Should Islam have any role in the Iraqi constitution?

[Emsworth]

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

I would much prefer that it does not come to pass. In fact, the possibility of replacing a secular state with a theocracy was the reason for which I originally opposed the war.

But now, political realities prevent the U.S. from doing anything but permit the establishment of an officially Islamic Iraq.

[DanielX]

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.

Geez..... try saying that out loud in a crowded stall in Kirkuk. In Arabic, Kurdish, and English.

[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.

Geez..... try saying that out loud in a crowded stall in Kirkuk. In Arabic, Kurdish, and English.

Stall?  I'm not sure what you mean by that.  In the bathroom?

In any case, your implication proves my point - all those nutty ethnic/religious groups are now running rampant, as the responsible ruler and the stable power structure he had built have been swept away by foolish American intervention.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The US should've installed an oligarchical governemnt ran by the Christian minority instead considering that Christians always run things better than Muslims and their governments are alway superior. Christians over Muslims, ALWAYS.

Hopefully if the Constitution does end up like that the 1-2% Christian minority starts up a new insurgency. I'd hate to see them suffer under Islamic tyranny like the ones in Lebanon or Sudan.

[MaC]

no, but it looks like it's inevitable.

[The Duke]

The US should've installed an oligarchical governemnt ran by the Christian minority instead considering that Christians always run things better than Muslims and their governments are alway superior. Christians over Muslims, ALWAYS.

Hopefully if the Constitution does end up like that the 1-2% Christian minority starts up a new insurgency. I'd hate to see them suffer under Islamic tyranny like the ones in Lebanon or Sudan.

Right, because installing a minority Christian government wqorked for us in Vietnam.

[Gabu]

The US should've installed an oligarchical governemnt ran by the Christian minority instead considering that Christians always run things better than Muslims and their governments are alway superior. Christians over Muslims, ALWAYS.

Hopefully if the Constitution does end up like that the 1-2% Christian minority starts up a new insurgency. I'd hate to see them suffer under Islamic tyranny like the ones in Lebanon or Sudan.

You'd prefer having the other 97% of the population get sidelined in favor of a tiny segment of the population?

I'm glad you like democracy so much.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Any Iraqi constitution heavily based on Islam isn't democracy either. And would be quite utterly horrible for the Christians. I will always support Christians facing Muslim oppression.

[Gabu]

Any Iraqi constitution heavily based on Islam isn't democracy either. And would be quite utterly horrible for the Christians. I will always support Christians facing Muslim oppression.

Why would it not be democracy?  Something "based" on Islam does not necessarily mean that you can't be a non-Muslim under it, although I haven't seen a draft of the constitution yet.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because it's rather unfair to have the oppression of Islam forced on you. I wouldn't like living in a Muslim country and being banned from drinking alcohol. No reason the Christians of Iraq should as well.

Pretty much everyone agrees that it's a good thing our Constitution bans a state religion. So why wouldn't it be in Iraq?

[Gabu]

Because it's rather unfair to have the oppression of Islam forced on you. I wouldn't like living in a Muslim country and being banned from drinking alcohol. No reason the Christians of Iraq should as well.

Pretty much everyone agrees that it's a good thing our Constitution bans a state religion. So why wouldn't it be in Iraq?

Because people in America are not the type who let their religion dictate their whole life.  Given how staunchly Muslim the people are in the Middle East, I don't really see how you're going to get them to agree on a constitution that doesn't include Islam in at least some way.

I thought the point of our being in the Middle East was to spread democracy (you know, the thing where the majority gets to say what happens), not Christianity.  We have gotten past the Crusades, haven't we?

[Jake]

No Gabu, Islam is evil and should be eliminated. Learn your facts n00b.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because people in America are not the type who let their religion dictate their whole life.

Now? No. In the 1780s?

Given how staunchly Muslim the people are in the Middle East, I don't really see how you're going to get them to agree on a constitution that doesn't include Islam in at least some way.

so the non-Muslims should just get over it? Much like the Zimbabwean whites and black ethnicities persecuted by Mugabe should just get over Mugabe winning fair elections in 1980?

I thought the point of our being in the Middle East was to spread democracy (you know, the thing where the majority gets to say what happens), not Christianity.  We have gotten past the Crusades, haven't we?

Never said our goal was to spread Christianity. I'm not an eveangelist. But there is no reason we should make concessions to Islam that would harm Christians in any way. And then there's also the fact that Islam and democracy are not compatibile.

Here's an example: In 1992, an Islamist party called the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS in its French initials) surged in Algeria. When time for elections came, it became obvious they would win and seize control of the whole government. If this happened, Algeria would become a brutal theocratic state and haven for terrorists. It would be an utter disaster on the level of the Iranian Revolution.

So the military carried out a coup and canceled the elections. The FIS was stopped.

Was this wrong? Should they have just let democracy happen?

[The Duke]

Because people in America are not the type who let their religion dictate their whole life.

Now? No. In the 1780s?

Given how staunchly Muslim the people are in the Middle East, I don't really see how you're going to get them to agree on a constitution that doesn't include Islam in at least some way.

so the non-Muslims should just get over it? Much like the Zimbabwean whites and black ethnicities persecuted by Mugabe should just get over Mugabe winning fair elections in 1980?

I thought the point of our being in the Middle East was to spread democracy (you know, the thing where the majority gets to say what happens), not Christianity.  We have gotten past the Crusades, haven't we?

Never said our goal was to spread Christianity. I'm not an eveangelist. But there is no reason we should make concessions to Islam that would harm Christians in any way. And then there's also the fact that Islam and democracy are not compatibile.

Here's an example: In 1992, an Islamist party called the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS in its French initials) surged in Algeria. When time for elections came, it became obvious they would win and seize control of the whole government. If this happened, Algeria would become a brutal theocratic state and haven for terrorists. It would be an utter disaster on the level of the Iranian Revolution.

So the military carried out a coup and canceled the elections. The FIS was stopped.

Was this wrong? Should they have just let democracy happen?

Are you seriously trying to compare Ayatollah Sistani to the FIS?

[Gabu]

Because people in America are not the type who let their religion dictate their whole life.

Now? No. In the 1780s?

Well, obviously not to such a large extent as the Muslims in the Middle East, given that they were fine with and even came up with the idea of keeping Christianity out of government.

Given how staunchly Muslim the people are in the Middle East, I don't really see how you're going to get them to agree on a constitution that doesn't include Islam in at least some way.

so the non-Muslims should just get over it? Much like the Zimbabwean whites and black ethnicities persecuted by Mugabe should just get over Mugabe winning fair elections in 1980?

If there's anything blatantly oppresive towards non-Muslims written write into the constitution, I could see it.  Right now we have no idea what it means to incorporate Islam into the constitution, however, and we're talking in a purely theoretical basis.

I thought the point of our being in the Middle East was to spread democracy (you know, the thing where the majority gets to say what happens), not Christianity.  We have gotten past the Crusades, haven't we?

Never said our goal was to spread Christianity. I'm not an eveangelist. But there is no reason we should make concessions to Islam that would harm Christians in any way. And then there's also the fact that Islam and democracy are not compatibile.

You said a couple of posts above that we should establish an oligarchy run by Christians.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Are you seriously trying to compare Ayatollah Sistani to the FIS?

they aren't quite the same since the FIS was Sunni, but otherwise I don't see what the difference is.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well, obviously not to such a large extent as the Muslims in the Middle East, given that they were fine with and even came up with the idea of keeping Christianity out of government.

or they had seen the rather nasty effects of mixing religion and government in Europe.

It hasn't been quite so good in the Middle East either.

If there's anything blatantly oppresive towards non-Muslims written write into the constitution, I could see it.  Right now we have no idea what it means to incorporate Islam into the constitution, however, and we're talking in a purely theoretical basis.

what about for example banning alcohol?

I
You said a couple of posts above that we should establish an oligarchy run by Christians.

Simply because that would be the most tolerant form of government, as long as they didn't force Muslims to drink alcohol or ban women from covering their heads.

And keep in mind, most people point toward Turkey as being a tolerant Muslim country, but the reason that is the case is after independence it was rather autocratically ran by Ataturk, who was very secular and probably agnostic. And he ran into quite some trouble when he legalized alcohol sales and ended repressive traditions toward women.

Did you see my point about Algeria 92 also?

[The Duke]

Well, obviously not to such a large extent as the Muslims in the Middle East, given that they were fine with and even came up with the idea of keeping Christianity out of government.

or they had seen the rather nasty effects of mixing religion and government in Europe.

It hasn't been quite so good in the Middle East either.

If there's anything blatantly oppresive towards non-Muslims written write into the constitution, I could see it.  Right now we have no idea what it means to incorporate Islam into the constitution, however, and we're talking in a purely theoretical basis.

what about for example banning alcohol?

I
You said a couple of posts above that we should establish an oligarchy run by Christians.

Simply because that would be the most tolerant form of government, as long as they didn't force Muslims to drink alcohol or ban women from covering their heads.

And keep in mind, most people point toward Turkey as being a tolerant Muslim country, but the reason that is the case is after independence it was rather autocratically ran by Ataturk, who was very secular and probably agnostic. And he ran into quite some trouble when he legalized alcohol sales and ended repressive traditions toward women.

Did you see my point about Algeria 92 also?

You don't have a point about Algeria, since the SCIRI and Dawa don't advocate strict Sharia law as the basis for government in Iraq.

If Iraq bans alcohol sales, good.  Besides, America had prohibition not so long ago, that doesn't make us a facist state.

As for Ataturk.  You have repeatedly reminded us that Saddam, though autocratic, was secular.  This lays the same foundation for secular government in iraq as it did in Turkey, which I'm sure was part of the rationale for invading iraq to begin with, that they did not have a strong Islamist government or movement.