Let me get this straight. American men and women died for “freedom” in Iraq so the country could be ruled under Islamic law? What is “free” about that? Let’s take a look at Article Two:
The political system is republican, parliamentary, democratic and federal.
1. Islam is a main source for legislation.
– a. No law may contradict Islamic standards.
– b. No law may contradict democratic standards.
– c. No law may contradict the essential rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution.
2. This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the Iraqi people and guarantees all religious rights; all persons are free within their ideology and the practice of their ideological practices. (Source)
You needn’t be an Islamic or constitutional scholar to see the contradictory elements here. Iraq, according to items 1a and 1b of the draft constitution, will be a democracy, which means government “by the people,” but at the same time, subject to Islamic law. What kind of democracy is that? And one type of law can’t contradict the other. Aren’t Islam and democracy inherently contradictory? What kind of shell game are these people playing?
The constitution, according to the text, guarantees “Islamic identity” of the people and all religious rights. What the heck does that mean? You are free to be a Muslim, and nothing else? What if you don’t want to be a Muslim? Then I guess you’d better hightail it out of “free” Iraq.
And then it reads “all persons are free within their ideology…” So the Buddhist will have “religious freedom” in Iraq as long as he understands that he is living under Sharia? Good grief.
Perhaps I’m biased or simply misreading. Or confused. Or ignorant. Any scholars in the house? Please educate me. I’m just an ugly American, but from where I’m sitting, it looks as if we’ve committed money and manpower to help Iraq become an Islamic state disguised, very poorly, as a democracy!
Other sources: Bush optimistic about Iraq constitution, Iraqis Submit Charter, but Delay Vote…
(Pictured in Reuters photo left to right: Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari and Abdul Khalik Zanhuna, member of the constitution drafting committee)
Addendum: Another question for Islam/constitution scholars. According to Article 36, Iraq guarantees “Freedom of expression by all means.” Does this expression include harsh criticism against living under an 8th century, throwback-to-the-Stone Age religious state? If I were to utter that statement in “free” Iraq, would I be guaranteed the right to say it, or would my head find itself rolling off a bloody chopping block…in “free” Iraq?
Update: Bill Roggio says:
It is unreasonable to assume Islam will not play a role in influencing the society of Iraq, or any other predominately Muslim nation. Christianity played an influential role in the laws and society of western nations, and continues to do so today.
Bill Roggio is absolutely correct in saying that this is being hyped. But why is that happening? I don’t know. Maybe because Iraq is the “wrong war†and Afghanistan isn’t….Why didn’t the media b**** endlessly about Afghanistan’s constitution when it was drafted…
