[Silver]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0207/p01s04-woiq.html

That's not overly encouraging...

 

[Toshi]

what do we do if the iraqis choose to install a non-democratic theocracy? invade again?

 

[Westy]

what do we do if the iraqis choose to install a non-democratic theocracy? invade again?

Just back off our security efforts on keeping those people safe.

 

[ohio]

"And Islam, they say, will play a bigger role in government than ever before in modern Iraq."

 

[Changleen]

I think this is good. They are, at last, getting what they want.

 

[Silver]

"And Islam, they say, will play a bigger role in government than ever before in modern Iraq."

Reminds me of the time I overheard a woman say in an airport lounge (in a great Texas drawl) "Of course we have freedom of religion. Y'all can worship Jesus any way you want!"

 

[Silver]

I think this is good. They are, at last, getting what they want.

I think it's horrible.

The chances of the clerics not letting it turn into a theocracy is just a tiny sliver above zero.

Not to mention that Iraq has two different sects of Islam...

 

[Changleen]

I think it's horrible.

The chances of the clerics not letting it turn into a theocracy is just a tiny sliver above zero.

Not to mention that Iraq has two different sects of Islam...

Maybe, maybe not. I guess I'm slighly more optimistic than you for once. I agree that if it turned in to a genuine theocracy that would really suck. Your article actually had something to say about that. I think the difference between it being informed by Islam and actually being a theocracy is a big one, so we might have just see how it pans out. Good markers will be things like the availibility/legality of Alcohol, and Burkas.

 

[mack]

I think this is good. They are, at last, getting what they want.

What they want, i dont think that they have any clue what is about to going to happen if Islam gets put back into place.

 

[Silver]

Maybe, maybe not. I guess I'm slighly more optimistic than you for once. I agree that if it turned in to a genuine theocracy that would really suck. Your article actually had something to say about that. I think the difference between it being informed by Islam and actually being a theocracy is a big one, so we might have just see how it pans out. Good markers will be things like the availibility/legality of Alcohol, and Burkas.

I get worried when they talk like this BEFORE the results are actually in.

When you start gutting a constitution before you write it, that's a bad sign

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i love it when people get absolute-moralist and start saying that certain system is worse than other for other people based on their own beliefs.

like capitalism... a lot of people think is the best system for everyone... only problem is that people in the 3rd world think capitalism sucks ass.....

but hey! what do they know about their own desires??? poor people who doesnt know capitalism is better for them.....

i dont say that a totalitarian system with mass murderers is OK, but not necesarilly a totalitarian theocracy is a bad thing for them... if they got the chance to choose it...

 

[Silver]

i love it when people get absolute-moralist and start saying that certain system is worse than other for other people based on their own beliefs.

like capitalism... a lot of people think is the best system for everyone... only problem is that people in the 3rd world think capitalism sucks ass.....

but hey! what do they know about their own desires??? poor people who doesnt know capitalism is better for them.....

i dont say that a totalitarian system with mass murderers is OK, but not necesarilly a totalitarian theocracy is a bad thing for them... if they got the chance to choose it...

In a totally homogenous country (and where do you find that...Sweden, maybe?) a theocracy might work decently. I'd still be opposed to one, but it may not be a disaster.

In Iraq, you're going to have Shias and Kurds who aren't going to be too happy. The will of the majority could very well lead to civil war.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

In a totally homogenous country (and where do you find that...Sweden, maybe?) a theocracy might work decently. I'd still be opposed to one, but it may not be a disaster.

In Iraq, you're going to have Shias and Kurds who aren't going to be too happy. The will of the majority could very well lead to civil war.

it might, it might not. who knows...
what would be another option???

would it be better to impose another "better" system on all of them??? fearing "them" might start killing each other...

 

[Changleen]

What they want, i dont think that they have any clue what is about to going to happen if Islam gets put back into place.

Why not? Practically all their neighbours are Muslim theocracies. They probably know better than anyone.

 

[Changleen]

We should all remember that pre 1991 they were a highly westernised, pretty rich, secular country. I think a lot of people will remember that and want it back, just without Saddam.

 

[BurlyShirley]

**** it. Let 'em rot.

 

[Changleen]

**** it. Let 'em rot.

Troops home tomorrow?

 

[MikeD]

We should all remember that pre 1991 they were a highly westernised, pretty rich, secular country. I think a lot of people will remember that and want it back, just without Saddam.

And that's been my case all along for NOT intervening militarily...our presence and actions have "Islamized," if you'll allow me to coin a phrase, the area. A natural evolution in the succession of power, post-Saddam, perhaps spurred on by undetected covert assistance to secular reformers, would have been good for the US, I think. But we as a country and culture can't wait very long for what we want, nor do long-term strategic goals survive the transition of power and direction every 4-8 years...

MD

 

[Changleen]

"Islamized," if you'll allow me to coin a phrase,

I think "Islamicimified" rolls off the tounge much nicer.

Nah, Seriously, I think you're probably right. Gotta hope not though.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Why not? Practically all their neighbours are Muslim theocracies. They probably know better than anyone.

And - as much as I adore women's equality - there are a lot of societies, world views, and cultures that firmly believe there is a role for women in the world, and a role for men. If 90% of a nation believes a woman belongs covered, head/face/body/whatever - women too - who are we as westerners who have women arguing their right to go without a top anywhere a man can, to disagree with them? Social morals are only consistent in a very few areas of life...

Murder and sleeping with your offspring or siblings being the main ones...

 

[Silver]

And - as much as I adore women's equality - there are a lot of societies, world views, and cultures that firmly believe there is a role for women in the world, and a role for men. If 90% of a nation believes a woman belongs covered, head/face/body/whatever - women too - who are we as westerners who have women arguing their right to go without a top anywhere a man can, to disagree with them? Social morals are only consistent in a very few areas of life...

Murder and sleeping with your offspring or siblings being the main ones...

Results would be a good reason.

I can't think of a theocracy that does as good of a job from a quality of life perspective for the whole of its citizens that a liberal democracy has proven it can do.

Another reason that comes to mind: Once clerics of any stripe manage to get their own town/state/country under their thumb, they start looking outwards.

(Slight aside: Murder, as MikeD pointed out in a thread a long time ago, has not been universally condemned either. And hey, if you believe people who say that our nation is founded on the principles in the Bible, then we aren't blameless with regards to incest either. Royalty throughout history has had a problem with this as well.)

 

[fluff]

Does the US have any laws that conflict with Christianity?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Does the US have any laws that conflict with Christianity?

Mebe it depends on your view of christianity? Such as abortion, or the death penalty...

 

[binary visions]

Mebe it depends on your view of christianity? Such as abortion, or the death penalty...

There's no "maybe" about it - in addition to those, gay marriage, drinking, sex... There's a million laws that could potentially conflict with Christianity depending on what your beliefs are.

Hell, women's rights might conflict with your views of Christianity.

 

[fluff]

Mebe it depends on your view of christianity? Such as abortion, or the death penalty...

So, the concern is that Iraq may not have laws allowing abortion & gay marriage. It seems the death penalty may scrape through...

 

[Jr_Bullit]

So, the concern is that Iraq may not have laws allowing abortion & gay marriage. It seems the death penalty may scrape through...

I think I misunderstood your point? (The lack of sleep is getting to me, sorry )

I was of the impression the argument was trying to prove that as much as the US claims to not be a theocracy, many of our laws or the majority of our laws are based around a Christian world view. So thus, we cannot in truth fully look down our snobby democratic noses at another nation who chooses, democratically, to vote a theocracy into place. Except that in the US there are many laws that are not based in the Christian world view, or at least not in the right-leaning Christian world view. Or something - I blather on...

 

[fluff]

I though people were scaremongering about an Iraqi constitution with Islamic based laws. I was trying to understand which Islamic based laws were so bad.

 

[Silver]

I though people were scaremongering about an Iraqi constitution with Islamic based laws. I was trying to understand which Islamic based laws were so bad.

Take a gander at Saudi Arabia.

 

[Silver]

Take a gander at Saudi Arabia.

Actually, bad example, since the royal family there uses Islam as a means of control and doesn't actually give a damn about it themselves.

Iran would be better. I'm not arguing that Islam is a deficent religion (any more so than any other religion) but I don't think it's going to work in Iraq. A majority Shiite government that imposes religious laws without protections for the minority is not going to work.

 

[fluff]

From my reading of the article they were talking about laws based on and not conflicting with Islam. Given that Islam can be interpreted more moderately than in either Iran or Saudi Arabia there is plenty of scope for an less-than-opressive society. Most of our non-controversial laws are Christianity based yet we survive.

It smacks of scaremongering.

 

[BigHit-Maniac]

Hurray for Towels and AK-47's !

 

[Silver]

From my reading of the article they were talking about laws based on and not conflicting with Islam. Given that Islam can be interpreted more moderately than in either Iran or Saudi Arabia there is plenty of scope for an less-than-opressive society. Most of our non-controversial laws are Christianity based yet we survive.

It smacks of scaremongering.

Iraq's route from occupation to full sovereignty is largely guided by the Transitional Administrative Law, an interim constitution that was written by the US and its appointed Governing Council last year.

Mr. Jaafari, a medical doctor who lived in exile in London until the regime fell, says he wants a key provision of that law tossed out. It says that if two-thirds of the population in three Iraqi provinces reject Iraq's new constitution, it will be scrapped. The provision was added to assuage the fear of the ethnic Kurds, who largely inhabit three northern provinces. The so-called "Kurdish veto" could also help Iraq's Sunni Arabs, concentrated in three central provinces.

Jaafari is one of the guys mentioned as the next possible prime minister. Like I said upthread, they look like they are talking about gutting the consitution before they write it.

"The Koran should be the main basis for writing the constitution,'' says Ali al-Waedh, Sistani's representative in the Baghdad district of Khadimiya. "We should not be politicians, but if there are some things in the constitution that conflict with Islam, then the marjaiyah [leading Shiite scholars] will reject it."

Sistani and Iraq's mainstream clerics do not want an Iranian-style theocracy, but there's a wide gulf between rejecting the Iranian system and wanting a secular state. "We will not follow the Iranian experience - we will have freedom here,'' says Mr. Waedh. "But when we consider things like family law, Muslims must follow the sharia. For non-Muslims, they will be free to choose other methods."

So, seperate but equal? That'll last for about a month.

 

[Silver]

Hurray for Towels and AK-47's !

Didn't your parents ever tell you that children should be seen and not heard?

 

[fluff]

government that imposes religious laws without protections for the minority is not going to work.

It works elsewhere...

 

[fluff]

Iraq's route from occupation to full sovereignty is largely guided by the Transitional Administrative Law, an interim constitution that was written by the US and its appointed Governing Council last year.

Mr. Jaafari, a medical doctor who lived in exile in London until the regime fell, says he wants a key provision of that law tossed out. It says that if two-thirds of the population in three Iraqi provinces reject Iraq's new constitution, it will be scrapped. The provision was added to assuage the fear of the ethnic Kurds, who largely inhabit three northern provinces. The so-called "Kurdish veto" could also help Iraq's Sunni Arabs, concentrated in three central provinces.

Jaafari is one of the guys mentioned as the next possible prime minister. Like I said upthread, they look like they are talking about gutting the consitution before they write it.

"The Koran should be the main basis for writing the constitution,'' says Ali al-Waedh, Sistani's representative in the Baghdad district of Khadimiya. "We should not be politicians, but if there are some things in the constitution that conflict with Islam, then the marjaiyah [leading Shiite scholars] will reject it."

Sistani and Iraq's mainstream clerics do not want an Iranian-style theocracy, but there's a wide gulf between rejecting the Iranian system and wanting a secular state. "We will not follow the Iranian experience - we will have freedom here,'' says Mr. Waedh. "But when we consider things like family law, Muslims must follow the sharia. For non-Muslims, they will be free to choose other methods."

So, seperate but equal? That'll last for about a month.

I see what you're saying but any veto like that is gonna make it pretty difficult to get any kind of constitution agreed at all.

 

[BigHit-Maniac]

Didn't your parents ever tell you that children should be seen and not heard?

LMAO.


Hmmm... that would require an aweful lot of Duct Tape...

:eviltongu

 

[Silver]

I see what you're saying but any veto like that is gonna make it pretty difficult to get any kind of constitution agreed at all.

I think that was the idea. With that veto, the Shiites just can't take de facto control of the country. They have to compromise.

I'd love to see some of the cheerleader's thoughts on this story.

N8, Damn True...you out there?

 

[$tinkle]

this has outward appearances of the first steps in the thousand mile journey; unfortunately, there will be some steps back (tyranny of the majority being the most predictable)

whatever the case, i approve their message.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

It smacks of scaremongering.

Isn't that what the US society and information systems are based on?

 

[$tinkle]

if history is any indicator...

Malaysia is a good example of the way in which Muslims, even in a country in which they are a bare majority, have managed to create a situation that, to the extent possible, reduplicates the dhimmitude of yore. When it first became independent, Malaya (later Malaysia) did not have a Muslim majority. But just as in every country where Muslims and non-Muslims have lived, the Muslims have driven out or killed enough of the non-Muslims to diminish their numbers. In the early 1950s, Lebanon was 40% Muslim and 60% Christian; while censuses are no longer taken, the proportion is likely reversed. At independence, West Pakistan was 15% Hindu; now it is 1% Hindu; East Pakistan was 38% Hindu, and is now 8% Hindu. Meanwhile, the proportion of Muslims in India has risen and continues to rise. While non-Muslim birthrates everywhere, from Europe to China to Peru, go down, Muslim birthrates remain the highest in the world -- in Infidel lands and Muslim lands alike. And Infidels have been prompt with transfers of wealth to Muslims, both within Muslim lands and within Infidel lands.

In Malaysia, the "jizya" is disguised. It is called the "Bumiputra" ("Sons of the Soil"), and it supposedly was intended to help the indigenous Malays. But the indigenous tribes, the real Malays, are Christianized. In fact, the "Bumiputra" system helps only the Muslims in Malaysia. By its terms, those who are Chinese or Hindus (i.e., non-Muslims) must include in all of their economic undertakings, as equal partners, Malaysian Muslims. So, for example, if two Malaysian Chinese were to open, say, an architectural office, they would have to take on as a full partner a Malaysian Muslim, who would receive a share even if he contributed little or nothing to the enterprise.

And steadily, state by state, Malaysia is introducing more and more Islamic features into its social and political life. Anwar Ibrahim (he of the famous "trial") makes Mahathir Mohamed (he of the rants against the "Jews" and the speech to the O.I.C. in which he called upon fellow Muslims to embrace "progress," which he then defined entirely in terms of military technology and other means to defeat the Infidels and spread the banner of Islam) seem "moderate."

Malaysia's famed "economic success" is owed primarily to four things:

1) The British commercial and legal inheritance (Singapore, incidentally, briefly part of Malaysia, had as its first Chief Minister a member of a family of Iraqi Jews, spread throughout Asia like the more famous Sassoons and Kadoories, the Marshalls -- Marshall's nephew attended school in Bombay with the late President Bhutto of Pakistan, in those relatively relaxed pre-Partition days).

2) Extensive natural resources.

3) An energetic mercantile and entrepreneurial class of Chinese and Hindus, whose economic activity both supports, and serves as a useful model, to the Muslims.

4) The encouragement by Malaysia of the assembly of high-tech goods due to low costs, and that entrepreneurial class described in #3 above.

But now the Chinese in China, not the Bumiputra-hobbled Chinese in Malaysia, and the Indians in India, not the Bumiputra-hobbled Hindus in Malaysia, will be able to replace Malaysia entirely as a center for technical assembly. And as Malaysia further islamizes, it will drive more and more of its energetic non-Muslim population away, and the economy is likely to suffer.

It is surely worth observing what happens to the Bumiputra system -- that disguised jizya. If it is abandoned, there may be mild hope for Malaysia. But as in every other state where Muslims slowly seize control, the likelihood of reversing course and making things better, rather than worse, for a large community of non-Muslims, is slim. See Nigeria, Lebanon, Sudan, Egypt.