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).
"You twisted what I said. I said that "democracy is defined by freedoms"...not that "democracy defines those freedoms" (though that can also be said in the broadest of definitions)."
I most certainly do not wish to argue with you because what you write in essence is what I would write concerning what constitues Islamic law (Sharia). Obviously, Sharia playes a central role in all Islamic cultures. The structure of the law is that of civil law rather then common law as say is practiced in the US or England. And we also understand that not only the Hadith (written traditions of Muhamaad that describe much of the interpretations of what is in the Qu'ran), but other written documents also go in hand to allow a particular sect of Islam to further define just what will constitute it's set of laws. In this case the majority and minorty, Shiite and Sunni sects dominate Iraq, and they both pretty much agree on how the Sharia's should be defined.
I did not intend to "twist" your definition of what constitutes a democracy. At least it was not intentional.
I maintain, they have already in it's raw form demonstrated the democratic process. They held a free country wide election. So to me, by having the choice of voting for a given party (obviously there where dozens of them to choose from), they participated in the democratic process. That is what I was trying to bring out.
Do lets us consider, the Kuwait, as one example is "adjusting" it's traditional held views on the rights of women. They are free to dress as they like, they can drive cars, they have an equal vote, they can hold government cabinet positions, etc.. In short, they have liberalized what is acceptable. Now as we both understand. Kuwait is primarily Sunni and Shiite. Why has their interpretations of their Sharia been modified to provide more individual freedoms then other Islamic countries? Their laws are not as immutable as some of us would believe. I sense you have studied various forms of Islam as relating to various parts of the globe. So surely in retrospect you may understand, that Islam in it's extremly and often perverse, down right evil (Satan rules the roost), also can be found to vary widely depending on what country one looks into.
Latly, I do not believe Islam in any form has a root goodness to it. I have spent years on and off doing low level studies into it, and realize a lot more then just our standard "submit in the name of the god allah the moon (Sin) good black rock) approach. Satan was very clever in how he introduced this cult into existance. But then I could also talk about Shinto and other extreme military based religons as almost in some ways being duplicative of what we see in Islam. At any rate, I am not saying all is going to be well in Iraq. But if it becomes stable, and we gain a base of operation (small footprint SF and spook shops), in the ME, to keep Iran, Syria, and others in check etc., and the ME can be convinced to further crack down on all forms of Islmaic terrorism, then perhaps the POTUS's main goals would have been achived. The jury is obviously still out to lunch.