Why Have Sharia Law In The West?

[Foxhole]

sixpakistan said

What if Muslims just implemented shariah in America the way America implemented democracy in Iraq?

I'm not saying I advocate that, but it's not unreasonable to see it happening within the next 100 years.

There's a key difference: Muslims in the US don't want Shari'a. Iraqis in Iraq do want democracy.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Foxhole said

There's a key difference: Muslims in the US don't want Shari'a. Iraqis in Iraq do want democracy.

That's okay, we'll just wait for the sky-high Muslim birthrate to bring about natural demographic change.

[Foxhole]

IbnMardhiyah said

That's okay, we'll just wait for the sky-high Muslim birthrate to bring about natural demographic change.

US citizens are required to defend the Constitution. Any movement desinged to bring about its overthrow will be met with force.

[Jamroll]

Foxhole said

US citizens are required to defend the Constitution. Any movement desinged to bring about its overthrow will be met with force.

That's not true. The current and previous administrations run by Bush have been hacking pieces out of it, bit by bit. No one's met them with force.

[jinnzaman]

Foxhole said

There's a key difference: Muslims in the US don't want Shari'a. Iraqis in Iraq do want democracy.

This argument is such tripe. How does one know what the Iraqis *truly* want? Did they petition the US government to invade their country and remove Saddam? What about the fact that a lot of groups, both Sunni and Shia, boycotted elections because they didn't feel it was valid? What about the fact that the Iraqi people wanted to insert a clause into the Iraqi constitution regarding the Shari'ah, but it was rejected by Paul Bremer who was not an elected representative of either the American or Iraqi people? What about the Muslims in Afghanistan? Can we truly say that they don't want Shari'ah when their Supreme Court in the purportedly legitimate government of Hamid Karzai wanted to implement a ruling against an apostate, but their judicial independence was infringed upon by Hamid Karzai after immense international pressure?

I would contest the claim that Muslims don't want Shari'ah. A recent poll conducted in the four most populous Muslim countries indicated that Muslims want Shari'ah. Moreover, in elections where Islamists are given fair opportunities to compete against non-Shari'ah proponents, they have done extremely successful.

For a detailed explanation of the democratic and Islamist arguments for Shari'ah, see the following post:
The Ballot or the Bullet: Islamists and Democracy | Global Intifada

[jinnzaman]

Foxhole said

US citizens are required to defend the Constitution. Any movement desinged to bring about its overthrow will be met with force.

Why couldn't Constitutional amendments be passed that legitimated Shari'ah?

The Supreme Court has already implemented restrictions on the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, no?

[IbnMardhiyah]

Foxhole said

US citizens are required to defend the Constitution. Any movement desinged to bring about its overthrow will be met with force.

Slow down on the hyperbole, superstar. Otherwise you'll be frothing at the mouth pretty soon.

USA is a democracy, and democracies are reflective of their constituencies. If there are enough American-born Muslims, they'll simply vote new paradigms into existence.

[Foxhole]

Jamroll said

That's not true. The current and previous administrations run by Bush have been hacking pieces out of it, bit by bit. No one's met them with force.

There have been no changes to the Constitution under Bush to my knowledge.

If any laws that have been passed under his term are unconstitutional, Congress or the Supreme Court will get around to fixing it. Democracy is self-correcting. That's one of its biggest strengths.

But to say that the Constitution has been at risk of being overthrown is absurd.

[Foxhole]

jinnzaman said

This argument is such tripe. How does one know what the Iraqis *truly* want? Did they petition the US government to invade their country and remove Saddam? What about the fact that a lot of groups, both Sunni and Shia, boycotted elections because they didn't feel it was valid? What about the fact that the Iraqi people wanted to insert a clause into the Iraqi constitution regarding the Shari'ah, but it was rejected by Paul Bremer who was not an elected representative of either the American or Iraqi people? What about the Muslims in Afghanistan? Can we truly say that they don't want Shari'ah when their Supreme Court in the purportedly legitimate government of Hamid Karzai wanted to implement a ruling against an apostate, but their judicial independence was infringed upon by Hamid Karzai after immense international pressure?

I would contest the claim that Muslims don't want Shari'ah. A recent poll conducted in the four most populous Muslim countries indicated that Muslims want Shari'ah. Moreover, in elections where Islamists are given fair opportunities to compete against non-Shari'ah proponents, they have done extremely successful.

For a detailed explanation of the democratic and Islamist arguments for Shari'ah, see the following post:
The Ballot or the Bullet: Islamists and Democracy | Global Intifada

All I claimed is that Iraqis want democracy. The Iraqi turnout on election days, with the threat of violence being what it was, speaks for itself.

I stand by my assertion that American Muslims, overall, recognize the benefits of secular democracy, and want it to stay that way in the US.

[Foxhole]

jinnzaman said

Why couldn't Constitutional amendments be passed that legitimated Shari'ah?

The Supreme Court has already implemented restrictions on the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, no?

A Constitutional amendmend that legitimized Shari'a would conflict with the foundational pillars of the document, including secular governance and the equality of all citizens under the law. The Constitution is not merely a procedure. It elaborates basic principles, which, if no longer in force, render the document meaningless. Of course the Constitution could be 'amended' piece by piece into anything, whether it be the Qur'an or Aesop's Fables.

Permanent secular democracy.

[Foxhole]

IbnMardhiyah said

Slow down on the hyperbole, superstar. Otherwise you'll be frothing at the mouth pretty soon.

USA is a democracy, and democracies are reflective of their constituencies. If there are enough American-born Muslims, they'll simply vote new paradigms into existence.

It is a democracy with a Constitution. If a new 'constituency' wants a new 'paradigm', they'll have to overthrow the Constitution, and I'll be on the other side of that battle line.

[Jamroll]

Foxhole said

There have been no changes to the Constitution under Bush to my knowledge.

If any laws that have been passed under his term are unconstitutional, Congress or the Supreme Court will get around to fixing it. Democracy is self-correcting. That's one of its biggest strengths.

But to say that the Constitution has been at risk of being overthrown is absurd.

It's not absurd. There is rarely a radical immediate change of a country's constitution. More often, it happens in small changes, over and over. It's not the huge bale that breaks the proverbail camel's back, but one tiny straw too many.

And as to your comment about Congress and the Supreme Court self-correcting eventually: by the time they get around to fixing it, it may be too late.

I think you, and other Americans, should familiarise yourselves with all the changes being made to the US system by the people in power, which will ultimately result in your country becoming a police state, if it's not stopped in time.

[jinnzaman]

Foxhole said

All I claimed is that Iraqis want democracy. The Iraqi turnout on election days, with the threat of violence being what it was, speaks for itself.

I stand by my assertion that American Muslims, overall, recognize the benefits of secular democracy, and want it to stay that way in the US.

The point that was being made was that if Americans don't like the notion of the Islamization of their country, it might be prudent to not interfere in Muslim countries and impose liberal democratic capitalism. I'm not talking just about Iraq, but there's a history of foreign intervention in the Muslim where Western states have supported puppets to thwart the ambitions of the people. This isn't just Iraq, but also Somalia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.

And in terms of "elections," again, there are plenty of examples where Islamists have one elections (Algeria, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon) and those elections were rejected by fascist regimes with little outcry from Western states directed at these undemocratic actions. This exposes a fundamental contradiction within the approach of most Western states. It seems rather hypocritical to posit in justifying foreign interventions that were directed primarily for economic gains (Iraq) under the guise of promoting democracy when there are a plethora of Islamist movements that have proven successful in democratic elections. There's a logical disconnect between the two and it seems that the more plausible explanation is that Western states do not want their hegemony compromised at all and Islamism is clearly a challenge to that hegemony. The talk about democratization seems to be all rhetoric.

[jinnzaman]

Foxhole said

A Constitutional amendmend that legitimized Shari'a would conflict with the foundational pillars of the document, including secular governance and the equality of all citizens under the law. The Constitution is not merely a procedure. It elaborates basic principles, which, if no longer in force, render the document meaningless. Of course the Constitution could be 'amended' piece by piece into anything, whether it be the Qur'an or Aesop's Fables.

Permanent secular democracy.

Who determines what the foundational pillars of the document are? The original constitution was predicated upon slavery, non-recognition of Native American societies, denial of rights towards women, disparate treatment between races, etc. Different generations have described the Constitution in different ways with different principles.

The Constitution's authority stems from the fact that it was purportedly approved by the people themselves, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation, which was more representative of states.

So again, I ask you, what are the foundational principles of the Constitution? Secularism? Equality? Capitalism? At different historical periods, the Constitution has come to mean different things.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Foxhole said

It is a democracy with a Constitution. If a new 'constituency' wants a new 'paradigm', they'll have to overthrow the Constitution, and I'll be on the other side of that battle line.

No one is talking about overthrowing anything or enacting anything by force or by starting a war, so please stop injecting extraneous and irrelevant items into the discussion.

If democracy is defined as governance or rule by the people, and if a certain, large segment of society wants faith-based arbitration to settle a variety of disputes, then who's gonna stop that?