Here, from Human Events, is my take on the Iraqi Constitutional referendum:
Although the results of Iraq’s constitutional referendum were almost immediately cast into doubt by fraud allegations, Reza Aslan, whose bestselling book No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam predicted a bright future for democracy in the Islamic world, remained optimistic: “Even before Iraq’s constitution was ratified, dire predictions were being made that it would pave the way for the creation of an Islamic theocracy. But whatever problems the new constitution poses for the future of Iraq, the role of Islam in the state is not likely to be one of them.”Aslan maintained this even while noting that the Iraqi Constitution “establishes Islam as ‘the official religion of the state’ and ‘a basic source of legislation’; no law can be passed that contradicts ‘the fixed principles of Islam.’” Why shouldn’t this be a cause for concern? Because, he explained, “the constitution deliberately leaves those fixed principles to be defined by the natural democratic process in accordance with the changing will of the Iraqi people, and it unequivocally states that no law can be passed that contradicts the basic rights and freedoms outlined by the constitution. Among the first of these is that all individuals have a right to freedom of creed, worship, practice, thought and conscience.”
Aslan thus seems to imagine that the “fixed principles of Islam” can be determined by a majority vote of the Iraqi people, and that in any case any elements of Islam that militate against “freedom of creed, worship, practice, thought and conscience” will give way before the Constitution’s guarantees of those freedoms. But in fact the “fixed principles of Islam” are not a matter of majority vote: they have been fixed for centuries, and contravene the freedoms enumerated by Aslan in numerous particulars. In fact, the Iraqi Bishops’ Conference was so concerned about the provisions of Islamic law that restrict the practice of Christianity and the freedom of Christians, that they issued a last-second plea to revise the document.Freedom of conscience? The Western understanding of this principle — that one may hold to the religion of his convictions, or to no religion at all, and to change religions — contradicts the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s dictum, “If anyone changes his religion, kill him.” It is unlikely that “the changing will of the Iraqi people” on which Aslan places so much hope will overturn this principle. Although widely ignored in practice, particularly among those who leave Islam in Western countries, it has never been considered negotiable by the great majority of Islamic jurists throughout history. One Islamic apologist has asserted that an “Islamophobe in the U.S. even warned me that if I were to leave Islam I would be subject to a death sentence, which is absurd.” However, at a conference of ex-Muslim converts to Christianity in Falls Church, Virginia, in September 2004, security was tight because of death threats from Muslims.
If the power of Islamic law can be felt so keenly even in Falls Church, Virginia, can it be so blithely cast off in Iraq, as Aslan seems to envision?
Nor does Aslan seem to take into account the fact that for decades the exponents of political Islam have attacked democracy as a Western import in opposition to Islam and rendered unnecessary by the religion’s political and social legal superstructure. The Tunisian theorist Mohamed Elhachmi Hamdi declared: “The heart of the matter is that no Islamic state can be legitimate in the eyes of its subjects without obeying the main teachings of the shari’a.” Rather than looking to Western models, Islamic states should look to their own tradition: “Islam should be the main frame of reference for the constitution and laws of predominantly Muslim countries.”
It is unlikely that men who believe this will lay aside Islamic principles and take up Western notions of freedom of religion. To the adherents of Islamic Sharia, that law does not contravene authentic principles of freedom of worship and conscience; its restrictions of non-Muslim religious practices and conversion from Islam are for them matters of simple justice.
Not a recipe for a thriving pluralistic democracy.
Robert: hope you are wrong, but fear you may be right. There is no countervailing equal weight in the Islamic world to Zawahiri and Osama.
But the signs dont look that bad.
Is it possible the emporer has some clothes ?
I also believe R.S. to be right. Islam will not permit the laws of man to supercede those of Sharia. Soon enough we will see the fruits of the attempt to create a type of democracy in a Muslim country.
Reza Aslan is a young man on the make, and his imagination is applied in ways, and to matters, far beyond what he might have concentrated on at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. The topic was Islam, past, present, and future; he was born into Islam; a publisher is presented with a book proposal -- hot topic, Muslim author, Muslim author with a degree from Santa Clara and then Harvard Divinity School. Need one say more? If you detect a certain family resemblance to Noah ("After Jihad") Feldman, you are not imagining things.
Here's Mr Rezlan on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Reza Aslan and read a couple of things that you've said and bring you into the discussion here. "One need only regard language with which political issues like abortion rights and gay marriage are debated in Congress to recognize that religion is to this day an integral part of the American national identity and patently the moral foundation for its Constitution, its laws and its national customs."
And this, and my guess is this will raise some eyebrows across our country. "Iranians"--and you are an Iranian-American--"as a people are not exceptionally religious, certainly no more than Americans--indeed, I would argue even less so. There is no politician in Iran's parliament who can be considered more of a religious fundamentalist than, for instance, Senator Rick Santorum"--of Pennsylvania, or former attorney general--"John Ashcroft. ...I would even bet there are more churches per capita in the United States than mosques in Iran. And few if any countries could beat the United States when it comes to using religious rhetoric in political arguments."
Ayatollahs, mullahs, in Iran, not more fundamentalist than members of the United States Congress?
PROF. REZA ASLAN: Well, look, no religion that aspires to anything more than metaphysical contemplation can remain indifferent to the realities of the secular world. It's perfectly natural for religion to have an influence in politics. I mean, I think that the difference between a democracy and a theocracy is not secularism but pluralism. The problem with Iran is a lack of pluralism, a lack of religious freedoms. But I would argue that religion plays a dominant role in American politics, as it does in a number of modern democracies. Religion, as the senator was saying, is, whether we like it or not, the moral foundation of our country. It's in this case it's a Protestant foundation, but Israel is built upon a Jewish moral foundation and Iran is built upon an Islamic moral foundation. So I don't in any way say, you know, that the U.S. and Iran share the same freedoms and the same liberties, of course that's not true. Iran is a clerical oligarchy. But nonetheless, I think that the people who, that in the United States who talk about bringing out the moral values upon which this country was founded tend to have a different view when those moral values are Islamic.
-And if you don't believe he looks like Noah Feldman see his picture here:
http://www.rezaaslan.com
Hugh, is there more to this?
One man one vote.
Two women one vote.
I'm a day late, so US Infidel will miss this post, but I'm motivated by his statement,so often heard, that the US is officially a Republic, not a democracy.
I wonder if he can explain what a Republic is, or if he really wants to live in a Republic?
Maybe he should familiarize himself with Plato's Republic, or the Roman Republic, a Republic is essentially rule by an elite.
The early days of the U.S. of A republic, it was in deed rule by the elite, and until the mid 19th Century that was people who were elected (shades of Rome) by landed, white, males. Not even white males who did not own land could vote.
Iran by the way also ACCURATELY refers to itself as the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran, for it is also ruled by an elite (which in their case happens to be mullahs) and there are, as we all know, whole groups and organizations in these here United States whose whole raison d'etre is to not only restore the Republic, but to define it in theological terms.. shall we say starting with the Council on National Policy, the Eagle Forum, American Enterprise Institute, LIberty Lobby, etc et al.