Did Islam influence the federalist system of government established by the US Constitution?
aka
The Muslims' Illusions of Grandeur


Email forwards are more thought-provoking than I am usually willing to admit. Here's one I got recently:

One thing that was interesting was attendance for a lecture given by a Lebanese woman who is a professor of law in the US. She is a specialist in WS constitutional law. She has done some original research and found out that one of the founders of the US constitution (Thomas Jefferson) owned a copy of the Slate translated Qur’an that was two parts. Slate's first part was about the Prophet (SWS) and his life, etc and the second was the Qur’an, as we know it. She discovered that by reviewing Jefferson's library that was donated to the library of congress. She says that the form of federalism that was adopted in the US constitution was not known in Europe or anywhere else. She thinks it came from the (Meethaq al Madina) that the Prophet wrote, giving Jewish and Moslem tribes each their own religion, etc but all one community. Jefferson replaced the tribes with the states and here you have the federalist system. Also, the election (Al bai'ah) and how the Prophet only became the ruler after the people elected him, a system not known elsewhere 15 centuries ago. Also,al Shurah (al Ijtihaad, etc. all things of democracy). It is too bad that the Ommayad's (Ibn Abe Sufian) made it into an inheritance and from then on it became dynasties following each other, without shura or bai'ah, when the Prophet (SWS) himself, did not name a successor....but left it to the people to choose. You know, we all know all these things, but not in the context of the US constitution. put together, it is a very powerful force for democracy in Islamic countries, which we have not known since al khulafa al rashedeen. Maybe only in the time of the Califah Omar, who was the third and then Califah Abdel Aziz, whose nickname was el Adl, because he was so just. She also spoke of Moslem women's rights, and how they have a separate zimah maleyah, etc. also not known in Europe except many centuries later. As you can imagine, the audience of Muslims and Americans, the Americans were in shock. It appears that we Muslims have been unable to organize properly and get our message to the larger community. One last observation, she noted that Moslem immigrants, many of them engineers and doctors, etc but not many are lawyers (Code Napoleon in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon) is not applicable to the Anglo laws of US and UK. Lawyers are mostly the ones who are dealing with constitutional issues, Public information, etc. that is partly a reason for Moslems not getting their case articulated well.

Excuse the slightly irate nature of my response:

The Islamic form of government is not democracy, it is a meritocratic theocracy. There is no provision for everyone to vote, and the ruler is not picked by all state citizens, only Muslims. If I am not wrong, the guidance is to "pick the best amongst you" where the "you" refers to the group of learned Muslims, the elders of society, so as to speak. Finally, in a democracy the final word is that of the majority. In a theocracy, as in Islamic government, there are certain inalienable rulesi.e.,e. the Quran. The US Constitution is not the same, because it can be ammeded by a popular vote. Hence, its tenents are ultimately due to the people's willingness to codify those tenents.

As for Jefferson, I am sure he, together with many other learned people, did study the Islamic tradition, if for no other reason than that the West did not have the same cultural ascendancy over Islam back then. However, the concepts that the founding fathers espoused in the Constitution are a more direct outgrowth of the Magna Carta movement and individualism, plus the Church of England's oppression of certain religous sections and European conflict between the religious establishments and government, and finally the failure of the confederation model (tried for a few decades before the US Consitution was drawn up) are the most direct forming factors for the US federalist system.

We Muslims suffer from the same self-centerism that Americans do, that all good things must somehow come from us. We have a proud history of achievement and our influence is wide-spread, but unsubstantiated claims such as this only hurt us, not help us. We don't need illusions of grandeur. What we need are practical solutions.

Young Americans who pledge abstinence have the same rates of STDs as those who do not, a new study says.

I thought I had lost the entry below, so here's another version of the same argument:

Burying your head in the sand is no way to tackle the very real problem of sexual activity in teens. Talk about how to teach them to protect themselves without seeming to give them a license. Talk to them about the benefits of abstinence until you find the right person. Help them. But don't expect them to be perfect, or to do exactly what you want them to do. They are human beings too, you know. It's a shame that the kids who take on the challenge of abstinence suffer from the same STD rates as those who don't, simply becasue their adults equated abstinence with ignorance. If these kids were made to realize their fallibility and were prepared too, imagine how much anguish would have been prevented...

See previous post
I've always found the argument against sex ed to be a bit unsettling. Call it my left-wing tendencies, but more information is always better, not worse. I understand that there is a line between teaching teenagers how to protect themselves and promoting sexual activity. However, we need to talk about where that line is, not about abolishing one side altogether. Should we not teach our kids how to avoid sexual predators, or to confide in us if someone abuses them in a sexual way? We find a way of balancing it, by not keeping our children indoors all the time and yet making them aware of the dangers they face. Sexuality is a difficult subject to talk about, especially with teenagers where Mother Nature is often making our task so much harder. But this study provides solid evidence for the argument that simply assuming that kids won't do it because you don't want them to doesn't work. We aren't perfect. I will warn my children of the moral and physical dangers of multiple partner sex. I will share with them my experience, that sex is best abstained from until you have found someone you want to spend the rest of your life with. If you believe in marriage being that commitment, then this translates into abstinence from pre-marital sex. And I will not give my son or daughter a condom to carry around in his or her purse, because they may be unduly influenced by my role in their life and construe this as a license, not as a precaution. That's the kind of life I'd draw. But sex ed is definitely in. If my child is going to make what I believe may be a mistake, I don't want it to alter their lives irrevocably. STDs, esp. AIDS, or pregnancies, even those aborted early, will do that to a child, you know.

These guys, on the other hand, are probably better off in Saudi Arabia: Powell's condoms comments draw ire. Kudos, Powell, but what happened to you, my man?

The Atkins diet - and others that limit carbohydrates - are likely to put you in a bad mood, research has found.

Isn't it amazing how good eating habits are so hard to maintain, and yet along comes a guy who says, eat as much bacon as you want (exaggeration), and people just refuse to let go, no matter what other doctors, and the not-so-common common sense, says?

Let's talk in simplistic terms. It takes more energy (a tad bit) to digest meats than bread. Fine. Most people find meat more filling than bread. Fine. So here's a proposed diet: reduce refined, starchy foods (read bread) and increase protien uptake (chicken, turkey?). As it is, refined carbs are mostly a human creation, not a natural one. There's nothing wrong with substituting that morning bagel with fruit, or cereal with milk.

But when someone tells you to eat saturated fat, yes, saturated fat, as up to a fifth of your diet, shouldn't that set off all sorts of alarms ringing?

Cliches have the annoying habit of being true. You can not in fact have your cake and eat it, no matter what anyone else says. It's time to lay this myth to rest.