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
I agree Iran is the big winner in all of this. Saddam is gone and they share a border with a much weaker former enemy. They can wait us out all while funneling insurgents and bomb making material into Iraq. They've already begun forming alliances with Iraqi officials.
The Iraqis aren't going to ratify this IMO.
Hardly a panic, just a realistic view of what may happen given the consitent talk coming from all sides.
Perhaps you need to read beyond the press releases and not just assume it is wrong.
Look, without democracy they are about 700 years behind. With it, they're about 300 years behind."
This equates Islam and people from the ME culture with Christianity and people from the Anglo-Judeo Christian culture, and is for that reason idiotic.
Yes but the founding fathers had no official state religion, even though much of the framework (though denied by the left) was based in Christianity.
Much of the spirit was, but the Founders were wise enough to refrain from tying the Constitution to the tenets of any one faith. Too bad we didn't insist that they do the same.
Freedom for Arabs means freedom from Islam if they want to leave. This is what we fought for in Iraq, and now we are throwing it away. Disgusting.
How can you make your statement after having read the following?:
"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."
Using the term Islam and Democracy jointly is an oxymoron.
Yes, we must have known that the government formed by and for the Iraqis would not resemble Western democracy. What they develop themselves will at the very least be their own.
If they evolve into a West hating terrorist country again, we at least have the GPS coordinates of every target we want.
Well, suit yourself. So go tell that to the guy I'm responding to, who thinks that their democracy has to look exactly like ours, apparently.
I was all for the invasion, too. I deeply believe in freedom, including religous freedom. But, all those religous guys (Muslims, Christians, Catholics, etc) are just nuts in many ways. They talk on high like they're buds with God. They cite the Bible or Quran like they are going over a scientific fact. People, whether you belive in God or not, it's all made up.
The fact that Iraqi's have chosen Islamic law is pathetic. God really doesn't want women to have rights? Give me a break. On the other hand, when I hear nots in this country freak out over Mel Gibson's movie, I'm equally as annoyed. Human kind needs to get a grip. Anyone claiming to speak for God has a major inferiority complex, is a manipulator, or is simply starved for attention. Luckily, in this country, we're only influenced by religion and not governed by it.
On an aside. It would be nice to think heaven or virgens are waiting for me on the other side. However, I was already dead once. It was the period from the beginning of all time until my birth. I expect the period from my death until the end of time to be quite similar. It's really not that hard to figurt out. Now, go be nice to each other......Muslims included.
You need to learn to read. I don't think their Constitution needs to look exactly like ours. At a minimum it should not be openly biased against women, infidels, and jews.
AMEN! American blood shed and American money spent for this. "Nation Building". Right. It's disgusting. How about building our own nation? Could have used all those billions of war dollars securing our own boarders, for starters.
>>Then let's get the hell out and leave them to their own devices. Not another American life for Islam!
There is a difference between a constitution and the law. Laws are a separate matter and must be consistent with the constitution. So a constitution that both preserves democracy and requires that laws be consistent with Islam is sound, even if the former contradicts the latter. In effect, it prevents anti-democratic legislation from being enforced, even if it is Islamic; and it prevents anti-Islamic legislation from being enforced, even if it is democratic.
And why do you get to determine what its minimum standards are? Why do they, for example, have to give women the right to vote, when it took this countr about 140 years and 19 amendments to give them that privilege?
It's a two way street. Jaafari can convey our wishes as well, becomes a useful backchannel to the Iranian leadership.
Downside is we overthrew a decidely secular, albeit brutal dictator only to subject the secularists of Iraq to a virtual Sharia state in the South.
And Sadam won his elections with a 100% vote, and Mugabe is building cities, and the Saudis are our friends.
Because it is 2005, not 1787? Should we allow them to have slavery too, after all it was protected by the Constitution for nearly 80 years.
So do I. If Iraq adopts a hardline Islamic constitution, the majority of American conservatives will no longer support the risk of American lives. Why should American lives be put at risk to install a government based on TROP?
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.