What I want to know is: how will these two sections play out?
Article 13F:
Each Iraqi has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice. Coercion in such matters shall be prohibited.
And Article 7A:
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.
It isn't that I think 7A contradicts 13F. It doesn't. Even the most radical Muslim spokesman such as Sayyid Qutb denounced religious coercion and hotly denied that Islamic jihad mandated it. But Islamic law, while allowing Jews and Christians to practice their religions, also severely restricts their rights and mandates all manner of discrimination against them. Thus it is not enough to guarantee freedom of thought and conscience. Equality of rights for non-Muslims must be explicitly guaranteed -- particularly in light of the fact that no law can be made that contradicts Islam. Otherwise dhimmi provisions could be enforced against non-Muslims in Iraq and be presented as fully in accord with this constitution.
Article 12 forbids religious discrimination. But Sharia Muslims do not consider the dhimmi laws discrimination. They consider them simple justice.
From the text published by the Washington Post.
Of course 7A will "supplant" 13F. It's just a matter of time. This is exactly how for more than 1,000 years, Islam has been able to enter and overtake other cultures.
This should be an object lesson for the United States and all other Westerners that value their hard-earned freedoms.
It seems the U.S. will be OK with sharia- as long as it's democratically instituted. Expect the same elsewhere. We wouldn't want to humiliate the sensibilities of the Islam leaders (remember, it's a religion of peace) by imposing western law/culture.
Every method of protecting minority rights in a democracy is vulnerable to getting enough votes to stack the courts or change the constitution.
The constitution will only act as a kind of 'firewall' to prevent militant Islam from rapidly removing people's rights. As in the Iran example, militant Islam is popular only for a certain time period. Afterwards it depends on political and physical intimidation to keep going.
If people's rights aren't removed during the popular period, society will have a chance to flirt with militant Islam then bounce bank, just as America flirted with extreme nationalism (McCarthyism)during the cold war.
Given that directly confronting militant Islam would involve backing brutal semi-secular dictatorships which eventually collapse, this might be the better approach. Allowing Islamic democracy then bombarding it with MTV, capitalism, free speech and feminism may work better than any other approach.
Actually the founding fathers probably had issues with how long the initial constitution would last as well. This is why they incorporated the right to bear arms, its an indirect method of preserving a state's right to secession as a last resort. I believe the interim constitution allows the Kurd's to maintain their self-defense force. This is the equivalent 'last resort' for minority muslims in Iraq.
Islam's attitude to non-Muslims won't change. It ranges from slightly to greatly discriminatory. Having said that Islam's ability to maintain its appeal outside of Muslim countries and refugee/immigrant enclaves is heavily restricted by its inconsistency with modern culture-limiting its threat. How many 3rd generation American Muslims wear the chador? You could count them on your hand.
Sharia law cannot by definition be applied democratically.Sharia law is brutal and inconsistent with modern republics.If we want a stable iraq for all Iraqis, sharia law cannot and must not be allowed to be the law of the land.
Islamic democracy is an oxymoron!
There cannot be democracy under Islam. Sharia law is inherently unjust to all people—Muslim males included.
The moment the U.S. leaves, Iraq will degenerate into a state of civil war. Let the U.N. and other nations patrol that land until kingdom come.
I do not believe that it is possible to introduce democracy into any Islamic state. The only reason Turkey has a "sort of" democracy is because of the military.
It was a waste of lives and treasure to go into Iraq. The BS "fly paper" theory is just that—BULLSHIT! Our nation will be paying this folly off for generations ro come, while more and more of the Islamic terror hydra manifests itself all over the world.
These indolent, nihilist jihadis have nothing else to do but look forward to their 72 raisins in paradise. Why should they work for anything in this life, when it is so much quicker and easier to get it in the fantasy of the Islamic paradise?
I say isolate the Islamic world—period. Trade with those who have something to trade—such as oil but, that is it! No more travel to the decadent playgrounds of the world for apostate Muslims, no more sending their children to our universities, no more technological exchanges, no more "cultural" exchanges, no more weapons sales, no more aid, no more immigration—NOTHING!
If they open terror camps or grow opium—annihilate them!
Leave them to allah! When they decide to be civilized, a few centuries from now, then maybe.
Lili
Article 12. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures."
I guess with Islam law being the norm, cutting off hands and feet and stoning to death would fall under "legal procedures".
Article 13.(B) "The right of free expression shall be protected."
But under 17A "No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam" -means you better not say 'the koran is hogwash and muhammad
was a genetic ancestor of Hitler' or it's the "legal procedures" of article 12 for you.
17A was the worst thing that could have been stuck in there.
As soon as the coalition leaves, Iraq will begin to march backwards. It's the inherent quality of Islam.
Islam has to grow up and regulate itself as a personal, private religious choice, and leave the country to govern itself in a secular manner.
The interim constitution was promising, but it completely unravels with article 17a. The shiites will drag Iraq right back into Islamic totalitarianism. Looks like Iran wins. The kurds will get crushed by Turkey and Iran, and that will be it for the civil war.
Looks like we'll be chasing around jihadists forever until Government decides to get serious about Islam in general and BAN THE KORAN. it's no different Nazism, yet at least people had the sense to stomp that out.
Boy, are we ever catching on! First, sharia and rational legal principles are mutually exclusive; unfortunately, as "epg" above points out, Islam is very consistent and has very long-range goals. If we don't become very knowledgeable about our own civilization and how we came to it, we will remain polarized, confused, and above all, inconsistent. That will be our downfall.
There is another mistake I hear a lot in the news. People keep saying "Well, if sharia is imposed by a 51% vote, that's a majority, that's OK, because that's what democracy is all about--majority rule."
Wrong. Majority rule is OK only so long as it performs within the limitations of a rational constitution. It's not "OK" to violate basic human rights because a 51% majority wants to. It's not OK to murder, mistreat, torture, etc. because some jerk persuades his followers that it's OK.