NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of questions lately about what the win by the Sistani party in the elction would bring. A lot of statements to the effect that he was a moderate based on hopeful speculation. After all, the man does not grant interviews - he issues statements. And people hoped that he had moved far away from the Iranian Mullah position - generally forgetting that Sistani IS and Iranian Mullah.

Well, according to the papers in India, this was today's statement (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2005/February/focusoniraq_February54.xml&section=focusoniraq)


NAJAF - Iraq’s Shia leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani and another top cleric on Sunday staked out a demand that Islam be the sole source of legislation in the country’s new constitution.


One cleric issued a statement setting out the position and the spiritual leader of Iraqi Shia made it known straight away that he backed demands for the Koran to be the reference point for legislation.

The national assembly formed after last month’s historic elections is to oversee the drawing up of the new constitution.

The role of Islam has been at the heart of months of debate between rival parties and factions as well as the US-led occupation authority which administered Iraq until last June.

Sistani leads the five most important clerics, known as marja al-taqlid, or sources of emulation, who had portrayed a more moderate stance going into the election.

The surprise statement was released by Sheikh Ibrahim Ibrahimi, a representative of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayad, another of the marja.

“All of the ulema (clergy) and marja, and the majority of the Iraqi people, want the national assembly to make Islam the source of legislation in the permanent constitution and to reject any law that is contrary to Islam,” said the statement.

A source close to Sistani announced soon after the release of the statement that the spiritual leader backed the demand.

“We advise the government not to take decisions which would shock Muslims, such as the conscription of Muslims and the publication of their photos with foreign instructors,” said Ibrahimi.

“We warn officials against a separation of the state and religion, because this is completely rejected by the ulema and marja and we will accept no compromise on this question.

“If they (the government) want the stability and security of the country, they must not touch the country’s Islamic values and traditions,” the sheikh said.

The role of Islam was a particular sticking point when an interim constitution was drawn up under the US-led occupation.

After often acrimonious debate and the threat of a veto by US administrator Paul Bremer, the final version completed in March last year said that Islam should be “a source” of legislation.

No law that “contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam” would be accepted, said the final draft of the so-called ”fundamental law”.



Still feeling so sure about his standpoint on the issue?

A lot of questions lately about what the win by the Sistani party in the elction would bring. A lot of statements to the effect that he was a moderate based on hopeful speculation. After all, the man does not grant interviews - he issues statements. And people hoped that he had moved far away from the Iranian Mullah position - generally forgetting that Sistani IS and Iranian Mullah.

Well, according to the papers in India, this was today's statement (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2005/February/focusoniraq_February54.xml&section=focusoniraq)




Still feeling so sure about his standpoint on the issue?

It depends on what Sistani sees as the "universally agreed upon tenets" of Islam.

A lot of questions lately about what the win by the Sistani party in the elction would bring. A lot of statements to the effect that he was a moderate based on hopeful speculation. After all, the man does not grant interviews - he issues statements. And people hoped that he had moved far away from the Iranian Mullah position - generally forgetting that Sistani IS and Iranian Mullah.

Well, according to the papers in India, this was today's statement (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2005/February/focusoniraq_February54.xml&section=focusoniraq)

Still feeling so sure about his standpoint on the issue?
This will surely be one hot potato for the Bush administration. The interesting thing will be to see Bush's reactions to the demands that this new "democratically" elected government will surely make that run contrary to the wishes of the US administration.

Oh the irony!!

And then the Kurds and Sunnis vote against such a Constitution, and have new elections for the Constitutional assembly, where the Sunnis might realize that it is important to vote.

You see, we've got a fix built right in to the system.

And then the Kurds and Sunnis vote against such a Constitution, and have new elections for the Constitutional assembly, where the Sunnis might realize that it is important to vote.

You see, we've got a fix built right in to the system.
Oh I see....Iraq can have "democracy" but only a limited "democracy", and certainly nothing against the best wishes of the intruders?

Looks like we need to let a few suicide bombers into the Green Zone.

Of course I jest. Religion is a pacifying force. This may or may not be in our overall best interests. Sure, it's a bit of a let-down to see that a non-secular government has won, but the alternative could be, if not detrimental, at least of no help in uniting the Iraqi population. A secular government composed of what in Iraq is the equivalent of our liberal elite in the western world would seem to be a bad idea in a society that is becoming increasingly discontent. I'll be the first to say that a lot of good things have happened in Iraq. We've gotten utilites going again and have them in places where they never were before. We've increased security in the country substantially since the invasion. Lots of public works and infrastructure has been completed. But despite this, the Iraqis want the same thing we want them to want: sovereignty. A smooth transition right now is just what Iraq needs now, and I can't think of a better way then one that plays to their religious beliefs. This leaves us an uncertain future, but I think in this case we're justified in worrying about the future when the future comes.

I thought the Iraqi election was an interesting parallel of the election in the states. Like John Kerry, Ayad Allawi is a part of a liberal elite. Like John Kerry, I have a feeling that Iraqis (besides the ones living and voting abroad) had a hard time identifying with him and his government. That's where the similarities end because Sistani is a very respected person in Iraq and most Iraqis that voted for his party did so because of that respect. I'm sure there was also spite against Allawi in their vote. In that sense the roles are reversed, with Allawi taking on the role of President Bush and Sistani taking on the role of Kerry. The only difference is that Sistani won.

Oh I see....Iraq can have "democracy" but only a limited "democracy", and certainly nothing against the best wishes of the intruders?
You are not understanding my point.

You see, in Iraq, like in the US when we ratified our Constitution, it takes a certain number of provinces/states to make the ratification official. In the case of Iraq, it takes the denial of three provinces to toss out the Constitution. And if the Shi'a were to make the Constitution a Shi'a theocracy, then the Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds will vote against it. And force compromise and the like.

It's a safeguard, to protect the rights of a minority. Not to protect the US.

Oh I see....Iraq can have "democracy" but only a limited "democracy", and certainly nothing against the best wishes of the intruders?

If the people don't like the Constitution, they will vote no for it. If the Shi'ites want a theocracy, Both the Sunnis and the Kurds will vote against it.

You are not understanding my point.

You see, in Iraq, like in the US when we ratified our Constitution, it takes a certain number of provinces/states to make the ratification official. In the case of Iraq, it takes the denial of three provinces to toss out the Constitution. And if the Shi'a were to make the Constitution a Shi'a theocracy, then the Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds will vote against it. And force compromise and the like.

It's a safeguard, to protect the rights of a minority. Not to protect the US.
However, you are the one that stated:

"You see, we've got a fix built right in to the system."

Who is "we"?

Also you might be underestimating the ability of Sistani to unite these groups, although the Kurds might be the least likely to play along.

IF Sistani is smart, he will find a way to include the Sunnis in reforming Iraq. IF the Sunnis buy in, then "your" fix, will not be acceptable?

If the people don't like the Constitution, they will vote no for it. If the Shi'ites want a theocracy, Both the Sunnis and the Kurds will vote against it.
YOU cannot guarantee the outcome.

However, you are the one that stated:

"You see, we've got a fix built right in to the system."

Who is "we"?

Also you might be underestimating the ability of Sistani to unite these groups, although the Kurds might be the least likely to play along.

IF Sistani is smart, he will find a way to include the Sunnis in reforming Iraq. IF the Sunnis buy in, then "your" fix, will not be acceptable?

All sides are making concilitory ovatures to all sides. Most notably to the Sunnis. I do not believe that there will be a theocracy in Iraq

YOU cannot guarantee the outcome.

Neither can you or Zeppistan

And then the Kurds and Sunnis vote against such a Constitution, and have new elections for the Constitutional assembly, where the Sunnis might realize that it is important to vote.

You see, we've got a fix built right in to the system.


Except that there are some Sunni clerics who also prefer the notion of a state based on Islam. In that respect, the Shi'ites and Sunnis are not that far apart.

Why is all of this an Issue??

...If the People of Iraq do not want a religion-free Governemt...If they want an Ismalist Democracy...by all means let them have it.

If they want the Quoran all over their Constitution...let them...

It is their country...

All sides are making concilitory ovatures to all sides. Most notably to the Sunnis. I do not believe that there will be a theocracy in Iraq


Sometimes I think that you forget that all three factions are still Muslim. If anything, using the Qu'ran as a constitution makes some political sense as it is a document that they all generally agree on. Much as different factions of Christianity could still be inclusive in a bible study class.


However, that does also imply that women's rights - amongst other things - goes into the bin with such a plan.

Why is all of this an Issue??

...If the People of Iraq do not want a religion-free Governemt...If they want an Ismalist Democracy...by all means let them have it.

If they want the Quoran all over their Constitution...let them...

It is their country...
Well Bush did say by George that Iraq WILL have a "democracy".

Bush also stated that the US WILL remove troops from Iraq IF requested by the new "democratically" elected government.

Now WILL Bush allow Iraq to have THEIR sovereignity back?

Except that there are some Sunni clerics who also prefer the notion of a state based on Islam. In that respect, the Shi'ites and Sunnis are not that far apart.
Albeit, they prefer a state based on Sunni Islam.

I would suspect that the Shi'a, although they might and probably will win a majority in the Constitutional Parliament, will also be forced into a compromise by the three province rejection rule. So, I'd suspect that we won't see a Iran style theocracy in Iraq. There will be Islamic influence, but I'd suspect not much more than the Christian influence on the Constitution of the US.

Albeit, they prefer a state based on Sunni Islam.
Neither the Shiites nor Sunnis have any great affection for the US occupation of THEIR country. IF Sistani plays his cards right, these two groups can peacefully merge to accomplish the goal of removing the intruders from their soil and pry their greedy fingers off of the Iraqi economy. I am betting on Sistani to pull of a marriage of convenience between the two factions.

Neither the Shiites nor Sunnis have any great affection for the US occupation of THEIR country. IF Sistani plays his cards right, these two groups can peacefully merge to accomplish the goal of removing the intruders from their soil and pry their greedy fingers off of the Iraqi economy. I am betting on Sistani to pull of a marriage of convenience between the two factions.
And I'm betting he won't.

And I'm betting he won't.

I'll place bets he doesn't either.

Albeit, they prefer a state based on Sunni Islam.


The fundamental differences between the two are not that great you know. What you have is not that far off a situation where the Catholics and Protestants would get to gether to write a Constitution based on the bible. They would find commonality on most points.

The split, after all, only occurred as a disagreement over Mohammed's successor as caliph. Beyond that their interpretations on most aspects of the Qu'ran are identical.

I'll place bets he doesn't either.
I bet against you....

Whatever the bet is :D

I would suspect that the Shi'a, although they might and probably will win a majority in the Constitutional Parliament, will also be forced into a compromise...In a true democracy the MAJORITY cannot be forced.

See the example of Iran, the MAJORITY wanted an Islamist Shia Governemnt...and thas what they got.

In Iraq the MAJORITY want an Islamist Shia State..and if that is a true democratic process...thats what they should get.

If they get a Sunni Gov...theirs elected President is going to have as much credibilty as the "elected" gov of Algeria....or Afghanistan...or Haiti...etc

In a true democracy the MAJORITY cannot be forced.

See the example of Iran, the MAJORITY wanted an Islamist Shia Governemnt...and thas what they got.

In Iraq the MAJORITY want an Islamist Shia State..and if that is a true democratic process...thats what they should get.

If they get a Sunni Gov...theirs elcted President is going to have as much credibilty as the "elected" gov of Algeria.
Right - but Iraq shouldn't be a true democracy. No successful country today is a true democracy. If they want an Islamist Shia State, too bad. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

..Tyranny of the majority....

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=oxymoron

Right - but Iraq shouldn't be a true democracy. No successful country today is a true democracy.intersting..

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=oxymoron
Have anything to say? Because posting link by itself proves nothing.

Have anything to say? Because posting link by itself proves nothing.ever heard "a picture is worth a thousand words"?

that link is worth at least four hundred :D

Tyranny by majority?

So anywhere if the majority wins it's tyranny by majority I guess.

Tyranny by majority?

So anywhere if the majority wins it's tyranny by majority I guess.
No, wherever the majority oppresses the rights of others just because.

Majority rule, minority rights. Ever heard of the concept?

ever heard "a picture is worth a thousand words"?

that link is worth at least four hundred :D
Actually, only 70...

Tyrrany of the Majority was a serious concern of the founding fathers of the United States. You can read much about this fear in the federalist papers.

Beyond that, you can also read of this in philosophers reaching back to Plato.

The majority can be tyrants.

Right - but Iraq shouldn't be a true democracy. No successful country today is a true democracy. If they want an Islamist Shia State, too bad. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
Soooo the US isn't a true democracy?

IF THEY want an Islamist Shia State, then they can't have one? If not, why not? I think your answer should prove most enlightening?

Soooo the US isn't a true democracy?

IF THEY want an Islamist Shia State, then they can't have one? If not, why not? I think your answer should prove most enlightening?
Yes, that's right. The US isn't a true democracy. It's a Federal Representative Republic, with Constitutional protections.

Soooo the US isn't a true democracy?


no, it is a republic.

Yes, that's right. The US isn't a true democracy. It's a Federal Representative Republic, with Constitutional protections.
You know, I somehow expected this inane answer. :eek: Quit playing with the word.

Yet you have "democratic" elections whereby the people are elected and most votes gets the prize.

Your Constitutional "protections" can also be changed "democratically" (see Patriot Act).

So now if Iraq wants to declare itself the Islamic Republic of Iraq you might somehow be able to relate, but they will not be allowed to "democratically" make their own laws and constitution?

You know, I somehow expected this inane answer. :eek: Quit playing with the word.

Jesus Christ...do you understand NOTHING about political theory?

A true democracy is one in which the people make all the decisions by elections and the like. In a Republic the delegates of the people make the decisions.

Yet you have "democratic" elections whereby the people are elected and most votes gets the prize.
Congratulations, you just described a Representative Republic.

Your Constitutional "protections" can also be changed "democratically" (see Patriot Act).
Yes, but it takes a super-majority to do so, and super-majorities are incredibly hard to attain.

So now if Iraq wants to declare itself the Islamic Republic of Iraq you might somehow be able to relate, but they will not be allowed to "democratically" make their own laws and constitution?
The point is that the Iraqis have protections to prevent a theocracy, or another dictatorship. The minority can stop the majority, if they feel that there is sufficient reason. Same reason there are filibusters in the US Senate.

So after espousing the differences between republicanism and democracy, just what kind of democracy does the US want for Iraq?

Kwangistar stated that Iraq shouldn't be allowed a "true democracy". Does this mean that the US wants to control Iraqi democracy?

I'm betting on a civil war, or at least partitioning by 2010. I don't think the factions in Iraq can live together any better than the factions in old Yugoslavia could.

I still believe that the mainstream of the United Iraqi Alliance doesn't want a theocracy. Earlier statements don't seem to have the same message as this one. This is a similar thinking trap that some fell into with Mahmoud Abbas. Some of his campaign speechs sounded like a HAMAS rally, but he obviously didn't take the hard line against Israel. This is just rhetoric to fill voters with red meat.

So after espousing the differences between republicanism and democracy, just what kind of democracy does the US want for Iraq?

Kwangistar stated that Iraq shouldn't be allowed a "true democracy". Does this mean that the US wants to control Iraqi democracy?
Well, the official US line is that they want for Iraq what the Iraqis want for Iraq.

What I want the Iraqis to have some sort of Republic. Be it Parliamentary or Power Division.

Well, the official US line is that they want for Iraq what the Iraqis want for Iraq.
Yeah and the unofficial line is that the US wants Iraq to accept a long term US military presence (14 bases in the works), and an acceptance of Bremer's Orders (40 year lease/control of the Iraqi economy by foreign investors)?

What I want the Iraqis to have some sort of Republic. Be it Parliamentary or Power Division.
Even Republics can have laws that are deeply rooted in theology?

So after espousing the differences between republicanism and democracy, just what kind of democracy does the US want for Iraq?

Kwangistar stated that Iraq shouldn't be allowed a "true democracy". Does this mean that the US wants to control Iraqi democracy?
To a certain degree, yes. We don't want Iraq getting out of control and ruining themselves by turning into another Iran.

To a certain degree, yes. We don't want Iraq getting out of control and ruining themselves by turning into another Iran.
Then who will decide how long the US will remain in this dictatorial position?

Then who will decide how long the US will remain in this dictatorial position?

The Iraqi government themselves.

Then who will decide how long the US will remain in this dictatorial position?
Depending on the situation, either Iraq or the USA.