A leading contender to be Iraq's next prime minister says the government should not allow laws that conflict with Islam.
By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
BAGHDAD – The preliminary count from Iraq's election last week confirms that the main Shiite slate will dominate the new parliament. The only suspense left is how great its dominance will be.
Now, slowly and cautiously, the leading Shiite politicians in the United Iraqi Alliance are beginning to lay out their political demands and expectations.
Iraq's next prime minister will probably be a member of their coalition - not Iyad Allawi, the current interim prime minister and America's favorite. And Islam, they say, will play a bigger role in government than ever before in modern Iraq.
. . .
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."
[Interesting. One set of laws for Muslims and another for non-Muslims, so someone can be bound by Sharia if they wish? Hmmmm.]
The article is careful not to make any definitive predictions, other than that (conservative) Islam is probably going to be a major factor in what happens.
posted
The outcome of this will help us see how much this administration means it is for self-determination.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they were approaching it sensibly, I guess that two parties in a dispute could agree before mediation that they will accept the decision of Ash-Sharia. Kind of like when people sign up to go on People's Court. Or it could be similar to the division between civil court and criminal court here. Someone may be acquitted in criminal court but still liable in civil court.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never been one to believe that "self-determination" included the majority limiting the rights of the minority.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl -- except that I can construct a framework of "rights" for just about any abuse you want to allow. It all depends on what gets termed a right, and that standard is not consistent across countries and peoples. For instance, I doubt many Shiites hold that other people have a right to say Allah is a false god.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush has already stated he will not allow a Islamic based government to take power, it would have to be secular.
If the government goes too hardcore Shi'a, then the Sunnis all go insurgent. The Kurds in the north break away and Turkey invades to prevent a free Kurdistan, Iran steps in on the side of Iraq's newly empowered Shi'a government, and Saudi Arabia gets nervous. Meanwhile America is in the background going "wtf?"
Let's all just pray for Sistani and the others being wise and good leaders.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bush has already stated he will not allow a Islamic based government to take power, it would have to be secular.
This doesn't sound like something he would say, as the U.S. stepping in and not allowing a government based on Islam would probably trigger instant chaos in Iraq and immediately swing a large chunk of the populatino solidly against us.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll find one of the many quotes he has where he states that he won't allow a theocracy to form there. He said something along the lines of "Iraq will become a democracy, and we won't allow them to form an Iran styled theocracy." I don't have time to find it right now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "But when we consider things like family law, Muslims must follow the sharia. For non-Muslims, they will be free to choose other methods."
[Interesting. One set of laws for Muslims and another for non-Muslims, so someone can be bound by Sharia if they wish? Hmmmm.]
Not so strange. Marriage and family laws in both Sri Lanka and India are bound by religion. In India, I was reading today that it's determined by the religion of both members of the couple, but when the couple's religion are not the same, they're bound by another law that's secular.
In Sri Lanka, the law is determined by the religion of the husband. There's also Kandyan law for those from the Kandy area, which is based on marriage & family law from the Kandyan kingdom, and allows for polyandery. The Kandyans are Sinhalese, same as most of the rest of the country, which means Buddhism. But Buddhist law does not allow for polyandery as far as my understanding goes.
Oh, and for the record, yes, Fahim can legally have up to four wives in this country. They would all be recognized as legal. One of his uncles has two wives currently.
These are just two countries that I happen to know about. There could be others that are in a similar situation for all I know.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's really interesting, Quid. Though, remember, I'm not saying that it would be 'strange'. Just interesting in a way that I think could be good, if seperate but equal, or could be really bad, if seperate but unequal.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's interesting. I could see that being an aspect of contract law, where the couple specifies the controlling authority for divorces and family proceedings at the time of marriage. It would be akin to agreeing to binding arbitration agreements.
Interesting article in general on the constitution in Afghanistan.
Please, note:
quote: Yet the old Enlightenment required the separation of church and state. And the new Afghan Constitution, in contrast, mixes democracy and religion, proclaiming an Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
posted
Storm, sorry for putting "strange" into your mouth. I don't know why I took it that way. Whatever. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Though, remember, I'm not saying that it would be 'strange'. Just interesting in a way that I think could be good, if seperate but equal, or could be really bad, if seperate but unequal.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
