Iain – Yeah, as I sort of hinted in that response to Short, I think I may have overstated things. I am all for constitutions which bind future generations and agree with Chesterton’s view of tradition as “democracy of the dead.” But, I think there’s a difference between a divinely-derived code and a set of secular precepts which evolve over time. That Medina charter simply doesn’t pass the duck-test for what I’d call a constitution, rightly understood.

Oh, and for those eager to pounce on me for suddenly embracing a “living constitution” I’m doing no such thing, at least not in terms of how the phrase is understood in America. I have no problem with changing the meaning of our constitution — if you do it through the amendment process. The living constitution as understood in America refers to the power of a bunch of judges to unilaterally change the meaning and intent of the words on the paper as written. That’s much closer to giving judges Muhammed-like powers than anything else.

Anyway, I think this reader basically has it right:

The Medina charter is no more a constitution than the code of Hammurabi, which preceded it by so many years I’m too lazy to look it up.
They are admirable as codes of law…but not democratic constitutions. (And I’m not exactly sure where the Magna Carta falls on this continuum, since it was basically a case of Baronial Blackmail.)
Probably the student whose quote kicked off this discussion feels compelled to admire the Medina charter over any western document because, it’s, like, Ethnic. So it goes with the mehndi she’s wearing in case Lilith Fair comes back, and would have gone with the pashmina scarf two years ago, except she already exiled that to the back of her closet because that’s never coming back.