|
|
| The Iraqi Constitution - Theocracy |
| Thursday, November 09, 2006 |
When I pay a subscription fee for something, I like to see what I am paying for. Iraq is like a subscription-fee project that we all pay our government for on a regular basis. The Iraq Constitution is an indicator of what we will get for our payments and debt.
The latter part of the constitution that deals with the distribution of powers within government is laid out to be quite similar to that of the US, but the beginning of the Iraqi constitution is littered with enough problems to make a grown man want to cry. Understandably, Iraq is a new nation and we, I mean they, aren't done rebuilding it yet, but one has to admit that the constitution reads like a high school civics project and it looks like it was more or less thrown together. A review of the constitution shows that Iraq is headed for theocracy from the start.
Article 2 of the Iraqi constitution states.
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.
Can anyone say...theocracy. Let's back track to the preamble.
In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate
{We have honored the sons of Adam}
As such, the Iraq constitution implies that the world is about 6,000 years old. This a small issue, but boy are they going to have one hell of a Scopes trial in the future. Do you imagine that they will be able to teach evolution in the schools or modern astronomy without an imam pointing out that this runs counter to the national beliefs set forth in the preamble of the constitution? This will be quite a case before their new courts when it pops up and no law establishing that evolution be taught can therefore be legitimate as it would run counter to the Koran and poems of the Prophet.
We, the people of the land between two rivers, the homeland of the apostles and prophets, abode of the virtuous imams, pioneers of civilization, crafters of writing and cradle of numeration, upon our land the first law made by man was passed, the most ancient just pact for homelands policy was inscribed, and upon our soil companions of the Prophet and saints prayed, philosophers and scientists theorized and writers and poets excelled, acknowledging God’s due over us, and in fulfillment of the call of our homeland and citizens, That is how the constitution opens. The above excerpt represents the first third of the opening, and excruciatingly long first sentence, which continues below. It immediately focuses on religion and the history of the nation. This will be a theocracy in the future have no doubt. The constitution is part of there way of establishing that this has been there destiny. Of course destiny itself is a curious function, since whatever happens is apparently your destiny.
The preamble to the constitution continue to explain how the greatness of the Iraqi people set them free as the scientists, reformer, religious leader, and so forth made the 2005 election possible "in the midst of an international support," which was more like the only support since the people of Iraq never seemed to have figure out how to organize and get rid of their dictator themselves. This is not an insult, it is a fact, a lot has happened in Iraq fast. It is kind of like watching and episode of Star Trek where first contact is made and all the rules of the federation are violated. Anyway the preamble continues...
...and [in a response to the call] of our religious and national leaderships and the determination of our great references and our leaders and reformers, and our national strengths and our politicians, and in the midst of an international support from our friends and those who love us, marched for the first time in our history towards the ballot boxes by the millions, men and women, young and old, on the 30th of January 2005, invoking the pains of sectarian oppression sufferings inflicted by the autocratic clique and inspired by the tragedies of Iraq’s martyrs, Shiite and Sunni, Arabs and Kurds and Turkmen and along with the remainder of their brothers from all the other components and recollecting the darkness of the ravage of the holy cities and the South in the Sha’abaniyya uprising and burnt by the flames of grief of the mass graves, the marshes, Al-Dujail and others and articulating the sufferings of racial oppression in the massacres of Halabcha, Barzan, Anfal and the Fayli Kurds and inspired by the ordeals of the Turkmen in Basheer and as is the case in the remaining areas of Iraq where the people of the west suffered from the assassinations of their leaders, symbols and elderly and from the displacement of their skilled individuals and from the drying out of their cultural and intellectual wells, so we sought hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder to create our new Iraq, ... Wait there is more. The last few word of the first sentence read as follows:
...the Iraq of the future free from sectarianism, racism, locality complex, discrimination and exclusion. And that brings us to the end of the first sentence. It is the longest sentence in the entire constitution by far. This is the product of the group that will now become Iraq’s new forefathers and the US essentially paid for them to write it.
Now to some of the obvious farces of the constitution. Article 19, Second states:
The sanctity of the homes is inviolable and homes may not be entered, searched, or put in danger, except by a judicial decision in accordance with the law. Article 21, First states: No Iraqi shall be surrendered to foreign entities and authorities. The coaliton forces that go out and dispense justice and drag off the bad guys are a foreign authority. Does anyone think that the US is obtaining court issued warrants to enter each home in Iraq or to detain individuals? These articles from the start is not worth the paper that they're printed on, and will in the future serve to undermine the claims of legitimacy that the current government makes to those who are insurgents. If the government does not follow its own rules, why should anyone submit to it?
Keeping in mind that the official and highest authrity in Iraq will be the interpeted meanings of the Koran, which has many different and conflicting interpreatations, some of the laws seem problematic from the get-go. Article 34, Third staes:
The State shall encourage scientific research for peaceful purposes that serve man and shall support excellence, creativity, invention and the different aspects of ingenuity. When one remembers that the highest authority is Islam then you remember that the interpretation of the Koran, which is the area where Imams are the experts will determine what is science and what it not.
Article 7, First states:
No entity or program, under any name, may adopt racism, terrorism, the calling of others infidels, ethnic cleansing, or incite, facilitate, glorify, promote, or justify thereto, especially the Saddamist Ba’ath in Iraq and its symbols. This may not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq. A law shall regulate this. This is in many interpretations of the Koran an artice or law that runs counter to the teaching of the Prophet and thereby, according to the Iraqi constituion invalidates itself. The document is internally incosistent.
Article 43 states:
First: The followers of all religions and sects are free in the:
A- Practice of religious rites, including the Husseini ceremonies.
B- Management of the endowments (Awqaf), its affairs and its religious institutions. The law shall regulate this.
Second: The state shall guarantee the freedom of worship and the protection of the places of worship. This in many interpretations of the Koran is heretical. Many Koranic interpretation do not suport secularism at all. But, alas, this will all be settled when Iraq becomes a full theocracy ... and then, perhaps, a quasi-democratic dictatorship again. Nonetheless, this government is making an effort to craft an identity in the middle of a civil war and that has to be hard to do. |
posted by Domesticated Dog @ 11:15 PM   |
|
| 3 Comments: |
-
I think all of the concerns you point out here are valid concerns. We wanted a democracy in Iraq, and there is a chance that democracy may bite us in the ass.
I think I have mentioned in a previous post that the more I study Islam, the more concerned I become. I agree with the assesment made in the last portion of your post. Islam does not believe in freedome of religion. You either are muslim, you are a protected 2nd class that pays taxes to Islam, or you are dead. I hope this means that there are those in Iraq who would like to see a more tolerant reading of the Koran, but I have a wait and see attitude on that. Here's hoping...
-
First, let me state that I am not anti-Arab. It is not a racial thing at all. My personal heritage is rich and diversity is to be valued.
The issue that I have with Islam (and, I have worked for Muslim bosses and with an Iraqi author) is the depth of the contradictions in the faiths and the deep end zealots can go off on with the words of the Prophet. This is a dangerous religion in all the modern senses, it is based around totlaitatianistic values - or so it would seem from a cursory overview and so can be seen from Islamic countries. How many Islaminc democracies are there. Rememer the Middle East was under the influence of the Ottoman Empire and when the were freed from the Ottomans and, later, the powerful British oversight - many nations chose kings! That is at odds with the idea of democracy.
It is part of the fundamental belief system. There are a lot of dangers with Islam, particularlyu since the fundamentalists have the numbers and the influence to capture power in ever nation in the absence of outside intervention and highly trained intellegence teams.
take Jordan for example, they have one of the elite internal intellegence forces in the nation and that protects their king, who is indeed a moderate and very different from the other leaders in the neighborhood.
-
They practice their religion, we practice ours....Father,Son and Holy Ghost.
Oh...btw, the invasion was illegal under the UN Charter (no imminent threat of attack and no authority from the UN to invade). That makes it a war crime. Under the Geneva Convention an occupying power has no legal authority to impose a Constitution on an occupied people (even if it is done under the guise of a puppet government). The Iraqi Constitution is a US sponsored document concerned about copyright and profits for US corporations. It cares not a fig about the Iraqi people or their well being. It's a sham and is totally illegal. They'll fix themselves up when they get the carpetbaggers out of the country.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
I think all of the concerns you point out here are valid concerns. We wanted a democracy in Iraq, and there is a chance that democracy may bite us in the ass.
I think I have mentioned in a previous post that the more I study Islam, the more concerned I become. I agree with the assesment made in the last portion of your post. Islam does not believe in freedome of religion. You either are muslim, you are a protected 2nd class that pays taxes to Islam, or you are dead. I hope this means that there are those in Iraq who would like to see a more tolerant reading of the Koran, but I have a wait and see attitude on that. Here's hoping...