MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR SHARIA

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-constitution.html

August 20, 2005
U.S. Conceding to Iraqi Islamists, Negotiators Say
By REUTERS
Filed at 5:19 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Islam will be ``the main source'' of Iraq's law and parliament will observe religious principles, negotiators said on Saturday after what some called a major turn in talks on the constitution and a shift in the U.S. position.

If agreed by Monday's parliamentary deadline, it would appear to be a major concession to Islamist leaders from the Shi'ite Muslim majority and sit uneasily with U.S. insistence on the primacy of democracy and human rights in the new Iraq.

U.S. diplomats, who have been shepherding the process closely, declined immediate comment and at least one secular Kurdish politician said Kurds would try to block such a deal.

But an official from one of the main Shi'ite Islamist parties and a leading Sunni Arab negotiator said agreement had been reached, reversing an understanding reached earlier in the recent talks that Islam would simply be ``a main source'' of law.

Parliament would not be able to pass legislation that contradicted the principles of Islam, several negotiators told Reuters. One Shi'ite official said that a constitutional court would decide whether laws conformed to Islamic faith.

But Sunni negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak said that, at the insistence of U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the constitution would also contain language stating that the ''principles of democracy'' would be respected.

Khalilzad, who said this month there would be ``no compromise'' on equal rights for women and minorities, helped draft a constitution in his native Afghanistan which declared it an ``Islamic Republic'' in which no law could contradict Muslim principles.

It also, however, contained language establishing equal rights for women and protecting religious minorities.

Other Arab states, including secularly ruled Egypt, have similar phrasing in their constitutions, alloting a special role for Islam in the law.

Posted by: Mentat at August 20, 2005 8:52 AM

As i've sed b4 let the dogs bark... These guys r livin in a fantasy world, very typical of Muslims. For exampl our gr8 "ally" Pakistan takes entire credit for the fall of Soviet Union.
I'm intrested in knowing how do they ever hope to "liberate" Jerusalem. Surely i thot after all they've seen of the Israelis, they'd realistic of their chances in "pushing Jews to the sea". But these guys continue to baffle me. They're acting just plain stupid hence they shuldnt b taken seriously. If they ever make a ruckus in Jerusalem or Israel, I bet Israelis would b back in Gaza within a day...

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at August 20, 2005 8:57 AM

Not only is there no surprise, it is expected.
They have been talking like that since the so called 'Palestinian People', came into existance in 1967, and they have taken action on it. To the victor go the spoils...why stop now, the destruction of the Jews is at hand...or so they think...With all this forwarning of violence, and the means of committing more violence, and if more violence actually occurs, Israel may come unglued, lose it's composure and "fix" the Palestinian problem, once and for all. Well, Allah did create all this by means of predestination. It's odd that Allah would predestine so many muslim/Arabs to be killed by Jews. I guess, that muslims are expendable in Allahs causes, he can always create some more of them. But predestining Jews to do this dirty work? Allah knows best...but in this case, if I were a muslim, I would give that some serious thought...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 20, 2005 11:35 AM

Terrorism works! Blackmail works! That is the lesson taught here.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 20, 2005 11:39 AM

Slightly O.T
Rice: Pullout cannot stop at Gaza Strip

Rice, in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday, said, "Everyone empathizes with what the Israelis are facing." She added that in the interest of advancing peace, "it cannot be Gaza only."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtDisengagement.jhtml?itemNo=614842&contrassID=23&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1

First Gaza, then the West Bank then what? A jihad expressway that unites the two paid for by the American tax payer? Who’s side are we on again?

Posted by: Bar at August 20, 2005 2:15 PM

The history of Gaza.
http://english.katif.net/index.php?id=1463&sub=13

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 20, 2005 2:18 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/images/173432/1_23_081605_gaza_protest3.jpg

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 20, 2005 2:21 PM

"Militants had agreed to respect a ceasefire until the end of the year"

It's called a hudna, and the purpose is to allow Muslims to prepare for their following military offensive. Four months should give them enough time to put the heavy weaponry and troops in place in Gaza.

I hope the Israeli, U.S., and U.K. administrations are marking their calendars.

Posted by: special_guest at August 22, 2005 3:53 PM