In Major Departure From U.S. Legal Model, Iraq's Draft Constitution Gives Islam Key Role

By Bassem Mroue Associated Press Writer

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.

-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.

Thus if the constitution includes extra-Koranic preservation of civil rights, it would not be inconsistent.

But without law you can't enforce them.

That's funny, that is what everyone else is doing, by suggesting that Iraq must hew closer to our model of civil rights.

Our current model of civil rights (except maybe some of the stupid rulings of the last few decades) not the one we had in 1776.

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.

If the Iraqis freely elect Iranian type Ayatollahs, Al Zaqqari or Saddam Hussein, then it should be obvious that we should and would blow them all away.

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?

If you think those ideas are quaint, why do you subscribe to that religion? Those laws were given to the Jews only. They were free to leave. You should check into the Noahic laws that apply to everyone. And the pagans that were commanded destroyed were practicing child sacrifice.

And Jesus did claim that he did not come to change even an iota of the law, didn't he?

"Till all is fulfilled"

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. Or they can leave. There is no compulsion (or shouldn't be.) See what happens if you quit the mosque. I'd also ask you look at women who have become priests and otherwise outspoken in Christian churches as ask yourself if it would be better if they would shut up and sit down?

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....

That is not a religion, that is a "living" document that means nothing at all. If you think that the precepts as laid down are wrong, you should spit in God's eye and move on instead of making up your own rules or following some current fashion, belittling previous ages, and then claim you believe in it. You make it all a joke. Read Matthew 15.

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.

That is because Muhammad was way ahead of you. Muhammad's central contention is that Jews and Christians corrupted God's Word, following fashions. Islam was not to be reinterpreted. And instead of having a leader like the Pope or priests to lead people astray, Muhammad ordered all Muslims individually to enforce the orthodoxy on each other. This is a self-correcting mechanism that no matter how you try to "corrupt" it, there will always be plenty of "radicals" trying to drag it back.

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.

Not only that, but eradicate Islam altogether, like the child-sacrificers if necessary. (And yes, we have our own child-sacrificers to deal with too.)

Read my tag line. I'm not hiding it.

"I think it's important that we do so."

There is nothing else we CAN do short of wipeing out 2\3rds of the population. With Islam a part of the equation it is only a matter of time before that woman with the inkstained fingers is beaten back into her hovel. Islam offers it's bosses the same thing Marxisim offers it's rulers: Total power. That's a strong motivation! For that reason either the fighting has just begun for the Iraqis or it's all the hell over and Islam is on top. Time will tell.

I don't see a hell of a lot more that we can do except convincingly promise the Iraqi Gov't that if they again become a haven for Islamic Hate they're going to be out one country and their culture will be a memory.

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.