the objectives of the Social Nationalist objectives to the extent that there
could be no reconciliation between loyalty to the two at the same time. One is either a
Social Nationalist in ideology and objectives, or a Freemason. Hence, any Mason who wishes
to belong to the Social Nationalist creed and join the Social Nationalist Party has to
shake himself free of the Masonic principles and dissociate himself from its associations,
and to clearly declare this in his application form.
Long Live Syria,
(Signature)
This letter is published in volume 3 of Saadeh's letters, page 892, Beirut
To summarize, Saadeh joined Freemasons at age 20 or 21 and resigned at age 22. His reason
for joining was the same reason that prompted him to later found the SSNP, namely the
Syrian Nationalist cause for which he lived and for which he gave his life.
Thank you.
Oussama El-Mohtar
Back To Top
Question 5: It has been established as a fact that the Syrian
Nation does exist, by definition or according to the theory introduced in Saadeh's
"The Evolution of Nations". Why for so long now, many members of the Party, be
it in the bottom or the top of the Pyramid, insist on dealing with issues pertaining to
events developing only in Lebanon. The idea of the "Lebanese Entity" was
abolished by Saadeh, yet many in the leadership insist on giving it merit. Why? (31/3/97)
By "The Syrian Eagle"
Answer
Dear Syrian Eagle:
Your question was forwarded to me by the Web Master of the SSNP site.
I must begin my response to you by repeating what I had said to another questioner: It is
only appropriate to introduce oneself when one wishes to address somebody. Having said
that, allow me to make the following observations before getting to your main question:
1 . While I do not question the presence of the Syrian nation, let me just point out that
in Nushu' al Umam, (some people translate that as Genesis of Nations, you refer to it as
Evolution of Nations ) Sa3adeh did not introduce any theory. He says on page 15 of the
introduction: "This is a sociological and scientific book in which I have refrained
from any interpretations, theoretical assumptions and all branches of philosophy as much
as I could."...
2 . Sa3adeh did not abolish the Lebanese entity. Sa3deh aborted the attempt by the Party
leadership to change the Party from espousing Syrian unity to a Lebanese political party.
This attempt took placer during his exile between 1938 and 1947. He dealt with it
conclusively as soon as he returned in 1947. In this attempt, every thing Syrian became
Lebanese. The Party name was changed from the Syrian Social Nationalist Party to the
Social Nationalist Party. Even the Party's flag was changed.
3 . As for the Lebanese entity, and although you did not ask the question, I find it
necessary to quote the following from Saadeh since you made reference to "abolishing
of the Lebanese Entity." In an interview published in An-Nahda newspaper on November
19, 1937, he was asked: "The SSNP is accused of working to destroy the Lebanese
entity. Is this true? The following are some excerpts form his answer: "The
accusation was made but never proven. The reality is we are not enemies of the Lebanese
entity. We are not a party working for an arbitrary political unity.... We are working for
the national unity first. The political unity as such is not directly related to us but to
the nation.." Please refer to this document for more elaboration.
Turning now to your main question, about the party dealing only with issues pertaining to
events developing only in Lebanon, I don't think this is a very accurate statement, and it
could not be put in the context of Saadeh's handling of the 1947 incident mentioned above.
Lebanon has always been a stronghold for the party. The Party enjoys political freedom in
Lebanon which it does not have in some other parts of the nation. Secondly, the Lebanese
file is a very important file
especially in view of the overall Middle East situation, the Lebanese civil war, the
occupation of the South, and the continuous Israeli attempts to overwhelm Lebanon.
Thirdly, the party gives as much attention to the Palestinian issue and all its
derivatives, especially in light of the disastrous Oslo accords. Fourthly, the Party is
quite involved, in fact assuming a leadership role, in fighting "Normalisation"
with Israel on the local and Arab levels. Finally, the Party is quite involved in
establishing stronger economic, social, cultural and political ties among all states
within the nation starting with Lebanon and Syria. Hence, and as you can see, the Party
has a clear agenda consistent with its objectives.
I hope that this answers your question.
Tahya Souria
Oussama El-Mohtar
Back To Top
Question 6 : I,
as a firm believer in the Syrian Social Nationalist ideology, am completely opposed to the
so called "Peace Process" taking place in our nation today. However, being a
university student here in the United States, and not having much contact with party
members in the homeland, I would appreciate it if you could please state the party's
official stand concerning the "Peace Process" and what its alternative plan is.
Answer
On the ideological level:
The first Basic Principle, "Syria is for the Syrians and the Syrians are a complete
nation" provides the ideological background to answering this question. It is to be
stressed that all of the party’s policies have to emanate from its ideology.
Saadeh linked the concept of Peace of with the concept of rights. Hence he says: "It
is very easy to achieve world peace if some nations are willing to abandon their right to
live. We shall not be among this (some)". In another statement he says: "To us,
peace means that the enemies of our nation will have to submit to its right to life."
Saadeh, in explaining the first principle writes:
"The homeland belongs to the nation as a whole and no one, not even individual Syrian
citizens, may dispose of any part of its territory in such a way as to destroy or endanger
the integrity of the country, which integrity is a necessary condition for preserving the
unity of the Syrian nation."
In explaining the first Basic Principle on the Web Site, the author writes:
"The concept of 'land for peace' is completely unacceptable in this reference frame.
Based on this we understand Saadeh's objections to the surrender of the Alexandretta
district of northern Syria to the Turks before the Second World War and of the continuing
rejection by the Party of any settlements in southern Syria (Palestine) short of the
restitution of Syrian sovereignty over the entire Syrian Homeland".
On the practical level, the Party has been a key player since the mid seventies in
galvanizing all national efforts to oppose any "Peace for Land" attempts
precisely for the reasons explained above. The Party now is the spearhead in combating all
forms of the so called "Normalization" with the enemy.
Back To Top
Question7: Here is a question that I never had
a satisfactory answer to it: Do we SSNP's reject religions and Why; if not how much our
believes interferes with religious traditions and believes. Please let your answer be
based on Saade's speeches and writings.
Answer
The answer to the first part of your question is NO. Our position could be
summed up in one statement by Saadeh: "Inn-al jami3at-al diniyat-al rouhiyata la
khatara minha wa la khawfa 3alaiha. Amma-al jami3at-ul diniyattu, almadaniyatu was
siyasiyah, fatajlubu khataran kabiran 3alal-umami wal qawmiyati wa masalihi-ish su3ub.
The religious spiritual bond is neither to be feared nor threatened. But the religious
bond, on the civil and political levels, gravely threatens nations, nationalities and the
interests of peoples. The Ten Lectures, page 119, in explaining the first reform
principle.
For further elaboration on this basic concept, please refer to Saadeh’s letters to
Fakhri Maalouf, and to his articles in Junoon al Khouloud.
As for the second part of your question. We are opposed to many "sectarian"
traditions and beliefs, especially those that call for sectarian hatred and divisions.
Hence the Party calls for "Separation of religion and State"; it calls for
"Debarring the clergy from interference in political and judicial matters"; and
it calls for "Removal of the barriers between the various sects and
confessions". The three first Reform Principles. You will note that the Party does
not debar either religion, or the state, or the clergy, or the sects and confessions. It
calls for a new concept for the relation among all of them.
Oussama El-Mohtar
Back To Top
Question8: Socialism is dead and thats the
bottom line. Seeing how the middle east is primarly imhabited by Muslims it is only
fitting that Islam take a promient role in the daily lives of the majority. You cannot
separate religion from the state. Religion is what guides people to moralty and not
nationalism. Nationalism I might add is a new concept if you look at human history.
Religion is much older and thus must not be over looked or set aside. Nationalism is a
much potent force in creating differences between people and thus may create wars as we've
seen in WWI and II.
Tharwat Skeik
Board of Director
The Reform Party of Canada, Mississauga Centre Riding Association
Answer:
"Dear Mr. Skeik:
Thank you for your letter to us, it is always our pleasure to make acquaintance with new
visitors to our Web site.
Socialism may or may not be dead. This is a point of discussion among scholars all over
the world, and we would not want to venture such a sweeping statement as the one that you
made. However, we think that you might have confused the word "Social" meaning
(Ijtima3ey) with the word "Socialism" meaning (Ishtirakey). The name of our
party is (Al-7izb As-Soury Al-Qawmey Al-Ijtima3ey). The word social in the name is an
adjective describing the kind of nationalism that we believe in, namely "social
nationalism" encompassing all elements of society, as opposed to "racial
nationalism" or ethnic nationalism. Our concept of social nationalism is all
inclusive, while the other types are, by definition, exclusive.
While the Majority of people in the Middle East adhere to Islam as religion, not all
people in the Middle East do. Even among Muslims, there are several schools and sects
which are, in many instances, at odds. Hence, our call for separation of religion from
state, does not mean elimination of religion. On the contrary, it means equal rights to
all citizens based on the concept of nationality, and freedom of religion to all without
fear of persecution because of religious belief or affiliation. This, in our opinion, is
the only way to have civil peace in a nation that has more than 50 different sects.
You raise an interesting point when you say "Religion is what guides people to
morality and not nationalism." Morality is a relative concept and not an absolute.
This applies to religion as well. For example, the Jewish religion is based on two tenets:
the "Covenant" and the "Promised Land," and all that emanates from
them including all the Jewish laws that are designed to serve these two concepts. Are
these moral concepts as far as we are concerned? Are they not in direct conflict with our
existence?
As for the universal concepts of good and evil, and the moral commandments prohibiting
killing and cheating and stealing etc., these are moral concepts that predate all known
religions. In the code of Hamourabi, we find all those commandments. We find them among
the Sumerians, and among almost all peoples on this earth. We are not saying that religion
does not lead to morality. In most instances it does, but not necessarily always.
Nationalism does not also lead to morality by necessity. However, a new vision of morality
might emanate from a nationalist concept of identity. The founder of our Party, Antun
Sa3adeh, has written a great deal about this topic. I can refer you to some of his
writings if you so desire.
As for wars, wars have been with us since the dawn of time. There has been tribal wars,
imperial wars, religious wars, ethnic wars and nationalistic wars. Wars are a way of
resolving conflict or advancing interests. Muslims went to war to advance a new cause.
Again, I am not promoting war, but to dismiss nationalism as a concept, because of wars
would be like dismissing mathematics because it helped in building the atomic bomb.
I hope that the aforementioned has raised some points of interest for you, and I look
forward to a continued discussion.
Sincerely,
Oussama El-Mohtar"
"I am not an SSNP
member, though I truly respect Saade's ideology, and to be honest,I find myself moved by
most of his ideas... My question is, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask
it, how come most SSNP members I know, my boyfriend included,find it normal and dutiful to
kill jewish people, on the basis of their religion?
Isn't the Zionist movement what we are fighting? And isn't it against Saade's ideas about
human rights to kill? Please note that I am lebanese , and that I am not taking sides with
Israel, but I find it shameful that Saade's followers have such criminal and
descriminating thoughts.
By the way, that's a great site you have there."
N. A. (Beirut,Lebanon)
Answer:
Dear N.
First allow me to thank you for taking the time to write to us and also for your positive
comments about the site.
The subject matter of your question is a very important one and I wish to thank you for
bringing it up and giving us the opportunity to shed some light on this issue and probably
clear some misconceptions in that regard.
Let me try to tackle your question one part at a time hoping that by the end of this
letter I would have answered most of your concerns or at least sparked some new concerns
that would be the base for a continued conversation between us.
In the above question I can see three separate points that are worth exploring:
1. Our struggle with the Jewish Nation (or
Zionists - I will point out the difference, later in this document) is by no
means a religious struggle. It is rather a struggle of two contradictory
concepts: One that defines a Nation as a complete entity where
citizens are all equal regardless of their religion, and the other concept which defines a
Nation on religious grounds and claims its
rights to the Land on those same grounds.
In other words, it is not true that we fight or 'kill' the Jews on the basis of their
religion. We are at a state of war with the State of Israel. They define the state of
Israel to be the Jewish State (The safe haven of all the Jews in the world).
2. The second point I would like to point
out is the fact that no where in our basic principles, reform principles nor in our aim it
is mentioned that it is our duty to kill Jews. It is indeed our duty to rebuild our Nation
on secular grounds. It is also our duty to preserve our Nation and protect it against any
destructive ideas, behaviours and/or actions. This automatically puts us at odds with the
concept of a 'Jewish Nation' and hence with the state of Israel. By the same token, our
ideology also puts us at odds with the concept of a Moslem state or any other religious
state in the midst of our Nation.
The Zionist idea considers religion to be the basis of its claim to our land. Thus,
according to the Zionist concept, religion, history, national feeling are all but one
single thing.
Having said all that, I think it is clear why we consider ourselves in a state of war with
the Zionists. This war takes many shapes and forms and innocent people on both sides do
get killed. The Jewish individuals are not particularly our target. We tend, however, to
consider every Jew, who believes in his or her religious right to the Land of Palestine as
our enemy.
3. Finally, I would like to point out the big
difference between fighting a concept and killing individuals. I can assure you that we
are not against individuals who happen to belong to the Jewish faith by birth. We are
against Jews who believe that they and no one else have the right to the Land of Palestine
as their promised land. We are against Jews who believe in the Jewish state with what that
entails of hatred and animosity to our people.
If any person, whether Jewish or not, believes in the Zionist concept, then we are against
that person and we consider ourselves in a state of war with that person and the ideas he
or she represents.
On the other hand, if a person rejects the Zionist ideology (Even if he or she are
Jewish), then we have nothing against them.
There are many Jewish people who have disassociated themselves from the Zionist ideas. We
respect those people and have no animosity towards any of them. (To mention a few: Israel
Shahak, Naom Chomsky, Ben Morris, etc..).
I hope that in the above brief response (I say brief, because this topic could be the
subject matter of an entire book) I was able to shed some light on this very important
issue that you brought up.
Yours,
Fadi A Khalik
SSNP Site administrator.
ssnp@ssnp.com