January 16, 2008

Mike Huckabee's Christian Shari'ah

So, how is what Mike Huckabee said about trying to change the U.S. Constitution to reflect Christian beliefs any different from Muslims wanting to adopt Shari'ah as the basis for a law of the land.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

Oh, that's right... It's OK when Christians want their own Shari'ah, but not when Muslims do.

10 comments:

Julaybib said...

Excellent post!

Sara said...

It is not okay, except for the few thousand Christian fundamentalists who wish to impose their religion into every aspect of life, ignoring the Contititution and one's individual liberties.

This is why Huckabee doesn't have a chance of winning. Most American's are happy keeping religion out of their government, even if it is their own. American's see him as being as much of a danger to society as Osama bin Laden.

George Carty said...

I thought the only people who wanted to impose religious law on America were the Dominionists, who do not have anything like the level of popular support there that the Islamists have in the Muslim world...

Saifuddin said...

BismillaharRahmanirRahim

as-salaamu 'alaikum. I always thought the idea of Christian law was strange because law, in these terms is one of the things that appears Christianity did not develop. Seems like tricky business...

JDsg said...

Sara: I would agree with your comment for the most part, but the problem as I see it is that Huckabee has a much better chance of winning now than he had a few months ago. If America can elect Bush (whom my non-American wife can't understand how he could possibly have been elected in the first place), they can elect Huckabee. Which, IMO, doesn't say much for the American electorate.

George: I think Huckabee is a Dominionist, with the American Christian right recognizing him as such, and I think that shows that support for Dominionism is more widespread than earlier believed.

Saifuddin: I agree. Shari'ah, at least, is fairly well developed. People may not agree with shari'ah, but they probably have a decent understanding of what it entails. I don't think you can say the same for "Christian law."

George Carty said...

I always thought the idea of Christian law was strange because law, in these terms is one of the things that appears Christianity did not develop.

The reason why is simple: both Moses and Muhammad were warlords and statesmen, while Jesus wasn't. If Jesus had tried to seize political control, the Romans would have squashed him like a bug.

rlrr said...

If Jesus had tried to seize political control, the Romans would have squashed him like a bug.

Isn't that what happened?

George Carty said...

Isn't that what happened?

I'm talking about the belief system, not the person. Jesus as a pacifist became one of the most influential men in history (3rd according to Michael Hart, after Muhammad and Isaac Newton), while Jesus as a warlord would have been no more influential in the long run than Bar Kochba or any of the other Jewish Zealots.

Conversely, what might have happened to Islam had Muhammad been a pacifist?

Did the motivations of their enemies (the Romans and the Arab pagans respectively) differ in a way that meant Jesus would better secure his legacy via pacifism, while Muhammad was better off using force?

Were the pagan Arabs more murderously intolerant than the Romans (as per MLK's saying: "If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and non-violence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.")

Aaminah said...

George, this may just be semantics, but I think the wrong impression is given when you say "while Muhammad was better off using force". There is a difference between using force and self-defense. What was used by the early Muslims under the guidance of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was strategic self-defense. Force implies that they pushed themselves upon others, which is not the case.

As to the question, I think it is far too speculatory for us to have the answer to it. There is a difference between a Prophet whose choices are guided by Revelation and modern movements such as MLK, Ghandi, etc. It isn't really our place, IMO, to question why Allah instructed Jesus (peace be upon him) to address issues one way and Muhammad (peace be upon him) to address them another. Clearly they had different roles to play and that's up to the wisdom of Allah that we cannot expect to comprehend.

George Carty said...

Violence in self-defence is still violence. I wasn't accusing Muslims of aggressive war - hence my Martin Luther King quote...