Iraqi Shia leaders demand sharia law

But George assured us Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance that had been hijacked by a tiny minority of fanatics!

But George assured us that Islam is fully compatible with human rights and democracy

I saw this article last night, and I admit it is upsetting. However, given the MSM accuracy problems, I think it might be wise to wait for more information. See post from "Iraq the Model" that a senior Sistani aid denies the statement. True/False? Will have to wait and see. Treehugger

A new form of tyranny!? Not that easy.
This afternoon I saw on the news (Al-Arabiyah) that:
"Al-Marji'yah, represented by Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistain demanded Islam to be the only source for legislation in Iraq and that the coming government must not try to separate religion from the State."

I didn't like this worrisome statement for sure but decided to wait for a while and gather more information before I make my comment on it.

Well, at least one Iraqi blogger wasn't that patient and chose to attack back, something that I don't recommend as it might drive people to say/write some unreasonable things.
For example, our friend "Baghdad Dweller" whom I respect has posted some superficial analysis of this subject and more worse posted some statements that are far from being accurate.

"Toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime and giving the Iraqis the freedom to choose has now set the country on a course to a bloodless Islamic revolution. Already, the effects are being felt. Whereas women under the Ba’ath regime, brutal as it was, enjoyed more freedom than most women in the Middle East, they are now unable to go outdoors without head scarves for fear of being harassed or assaulted."

No offence Dweller, but women do go out without wearing scarves, maybe not as they used to do in the past but the definitely do. One visit to any of Baghdad's universities or crowded market places can clear the confusion. Not to mention that there are 6 female ministers in the current interim government and 25% of the seats in the National Assembly will be occupied by women, now do you se something like that elsewhere in the ME?

And I completely understand that when you're outside Iraq, you will find no other way but to watch and read the-in most cases-biased media outlets to get the information you need and eventually this will lead to the formation of a confused vision.

Anyway, back to the main subject and the alleged statement; I chose to wait until the next news hour and of course until I chill out a little bit after the disturbing news and then I heard this update on the story "Haider Al-Khaffaf, a senior Sistani's aide says that no such statement was released".
And going back to Friday's news, another senior aide of Sistani said from Kuwait that "the future constitution of the country is an issue that is left for the National Assembly to deal with".

Away from false statements and true statements, let's go back to similar situations that took place not far ago; Dweller has given what I consider a very good example, she mentioned last year's resolution 137 issue which was called for by the head of the SCIRI (who's considered a strong candidate for the PM position in the coming government as he's heading the list of the Iraqi United Alliance). But even at that time, when the GC was partially in charge, the role of the people and the other members of the GC was so evident in refuting the resolution in question and thus the Islamists failed to pass the law.

Another important thing I'd like to point out here is that Ayatollah Sistani played the role of a 'safety valve' in Iraq, his wisdom has helped control the anger of the masses in more in an instance an I don't expect him to ruin what has been built so far and push the country into a civil war.

On the other hand, there are rules and regulations that govern the writing of the constitution and these were agreed on by almost everyone (with a few reservations though) but there is a general agreement on these rules, and anyway, passing any legislation will require the approval of 2 thirds of the assembly's members.
Even though the Alliance list seems to be winning a similar majority of the seats now but the future as I expect is hiding a lot of surprises; will the ten or fifteen parties that stood united through out the electoral process keep the same unity when their different interests and agendas contradict each other?? Will a secular Turcoman member of the Assembly for example help Al-Hakim pass such laws just because they were allies during the elections? From what I see, I think the answer is NO.

Dweller added "Although the Election was people Vs terrorist but a big deal of it was Religion Vs Secularism, religion that used by clerics and Mullah to advance their political cause."

Well, maybe elections were religion Vs secularism, but that would be the perspective of the cleric-like politicians and not the people's. It is true that Mullahs seize power in Iran but that Iranian model cannot take place in Iraq, simply because there's no place for a totalitarian regime in future Iraq and power can not be monopolized by any particular small group.
Bottom line is, the last word will be the people's from now on in Iraq and Iraqis will never accept a one man rule no matter what; They're tired of being controlled and they will never, ever approve a new kind of tyranny under any name.

- posted by Omar @ 22:20

I have the same sentiments Jakester.

This blind loyalty towards Bush is comprehensible to me (blind loyalty period is incomprehensible to me).

Iraq already has an Islamic Republic in it's Interim Constitution (google Iraqi Interim Constitution),
and the status of women, and minorities is already as bad as it is in Iran. Women cannot travel without written permission from a male guardian.

And the Bush loyalists actually believe the rhetoric that comes out of the administration.
Paul Wolfowitz eulogized the fallen Shiite leader as an Iraqi Abraham Lincoln. But his group seems more intent on making Iraq conform to the principles of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Why on Earth would Wolfowitz eulogize Ayatollah al Hakim equating him to Abraham Lincoln (remember that Reagan hauled the Taliban leadership before the cameras and called them the Thomas Jeffersons of Afghanistan).

June 16, 2004 | Last September, Paul Wolfowitz was the special guest at a memorial service in Arlington, Va., for an influential Shiite cleric killed in a car bombing in Najaf, Iraq. The deputy defense secretary hailed Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim as a "true Iraqi patriot," and he quoted from the Gettysburg Address as he likened the slain leader to the Union soldiers who had died to preserve their country. It was a eulogy that al-Hakim undoubtedly would have found jarring. His Islamist political party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and its 15,000-man militia had been funded by Iran, a member of President Bush's "axis of evil." And al-Hakim himself had long been wary of perceived American imperialism in the Middle East, even as his party, known as SCIRI (pronounced "SEA-ree"), cooperated with the Coalition Provisional Authority on the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty -- the likely reason he was targeted for assassination.

I have an answer to my own question, considering Bush's cozy relationship with the Saudis, and this embrace of the Iranians and Shi'a (don't believe the war hype), it takes a stable, authoritarian government, which the majority of people will obey and support (as they do in Iran under the Mullahs), to enter into contracts, deliver oil, repay loans and in the case of Iraq repay Saddams reparations payments to Kuwait, which were bought up by the Carlyle Group at pennies on the dollar.

And of course the Carlyle Group counts as members not only the Saudi bin Ladens, but Bush Daddy, and the Bush's family law team of Baker Botts.

Islam is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights But the truth is that democracy and human rights is not the agenda of the President and the neo cons, and actually never was.

George Soros is also an investor in the Carlyle Group.

The Carlyle Group manages approx. $20 billion of which approx. 1% is in the defense industry.

Reference link:
http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/company/l3-company735.html

Implying that the bin Ladens are evil and should not have freedom to invest money where they wish is akin to implying that Scott Peterson's family should also be in prison for Laci's death.

Getting back to the issue at hand. This is where the rubber meets the road in the current war. This is an ideological struggle. The Iraqi people will have to determine their fate. If they choose to pursue Sharia law -- and consequently, the Jihad -- then they will be in a state of war with the U.S. Thus, they will continue to undergo a revolution until they get it right.

If, however, they throw off the shackles of the totalitarian political theology that is Islam and accept systems of thought that respect individual freedoms, then they will become a shining gem in the Middle East, an example for their brothers and sisters around them who are still under the thumb of despots and ensconced in Sharia totalitarianism.

This war is just getting started.

Well, the true democrats there may have to wear Islamic colors for a while before trying to move them into the 21st century, But I have a sneaking feeling a too large dollop of Islam will be tolerated in the name of stability by our folks!

Omar-
Has the Grand Ayatollah proclaimed that the rights of women do NOT have to conform to Shari'a? I have heard nothing of the sort from the Iraqi ulema.

SO the summary of the Iraq war is that the U.S
actually bankrolled an Islamic revolution ?
I suppose Wolfowitz is working on plans for another invasion to overthrow this Islamic government
to yet again try to set up a democracy.

An express elevator to hell...

Well, well, well. It looks like "FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH"!

What say you now, Gary?

This blind loyalty towards Bush is comprehensible to me (blind loyalty period is incomprehensible to me).

Let me help you comprehend it: the GOPers have become a personality cult, similar (but granted, not anywhere near as extreme) as that surrounding that little shit dictator of North Korea.

The GOPers don't care about conserving anything; they are so fiscally irresponsible that even Pat Buchanon has condemned them.

It's call "The Birth Tax" friends. Every offspring we produce will have to shoulder $36,000 worth of debt, which has been ran up in the last four years.

Enjoy! If it becomes too much, we can always go to Canada. (Right Cal-Gary?)

The one good thing Dub could do at this point would be to invade Iran. That would be cool.

I seriously doubt, KJ, that you can demonstrate that the Bush Administration is responsible for $36,000 worth of debt per citizen.

KJ:

Even without participating in the invasion of Iraq, we Canadians have a sizeable "birth tax" of our own.

And here I thought kj actually had a point.

I will admit, Bush did it get it wrong. He said they'd tell us to pull out, once the election was over.

Instead they want us to stay.

Let's see what else might be wrong... but let's see it first. What some people want and what they will get are two different things.

btw, kj, do you Ever read anything I say about my situation?