Cept what has to happen in our case is a constitutional convention, unlike the muslim sharia types what we hold dear protects our civil rights, what they hold dear oppresses them, it's in no way comparable.
Yes, it is. Don't get hung up cultural differences...
Sharia - Sacred Law, based on original sources, that needed to be reinterpreted through the context of time as society advanced.
Our laws - Law, based an original source, that needed to be reinterpreted through the context of time as society advanced.
Islam's condition in the nineteenth century was the result of
ijtihad (independent thinking) being banned by the religious establishment, who's duty was to protect the society and the religion. They failed on both counts because they saw blasphemy in altering laws that those closer to Muhammad's seventh century established. Had lawmakers in the U.S. refused to address the Constitution and it inadequacies as society developed, we would still only have the Bill of Rights. BUT, the context of time, (Civil War, corporations, max population voter inclusion, etc.) demanded that the Constitution be amended as society moved forward.
What I am comparing is the sources, as they act as guidance to establishing laws in either culture.
Incorrect. if it is to be constantly re-interpreted, it's a meaningless document.
Case in point...
When the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788, the Framers intentionally excluded Native Americans. Article I, Section 2 reads, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States...excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." The Three-Fifths Compromise at least recognized African slaves as being a part of the new nation in some fashion, thereby, placing them within the culture. "Indians," however, were absolutely excluded.
This Constitution had to be eventually amended because the original Bill of Rights failed to live up to the Declaration that "All Men are Created Equal."
Case in point...
Lawmakers have been reinterpreting the Second Amendment since the early twentieth century. The "Right to Bear Arms" is not a right to Bear anything. This is yet another item within the Bill of Rights that is constantly having to be reinterpreted as the context of time went from a musket to nuclear weapons. Reinterpretation has nothing to do with meaninglessness. All documents are subject to reinterpretation in the future. History develops because old documents get reinterpreted in order to compliment newly discovered sources. Our understandings may change, but the documents remain meaningful. The Constitution has never been treated as a document frozen in time. This, by the way, is how Islamists see the Quran - fixed in the seventh century and not subject to reinterpretation. This is why they argue to establish Muhammad's fabled state. By contrast, Americans do not insist that society remain fixed in our eighteenth century source of law. It moves, as we move.
