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
There it is, you have no problem with American's dying for a democracy that would keep women from voting.
I was for removing the WMD and that's all. That was our stated objective not nation building. I've been to the Middle East and I've seen how they live. These people will never accept our form of democracy. Their religion guides every thing they do.
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 some blacks too, probably. So what? Should we give ourselves a nice big pat on the back for that?
We did NOT kill women for honor reasons.
I can't speak to where we were at the exact founding of this country, but many colonies imposed the death penalty for adultery, sodomy, and other crimes that fall into that "honor" category.
If sharia law is allowed to supercede all others than women in Iraq and other muslim countries will never be free.
So we went to war in Iraq specifically for women's rights, eh? I was unaware of that. Why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that it is sufficient to point these people in the right direction, not force them to a particular destination?
There is a distinct difference in the way our country started and their new constitution is shaping up.
Of course there is: because it's a different culture. Look, what we need to be sure of is that the constitution is sufficiently democratic. There is no flippin' way we're going to end the patriarchal culture in that society overnight, and anyone who had that illusion going into this conflict was woefully naive. But as long as democracy persists, a steady move torwards wider civil rights is reasonably assured.
I suppose you're right. With that said, why can't these folks figure out that freedom is the key to progress. The religous government they choose will ultimately stifle people at best and/or intimidate people at worst. No freedom means no progress. And, no progress means no stuff. And, no stuff means they'll be mad at the west for having stuff. And, being mad at the west means 'boom-boom' on a subway or airplane.
--The bottom line is they are jealous as hell that their philosphys and way of life haven't delivered the way freeedom has delivered for us in the west--
I'd expect something similar to Jordan or Malaysia. English Common Law basis (just like us) with a twist of Sharia.
No right thinking person believes that either of these examples were democracies (or more precisely, representative governments). And yet do you not agree that pre-18th century U.S. was effectively democratic/representative, even though large segments of the population were not allowed to vote?
You bet. Not if the alternative is dictatorship. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, my friend.
Do you not agree that the Middle East is culturally primitive compared to us? Do you expect them to make 200 years of progress overnight?
Should we allow them to have slavery too, after all it was protected by the Constitution for nearly 80 years.
Hold on now. Why do we get to allow them to do anything? Do we want them to self-government, or are we just kidding ourselves, and we really just want to impose on them our values?
That is a straw man. The option is not going back to a dictatorship. We are simply discussing what form their new Consitution will take.
It's not? What is the alternative? That we impose our precise will upon the Iraqi people? In what way is that not a dictatorship?
We are simply discussing what form their new Consitution will take.
Yes. We can discuss it. But the minute we impose it, we haven't given them freedom at all.
That would explain the Iraqis but it doesn't explain why the Saudis, who have more money than the average American, are as backward thinking as the Iraqis when it comes to freedom. Our cultures will never fully understand each other and the only reason we attempt to try is for Saudi oil.
No, but I don't expect up to build a country that embraces Islamic fundamentalism,which breeds terrorists. The point was to make Iraq different so that it would spread across the Middle East so that Islamic fundamentalism would decline. Building an anti-woman, anti-Semetic nation based on Islamic fundamentalism is not victory.
In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.
Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women.
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.
There's that phrase again, "make Iraq." We can't make the Iraqi people be any more than they are. I agree with George Bush that freedom is God's gift to the world. But I also agree with him that we cannot impose upon them our values. At some point there has to be an acknowledgement that frankly they're just not as enlightened about what freedom means as we are, so you have to insure that they preserve the basics of it, and move on.
Building an anti-woman, anti-Semetic nation based on Islamic fundamentalism is not victory.
Sounds like a fallacy of alternatives here. Let's see what the totality of this Constitution is before passing that kind of judgement. If basic democratic principles are enshrined in the constitution, then frankly the rest doesn't matter as much as you and others would make it out to be; because the rest can be changed as they exercise their newfound freedom.
Germany. Japan.
There seems to be a fundamental unwillingness here to accept that this is a process. The United States was a thriving democracy and a growing economy and world power even while it continued to have significant shortcomings in the area of civil rights for minorities. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
Let them have their process. We had ours.
We gave them self-government, and they made something good out of it. So what? That's what the Iraqi's will do, in time. But Iraq will need more time than these countries did. They were already quite modern to begin with.
Sure, but if they go down this path, then I no longer want to suport them with American money or American blood.
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.