Iraq Transitional Constitution

CoLawman · 08-23-2005, 22:05

The proposed Iraqi transitional Constitution has what I consider a very troubling caveat.

Article 7.

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.

In my mind this article should not have been allowed by us. And when I say us, I mean the United States. The universally agreed tenets of Islam governance, in my opinion, is what the Taliban tried to create in Afghanistan. Are these the same tenets that Iran has used since the the deposal of the Shah? ABSOLUTELY!

General MacArthur is certainly turning over in his grave. Did he not reduce the role of Emperor Hirohito to a ceremonial role. At the time the Emperor was considered a Deity. In fact General MacArthur required Hirohito to come down from Mount Olympus and address the populace. In that address he stated that his position was not divine, it was a myth. Just as the Japanese being the master race was a myth.

Do we not have a Constitution to model their's by. Seems that we should dictate certain elements of this document of democracy being drafted by a subordinate nation. For example, maybe "Separation of Church and State" should be a starting point.

Tubbs · 08-23-2005, 23:20

These are kinder gentler times. God forbid we impose our will on a country like that.
Although I agree with you %100.

Huey14 · 08-24-2005, 00:03

I don't think it's such a big deal. It's their country, they can fuck it up if they want to.

08-24-2005, 03:37

Huey, that would sort of mess up the whole point of being there, IMO.

Martin

**Pete** · 08-24-2005, 04:24

General MacArthur did have a big part In the re-writing of Japan's constitution at the end of WW II. That has caused problems that could not be seen 50-60 years later.

Everybody likes to beat up on Japan for it's limited military participation in world events but it was the US who wrote that into their constitution.

You can look at all the information you have but in the end you have to balance all the information and then make your choice of options.

Time changes the view of world events and the people who look back and say what they would have done seem to have 20/20 vision. Politicians seem to have perfect 20/20 rear view vision.

**Kyobanim** · 08-24-2005, 06:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

Huey, that would sort of mess up the whole point of being there, IMO.

Martin

The point of being there is to give them the freedom to make their own choices, good or bad.

08-24-2005, 06:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

The point of being there is to give them the freedom to make their own choices, good or bad.

I thought it also was to remove threats and cultivate a good environment. I have doubts whether Islam is fit to be the limits of a free society. If they want to mess themselves up, that's okay, but the issue is not limited to the borders of Iraq - although minorities within should be considered too.

Let me put it this way. I do not suggest dominating their lives, but that the lives living there should have a denominator that does not inhibit that freedom you spoke of.

I am all for letting people seek happiness and success wherever they please and with their means at hand. I really don't care if someone prays to God or not. That's up to them. The resulting culture will establish norms and some values from old times will live on.

What's concerning is when culture moves more and more into law, when the people is no longer deemed fit to decide what is moral and ethical. That is not freedom and it is a base from which only certain types will prosper.

Martin

jatx · 08-24-2005, 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoLawman

Article 7.

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.

I'm not too concerned. After all it only says that Islam is "a" source of legislation (the de facto truth anyway), not "the" source of legislation. The "universally agreed tenets" part is a big hedge, too. How much "universal agreement" is there on any topic between different types of Muslims, and how many of those stances are the ones we're worried about?

CoLawman · 08-24-2005, 08:12

Afghan Constitution:

Article 3 [Law and Religion]
In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

By allowing these articles into the constitutions they have virtually guaranteed that the Mullahs and Imams are at the top of the heap in governance.

There are no checks and balances. These constitutions prevent any reasonable facsimle to a Republic government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are dependent and subordinate to the Religious branch. Which by definition is a Theocracy.

Idolaters beware!

IMO.

08-24-2005, 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatx

I'm not too concerned. After all it only says that Islam is "a" source of legislation (the de facto truth anyway), not "the" source of legislation. The "universally agreed tenets" part is a big hedge, too. How much "universal agreement" is there on any topic between different types of Muslims, and how many of those stances are the ones we're worried about?

Indeed, wouldn't this be a great reason for a civil war or new border drawing?

Universal in practice only, IMO, seems to imply that the voicing parties within the country has to agree. Agree, being relative, as in Praise Allah Sistani/Whoever Version or 7.62 mm to the forehead. The militas don't appear to be getting any smaller.

Or not, perhaps they can simply split up the country, get the non-refusal of the majority and get a unified small vocal group that writes the laws. Just a thought. However, I suppose they would rewrite the constitution in that case anyway, if they split the country up.

Only my opinion and subject to change in light of better arguments.

Martin

Tubbs · 08-24-2005, 14:26

From what I heard today on NPR (yes I know, not the most objective of news sources) it sounds like the Iraqi consitution will have some checks against Islam. Yes, it does have a provision that no law may be made that is contrary to Islamic beliefs, but from the wording it sounds like they leave that up to lawyers and cut the clerics out of the descision in order to retain some stability and keep from degrading into a theocracy.

Solid · 08-25-2005, 07:33

I believe that a lot of the literature in circulation within the White House recently has proposed the idea that if Islam is forced to coexist with even limited democracy and the wealth flowing from oil, it will eventually weaken to the point of a (relatively) secular state.

Remember- while we have no state religion, many of our laws come from the Bible. Just because laws come from Islam doesn't mean that they're wrong (necessarily).

Also, there is a fair amount of nuance in the writing of those articles which gives leeway for argument between secularists and islamists.

JMO,

Solid

08-25-2005, 07:48

Not arguing your point, but in regards to your first paragraph, this article might be interesting (just as a parallell):

Millions all over China convert to Christianity (USA Today)

Interesting times.

Martin

CoLawman · 08-26-2005, 08:55

Quote:

I believe that a lot of the literature in circulation within the White House recently has proposed the idea that if Islam is forced to coexist with even limited democracy and the wealth flowing from oil, it will eventually weaken to the point of a (relatively) secular state.

Do you believe, or do you know this literature is in existence? Would be interested in seeing what is circulating in the White House in this regard!

Iran, being the world's third largest producer of oil seems to point out a flaw in this argument. And let us examine Venezuela in regards to oil wealth and co-existence with democracy. Oil has nothing to do with Separation of Church and State. Which is the point of my original post.

Quote:

Remember- while we have no state religion, many of our laws come from the Bible. Just because laws come from Islam doesn't mean that they're wrong (necessarily).

Our legal system is not derived from the Bible. Like England, our laws are based on "Common Law." meaning that our legal system is not a derivitive of written statutes, but customs and consent of the people, defined by the judicial system.
Being a lay person in this regard I will leave it to the holders of Juris Doctorate to continue this Civics Lesson.

Quote:

Also, there is a fair amount of nuance in the writing of those articles which gives leeway for argument between secularists and islamists.

AS written there is no leeway. The constitution clearly states that. And if one would agree with your argument that it gives leeway for argument, all the more reason to clean it up. There is no role for Islamic hardliners and purists in determining interpretation of laws in countries we have just expended enormous efforts to liberate. Al Sistani already has too much power, in my opinion.

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of our constitution, spoke to these concerns on several occassions.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).

jatx · 08-26-2005, 09:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoLawman

AS written there is no leeway. The constitution clearly states that.

This is not correct. See my post above. There has been a considerable amount of debate regarding which articles should be inserted in these critical clauses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoLawman

There is no role for Islamic hardliners and purists in determining interpretation of laws in countries we have just expended enormous efforts to liberate.

It's up to the Iraqis to determine what sort of country they'll have and, frankly, there is little basis in Islam for the sort of church/state separation that is common in Western democracies. Their task is to create something new, not to emulate our example. IMHO, that "something new" needs to be a state that recognizes and honors the Muslim identity of the Iraqi people, while still ensuring the maintenance of basic freedoms and limiting the power of small factions, whether religious or secular. It is not the goal of the document to reform Islam itself - that will be the task of the civil institutions and individuals which the constitution aims to protect.