Islam does not allow the Constitution?

So I was reading an article by Daniel "tubes". Exciting said about the ideology of the Islamic movement, "in particular, it seeks to establish an Islamic State in Turkey, and replaced by an Islamic State, Israel and the United States Constitution with the Quran."

While not speak about the Arab Middle East policy, or Turkey, is the last part of this sentence, I find an interesting conclusion that makes pipes ... anyone would prefer "Islamic law" (in the material case, the Islamists) are the people who were defending the replacement of the democratically developed "constitutional law" with "Koranic laws."

Override the Islamists crazy for a second time (mainly, but not limited to the Wahhabi and Salafi), let's assume that the tube is talking about any and all Muslims here. again, he concluded that any person who believes in a system of laws based on the principles of Islamic perfect looking actively replace constitutional laws with Islamic law? Do you believe that there is no similar or compatible on the rule of law, democracy and the rule of law in the West?

To say a true Muslim country, whether democratic or Republican or thiomokrasi *, would not require a Constitution, but one needs to keep in accordance with the "year of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)". I'm not sure if Daniel Pipes does not know or forgot when writing this article, but history accepts that prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was a social contract (and not what the Constitution is?) for citizens of the city after city in 622CE called.

Read ahead yourself now and tell me if you think, based on historical evidence that a nation of laws based on Sharia is incompatible with the Constitution.

New York skin towards the end of the fifth century, Jewish tribes in yathrib * lost control of the city into two Arab tribes from Yemen Australia Banu Khazraj Banu.Oppose Arab and Jewish unique about 120 years. After the war, the Jewish population and they become clients of the Arab tribes. Jewish tribes soon began revolutionizing crowned "battle boath" 620 m shares this war all clans and tribes in yathrib. After the war, both sides agreed that they needed one authority to arbitrate conflicts if they always keep peace. In 620CE delegation from the city's most important clans of 12 to Mecca at the invitation of Muhammad as a neutral party needed to serve as an arbiter of the city. Before Muhammad, Muslim population emigrated in 622 Mecca, the Prophet Mohammed, in what became known as Hijri.

Arrival in Medina, I work orders to create social contract was the resolution of grievances tribal long-standing city to unite people adhere to ethical standards. This contract has become known as the "Constitution". Delegated rights and duties of all citizens and the nature of relationships between different tribes.Society knew from a religious perspective, but also maintain legal forms of the old Arab tribes.Actually, the first Islamic State.

Sohail Hashmi describes significant when h wrote in his essay "the liberal Islamic Ethics cultivation" build "civil society", "basis of the first Islamic civil society was literally a social contract." Constitution "so-called mutual rights and obligations of all members of the Islamic society.Tribal, defacement and replaced these tribalism with nation community of believers.What made previously completed city tribes and their guests newly arrived from Mecca to accepted community of common ethical standards still unfolding ' Quranic revelation, Mohamed. discussing the exact role that community was Muhammad. the obvious that the Prophet did not seek to eliminate tribal authority. cycle seems to be the final judgment in any social conflicts may arise in that society."

Judging by the scholarship Suhail h Hashemi, Arab tribal leaders "of the city have their say in their affairs, as did the Muslims, as do the Jews, and only when agreement is reached, Muhammad (PBUH) looked to as arbitrator agreed.

Since Muhammad (PBUH) is the final authority on interpretation of the Quran and Islamic traditions, all necessary to accept that I State headed by the first Islamic State, and then, in its purest form. As shown in the agreed "Constitution", not a dictatorship, ruled by a single person, or even Republicans.People Medina enforcement and live alone mutually agree on ethics, the unified aurdinmint necessarily be arbitrated conflicts when they were unable to resolve the issues themselves.

So, now that we have an idea of what "the Constitution of Medina", we can say that the rule of law in a State based on the principles of Islam must be determined by the Quran and not the Constitution?

The answer is no.

The "State" in the city in accordance with the principles of Islam Koran and won't interfere with it.It cannot be said that there was anything against Islam because Muhammad is one who put the social contract. the argument that "the Constitution of the city against the teachings of Islam against the Prophet himself.Even if we extrapolate this believe that anything in the Constitution of the city "should be included in any" State ".Thus, any "State" should be based on the Constitution will be competing for an Islamic State was established in accordance with Islamic tradition and not having a Constitution.It would be inaccurate to say that abolishing Islamic State Constitution as shown, for the Quran. only those who do not understand "history", he would assume that a country based on Islamic principles will require repeal of constitutional law.Whether it will have a completely different point amindmintes make do.

And then, like I said, "Daniel Pipes" wrong in assuming that Muslims who wouldn't mind Government, founded on the principles of Islam want to replace the State Constitution with the Koran.Unless "Islamists" mean Muslims political Islamic school for views that involve warring against democracies of Western (and Eastern), fighting against anything they cancel or incompatible with Islam as defined by gone (Caliphs 4 I), in this case, they're crazy, maybe not understanding history themselves.

What we can take away from this? well, if we divide the above arguments of modern political geography, we come to understand that Islam and the Islamic State, is not incompatible with the basic ideology of democracy, democratic society. Indeed, if we understand the tribes to the representative of all people in "the Constitution of Medina Medina", can easily see that their say in their affairs, similar to a democracy, and that the role of Muhammad (PBUH) similar to the modern era, where the Supreme Court judge was arbitrated cases that could not be determined by the people or accepted in society at large, under social laws and rules established by the society.

What is the lesson here? and lesson that Islamic countries should move this national political ideologies towards social democracies based on "Islamic laws should call Muslims which seeks to establish Islamic States based on rulings of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) walkhlfaa raitligoidid even create States not only not repressive towards non-Muslims, or against Muslim communities, but accept them and their ideas and social norms, since they do not conflict with national interests.

* Thiomokrasi is just a word used to describe laws that democracies are based on the principles of the religion. examples thiomokrasis will Israel and Pakistan.

* Name changed to yathrib. derived from the Aramaic word for city midinta; it uses the Jewish population of the city, instead of calling the yathrib.

Paula Raj is the author of the blog blog examines islamoblog. Islam historical philosophical, political and popular. If you want to read more by Raj, you have any questions about content or wish to contribute to the blog, you can contact him at islamoblogger@gmail.com