Should Islam have any role in the Iraqi constitution?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

NO

I can only imagine what the pro-war folks will spin if it ends up in the final draft.

[minionofmidas]

Where's "don't care"?

[Jake]

Yes, considering that any proper nation derives its laws from its traditions.

[phk]

I don't want it to, but I don't want Iraqi Shias to rise up against the US.

I'm taking the pragmatic route, let it be the Islamic Republic of Iraq if they want it to, I realize that Jeffersonian Democracy would clash with tribal-ethnic cultural bounds, realistic/pragmatism is the best way through this.

[angus]

Where's "don't care"?

Hmmm.  Very Sexual, but not very Jealous and certainly not Manuplative.  Still, I found myself asking the same question.

[minionofmidas]

Where's "don't care"?

Hmmm.  Very Sexual, but not very Jealous and certainly not Manuplative.  Still, I found myself asking the same question.

The explanation for the username is towards the bottom of a thread titled something like "for the openminded only"...no, it's not what you think it's about, btw.

But I think "don't care" was a poorly-worded answer on my part.
I *care* about what's going on in Iraq. I just wouldn't mind whether or no they call it an Islamic Republic, as long as they pass a Democratic constitution - and more importantly (and far less likely) make it work.

[Hitchabrut]

I agree with Jake. Which countries with non-religious derived legal systems and rights are better off than they were 100 years ago?

[Emsworth]

I agree with Jake. Which countries with non-religious derived legal systems and rights are better off than they were 100 years ago?

Much of Europe, Russia, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the United States, just to name a few.

Laws should derive from reason, logic, and respect for fundamental rights, not the whims of a few imams or clerics.

[The Duke]

Yes, because I don't think trying to turn Iraq into modern France will work.  Take it slow, but make sure there are no compromises on the important areas, like ensuring rights for minorities.

[minionofmidas]

I agree with Jake. Which countries with non-religious derived legal systems and rights are better off than they were 100 years ago?

Much of Europe, Russia, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the United States, just to name a few.

No, all these countries' legal systems still bear a lot of testimony to these countries' religious background. That of course is also the answer to Hitchabrut's silly rhetorical country - name a country with a non-religous derived legal system. There is none.

[angus]

Where's "don't care"?

Hmmm.  Very Sexual, but not very Jealous and certainly not Manuplative.  Still, I found myself asking the same question.

The explanation for the username is towards the bottom of a thread titled something like "for the openminded only"...no, it's not what you think it's about, btw.

But I think "don't care" was a poorly-worded answer on my part.
I *care* about what's going on in Iraq. I just wouldn't mind whether or no they call it an Islamic Republic, as long as they pass a Democratic constitution - and more importantly (and far less likely) make it work.

I think I understood exactly what you meant.  No clarification needed.

I still think you're sexier than you are manipulative.  Ah, well, one can't have everything.  Be glad that you have at least one of those qualities.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Quit trying to sound moderate. We all know that you Republicans are thinking "We need to wipe them Islamofascists off the face of the planet".

[Jake]

Haha, but no. I'd rather the country not break apart before its 18 month anniversary. Your ilk would love to see Iraq turn into a failure just to rub the President and his supporter's noses in it.

[Emsworth]

No, all these countries' legal systems still bear a lot of testimony to these countries' religious background.

Their legal systems are not religiously "derived" as Hitchabrut put it. They may include elements based on religion, but they are not generally and as a whole based on religion.

[Frodo]

Yes, if that is the desire of the Iraqi people -they have the right to fashion whatever government they wish for themselves.  It is not our role to determine for them what kind of government they should have. 

[DanielX]

Quit trying to sound moderate. We all know that you Republicans are thinking "We need to wipe them Islamofascists off the face of the planet".

It would be nice. Unfortunately, the fallout would be yucky .

[phk]

Iraq will be the third Islamic Republic after Pakistan and Iran.

[John Dibble]

It should have some role, albeit a limited one, because the political reality of the region makes it so that if it had absolutely no role in it that the Constitution would be rejected by a large number of people. They'll also need a bill of rights(speech, religion, ect) to counter any ill effects.

[Gabu]

I'll need to see what the constitution actually looks like before making any comment about it, but given that the country is, what, 97% Muslim, and given that, of those Muslims, probably at least a majority are the type who model their lives after their religion, I think it would be kind of unreasonable to expect them to accept a constitution that says nothing about Islam whatsoever.  It seems to me that our options are either to allow Islam to play a part in the constitution or to have the constitution be rejected and be back where we started.

If the constitution says something like "all non-Muslims shall be executed", however, then I think we'd have a case in saying that it should be changed.

[Colin]

NO

I can only imagine what the pro-war folks will spin if it ends up in the final draft.

Well to answer the exact question no I don't want it to have any role in the Iraqi constitution.

To answer you're second statement if that is the democratic will of the Iraqi people, to have a constitution that is based off of Islamic law and teachings, then so be it. We went in there to spread democracy no matter how it turned out. So if the Iraqi people democratically choose to have an Islamic document as their consitution then I will accept that as the will of the Iraqi people. I wouldn't be happy but I would do nothing about it. The same goes for if Iraqi elects Islamists to its parliament. It wrong and you do not like it but it is the democratic will of the people expressing itself.

[Emsworth]

To answer you're second statement if that is the democratic will of the Iraqi people, to have a constitution that is based off of Islamic law and teachings, then so be it. We went in there to spread democracy no matter how it turned out. So if the Iraqi people democratically choose to have an Islamic document as their consitution then I will accept that as the will of the Iraqi people. I wouldn't be happy but I would do nothing about it. The same goes for if Iraqi elects Islamists to its parliament. It wrong and you do not like it but it is the democratic will of the people expressing itself.

In general, I would agree. However, democracy and the will of the majority never justify oppression of the minority. (After all, Hitler was also democratically elected.) If, for example, non-Muslims are treated as inferior citizens under this Constitution, then I would consider the document tyrannical: I would not respect it even if a majority of Iraqis support it.

[Colin]

To answer you're second statement if that is the democratic will of the Iraqi people, to have a constitution that is based off of Islamic law and teachings, then so be it. We went in there to spread democracy no matter how it turned out. So if the Iraqi people democratically choose to have an Islamic document as their consitution then I will accept that as the will of the Iraqi people. I wouldn't be happy but I would do nothing about it. The same goes for if Iraqi elects Islamists to its parliament. It wrong and you do not like it but it is the democratic will of the people expressing itself.

In general, I would agree. However, democracy and the will of the majority never justify oppression of the minority. (After all, Hitler was also democratically elected.) If, for example, non-Muslims are treated as inferior citizens under this Constitution, then I would consider the document tyrannical: I would not respect it even if a majority of Iraqis support it.

Yes I completely agree. Tyranny should never be tolerated but until it gets to a point where oppression has become law we must except it as the popular will of the Iraqis.

[Emsworth]

Yes I completely agree. Tyranny should never be tolerated but until it gets to a point where oppression has become law we must except it as the popular will of the Iraqis.

I absolutely concur: we should not judge the popular will, as long as it does not involve oppression. (And, even if the Islamic laws are a little oppressive, the U.S. should not get involved, due to pragmatic and realistic concerns. Foreign policy should, in my opinion, be subject to realistic concerns. Stubborn adherence to pure principle, unfortunately, does not necessarily always work.)

[Speed of Sound]

whether religion plays a role in thier constitution or not is to them, not me. i dont live there, i dont have to live under the Iraqi constitution. So do have to live under it, so they should choose

[opebo]

NO.

It comes as no surprise however that our homegrown American theocrats welcome Islamic rule in Iraq.

My suggestion would be to reinstate both Saddam and the no doubt perfectly adequate constitution which prevailed before the invasion... with an abject apology.  And a few reparations wouldn't hurt.