DescentBB

While international agreements do not stop Iraq from establishing a particular religion as official, Bansal conceded, "...the drafts of the Iraqi constitution that are circulating would go far beyond establishing Islam as the official religion of the state (which is allowed).

"The drafts have Islamic law principles pervade numerous aspects of the Bill of Rights, and even make the individual rights guarantees in the constitution subject to (and able to be superseded by) Islamic law -- and so the rights guarantees for non-Muslims and non-believers (and even for Muslim believers who do not subscribe to the majority sect or the state-imposed version of Islam) could be impaired by official interpretations of Islam."

link

From what I have read/heard, it is pretty much a given now that Islam will be the official religion of Iraq. What is now up in the air is how strong a force Islamic Law will be in their constitution.

If the Iraqi government uses their sovereignty to create another Sadamn-like repressive regime: where do we go from there?

Are there any scenarios where you think we should step in and (re)tell them how to run their government? Maybe after the tax-cuts for suicide bomber's family bill passes?

Democracy is a great idea....unless you are ideologically opposed to what the majority in a region desires.

I'm more fishing for reaction then anything else. I dont see good things comming from Islam having a large role in their governemnt. That country needs seperation of church and state like no other.

(Incidentally, the thread title is what some of the Shi'ites are currently pushing for Iraqs new name to be)

Let's wait for the constitution to be written and ratified before we get all *meet the new boss same as the old boss*.

Edit Update: That said, yep, we can't really do any more than present an example, explain it's benefits and hope they agree it's a fit. It won't surprise me, though, if the Iraqis go through some bloody growing pains. Let's remember that democracy is a process. If they end up like Iran after a decade or so then maybe we can say it wasn't worth the sacrifice. But, so far, I'm heartened by the fact that there is a strong contingent who want to reject Islam as a state foundation. The Kurds, as one very large, powerful (and mostly secular) group, will never go for it. As such I don't see it happening if the other groups want to retain the Kurds and the oil-rich territories they currently reside on.

well thats the thing, they get to decide. They are different people than us. This is how it should be, if an Iraqi would like the US system certainly they can come here.

They have to figure out as a people what is right for them. We can only do so much.

Crusade, anyone?

bash wrote:Let's wait for the constitution to be written and ratified before we get all *meet the new boss same as the old boss*.

hmm, well they both might hate america. but that'd be the only similarity. perhaps it's the only thing that truly matters hmm?

the great irony will be which will be better for us, Sadam or an Islamic state. iirc Sadam was assisted by the USA to offset the Islamic state to his east - Iran. If Iraq becomes an Islamic state my irony gland will ★■◆●ing explode.

roid wrote:If Iraq becomes an Islamic state my irony gland will ****ing explode.

Made my day

Don't get any of your ironijuice on me

Do you honestly think the American govt will let them actually decide themselves? I'm sure behind some door somewhere in the green zone we're making sure they keep on our idea...if they decide to do something completely opposite of what we "want" them to do, has this whole war not been a waste?

according to bush, we liberated iraq to bring democracy to the region, cool, but if they don't accept it, what then?

Whatever you may think, the Iraqui's themselves have the final say as the whole population has to vote on the new constitution to ratify it.

Tricord wrote:

roid wrote:If Iraq becomes an Islamic state my irony gland will ****ing explode.

Made my day

What I notice is the dark irony in that, those who usually condemn any stereotyping of Islam are, in this case, projecting what must be their own prejudice against Islam by implying an Islamic state would necessarily be bad.

What happened to the important distinction that Islam is a peaceful religion but there are radical fundamentalists who perpetrate evil under their twisted interpretation of Islam?

Will Robinson wrote:What I notice is the dark irony in that, those who usually condemn any stereotyping of Islam are, in this case, projecting what must be their own prejudice against Islam by implying an Islamic state would necessarily be bad.

That Irony door swings both ways. All of a sudden this 'hate filled religion' is ok, or at bare minimum a tolerable conclusion, to a cause that our sons and daughters have died for.

I'd defend my side by noting that I would also be opposed to a Christian democratic state, or a Jewish democratic state, or a Buddhist state.

Itâ??s not the hate of Islam, but the hate of religion and politics uniting.

I will add, that I think Islam makes for a worse unity then say, Buddhism. So maybe one could find some prejudice there. However, if it is there I think it is there with good reason.

I donâ??t consider a society whose government promotes, and follows the rules of, an established religion to be free.

Will Robinson wrote:

Tricord wrote:

roid wrote:If Iraq becomes an Islamic state my irony gland will ****ing explode.

Made my day

What I notice is the dark irony in that, those who usually condemn any stereotyping of Islam are, in this case, projecting what must be their own prejudice against Islam by implying an Islamic state would necessarily be bad.

What happened to the important distinction that Islam is a peaceful religion but there are radical fundamentalists who perpetrate evil under their twisted interpretation of Islam?

i didn't give positive or negative judgement on it, just that it would be extremely ironic because it's quite damaging to USA's overall strategy (not mine), as such i'm quite confident that your military stategists are currently in a room screaming at one another shaking their fat waddles around as they do and going red in the face. (you know how they say angry things like "BRADRABRrArRRDrrBrABrDrArBArBrrDrADBA!@!@!" (think Nixon's characture in Futurama ) while shaking their heads in a hot-air filled fury, and that tired piece of skin that hangs from their chin to their neck flaps around like a delapidated vagina. the thought cracks me up)

what I want however, is a secret

i guess i'm projecting my understanding of USA's motives, and included in that is USA's stereotype of Islam. i don't have to take a side to see the motives involved, and to see when one side has therefore fucked themselves in an extremely ironic manner. but i'll damn well laugh!

Gooberman wrote: I will add, that I think Islam makes for a worse unity then say, Buddhism. So maybe one could find some prejudice there. However, if it is there I think it is there with good reason.

Some of the more logical would say that prejudices are not inherently "bad"; it is the uninformed adherence to them that is undesirable and leads to violence, hatred, or oppression. Unfortunately, prejudice carries with it the negative connotations of racism, a meaning which can not be shaken from the word.

As far as I'm concerned, prejudice is just another word for assumption. One can assume wrongly (based on illogical reasoning, like "blacks are inferior because they're not white" or "Islam is bad because it isn't Christianity") or one can assume rightly ("if Islam is made the official religion of Iraq, fundamentalist leaders will have more justification in the eyes of the state and therefore there will be increased instances of government-sanctioned brutality towards women and non-Muslims"). The breadth and scope of the different types of prejudices varies widely, but all said and done both statements are assumptions.

roid wrote: i guess i'm projecting my understanding of USA's motives, and included in that is USA's stereotype of Islam. i don't have to take a side to see the motives involved,...

Convenient the way you hide your instincts by ascribing them to a third party, but to do that you are stereotyping everyone in the U.S.A. by assigning an anti-Islam bigotry to the U.S.A. as a whole!

So even if your motive is as you say, thinking you understand the mindset of our whole nation, I'm no less disapointed and it only makes it worse now because I'm also personally offended by being a member of the group targeted by your prejudice.

Well, I wasn't in the West Wing when this was discussed pre-war, but anyone who thought that the newly freed Iraq was not going to be Islamic ought to be required to put "Idiot" in large bold letters on their resumé. Spin the globe and look from Morocco to Indonesia and you will see all sorts of flavors of Islamic. I don't see any irony. Saddam was a brutal thug who used his prayer rug for show. I think there are enough smart people now starting to make decisions in Iraq that there is genuine hope for these people to come out reasonably well from under decades of oppression from the Baathists. I am hearing that Shi'a leader al-Sistani issued fatwas preventing clerics from being involved in the writing of the Constitution. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me. But, as in this country (US), the "separation of church and state" does not mean the two shall never interact.

Will Robinson wrote:

roid wrote: i guess i'm projecting my understanding of USA's motives, and included in that is USA's stereotype of Islam. i don't have to take a side to see the motives involved,...

Convenient the way you hide your instincts by ascribing them to a third party, but to do that you are stereotyping everyone in the U.S.A. by assigning an anti-Islam bigotry to the U.S.A. as a whole!

no, just your military leaders & foreign policy contributers - they are the ones who fucked up. it's nothin to do with avg joe american, it was a LEADERSHIP & POLICY generalisation.
you should be able to laugh at your own country.

the stuff about instincts and 3rd partys i didn't quite follow (can you rephrase?). i see myself as a 3rd party. i remember someone from the DBB getting really angry with me one other time when i was debating a point without taking a side - is this what's happening here?

So even if your motive is as you say, thinking you understand the mindset of our whole nation, I'm no less disapointed and it only makes it worse now because I'm also personally offended by being a member of the group targeted by your prejudice.

nah, americans are ok.

dissent wrote:Well, I wasn't in the West Wing when this was discussed pre-war, but anyone who thought that the newly freed Iraq was not going to be Islamic ought to be required to put "Idiot" in large bold letters on their resumé. Spin the globe and look from Morocco to Indonesia and you will see all sorts of flavors of Islamic. I don't see any irony...

heh, i don't recall seeing any "oh yeah, we predict Iraq will become an islamic state after the fall of the Baath regime" from the USA in the pre-war propeganda campaigns.
why is that?

actually, the previous anti-taliban (bordering on anti-islamic) rantings from the pre-afghani-war propeganda are somewhat fresh in my mind. that's the major reason why i find this all quite ironic.

So, we have a constitution.

Sunnis denounced the document in apocalyptic terms. Only three of the fifteen Sunni members of the drafting committee even showed up for the final meeting. Not our constitution, was their message. Not our Iraq.

"Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation," the constitution reads, according to the Associated Press. "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed principles of Islam."

Wonderful. [/sarcasm]

Iraq DOES NOT have a constitution. It has a draft of a constitution that requires ratification by the Assembly and by the voters. Even so, though, it's always been a given for those of us who've been paying attention that Islam would be *a* source of legislation (as opposed to *the* source) and that no law could contradict Islamic law, and I expect those two aspects will remain enshrined within the eventual Iraqi constitution. No surprises there. That's a far cry from the Iranian-style theocracy you apparently were hoping for. I believe you're a tad premature in declaring defeat.

As far as the Sunnis' unhappiness, well yea, they're still dreaming of eventually getting back to running the show and are unhappy with some of the new realities on the ground. Namely, that former Baathists are not allowed to serve within the government again. Seems right to me. And their objection to federalism is mostly a money grab. Without being allowed back into the government and without the ability to control regional oil revenues, their dreams of returning to dominance are pretty much ended. Of course they're going object.

I believe we'll see Sunni compromises on both issues. If the Sunnis don't wrap their heads around the fact that they are now and forever removed from their once priviledged ruling class, the Kurds will take oil-rich Northern Iraq and start their own nation, the Shia will take oil-rich Southern Iraq and start their own nation and the Sunnis will end up with sand-rich Central Iraq. Compromise is in their interest.

That's a far cry from the Iranian-style theocracy you apparently were hoping for. I believe you're a tad premature in declaring defeat.

lol. Talk about just handing someone their opinion. From now on Bash, you believe the war is only about oil.

Gooberman, did you not realize that your leftist underpinnings cause you to want the US mission to fail and Iraqi democracy to fail? Clearly, Goob, you want civil war in Iraq and/or Iraq to become a puppet of Iran (though you are not even aware you want this).

Strawmen.

bash wrote:Strawmen.

Insert Strawman, more like it. What's wrong...too tired to think of your own?

You are presuming a lot about his state of mind. It is fair for that to be pointed out. I don't mean to pick on you. I'd just like to see some care taken here that frustrations with so-called liberals-at-large are not taken out on our own gentle posters.

That said....it raises the question for me as to whether or not the so-called liberal ogre exists at all. Where are all these ugly liberals who want death and civil war and failure for democracy? Because if they are all as guilty as gooberman, than I think we've found our real man of straw.

Palzon wrote: That said....it raises the question for me as to whether or not the so-called liberal ogre exists at all. Where are all these ugly liberals who want death and civil war and failure for democracy?

They sit nigh upon the U.S. Senate and wear names like Polozi, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein et. al.

You are a complete dumbass woodchip if you believe that's actually what they want

Birdseye wrote:You are a complete dumbass woodchip if you believe that's actually what they want

What they want Birdbrain, is to be back in power and will use whatever means to attain such.

...and that describes every politician.

if you ever get out of your sports fan mentality in politics I will rejoice. You root for republicans like someone would a sports team. The other team is evil to you, and you ignore logic and reasoning just to root for your team

Birdseye wrote:...and that describes every politician.

if you ever get out of your sports fan mentality in politics I will rejoice. You root for republicans like someone would a sports team. The other team is evil to you, and you ignore logic and reasoning just to root for your team

Ummm...Birdy. Where do you see me rooting for the republicans? There are good Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller who certainly don't feel they have to aid the enemies of this country just to get re-elecred by canting the party dogma as Howard Dean or Michael Moore present it.
I'm for saving the lives of our troops by presenting a solid front here at home so terrorist don't get the idea that we will cut and run if they can just cut up a few more of our troops. Want to p1ss and moan about the war then wait until it is over and our troops are back home.

So let me get this straight, we went to war advocating freedom and now they have the freedom to choose "not freedom" and we won't give them the freedom to choose it?

Can they have the freedom to not be free?

bash wrote:The Kurds will take oil-rich Northern Iraq and start their own nation, the Shia will take oil-rich Southern Iraq and start their own nation and the Sunnis will end up with sand-rich Central Iraq.

Now THAT is funny Bash. Well said that man!

The Associated Press wrote:"Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation," the constitution reads, according to the Associated Press. "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed principles of Islam."

A mistaken interpretation, or just plain shoddy journalism?

What the prospective Iraqi Constitution actually wrote:A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.

This language seems to lend equal stature to both Islam and the democratic process.

Read the whole thing here. You'll feel better.

Shock. Horror. I am surprised, and sarcastic.