Constitution in Final Draft (Please Read)

[kaiwai]

Salam Mahmud,

I did not understand the point you are making. freedom of speech and freedom of faith have already been granted above, so why repeat them?

The issue you have is with the entire election structure or just the run-off part? Please expand.

I see your point, but I am at odds with changing this as we are commanded to rule in accordance to the Quran. Also, I have a fear of the hadith/shariah laws finding there way into the justice system, this is why I think we need to focus of the Quran as the only source of laws.

I find the American system extremely flawed. Also, the system we are propsing is to have the PM under the parliament (not as its head) whereby his/her authorities and powers are controlled by the parliament.

For those who hold differing views on matters of private concerns; examples of this could include homosexuality/bisexuality/transgendered. As so long as these differences don't disrupt the harmony on society, that is, infringe on the rights of others, there needs to he a specific to protect us/them.

There are no specifics within the Quran with forbid homosexuality; there are sections which talk about heterosexual males wishing to engage in homosexual activities for sexual release or for pagan festivals (such as the worship of Molech the fertility god mentioned in the story of Lot) but nothing outside of that.

[Mahmud_H]

Hi Layth,

Ruling in accordance with the principles of the Quran should not mean taking the Quran as a constitutional document. Since there is no compulsion in religion, there very principles of the Quran demand the the Quran is not a governing entity.

Rather, if a state is governed according to the principles of the Quran, it means those in power are taking to heart the words of the Prophet and are ruling according to the will of Allah. Not because they are forced to, but because they actually understand the difference between right and wrong and do what is right.

Entrenched constitutions are about compulsion. The existence of a State is upheld by systematic violence or threat of violence. In a righteous state this is all in the cause of upholding freedom, freedom to life, liberty and property, which includes freedom of religion. But if you entrench a state religion in the constitution that is associating the religion with the systematic violence which is undermining choice, and against the very nature of the Quran.

You translated 5:48 - "For each of you We have made laws, and a structure" - surely this means the laws are on an individual level and not a political obstacle to democracy?

[Mahmud_H]

The issue you have is with the entire election structure or just the run-off part? Please expand.

The two are linked. A run off ballot requires single member constituencies. Single Transferable Vote systems requires multi-member constitutencies.

The issue I have with run off ballots are that they aren't a form of proportional representation. They're just an artifical device to give an elected figure the illusion of a majority. Who wins in the first round is in no way representive of the popular will.

Say you have 9 candidates, 1 fascist, 1 communist, and 7 moderates. The facist gets 15% of the vote, the communist 15% and all the rest get 10%. Despite the fact that 70% of people hate fascism and communism, they will all have to choose between the two, and the run off ballot will give one or the other over 50% of the vote.

It's a ridiculous system. Far better are systems where you number of your preferences, 1 for your favourite, 2 for your second favourite, etc.

An "Alternative Vote" system does this for a single member constitutency. The votes for the least favourite are reallocated first, until one candidate gets over 50% of the vote. This gives a genuine majority for the genuinely favourite candidate.

A "Single Transferable Vote" system does the same for a multi-member constituency. So say you have a constituency of 700,000 people, there would be 7 seats availble. Votes will be numbered as with Alternative Vote, but instead of 1 being chosen, 7 will be. The result is 'proportional representation' where the different candidates chosen reflect the diversity in views of the people. So if the voters are 3/7ths socialist and 4/7ths liberal, you'll probably get 3 Socialist candidates elected for the area and 4 Liberals elected.

[Layth]

Salam,

I understand what you have said about the Quran being the source of all laws having a double edged sword. You basically want to trust the people to be mature enough so as to argue the laws and each present his/her evidence.

i.e. something along the lines:

3-1 "The power to make laws, keeping with the spirit of justice, with such laws being open to subsequent change and/or review."

On the voting issue, I think I have understood your point.

If interested, send me your e-mail and we can cover the wording of the actual document sections (laytth@hotmail.com)

[Layth]

Salam,

Here is the revised text for the sections under discussion:

Seats to the national council will be granted to those nominees who achieve a majority vote from the district where they reside. Votes in single member districts will be made on the basis of alternative voting, while votes in multiple member districts will be made on the basis of single transferable voting.

3.1   The power to make, review, amend, and repeal laws in accordance with the principles of justice. (4:58)

[AlFajr]

For those who hold differing views on matters of private concerns; examples of this could include homosexuality/bisexuality/transgendered. As so long as these differences don't disrupt the harmony on society, that is, infringe on the rights of others, there needs to he a specific to protect us/them.

There are no specifics within the Quran with forbid homosexuality; there are sections which talk about heterosexual males wishing to engage in homosexual activities for sexual release or for pagan festivals (such as the worship of Molech the fertility god mentioned in the story of Lot) but nothing outside of that.

6:151 Say: "Come let me recite for you what your Lord has forbidden for you: that you should not set up anything with Him; and be kind to your parents; and do not kill your children for fear of poverty, We provide for you and for them; and do not come near lewdness, what is plain of it or subtle; and do not kill the soul which God has forbidden, except in justice. That is what He enjoined you that you may comprehend."

[kaiwai]

6:151 Say: "Come let me recite for you what your Lord has forbidden for you: that you should not set up anything with Him; and be kind to your parents; and do not kill your children for fear of poverty, We provide for you and for them; and do not come near lewdness, what is plain of it or subtle; and do not kill the soul which God has forbidden, except in justice. That is what He enjoined you that you may comprehend."

But my 'homosexuality' has nothing to with having sex with men for sexual release, but the fact that I have no attraction what so ever to females and that I long to have a partner of the same sex in a long term relationship. Regarding 'shameful doings' - I don't think that a loving long term relationship with a member of the same sex is considered a 'shameful act'.

[Lost Philosopher]

This constitution looks impressive, I think the only thing missing is the protection of a persons sexual orientation from prejudice. The only thing I disagreed with is the amount of power of the legislative branch and the micromangement of the executive branch. Also, what are the restrictions for becoming a Prime Minister? I would love to try and run for office when I come to the required age.

[kaiwai]

This constitution looks impressive, I think the only thing missing is the protection of a persons sexual orientation from prejudice. The only thing I disagreed with is the amount of power of the legislative branch and the micromangement of the executive branch. Also, what are the restrictions for becoming a Prime Minister? I would love to try and run for office when I come to the required age.

My concern comes to the 'right to privacy' how private is that privacy. If I grow some weed in my garage, and its on my property and its for my own personal use, does the law have the right to come into my property? Lets assume I have a swingers evening once a week, and I cause no disruption to the neighbour's - is there any right of the government to impose their brand of morality in my private property?

Do we take the approach of having 'vice and virtue police' or do we have police which protect property but leave morality up to the individual as so long as it doesn't disrupt the peace?

[Lost Philosopher]

In that case I feel that marijuana should be legal to posses, grow, and consume,(in a safe enviroment) but not distribute. Im guessing the a swingers evening is something sexual, so as long as no one gets hurt, not causing any disturbance, and protection readily available then its absolutley acceptble.

Also, I would like to know about gun ownership rights, would it be legal to own weapons?