Posted on 09/16/2005 11:35:13 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -
0916iraq-mosque A leading Sunni cleric called for religious and ethnic groups to take a stand against violence as Iraq endured a third consecutive day of sectarian killings - the worst, a suicide car bombing at a Shiite mosque that killed at least 12 worshippers as they left Friday prayers.
The bombing in Tuz Khormato, where a young Saudi man was later arrested wearing a bomb belt on his way to a second mosque, was the latest suicide attack following al-Qaida in Iraq's declaration of all-out war on Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority.
Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror group said it was taking revenge for a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against its stronghold in Tal Afar, a city near the Syrian border.
With more than 20 people killed Friday, the death toll over the past three days surpassed 200, with more than 600 wounded.
Sheik Mahmud al-Sumaidaei, a leading Sunni cleric whose group is linked to the country's insurgency, criticized militants for targeting civilians. He called for Iraq's religious and ethnic groups to take a stand against further bloodshed.
"I call for a meeting ... of all the country's religious and political leaders to take a stand against the bloodshed," al-Sumaidaei said during his sermon at Baghdad's Um al Qura Sunni mosque.
"We don't need others to come across the border and kill us in the name of defending us," he declared, a reference to foreign fighters who have joined the insurgency under the banner of al-Qaida. "We reject the killing of any Iraqi."
In Tuz Khormato, 130 miles north of Baghdad, authorities said the attacker detonated his explosives-packed car as worshippers flowed out of the Hussainiyat al-Rasoul al-Azam mosque, a Shiite Turkmen place of worship.
Police said 12 people were killed and 23 wounded in the bombing, which also destroyed 10 shops and eight cars.
"We were stepping out of the mosque and suddenly a big blast shook the ground," said Mustafa Ali, a 63-year-old ethnic Turkmen who escaped injury.
"I saw many people scattered on the ground, drenched in their own blood. I wanted to ask the bomber, 'Why did you attack those innocents who had prayed?'" he said.
Police Capt. Mohammed Ahmed said his men exchanged gunfire with another bomber before capturing him as he fled toward a second mosque. The man, who appeared to be in his early 20s, said he was from Saudi Arabia.
Friday's bloodshed began early, when gunmen opened fire on day laborers in an east Baghdad Shiite district. Three workers died and a dozen were wounded in the drive-by attack.
In Haswa, 30 miles south of Baghdad, a car bomb exploded near an Iraqi police patrol, killing three officers and wounding four, said police Capt. Muthana Khalid.
Gunmen also stormed the house of the mayor in nearby Iskandariyah, killing him and four bodyguards.
Sheik Fadil al-Lami, the Shiite cleric at Baghdad's Imam Ali mosque, was gunned down as he waited to gas up his car, said police Col. Shakir Wadi. Authorities also found the bodies of three people in the same Shiite district, including one Iraqi soldier.
American forces raiding insurgent strongholds in the Euphrates River valley, northwest of Baghdad, called in airstrikes on militant positions in a stepped-up effort to retake cities and towns in Anbar Province, which includes the fertile region along the Euphrates as it flows southeast through the country from Syria.
A U.S. Marine was killed in the insurgent bastion of Ramadi, the provincial capital, the military said. At least 1,898 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
In the Euphrates region, U.S. jets destroyed an al-Qaida complex in Haditha before dawn Friday. The night before, warplanes struck an abandoned school in Karabilah, killing nine al-Qaida militants.
As Shiite and Sunni clerics condemned the rash of attacks, they also lashed out at the U.S.-backed Iraqi government and American forces, holding them responsible for the recent violence because they were unable to improve security in the country 2 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
At the United Nations, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he believes Iraq's government is capable containing the the violence.
"There is no complete immunity against terrorist attacks or suicide bombers or people who are ready to blow up ... car bombs or themselves and downtown markets or schools or to kill children," he said.
More than 300 followers of the powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr traveled from Baghdad's Sadr City to the Kazimiyah neighborhood, where a suicide bombing Wednesday marked the start of the latest bloodshed, killing 160 people as day laborers assembled to find jobs.
The Iraqi government was "responsible for the security deterioration, and (we say to them) if they cannot protect Iraqis, then let Iraqis protect themselves," Hazem al-Araji, a senior al-Sadr aide, told The Associated Press.
Sheik Abdul-Zahraa al-Suwaidi, also a Shiite, said the violence had tarnished the image of Islam and Muslims, but he blamed the continued presence of 140,000 U.S. troops for fueling sectarian tension.
"You have to know that Iraq will gain its security if the occupation troops leave this country," al-Suwaidi told worshippers in Baghdad's Risafaa district.
---
Associated Press writers Omar Sinan in Baghdad and Yehia Barzanji in Tuz Khormato contributed to this report.
--
............................. So that is the starting point for my comments.
So I have made an attempt to understand what you shared. As you indicate, it would be difficult at best or dis-honest to try to argue that Iraq will not be governed by some form of Sharia law. The tenets (fundamental principals) of Islam will be the underlining factor on what is acceptable as law(s), e.g. entered into some written form to guide the Federal Courts as how they should interprete the law etc..
Clearly they willingly set themselves up for latter confrontations between how the Supreme Federal Court under the guidance of the Supreme Judiciary Council will be able to conjugate difference in Sharia and civil liberties mentioned elsewhere in this body of text, such as the freedom for all Iraqi Citizens to freely be able to practice their particular religious faith, as outlined in Article (40).
But, if the guarantee set forth in Article (40) is binding, that is, cannot be overruled nor denied to any individual regardless of what Sharia law may dictate, then there appears to be a check and balance system. I would extend this example to all other listed personal freedoms declared in the document. Perhaps the written guarantees will side line any Sharia based laws that would negate the value of what is written in the Constitution regarding personal freedoms.
That is just my personal opinion being a laymen regarding systems of law.
However, as you indicate, clearly this Supreme Judiciary Council is going to operate to guide the Federal Courts in how law is to be interpreted. And in so doing will perhaps totally hamper any forward looking ideas the Presidential Council (executive branch)and the Council of Representatives (legislator) may feel have a chance of becoming law.
So it would appear this is all a crap shoot so to speak.
Or we just do not have a feel as how this Supreme Judiciary Council will subordinate the will of the majority of people, e.g. laws progressive legislators would like to see established. Which could include more basic rights for women for instance.
So it would appear this is all a crap shoot so to speak
President Bush is still skeptical of course.
Because it is their country. We can only suggest but have no authority to dictate. If we where forced to dictate what they could or not do, then every Muslim in the world could say that Iraq is nothing but a US owned satrap whatever, to do as they wish with it, which furthers their hate of the US.
"President Bush is convinced of it, I am convinced it is not. "
I really doubt that. That is for use for public consumption. What is he supposed to say, every Muslim in the world is nothing more then a camel humping hater of life.
As for your statments regarding their opinion of the US, how can one reject what they use as an argument. They see all the bad in America. And obviously like many others, don't forget the same excuses where provided by the Communists in reference to a "decadant west", to further their cause. Of course we understand it is easy to point out the errors of others and not behold the beam in ones own eye.
What you clearly would like to do is subjugate them to our western ways. And I do not see this being possible over the short run. And to do so, would only prove their cause, that America wants to destroy all traces of Islam. The only way we are going to weed them off of Islam is provide the environment that allows them to choose, once it is clear there are other ways to govern a country other then Sharia . It may never come to past. But again. What where the reasons for invading Iraq in the first place? A short list:
1)Remove Saddam from power and his ability to war with neighbors thereby providing more stablility to the region. 2)Provide the mechanisms to enable Iraq to choose a free form of government where it would represent all Iraqis on an equal basis. 3) By removing Saddam and his military, reduce the probability that Iraq sponsored terrorist groups would have the capabilities via. Iraqi resources to provide terrorist attacks against the USA using various type of WMDs. 4) Within the framework of the above, help Iraq become a modernized state that would open up it's vast oil fields to help stablize the cost of oil.
I don't believe anywhere in the plan was there the notion that Iraq must discard Islam. In fact the POTUS more then once in publicized speaches made clear America had no wish for that to come to past. One thing you seem to ignore is the fact that Sistani is on record for two years plus to not want any part of a theocracy. He has continued to dictate the best thing Iraq could do is have a freely elected democratic form of governement along parlimentary lines. Of course the issue of the Judicial branch had to be addressed. And it is obviouse that a majority of Iraqi's may want Sharia to govern the underlining framework in what type of laws should be incorporated. Perhaps in the end it comes down to many of us do not understand the difference between an theocracy and a democracy that embodies the capabilities to change laws as required to suit it's constituency.
"If the constitution is voted down, then at least we have a chance at a better constitution the next time around. I hope it does not pass. Any document that mandates that "No Law will Contradict Islam" is not worth the lives of American troops, American money and America's Time."
There will be no significant changes in their constitution no matter how many iterative passes it goes. Those in the majority have clearly indicated they desire their basic set of laws to be governed by Sharia. They are not capable of just turning off their whole way of life, and making a radical change beyond their experiences and knowledge basis as a "people". And you know that is the case. And if not, I don't know how we can carry this dialog much further. It appears our viewpoints are polar opposite as far as how we think the US or for that matter any country could be coerced into just changing their whole makeup. We didn't ask the Germans to change their religious beliefs, nor their cultures. We even allowed the Emperor to continue to reign.
And as you are aware, he was in essence their god and represented the top of the pyramid as far as their religion of war went. We as you are well aware spent many years in both countries and spent enourmous amounts of money to rebuild their infrastructures and get them back on their feet. The true democracies and even treatment of them was enough to let them both cross the barriers that keep them back previously from living as free countries not oppressing their neighbors. Likewise in Iraq, the hope is that they see the merits of staying a peaceful nation and growing strong in the economical sense. They have a lot of potential. They also have the means to be our friends and turn their backs on the concepts of terrorism. We forget the Iraqi people as a whole had no part in radical Islamic movements nor terrorism. The majority where simply peaceful folks that had little. Farmers, common laborers, small through large business owners. They hated Saddam and all he did to the peoples as well as how he let their infrastructure go to pot. He spent little on the common folks in most of the provices. And outright neglected many of them. He destroyed much of what the Shi'ite in the south represented. They lived like dogs. He killed anyone he choose to when any political or religous entity apposed his will.
We came along and freed them from this horror. It is my believe as many others hold that dispite their reliance on Islam, most do not adhere to the many bad things we can point out in the Qur'an. For a very long time they did not mistreat Christians and even Jews where left pretty much un-molested other then the occassional hate crimes seen anywhere on the planet. They are going to have to make adjustments as to their willingness to accept all Iraqi's into the fold under one federal government. There are so many things they must learn how to do that have simply not been on their menu in the past. Shi'it must continue to give Sunni, Kurds, and others a break on the rights to practice particular customs, religious observances. No one can ostricize atheist at this point. They as a people must know show the world and themselves that they are willing to make often tought discisions regarding give and take. Something they have not had to deal with in the past. In short they have one hell of a lot of change to accept. Surely one cannot expect them to just give up their religious believes at this point. That is what you are asking them to do, whether you realize it our not. Part of their religion is based on their obedience to follow Sharia at least in general terms. Not all Islamic sects/sub sects/groups whatever, hold the same identical set of laws. Some do not even recognized the main ahadiths as you are probably aware.
So if anything they have their work cut out for them just to learn give and take as to what laws the embody the Sharia they are going to recognize. I don't have the slightest idea what your religious believes are, but assuming you are lets say of a Christian persuation, and further you are either Catholic or some branch of Protestant. Would you belonging to either of these Christian branches embody the whole of the others believes and church laws? I think not. So why do you expect the Iraqi to just abandon their religion of Islam? Their makeup is different then ours. We cannot expect the same from them, We did not expect it from the Germans nor the Japanese. I rest my case.
Have a good day, time to hit the rack. Eyes are a bleary at this point.
"We did expect it from the Germans or the Japanese. In no way did they continue with Nazism or Tojoism. We imposed our will completely. In Fact, in Japan the emperor offered to resign but we kept him on as a puppet, the whole japanese constitution was written by Americans in ONE week! But then of course we didn't have a President in those days who considered Nazism and Tojoism ideologies of Peace."
OK Marine. You win the argument, not that I attended to argue, but to share viewpoints. Obviously we have different views as what can be done in the ME verse what was essential to be done back in 1945.
Semper Fi once again and thank you for your service to your country. And I mean that.
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.