Posted on 07/27/2005 6:46:10 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
BAGHDAD - 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 yesterday.
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 the holy city of Najaf a "guiding role" in recognition of its "high national and religious symbolism."
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
IRAQ: From a two bit dictator to another future rogue state. Wondering if we're just building another kingdom for the enemy to hoarde weapons in?
I'm about ready to prop them up and bring the troops home and see what happens from there. I think we've about done all we can do for those folks.
ping
" I think we've about done all we can do for those folks."
Yep. They clearly have no interest in 'Western' democracy. It's sadly amusing that Christians will have had more religious freedom in Iraq under Saddam than under the new Iraqi constitution.
The Light of Day. Has this passed?
This is saying that Iraq's constitution, while not Islamic law, cannot contradict Islamic law and that the religious leaders will have a seat at the table.
There is a difference.
No Iraqi constitution will be optimal.
not sure what to make of this language.
Seems like anything referring to the words, "Islamic Law," ends up in dead innocents.
You'd think that after seeing where that's gotten her neighbors, Iraq would have learned.
That should make for a hellhole, miserable, failed society that contributes nothing but mayhem.
Yep. They clearly have no interest in Western' democracy.
This is very sad.
Not only Christians, but all women will have little to no rights. So much for our hopes. We had better make plans to leave as soon as this "thing" is passed.
"We had better make plans to leave as soon as this "thing" is passed."
Careful. Sentiments like that around here will get you labeled an unpatriotic, terrorist-supporting liberal, rather than the realist that you are!!
Any gov't that gives even a modicum of respect to shar'ia (or however you spell that dumbass system of Islamic law) is doomed to be an oppressive hellhole.
Can you imagine what Kofi (and Hillary) would say if some fledgling country declared that it's government would be based on christianity. It would face censure and a probable boycott.
Maybe if our leaders had the courage to take away the oil weapoo swiftly and drmatically and make it clear that Sharia law, or the failure to allow the contradiction of it, does not work.
Of course, it will take time to see what evolves, but I sure hate to think of all the American, British, Australian, Polish, Italian (etc.) blood that will have been spilt just to establish another Islamic theocracy.
I hope I am wrong about this.
Isn't Anglicism the official religion of the UK?
"No law that contradicts with its rules can be promulgated."
Could mean Sharia, or it could mean that prostitution will be outlawed.
Frankly, this is the best cure for fanaticism. Once people realize that religious extremism sucks, they'll want to get rid of it forever. Iran is a perfect example.
"(if democracy is defined by human rights, rights of women, rights of free speech, etc.)"
Democracy does not define human rights, rights of women, rights of free speach etc.. It is a method of choosing a body of elected officials that will run the government.
Please I am not being critical of anyone at our site. But let us continue to work out in our minds what by western terms defines a democracy. They get it at this point. They already have had a country wide voting process that elected a body of officials. That is democracy at work.
Let us also remember that the POTUS had made clear a long time ago, that the final form of government the Iraq's would decide on was up to them, not us. He even made it clear, that if they expressed a desire to run their government based on theocratic principles, e.g. Islam (Shara law), then that was their perfect right to do so.
I think we (we all care very much about a lot of good things), somehow equate in our minds the elective process with how a government establishes a set of laws. We by default in this country and in most western democracies, had established our body of laws based on the Judea/Christain standard.
How can we expect a Islamic nation to mimic this? It is unrealistic. What we should do is keep focused on the reasons for going to war with Iraq. They being and not an exhaustive list:
1) remove Saddam from power, based on agreed UN resolutions.
2) destroy Iraq's capability to make war with neighbors, find and destroy all WMD's, and root out known Al Qaida terrorist cells known to exist in Iraq prior to the war.
3) help them rebuild an extremely disfunctional infrastructure.
4) help them establish a new method of electing a federal/provincal/local government(s), using common democratic principals, and obviously associated with this, help them establish where required, new methodologies to re-structure their government bodies to enhance the capabilities to maintain a democratic process in the future.
5) Provide security and stabilization operations while the above items are put into place.
6) Train and build up a new army and security force that will be able to protect the interest of Iraq's peoples and future oil/commercial/other business ventures, re-establish their institutions of higher learning etc..
So my friends. What they choice to guide their bodies of laws is their business. But do consider, after a carefull analysis, this administration never implied that we want to change Iraq into a Judeo/Christian nation. To do so would, I am afraid, to be in error.
OK, this is the third time in three days this article (under different news sources, not duplicates) has appeared.
You will *note* that as a token of journalistic integrity they did mention DRAFT language. Not final language. In fact this draft, which got published to the Iraqi people, has many of them protesting vigorously in support of human rights.
But, this is the third time in a row the article has FReepers instantly ready to give up on the whole Iraq thing. I can only imagine what it's doing to less politically informed readers.
See also http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446487/posts
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450974/posts
But in all due respect, I think you are missing the significance of this article. Sharia is a religious concept, it is not just a way of government. It is in essence "Allah's law." It defines all behavior and religious practice. If the legislature truly does conform to Sharia, ultimate power will lie with the imams and mosques and not an elected body.
If that happens, there will be no democracy in substance (only in form).
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.