Will there be democracy in Iraq, or Sharia? Or more jihad? Consider this: "It will be a grave mistake for America and the United Nations to pit themselves in a confrontation with Sayyid Sistani's followers. They will lose greatly if they oppose the Shi'ite religious authorities." An idle threat? Maybe, but the Shi'ites can't simply be wished away. From Reuters, with thanks to Peter Rockas:
Supporters of Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said on Friday an assessment by U.N. officials that elections are not possible before June 30 could stir revolt against their U.S. occupiers.The United Nations sent a team to Iraq to gauge differences between Washington, which wants to hand over power to Iraqis by mid-year without holding polls first, and the country's majority Shi'ites, led by Sistani, who insist on a democratic election.
U.N. officials in Iraq said on Friday it would not be possible to organize polls before June 30, though they stressed it was important to hold elections as soon as security and technical arrangements permitted.
In Sistani's home town of Najaf, his supporters threatened to rise up if they did not get their way.
"If the United Nations and Americans do not fulfil the wish of our religious scholars then fatwas (religious edicts) will follow," Sheikh Rida Hamdani, a Sistani follower, said.
"At first there will be demonstrations or civil disobedience and finally armed struggle."
"We are all behind Sistani, and Shi'ites all have arms," Hussein Khalifa, a 43-year-old community elder, said.
"The ball is in the United Nation's court...if they do not achieve our goals we will open a front against them. What is this talk that conditions are not ready for elections?...Are the only conditions ready the ones that allow Americans to move about and do what they want freely in Iraq?"
DEMONSTRATIONS
In practice, how Shi'ites react to the U.N. decision will be dictated by the orders from their religious leadership.
When Sistani, a recluse who communicates through aides, made it known he was demanding elections, tens of thousands of Shi'ites came on to the streets to demonstrate peacefully.
The U.N. top envoy in Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, said after meeting Sistani he agreed time was needed to prepare elections, but there has been no official word on whether he would accept a view that elections be delayed beyond June.
If he does, it is likely his followers will do also. If he doesn't, his supporters say violence will follow.
"The Shi'ites represent the majority and they have a strong attachment to their religious leaders, so any fatwa to fight America will be followed by all Shi'ites," said Sheikh Ali Sweidi, a Sistani disciple.
"It will be a grave mistake for America and the United Nations to pit themselves in a confrontation with Sayyid Sistani's followers. They will lose greatly if they oppose the Shi'ite religious authorities."
Shi'ites make up 60 percent of Iraqis, and after years of oppression under Saddam Hussein, who came from the Sunni minority, feel it is time to assert their dominance.
Many supported the U.S. goal of toppling Saddam, but are against the occupation. Some said they thought Washington wanted to delay polls just so it could stay longer in Iraq.
"The elections will not take place because the United Nations and America will keep finding excuses for delaying them...for the Americans if the elections are held there would be no excuse for its troops to stay in Iraq,' Sheikh Hassan al-Naji al -Mussawi said.
Are the elections being delayed because the Sharia supporters will win?
Imagine the headline when the population of Muslims in the U.S. reaches the critical mass stage: "Clerics Warn Congress to Pass Laws to Institute Mulsim Law or Fatwas Will Follow." This is the reality of all populations throughout history where Islam gained predominance.
Do you part. Inform your friends and acquaintances as well as elected officials of your concerns. Put the question to aspiring candidates and make that an important reason for making your choice in November.
This is perhaps why there is a strong argument for separation of church and state in America. Certainly it would not be a stable and tolerant country if we where governed by religious leaders. The good thing is that are Christian and Judao values are well reflected in our Constitution, and Bill of Rights. God Bless America !
Mackie, you're so right. Separation of church and state is indeed what makes the west a great culture. I have many evangelical Christian friends who believe the U.S. should be a Christian country officially, but "epg" has a good point. Imagine if there was a Muslim majority in the U.S..
Three cheers for all of your comments about the separation question! You are so very correct!
I know that you completely understand one excellent reason why there should be separation between religion and state: Since the government is the legal repository of armed force (police, military) on a large scale, the separation prevents it from "taking sides" by using force to impose any particular religion on all the citizens. By this mechanism, religious freedom is protected--for everyone.
You may be interested in a less well known reason. In the years immediately preceding the American Revolution, a young man named Robert Molesworth and a couple of his friends began writing pamphlets that are generally considered justification for revolution, and became known as "Cato's Letters."
The thinking of young Molesworth, who strongly favored the separation of religion and the powers of the state, was derived from the common European practice of combining the offices of head of state and head of religion. His special reference was to an earlier Danish experience, where there had been an absolute religious monarchy, with much misery brought to its subjects on that account. The history of the British practice of combining head of state and religion was also not far from his thoughts.
Molesworth objected to the use of creating a compliant and submissive population through the use of religion, especially in the schools.
His contention was that if children (who grew into adults, of course!) were taught that government was some sort of agent of God, rather than a product of human actions, then opposition to government could be interpreted as a sin, rather than honest intellectual disagreement.
Molesworth's thinking was later incorporated into the Constitution of the new United States of America.
It was his goal, and that of his admirers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, to assure that American citizens would always remain free to make any changes necessary to government to maintain their freedom without undergoing the pain of being declared sinful and immoral, and to remain free to engage in whatever spiritual practices they wished.
I'm not aware of any evangelical Christians arguing for the union of church and state. As David Limbaugh attests in "Persecution", Christianity's concept of fallen man and the fundamental dignity of man was what led to the Constitution as it stands, and the constitutions of many states. Christians are of no threat in terms of being in power unless you worship the state.
people people people... why are you shooting yourselves in the foot? let me explain something to you. when you say that you give people democracy.........WHAT ARE YOU OFFERING THEM?? are you offering them the right to elect representatives to govern them, representatives that represent the basic ideals and beliefs of the voters?? that is what democracy is... if you give democracy to a country of where everyone is muslims.. their DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WILL ALSO BE MUSLIMS, muslims who represent the same basic islamic ideals and beliefs that the vast majority of the MUSLIM COUNTRY holds dear. THERE YOU ARE, YOUR BELOVED DEMOCRACY AT WORK :) you cannot say "oh we are here to liberate you and give you democracy... as long as you dont DEMOCRATICALLY ELECT a bunch of muslims that represent your own islamic beliefs.... because thats wrong".. YOU CANT DO THAT!!! IF IRAQ DEMOCRACTICALLY ELECTS AN ISLAMIC STATE THEN GOOD FOR THEM!! anyone who harps or whinges against such an accourance is a hypocrite of the worst kind. then the killing of around 10,000 innocent iraqi civilians during this most recent iraq war was in vain. think about it... if a country who population is mostly christian was to, for the majority, democratically vote for people who represented their christian beliefs and they wanted to pass legislature that reflected those christian beliefs.... you wouldnt care... you're so biggoted to the fact that these people are muslims that you believe that their beliefs which they are going to represent are so different from yours. "here have democracy, liberty, and freedom.... as long as you do what white christians want" pfft.. who wants hypocritical demoCRAPsy. the bottom line is.. the majority of iraq are shia muslims who will elect shia representatives that represent shia beliefs, ideals and traditions. you gave them the authority to do it, you gave the the right.. a right which you all hold yourselves, and they're gonna use it. DONT WHINGE