Posted on 07/27/2005 1:03:11 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Framers of Iraq's constitution will designate Islam as the main source of legislation — a departure from the model set down by U.S. authorities during the occupation — according to a draft published Tuesday.
The draft states no law will be approved that contradicts "the rules of Islam" — a requirement that could affect women's rights and set Iraq on a course far different from the one envisioned when U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein.
"Islam is the official religion of the state and is the main source of legislation," reads the draft published in the government newspaper Al-Sabah. "No law that contradicts with its rules can be promulgated."
The document also grants the Shiite religious leadership in Najaf a "guiding role" in recognition of its "high national and religious symbolism."
Al-Sabah noted, however, that there were unspecified differences among the committee on the Najaf portion. Those would presumably include Kurds, Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites on the 71-member committee.
During the U.S.-run occupation, which ended June 28, 2004, key Shiite and some Sunni politicians sought to have Islam designated the main source of legislation in the interim constitution, which took effect in March 2004.
However, the U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, blocked the move, agreeing only that Islam would be considered "a source" — but not the only one. At the time, prominent Shiite politicians agreed to forego a public battle with Bremer and pursue the issue during the drafting of the permanent constitution.
Some women's groups fear strict interpretation of Islamic principles could erode their rights in such areas as divorce and inheritance. It could also move Iraq toward a more religiously based society than was envisioned by U.S. planners who hoped it would be a beacon of Western-style democracy in a region of one-party rule and theocratic regimes.
Members of the constitutional committee said the draft was among several and none would be final until parliament approves the charter by Aug. 15.
The drafting committee met Tuesday to discuss federalism, one of the most contentious issues, according to Sunni Arab member Mohammed Abed-Rabbou. He described the discussion as "heated" and said no agreement was reached.
Parliament speaker Hajim al-Hassani, a Sunni Arab, urged Iraqi media to refrain from publishing supposed texts unless they are released by the constitutional committee.
Sunni Arabs involved in writing the charter have complained that Shiites and Kurds are trying to steamroll their version of the draft without proper consultation and discussion.
The Sunnis agreed only Monday to resume work on the committee after they walked out to protest the assassination of two colleagues this month.
"It's very important that the constitution is produced through the participation of all Iraqis," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters Tuesday. "This is important for ending and defeating the insurgency, for having a political compact and I want to say to the Arab Sunni community that they can count on us for such a compact."
Sunni Arab support is crucial because the charter can be scuttled if voters in three of Iraq's 18 provinces reject it by a two-thirds majority — and Sunni Arabs are a majority in four provinces. Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent of Iraq's 27 million people but dominate areas where the insurgency is raging.
U.S. officials are eager for the Iraqis to meet the Aug. 15 deadline as a major step in building a stable constitutional government, considered key to pacifying the Sunni insurgency and enabling the U.S. and its partners to begin drawing down troop strength.
If the deadline is met, voters will decide whether to approve the charter in mid-October and if they do, another general election will take place in December.
In an Internet statement Tuesday, al-Qaida's wing in Iraq warned Iraqis not to take part in the constitutional referendum, saying democracy goes against God's law and anyone who participates would be considered an "infidel," and earmarked for death.
According to Al-Sabah, the draft constitution would declare Iraq a sovereign state with "a republican democratic federal system." However, the word "federal" appears in brackets, indicating opposition among the committee.
Sunni Arabs are suspicious that federalism, a prime goal of the Kurds, would lead to the disintegration of Iraq.
In other developments:
_Gunmen fired on two buses carrying workers home from a government-owned company on the western edge of Baghdad, killing 16 and wounding 27, police and a company official said.
_Two gunmen in a speeding car assassinated a top aide to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, police said in Baqouba, a city northeast of Baghdad.
Aw Jeez, not this Shiite again.
Saddam was hated by the fundamentalists because he ran a relatively secular state (his brutality kept the fundies in check). Now he's gone, and Islam takes his place. I wonder how less brutal the new regime will ultimately be, especially to women and to Christians.
You're right, it's pretty disturbing news.
What is Michael Savage going to say about this -- he spends most of his shows these days railing against Islam.
Quasi-dupe (the below-linked is AP only):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450974/posts
You call it a "death cult" - but you have no problem with this "death cult" being instituted in a country that we shed blood to "liberate"?
"..according to a draft"
So that makes it alright?
Inevitable. Was the biggest argument against the war. Same thing will happen in Syria. Anyone thinking otherwise - I've beach front property in Montana I'd like to sell to you. Great surf, picture postcard lighthouse, palm trees, you name it.
Why shouldn't he? Its a cult of death and submission.
I agree with the Islam part, but the only outcome of the constitution being based on Islam is is disintegration of equal rights and democracy.
So, Iran won?
let me know when it's go time again? LOL.
A lot of people think so - including the mullahs in Iran.
"So, Iran won?"
- Perhaps. But not becuase they were smart. Never underestimate the ignorant stupidity of a muslim or a country full of them for that matter.
This is why none of my kids will be enlisting in the US military - if I can help it - as long as it looks like they're going to be sent on fool's missions to "liberate" Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia - where we have no business invading, and where the result will be just a different form of tyranny. Our military is for the defense of vital US interests against imminent threats to US Security - it's not for social engineering or social work around the world. As long as we have liberals or neocons who want to use it for the latter, I'm going to advise my kids to stay away. If we're attacked and the military is sent to get the attackers or the attacking country, then my kids will enlist - or their ears will burn from my anger. But Iraq didn't attack us. Osama did - and he's in Pakistan but nobody cares about invading Pakistan.
If the Sunnis vote in December Allawi is back in power and not the religious Shia, that is the difference between a Democracy and just another Islamic country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.