Iraqi Draft Constitution

According to several sources, it says: 'Islam is a main source for legislation and it is not permitted to legislate anything that conflicts with the fixed principles of its rules.'

Looks like after the lengthy debate on this constitution, they are in for a much longer debate on the 'fixed principles' of their religion: what is fixed and what is not, who fixed it, why was it fixed that way and not in another, what is the meaning of 'fixed' and how fixed is that meaning?

Good luck guys... ~:handball:

From what i've readen, it says the same about human right declaration.

It sounds a bit like if the chiit's desire for the charia was taken in account and that the human rights declaration was added to make it look acceptable.

As the two are incompatible, it is easy to guess what will be the base of this constitution.

Another happy day for the Irakis, a sunny path leading to a shinning future under medieval theocratic laws opens itself to their feet.

Well, so much for us making their lives better. Between the 3 or 4 factions in Iraq, a civil war is going to start sooner or later, epsecially if they can't even make a just constitution.

Along with federalism and the sharing of resources, the role of Islam in law-making is one of the sticking points in the constitution, and one of the reasons why it has not yet been officially accepted.

It doesn't matter what's in the proposed constitution at this time. The issue of federalism is going to cause the Sunni's to vote it down. If the Kurds and Shiites try to pass it anyway, there will be even worse violence. Another issue is the sharing of oil revenues. Almost all of Iraq's oil is located in Shiite and Kurd provinces, leaving the Sunni minority out in the cold on that issue as well.

As for the inclusion of the passage regarding the Shari-ah, Islamic law. The constitution, as proposed, states that Islamic law will be the basis for all Iraqi law and that no Iraqi law may violate Islamic law. It would give power to a "council" of Islamic clerics to determine if a proposed law is in accordance with the Shari-ah. That doesn't bode well for women's rights and non-Islamic minority rights under the proposed system, considering the power of the Shiites and their ties to another Islamic Republic in the region - Iran. As it currently is written, the Iraqi constitution creates an Islamic state not very different from Iran.

Now that we've dispensed with the "freedom and democracy" portion of the current raison d'jour for invading Iraq, what is the reason going to be now? "We invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and create a repressive Islamic regime" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "bringing freedom and democracy to the oppressed people of Iraq."

Edit: Marcellus beat me to it, I'm just more verbose and pedantic about the whle issue. ~D

Islamic law does not mean Taliban law. If I remember correctly, almost every middle eastern state has it, yet there are wide ranging interpretations of it. It can certainly be made compatible with a modern federal republic.

PJ, I agree. But between the Kurds, Sunnis and Sihiites, who knows what sort of Islamic laws they'd agree on, if any?

The Taliban isn't at issue here, really. The form of Islam seen with the Taliban is a radical version of Deobandi, which is an offshoot of Sunni Islam from India. What happens in Iraq will be related to mainstream Sunni and Shia, not Deobandi; although I suppose it's possible that there will be some Ikhwan/Wahhabi influences there as well.

Understanding the differences between Shia and Sunni makes a world of difference when considering what happens when the Shia majority exercises the clause under the proposed constitution prohibiting any laws which contradict Islamic law. The more moderate, by Western standards, Sunnis will not be the controlling voice in such deliberations. For an idea of how Islamic law will be interpreted, look to Shia-run Islamic states, not just all Islamic states. The best example being Iran.

Before the Iraq War, one of the reasons that I never took the "freedom & democracy" talk seriously was that I assumed the administration had thought through what a truly 'democratic' Iraq would look like.

Democratic elections in 'secular' Islamic states like Morocco and Turkey have often elected Islamist governments that the secular military elite have had to take down by coup. One of the realities of the Muslim world is that there exists in most countries a large population of disaffected Islamists.

I just assumed that the Bush administration realized that a truly democratically elected government in Iraq would be Shia-dominated, and would reflect Islamist principles of governance that are in and of themselves anti-democratic... at least in terms of the way we in the West think of rights and the legitimate basis for political authority.

I assumed that the Bushites would topple the Saddam government and put another Sunni strongman in power. That had seemed to be the preference after the First Gulf War when the US stood by and let the Shia and Kurds be slaughtered. Bush I's call for the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow Saddam had apparently been code for "Sunni generals".

So now, due to a truly appalling lack of pre-invasion planning, and apparently a complete disconnect from reality, we are looking at an Iraq whose Constitution will ultimately be based on sharia law, and religious rulings from Shia clerics.

All I can say is WTF? One of the nice things about Iraq over the last several decades was that it was a secular state. Women had full access to legal rights and Western-style freedoms. What we are already seeing is that this cluster-'you know what' of an invasion has lead to women being much less free than they were under Saddam. Men too have lost freedoms. Religious extremism is such that barbers won't even trim men's beards in Baghdad anymore because they are afraid of retaliation from religious fanatics.

It is truly appalling to think that what we may end up creating in Iraq is an Iranian client state ruled by Imams, or an all-out civil war, or both.

Check out Juan Cole's "Informed Comment" for a good rundown on the draft constitution, and some of the political maneuvering.

LINK