Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Wesley

The Us First Amendment

Recommended Posts

Shari'a is often viewed as the path to best governance. Many secular countries views the US Constitution as a model within democracy. I want to promote an analysis of the US Constitution starting with the First Amendment. Below is its text. If you had the option to write or vote for this amendment in a Muslim Constitution, would you? Please explain why. If you differ, please offer a variant wording.

 

 

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

I can't wait until we get to the Third Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shari'a is often viewed as the path to best governance. Many secular countries views the US Constitution as a model within democracy. I want to promote an analysis of the US Constitution starting with the First Amendment. Below is its text. If you had the option to write or vote for this amendment in a Muslim Constitution, would you? Please explain why. If you differ, please offer a variant wording.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

Timothy Leary wanted to start his own religion but the US soon stamped on that .

 

 

regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy Leary wanted to start his own religion but the US soon stamped on that .

regards,

 

ron

 

The religion, are you referring to L5? I had to look this one up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is having issues with the First Amendment right now, in both respects to Catholic (conscience clauses) and Muslim (Shari'a) faiths. They also, in the past, oppressed Mormons- in outlawing polygamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The religion, are you referring to L5? I had to look this one up.

 

 

I can't find any reference to 'L5' on the internet (except some electronics devices etc).

 

If you haven't heard of Dr. Timothy Leary then that is because information is generally suppressed by the US government.

Try the Wiki link:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikiquote(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Timothy_Leary#Start_your_own_Religion_.281967.29"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikiquote(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Timothy_Leary...gion_.281967.29[/url]

 

Regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mormons had been run out of a lot of states, especially Missouri, in the 1800s. Luckily, the country was large enough that they were able to settle in the Utah area in significant enough numbers to become a state. They're pretty nice, upstanding people. It is not advantageous to deny any group that doesn't violate the rights of others the freedom to express their faith and worship as they see fit. To deny that would be to deny your nation skilled workers, engineers, scientists, teachers, community leaders, and any other role humans play in society.

 

As long as you don't harm another human being who has done you no wrong, why should anyone dictate to you what you should believe in regard to faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mormons had been run out of a lot of states, especially Missouri, in the 1800s. Luckily, the country was large enough that they were able to settle in the Utah area in significant enough numbers to become a state. They're pretty nice, upstanding people. It is not advantageous to deny any group that doesn't violate the rights of others the freedom to express their faith and worship as they see fit. To deny that would be to deny your nation skilled workers, engineers, scientists, teachers, community leaders, and any other role humans play in society.

 

As long as you don't harm another human being who has done you no wrong, why should anyone dictate to you what you should believe in regard to faith?

 

What you described were actions taken by private citizens against those of the early LDS church. The government fault in this is that those who persecuted the LDS were not prosecuted by the government. Now some, such as with the murder of Joseph Smith, were arrested but eventually were not convicted.

 

So, what we have is the government not providing justice to protect a religious minority from the religious majority. It is definitely wrong. Legally, the LDS was never banned from practicing their faith.

 

Are you suggesting then, that the Amendment for a Muslim nation include a provision to not deny any rights based upon religion? Or maybe to administer justice equally regardless of religious affiliation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US is having issues with the First Amendment right now, in both respects to Catholic (conscience clauses) and Muslim (Shari'a) faiths. They also, in the past, oppressed Mormons- in outlawing polygamy.

 

The 1890 law by the federal government to outlaw polygamy was a direct response to the practice of the LDS. How does one acknowledge freedom of religion when the religious laws, such as Shari'a, may differ from government laws. Or say a government has Shari'a law, but the citizen being prosecuted is not a Muslim. Should each religion have a code of law to cover each citizen?

 

What we have then, is aspects of the religion which then differ from government law. The actual religion is still allowed to be practiced, but not the components which are outlawed. Usually the outlawed components have to deal with the relation to the religion on other person's rights. I cannot say if polygamy could fall in that category unless the government believed the rights of the woman were violated. I'd have to look up case law to see.

 

I think the question about Shari'a in the US is due to questions such as apostasy. If Shari'a were allowed, would a Muslim in the US be allowed to become a member of another faith without being prosecuted by a Shari'a legal system. If the person were prosecuted, it would violate the 2nd person's freedom of religion. Remember, the rights of the US constitution are what is guaranteed to individuals as protections from government. Shari'a would have to be well defined, which it has not been unified amongst the Muslims of the US or as a whole.

Edited by Wesley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't find any reference to 'L5' on the internet (except some electronics devices etc).

 

If you haven't heard of Dr. Timothy Leary then that is because information is generally suppressed by the US government.

Try the Wiki link:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikiquote(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Timothy_Leary#Start_your_own_Religion_.281967.29"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikiquote(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Timothy_Leary...gion_.281967.29[/url]

 

Regards,

 

ron

 

The only thing I can find related to Timothy Leary and legal action is the response to the use of psychedelic drugs. At the time, drugs such as LSD were not illegal but eventually were outlawed. Thus, a key component to Timothy Leary's religious practice was forbidden. Now with the Navajo, the use of peyote is allowed for a similar purpose, as long as the use is only for religious practice.

 

This sets an interesting example. One could say LSD should be allowed for religious practice. Then, what would stop any person from saying, I use such-n-such drug for religious purposes? Eventually, no substance could be made illegal to consume. Maybe no substance should be made illegal?

 

Other aspects of Timothy Leary's religion is still being practiced by the L5. The key component is becoming the higher intelligence. They even helped design the Moon Treaty which was ratified by 14 nations, which says that all celestial bodies can not be used for any military purpose nor be owned by any nation on Earth. So, the religion Timoty Leary practiced is not banned, but a component of its practice is.

 

The key question to ask is, at what point would substance use, such as LSD, would affect the rights of another, if at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing I can find related to Timothy Leary and legal action is the response to the use of psychedelic drugs. At the time, drugs such as LSD were not illegal but eventually were outlawed. Thus, a key component to Timothy Leary's religious practice was forbidden. Now with the Navajo, the use of peyote is allowed for a similar purpose, as long as the use is only for religious practice.

 

This sets an interesting example. One could say LSD should be allowed for religious practice. Then, what would stop any person from saying, I use such-n-such drug for religious purposes? Eventually, no substance could be made illegal to consume. Maybe no substance should be made illegal?

 

Other aspects of Timothy Leary's religion is still being practiced by the L5. The key component is becoming the higher intelligence. They even helped design the Moon Treaty which was ratified by 14 nations, which says that all celestial bodies can not be used for any military purpose nor be owned by any nation on Earth. So, the religion Timoty Leary practiced is not banned, but a component of its practice is.

 

The key question to ask is, at what point would substance use, such as LSD, would affect the rights of another, if at all?

 

 

Well this is probably a whole topic of discussion in itself for those open to it.

Can you give a link for L5? I've never heard of it. So far as I'm aware Timothy Leary was never able to found his new religion due to obstruction of one sort or another by the American Government.

 

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well, firstly, Rule Britannia!! LOL!

 

Such statements - like freedom of religion in the early 1800s for Catholics in Britain - actually assume a Christian-like religion, with a 'Christian culture'. After Protestants and Catholics beating the hell out of each other, people got fed up of it all.

 

I am glad that the archbishop of Canterbury stood up for marriage being between a man and woman, but then the gay rights movement has protested him, and even some Anglican vicars. Nevertheless, gay rights could push the law through that 'civil partnerships' are the same as marriage and religious organisations would be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to bless such 'unions' in the same way as normal marriages.

 

It is logic ignoring common sense. I suppose the best solution in this case is to argue that the marriage service is a 'fertility blessing', thereby excluding same-sex partnerships instantly. You have to play a logic game.

 

In Britain, if atheists cannot sing "God save the Queen", should they be charged with treason? Probably not, but this is a whole mine field. Humanism is the main 'religious emotion' at present.

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

 

Shari'a is often viewed as the path to best governance. Many secular countries views the US Constitution as a model within democracy. I want to promote an analysis of the US Constitution starting with the First Amendment. Below is its text. If you had the option to write or vote for this amendment in a Muslim Constitution, would you? Please explain why. If you differ, please offer a variant wording.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

 

I would think that for most Muslim states today and in the future, most constitutions would explicitly say that Islam is the religion of the state, and Shariah is the law. Secularism would not be part of an Islamic constitution.

 

For matters on freedom of speech and assembly, most countries do not address this in the first statement of their constitutions. Most likely, it is addressed later with regards to the rights of citizens.

The rights of Muslims and non-Muslims would also be addressed under this category.

 

Various Muslim countries have different approaches and ideas with regards to this issue. In an ideal Islamic state, freedom of speech and assembly would have to be clearly defined in a Muslim constitution, i.e. what is allowed and what is prohibited.

 

For me, an Islamic state should arrange for the grievances of their people to be heard. In times of the Prophet (peace b upon him), he, as well as his companions, were always open to the people's grievances and complaints, and did not dismiss them. There was no need for assembly, or protests.

An ideal Islamic state would therefore allow greater communication between its leaders and the people, comparatively more so than what we have today. Free speech and assembly, are a means to have the peoples' voices heard, and are the next step to solve social injustices, and it's my personal view that the state should allow this, even if it is not truly necessary.

 

However, the state would also have to make clear, that any attempts of creating violence, unrest or disorder, through assembly would be met with punishment under Shariah law. I think this is only fair. This would also apply to speech; for example, if someone was to incite people to violence, or make derogatory remarks against religions, and their symbols or philosophies, they would also be punished under Shariah law.

 

For the the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims, it is an extensive subject, not one that can be covered in one post. The general principle is, to treat people fairly and justly, and to state their rights and terms clearly, according to the Shariah, in light of the Quran and Sunnah.

 

A lot of this is what I think, and I do not hold claim to what an Islamic state should be like. But in my view, this is how an Islamic state's constitution should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam

I would think that for most Muslim states today and in the future, most constitutions would explicitly say that Islam is the religion of the state, and Shariah is the law. Secularism would not be part of an Islamic constitution.

 

For matters on freedom of speech and assembly, most countries do not address this in the first statement of their constitutions. Most likely, it is addressed later with regards to the rights of citizens.

The rights of Muslims and non-Muslims would also be addressed under this category.

 

Various Muslim countries have different approaches and ideas with regards to this issue. In an ideal Islamic state, freedom of speech and assembly would have to be clearly defined in a Muslim constitution, i.e. what is allowed and what is prohibited.

 

For me, an Islamic state should arrange for the grievances of their people to be heard. In times of the Prophet (peace b upon him), he, as well as his companions, were always open to the people's grievances and complaints, and did not dismiss them. There was no need for assembly, or protests.

An ideal Islamic state would therefore allow greater communication between its leaders and the people, comparatively more so than what we have today. Free speech and assembly, are a means to have the peoples' voices heard, and are the next step to solve social injustices, and it's my personal view that the state should allow this, even if it is not truly necessary.

 

However, the state would also have to make clear, that any attempts of creating violence, unrest or disorder, through assembly would be met with punishment under Shariah law. I think this is only fair. This would also apply to speech; for example, if someone was to incite people to violence, or make derogatory remarks against religions, and their symbols or philosophies, they would also be punished under Shariah law.

 

For the the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims, it is an extensive subject, not one that can be covered in one post. The general principle is, to treat people fairly and justly, and to state their rights and terms clearly, according to the Shariah, in light of the Quran and Sunnah.

 

A lot of this is what I think, and I do not hold claim to what an Islamic state should be like. But in my view, this is how an Islamic state's constitution should be.

 

Would all religions be allowed to practice freely and worship freely? I know some countries restrict public Christian services or deny building permits for churches. Some countries only recognize a few religions. Can people freely change religion?

 

Is there any example in the Muslim world which most closely fits what you believe would be right?

I agree with your principles of free speech and assembly. To empower that relationship, much authority would have to be granted to the lowest, most local levels of government. Population/leader ratio would have to be minimized so that voices could be heard and answered.

 

Also, how would you reword that 1st amendment? You mentioned the designation of that right wouldn't be at the beginning of the constitution. It isn't in the first part of the constitution either. it is an amendment to the original portion of the constitution. The original portion defined the roles of government. The Amendments define other matters as they were defined through time. The first 10 amendments dealt with citizen's rights in relation to government.

 

Finally, you did mention rights of Muslims and non-Muslims. Would there need to be two versions of each statement of rights to distinguish between the two groups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would all religions be allowed to practice freely and worship freely? I know some countries restrict public Christian services or deny building permits for churches. Some countries only recognize a few religions.

 

Yes they would be allowed to practise freely.

 

Can people freely change religion?

 

Apostasy in Islam is a highly debated topic.

From my understanding, it depends on the convert. If one converts to Islam, with the intention to infiltrate Muslim society and ranks, and incite unrest, and then leave Islam after he has attempted this act, his punishment for this treachery is death.

If one simply leaves Islam with no harm, ill feelings, or other sinister motives, there is no punishment. This is evident from a hadith, where the Prophet let an old Muslim man leave Islam freely after he requested the Prophet of this.

 

Non-muslims can convert to a religion as they please, as long as it is with good intentions.

 

Is there any example in the Muslim world which most closely fits what you believe would be right?

I believe there is good in every Muslim country, but none fits the description.

Malaysia allows freedom of worship, but there are issues regarding the treatment of minorities, apostasy and tensions between the different religious and racial communities here, which still needs to be worked out.

 

Also, how would you reword that 1st amendment? You mentioned the designation of that right wouldn't be at the beginning of the constitution. It isn't in the first part of the constitution either. it is an amendment to the original portion of the constitution. The original portion defined the roles of government. The Amendments define other matters as they were defined through time. The first 10 amendments dealt with citizen's rights in relation to government.

 

I see. I get a clearer picture now, of the US Amendments, and Constitution.

 

I think if Muslims rulers were to change their citizens' rights, a new constitution would be written altogether. But let's say they make amendments. If so, i would reword the 1st amendment as: The Islamic council, or Majlis, establishes the right of its citizens to petition the government in an office of law, under the jurisdiction of a qualified qadi (judge), for a redress in grievances. The council establishes the rights of free speech and assembly to its citizens, within the Shariah, or the respective religious or communal laws.

 

Finally, you did mention rights of Muslims and non-Muslims. Would there need to be two versions of each statement of rights to distinguish between the two groups?

 

A constitution usually in an Islamic state, would include both the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims in a single document. The right could be a universal one applied equally to both Muslims or non-Muslims, or there could be some differences in rights for the two groups. If it is the latter one, then yes, there needs to be two statements. If it is the former, then one statement would suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before that amendment exists, where the "qualified" judge can be utilized, can members of the government be of various religions? Could there be a Hindu judge or a Jewish lawmaker? Or an atheist president? what would be composition of the Muslim government be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before that amendment exists, where the "qualified" judge can be utilized, can members of the government be of various religions? Could there be a Hindu judge or a Jewish lawmaker? Or an atheist president? what would be composition of the Muslim government be?

 

When it comes to president/Khalifa, it has to be a Muslim. To have a member of another religion representing a Muslim state would be contradictory. However when it comes to senators and judges, I think there could possibly be a chance for members of other religions. In my opinion, I think those spots would only be open to a Christian or Jew if not a Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When it comes to president/Khalifa, it has to be a Muslim. To have a member of another religion representing a Muslim state would be contradictory. However when it comes to senators and judges, I think there could possibly be a chance for members of other religions. In my opinion, I think those spots would only be open to a Christian or Jew if not a Muslim.

 

 

Would the president/Khlalifa be elected? I presume not. Would political parties of diferring beliefs be allowed? I presume not. So a Muslim state would be what is known as a 'totalitarian' state. Politics would not be allowed as we know them. Dissent would not be tolerated. This sounds like what's been happening in the middle east doesn't it?

 

Who was it who said: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" ?

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would the president/Khlalifa be elected? I presume not. Would political parties of diferring beliefs be allowed? I presume not. So a Muslim state would be what is known as a 'totalitarian' state. Politics would not be allowed as we know them. Dissent would not be tolerated. This sounds like what's been happening in the middle east doesn't it?

 

Who was it who said: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" ?

 

ron

 

It doesn't matter how a leader is 'elected'. And in Islam we don't give power to people who ask for it. As long as a leader rules with Islam then the Muslims obey him - thats it. We do not need multiple parties and whatever else the non-Muslims offer. All that matters is that the leader and his government obeys the Islamic constitution and laws.

 

The example the Muslims want to follow is that of the Prophet(saw) and the first four Caliphs. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali(may Allah be pleased with them all). That is the model which Muslims seek to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shari'a is often viewed as the path to best governance. Many secular countries views the US Constitution as a model within democracy. I want to promote an analysis of the US Constitution starting with the First Amendment. Below is its text. If you had the option to write or vote for this amendment in a Muslim Constitution, would you? Please explain why. If you differ, please offer a variant wording.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

I am not going to say 'yes I would' because I don't know what the Islamic position is on these issues. For example Idol worshiping would probably not be allowed and idols will be destroyed just like the Prophets Ibrahim and Muhammad(peace be upon them both) did.

 

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/i]

 

Holding government accountable and making sure the leaders serve the people is something very important as can be clearly seen during the rule of the first four Caliphs of Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter how a leader is 'elected'. And in Islam we don't give power to people who ask for it. As long as a leader rules with Islam then the Muslims obey him - thats it. We do not need multiple parties and whatever else the non-Muslims offer. All that matters is that the leader and his government obeys the Islamic constitution and laws.

 

The example the Muslims want to follow is that of the Prophet(saw) and the first four Caliphs. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali(may Allah be pleased with them all). That is the model which Muslims seek to follow.

 

 

I hesitate to find fault with your post in the same way that I would hestitate to challange a dictator.

However, I would suggest that you are speaking from an idealistic and hypothetical point of view, at best. You say: "we" several times, and you also say what Muslims want and the model which they seek to follow. To me this looks like a naive idealism which ignores 'human nature'. Surely, as you must very well know, people disagree with each other from time to time. You are presumably not able to point to one country or state in the world at the present time which epitomises your ideal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

As you are actually speaking of a totalitarian and dictatorial system - be it Muslim or any other supposedly unified system such as communism - I think you will find that in the modern world the breath of freedom blows perhaps just a litlle stronger than you might imagine. After all we are speaking of running a country containing millions, if not more people, not a small tribal village.

Or maybe you yourself have identified with 'Al Malik' - The King.

 

regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before that amendment exists, where the "qualified" judge can be utilized, can members of the government be of various religions? Could there be a Hindu judge or a Jewish lawmaker? Or an atheist president? what would be composition of the Muslim government be?

 

As a member metioned before, it is possible that judges or lawmakers can be non-Muslim.

Usually in a Muslim state, the legislation for Muslims and non-Muslims are differrent, and therefore non-Muslims in senior positions such as judges and lawmakers are needed to run the affairs of their own respective communities.

 

The leader of the Muslim state would have to be Muslim. Each non-Muslim community can send their own leaders as representatives of their communities, when it comes to discussion of affairs or negotiations, with the Muslim leader.

 

Would the president/Khlalifa be elected? I presume not. Would political parties of diferring beliefs be allowed? I presume not. So a Muslim state would be what is known as a 'totalitarian' state. Politics would not be allowed as we know them. Dissent would not be tolerated. This sounds like what's been happening in the middle east doesn't it?

 

Politcal parties are just tools of partisan politics which sow discord and division.

 

On the other hand, as I am about to explain, the Khalif prevents this. The Khalif is and has always historically been chosen by means of shura or consultation, by a majlis, or Islamic council of representatives or leaders. This council consists of important senior leaders in the Muslim community. These leaders choose their Khalif by popular vote.

The common people choose the leaders, which are usually leaders in the majlis, or community leaders who are subservient to the Islamic council. The people have some say in the choosing of their leader, it is just not absolute power by means of popular electoral vote.

If there is a grievance that needs to be voiced out by the people, they can do so in the courts, as history of the caliphates have shown. Alternatively, they can hold peaceful protests, negotiations and signing of treaties to come to common terms.

 

I believe this is a better system because

1) It leaves the decision of choosing the Khalif, to the members of the majlis, who are more in tune to the affiars of the state. They are better qualified in choosing a leader, whom they personally know.

 

A common person may not have the full knowledge of the state's affairs (very often, common people are biased and only see their country through their eyes, or are subject to propaganda, and this leads to political bias when it comes to voting in democratic countries). Common people mostly do not know their leader personally, and cannot make a well informed decision based on the leader's character when voting, other than what is reported in the media, which is just unconfirmed hearsay.

 

2) The Khalif gives ample oppurtunity to the common people to voice their grievances, as mentioned in the methods above, without the need of violence or unrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×