Iraq's Christians Fearful of Islamic Law

Isn't this what Bush and the US want? For Iraq to become an Islamic shariah state?

Isn't that why they invaded Iraq, in obedience to their Saudi masters?

Al-Jaafari has since 1968 been a member of the Islamic Dawa Party. The secularist Allawi lost. The Americans allowed the Iraqi "democracy" to be built without any attempt to influence, through the most obvious means (the injection of American money, which might have helped Allawi), the outcome. Strange, considering what a role American money played in Europe after World War II -- not only in paying for economic reconstruction, but in support of this or that newspaper, political party, and candidate. The Christian Democrats in Italy, for example, owed a great deal to American financial support. But in Iraq, so enthused was everyone with the grand spectacle of "democracy" that they forgot what, if they did not put their thumb on the scale, would be the likely result -- as it was.

Now Jaafari, who spent the years 1980-1990 in Iran, under the Islamic Republic, with no signs of any distaste for it, or any weakening of his Islamic fervor, has just spent the weekend visiting Iran, meeting with Ahmadinejad even before the latter has taken office as President, and making all kinds of noises about cooperation with the hideous regime in Iran.

And the Iranians, in turn, have expressed their deep interest in "stability" in Iraq -- precisely the interest that the American government claims to have, and is attempting to bring about through the further expenditure of American lives, materiel, and money.

Yet as the Americans pursue what is apparently the Iranian goal, they also recognize that the major threat to the United States in the Muslim world, aside from Saudi Arabia, comes mainly from Iran. Might it be that the notion of an identity of interest with Iran in the final outcome in Iraq is absurd, and that nothing so points out the absurdity of failing to take advantage of the natural intra-Islamic fissures that will widen, if only we would stop doing everything to narrow them, as the echoing of Bush on Iraq's future by the Iranian rulers.

Two quotes:

Jaafari stressed, "It's Iraq that will decide on a date for the withdrawal of foreign forces and we have told (Washington and London) we don't want to be caught by surprise by their withdrawal, nor see them stay once we are capable of taking care of the defence of the country. The calendar must be an Iraqi calendar."

So Iraq will decide when the American and British troops leave, and not the Americans and the British. Well, does that make sense? Are the troops Hessians, mercenaries (mercenaries who are being paid not by the Iraqis themselves, but by their own long-suffering taxpayers from whose ranks those soldiers come?), or are they American and British soldiers whose own governments are free to remove them whenever they see fit, whatever Jaafari with his "Iraqi calendar" presumes to think.

And here are some excerpts from a report yesterday on Jaafari's trip to Iran:

"Iraq's Ibrahim el-Jaafari held talks with outgoing Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in a visit that aims to further solidify ties between the U.S.-allied government in Iraq and Iran, which considers the United States its top enemy."

"The security and stability of both countries are interrelated," Khatami said in the meeting with Jaafari, according to state-run radio. "Tehran will do its utmost for the restoration of stability and security" in Iraq.

Are you glad we are working, at such great expense, in every way, to promote the "security and stability" in Iraq by which those who now rule Iran set such store? Are you quite convinced those pursuing this policy, this "march of democracy" and "staying the course" and "not cutting-and-running" has been thoroughly thought out, and all of its implictions for the larger menace well understood? Or do you think that the continued inability to admit that the greatest intelligence failure of the war was not about weapons of mass destruction, but about the nature, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics, of Islma itself?

Two quotes:

Jaafari stressed, "It's Iraq that will decide on a date for the withdrawal of foreign forces and we have told (Washington and London) we don't want to be caught by surprise by their withdrawal, nor see them stay once we are capable of taking care of the defence of the country. The calendar must be an Iraqi calendar."

So Iraq will decide when the American and British troops leave, and not the Americans and the British. Well, does that make sense? Are the troops Hessians, mercenaries (mercenaries who are being paid not by the Iraqis themselves, but by their own long-suffering taxpayers from whose ranks those soldiers come?), or are they American and British soldiers whose own governments are free to remove them whenever they see fit, whatever Jaafari with his "Iraqi calendar" presumes to think.

And here are some excerpts from a report yesterday on Jaafari's trip to Iran:

"Iraq's Ibrahim el-Jaafari held talks with outgoing Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in a visit that aims to further solidify ties between the U.S.-allied government in Iraq and Iran, which considers the United States its top enemy."

"The security and stability of both countries are interrelated," Khatami said in the meeting with Jaafari, according to state-run radio. "Tehran will do its utmost for the restoration of stability and security" in Iraq.

Are you glad we are working, at such great expense, in every way, to promote the "security and stability" in Iraq by which those who now rule Iran set such store? Are you quite convinced those pursuing this policy, this "march of democracy" and "staying the course" and "not cutting-and-running" has been thoroughly thought out, and all of its implictions for the larger menace well understood? Or do you think that the continued inability to admit that the greatest intelligence failure of the war was not about weapons of mass destruction, but about the nature, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics, of Islam itself? And can you not see why the Iranians and Jaafari both want the "security" of a "secure" Shi'a-dominated government, and the "stability" of unchallenged rule by that Shi'a majority?

Perhaps the Jaafari/Khatami alliance is not challenged in exchange for intelligence gained on their neighbors sandbox, Hugh.
Wishful thinking - I know. I know.

Voltaire:

The last thing the Al-Sauds want is another powerful Shiite regime on their doorstep, especially one so close to their own oil-rich, majority Shiite eastern provinces, where I understand the local population is quite restive.

The long-awaited constitution now being prepared in Iraq could effectively turn the country into an Islamist state, warns the auxiliary bishop of Baghdad.

Looks like "Freedom is on the March!"

The freedom to vote in Sharia, that is. Oh well, the important thing is that the war made someone "look good."

Internet Toolbox for Islam-critics:

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=661

Hugh,

I agree. Let them have internecine warfare, just like they are starting to do in Gaza. I am for a pullout, except for the Kurdish north, unless they want us to go. Try to save as many Christians we can, but we have to be able of the taqiyyamasters pretending to be Christians. your comments please.

Reset

At internet toolbox, there is an impalement video that is vile, disgusting and inhumane. These are not humans, they are savages, but everyone here know that. Great link list. I recommend everyone bookmark that site.

Reset

kj, freedom is on a death march.

Voltaire posted;

"Isn't this what Bush and the US want? For Iraq to become an Islamic shariah state? Isn't that why they invaded Iraq, in obedience to their Saudi masters?"

Given your admiration of Giaour's rants, I assume you are serious. Could you please provide evidence that the Bush administration really wants Iraq to have Sharia law?

Hugh posted;

"Al-Jaafari has since 1968 been a member of the Islamic Dawa Party. The secularist Allawi lost......Might it be that the notion of an identity of interest with Iran in the final outcome in Iraq is absurd"

I foresee possible outcomes;

1) A secular constitution (falsely) claiming Islam as its source of inspiration.

2) A nominally Islamist constitution with a watered-down version of Sharia law (sort of what goes on in Malaysia).

3) Full-blown Sharia law.

#1 is the best outcome, #2 is the most likely outcome, but if full-blown Sharia becomes the law of Iraq, your plan gets my unconditional support. If they keep up with the August deadline, we may not have long to wait.

Waterdragon posted;

"The last thing the Al-Sauds want is another powerful Shiite regime on their doorstep"

Excellent point. I also think that animosity between Sunnis and Shia will prevent the implementation of full-blown Sharia law in Iraq because even conservative Sunnis will bristle at the idea of Shia "infidels" imposing Sharia law on them.

1) A secular constitution (falsely) claiming Islam as its source of inspiration..
--- from a posting above

But it won't be a false claim. It can't be a false claim. Look at the supposedly "secular" legal code of Egypt, which is riddled with Sharia-like treatment of non-Muslims. How could Jaafari, in the Dawa Party for nearly 40 years, how could Al-Sistani, how could any of them approve of a truly "secular constitution"? They just can't.

Andrei

Bush declared Iraq to be an Islamic state. The next step is shariah law.

Just putting two and two together.

So all you religion of Peace Lovers living in the West, if the non Muslims are to live under the law of the Religion of peace, why are they so fearful?

Come IA, and the other Muslim posters. According to you all Islam doesn't discriminate, provides equality yadda yadda yadda,

why are they so scared? Or will Iraq end up like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where everyone just "chooses" to be Islamic?

"Bush declared Iraq to be an Islamic state. The next step is shariah law. Just putting two and two together."

You'll have to do better than that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Bush was just being diplomatic. To say otherwise could be misinterpreted as the U.S. imposing a different culture on Iraq.

Looks to me like an attempt to conflate Evangelical Christianity with Islamic fundamentalism.

Just putting two and two together.

Naturally, the Iraqi leaders will say that they will determine when they are ready for America to leave. That's politics. But as long as the country is at war internally, the announcement will not be made.
And it's a given that the Shi'ites are in the majority, and very close with Iran. We may wind up leaving in terrible circumstances, or turning the county over only to allow it to fall into islamic totalitarianism.
Strategically, however we will NOT remain with the Kurds, because the supply lines south would be cut off, and the ones north go through Turkey. Those will be cut, too, because the Turks don't want the Kurds to encourage separatists, and the Turks will also see the futility of siding with the USA if and when we cede so much territory.
The end-game in Iraq is very risky in that the possible outcome(s) in our favor are not stable ones. The unfavorable outcomes ARE stable ones. Unfortunately, we are there. I happen to believe that we didn't have much choice. The truth about Iraq's support of international terrorism has not yet really emerged. But, Bush and company are not very good at "managing the message" on this point either.

"We may wind up leaving in terrible circumstances..."
-- from a posting above

Not if we leave very soon, and let the Shi'a fight back against the entirely Sunni opposition, which has always regarded the Shi'a as quasi or complete Infidels in any case. Let them fight it out. Given that the Sunnis have all the other powerful and rich Sunnis of the Arab Gulf to resupply them with money and arms, and Sunnis will continue to come in through Jordan and Syria, they will not be defeated And the Sh'a, on the other hand, will have Iraq.

"Strategically, however we will NOT remain with the Kurds, because the supply lines south would be cut off, and the ones north go through Turkey. Those will be cut, too, because the Turks don't want the Kurds to encourage separatists..."
-- from the same posting above

In 1948 more than a million people were resupplied with everything they needed by the Berlin Airlift. That was at a time when America did not possess the kind of capacity it now possesses. It is entirely possible, in leaving Iraq, to leave some weapons "pre-positioned" with the Pesh Merga, and let them understand that those weapoons, should Kurdistan be assaulted by Arabs, can be used -- and can also be resupplied. Air cover, too, can help protect Kurdistan, in exactly the same way that this was done during the last dozen years (1991-2003) of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Unlike the mess now in Iraq, it would not be a confused mission, half-U.N. "international-community" do-good-stuff, half half-baked (one quarter-baked, in other words) Wilsoonian hopes and dreams about Iraq as a "Light-Unto-the-Muslim=Nations." It would be warfare, by proxy or direct, to impress about Muslims everywhere, and especially the 80% that are not Arabs, that the Arab supremacist ideology of Islam can be opposed, its claims denied, its forces pushed back. The very phrase the "Arab World" is false, and needs to be shown up -- both for the non-Muslims living within that vast area (as it is claimed), and for the non-Arab Muslims living there as well. The "Arabness" of this area is of quite recent vintage; a few generations ago, very few in Syria, for example, would have ever had it cross their minds that they were "Arabs." But that is a complicated story -- go to www.eccelibano.blogspot.com, and click on relevant links to a blooger named "Leila Ahmad."