Posted on 07/26/2005 12:24:14 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
In Major Departure From U.S. Legal Model, Iraq's Draft Constitution Gives Islam Key Role
Published: Jul 26, 2005 BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - 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.
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.
AP-ES-07-26-05 1459EDT
""It is a shame, isn't it? The Constitution is one of the most brilliant documents ever written. Too bad the Iraqis didn't read it and learn from it.""
have you seen the Iraqi constitution.
I am absolutely amazed with all teh alternative media out there that so many here would so quickly fall for what is abviously MSM propaganda designed to make americans oppose the war and manke us think it was all an entire waste.
Yes, but not necessarily just the Koran. Read again what the statement says: that no law that contradicts the Koran can be psased. That doesn't mean that every law that doesn't contradict the Koran must be passed. Thus if the constitution includes extra-Koranic preservation of civil rights, it would not be inconsistent.
Second, you cannot keep comparing the founding of our country to Iraq.
That's funny, that is what everyone else is doing, by suggesting that Iraq must hew closer to our model of civil rights.
Theirs is being done after we fought a war for them (and us) and they are doing so under our protection (and occupation).
OK, so basically we are justified imposing our will on the Iraqi people. I see, I thought we were there to give them self government, but that is apparently a sham.
And beside that they are saddled with a religion that calls for beating women and killing Christians, Jews and other infidels (us).
You mean as opposed to religion (which I subscribe to, btw) whose text calls for the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals, and whose ancestors were specifically commanded by God to exterminate certain pagan nations? And Jesus did claim that he did not come to change even an iota of the law, didn't he? And doesn't the New Testament say that women have to keep silent in the church, and that they shall not teach, they should wear head coverings and no jewelry, and that they are the weaker vessel, etc. etc.?
Yes, I know, you may say, mainstream interpretation sets that aside much of that now, and interprets other parts of it in terms the culture at the time, etc. etc.... Well, that's fine, that's what Islam is going to have to do, as well. And that may be a tall order, one that the Muslim people simply are not prepared to do as a whole.
But let's be honest. What you seem to be saying is that we're basically going to have to eradicate their religion, from any application in their government. Immediately.
I know a good liberal interest group or two who would like to see that happen around here! :)
This has been reported all over the place. Just because it is in the AP is not a reason to dismiss the issue as not real. It was printed in the Iraqi paper as well as numerous others. I post from the AP because FR allows me to post the FULL TEXT of articles with no excerpting.
So you don't think they want to base their consitution on Islam and make Islam the paramount law?
Rintense: at our country's founding, each individual state was free to establish a state church, levy taxes to fund it, even require attendance.
It does because as you pointed out, East Germany and West Germany had totally different laws and governments following the war. This was a direct result of who was guiding their future. In this case, it is us, the United States. We have the power to direct the outcome in Iraq. Should we just toss up our hands and let anything happen?
But lest you think I am dooming them to ruin, allow me to post just one picture that suggests otherwise:
As long as we continue to see ink-stained fingers on the women of Iraq, I for one am going to remain optimistic. Are you with me?
i wont believe it just because the AP says so
but why are so many here so willing to believe the story when the constitution isnt even completed yet?
Well that would be news to me! Learn something new everyday. Question is, did any states do this?
Nobody is saying this is how it will end up. It is most certainly an issue that is being discussed now. We are merely commenting on one of the options being discussed for their constitution. Why are you so upset. This whole site is based on posting news and discussing it.
I fail to see how ignoring this potential issue advances anything but ignorance.
Hey Iraq.......ya morons ya............just look next door at your buds in Iran (snicker) and THEN tell me what a swell idea this is.
Islam is heroine for the weak-minded.
becasue people here have already drawn the conclusion that Iraq will be another Iran...this is exactly what the MSM wants you to think
Amen, brother, and amen.
Close. People here have drawn the conclusion that if the Iraqi constitution is allowed to be ruled by Islamic law then we will have another Iran. That is why many of us want to scream from the mountain tops... THIS IS A BAD IDEA. Our government should be doing all they can to prevent it. Start by using the Bully Pulpit and speak against it.
You keep trying to ignore why & how outside nations were able to impose either form of government on Germany. All of Germany's infrastructure was in ruins. Germany started WWII with a population of about 78 million people. They had 3.5 million military deaths, 2 million civilian deaths & there were about 4.6 million Germans wounded. Look at the percentage of their population killed. Iraq's population is about a third of Germany pre-WWII. To bring Iraq to the point where Germany was at the end of WWII over a million Iraqi's would have had to have died. Instead, they survived the war, because most of them didn't fight against our forces & in fact, a portion of them fought on our side. We would have needed a whole lot more troops & a whole lot more commitment by the US population to even begin talking about doing the kind of post war occupation we did after WWII.
In this case, it is us, the United States. We have the power to direct the outcome in Iraq. Should we just toss up our hands and let anything happen?
We do not have the kind of power there you seem to think we have. If most of Iraqis had been our enemies, rather than neutral or our allies, a draft would have been real & there would have been a whole lot more American deaths.
Most of the states did it to some degree.
Whiskey Tango Fletch
I'm not surprised at the development. They have to evolve....grow up, and realized they're in charge of their destiny, not the moon god.
I do not claim we can control the outcome, but if we can't, I don't want to be supporting an Iraqi constitution that will be based on the Islamic Law.
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.