WINNING THE WAR AND LOSING THE PEACE: Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq

The New York Times > International > Middle East > Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq, February 6, 2005 vy EDWARD WONG.

Maybe the Bush people did not see this coming, but those of us willing to face the truth and call it for what it is, certainly did. Here are some snippets from this New York Times article painting the stark reality in terms of reality:

With religious Shiite parties poised to take power in the new constitutional assembly, leading Shiite clerics are pushing for Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution.

Exactly how Islamic to make the document is the subject of debate.

Such a constitution would be a sharp departure from the transitional law that the Americans enacted before appointing the interim Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. American officials pressed Iraqi politicians drafting that law in early 2004 to guarantee equal rights for women and minorities. The Americans also persuaded the authors to designate Islam as just "a source" of legislation.

Stop right there, on that very last sentence. There can be no compromise between freedom and all that entails with Islam and all that entails. Either the Bushies do not know this, or they think they can attain the world's first successful, typical political compromise, having persistent benefits as wished. Compromise here cannot be accomplished. A compromise hands the win to Islam.

That irked senior Shiite clerics here, who, confident they now have a popular mandate from the elections, are advocating for Islam to be acknowledged as the underpinning of the government. They also insist that the Americans stay away from the writing of the new constitution.


"The constitution is the most dangerous document in the country and the most important one affecting the future of the country," said Alaadeen Muhammad al-Hakim, a son of and spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Said al-Hakim, one of the most senior Shiite clerics in Iraq. "It should be written extremely carefully."

The clerics, like Zarqawi, and all of the Islamic militants know their stuff and ours far better than we do. They know to be consistent and persistent, and they know how pitiful are those in our government, particularly the State Department. The Islamists know that the State Department will hand them the victory they seek, if they persist.

What kind of Iraq do the Islamists want?

Some effects are already being felt locally. In Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq, where one of Ayatollah Sistani's closest aides has enormous influence, Shiite religious parties have been transforming the city into an Islamic fief since the toppling of Mr. Hussein. Militias have driven alcohol sellers off the streets. Women are harassed if they walk the streets in anything less than head-to-toe black. Conservative judges are invoking Shariah in some courts.

The clerics generally agree that the constitution must ensure that no laws passed by the state contradict a basic understanding of Shariah as laid out in the Koran. Women should not be treated as the equals of men in matters of marriage, divorce and family inheritance, they say. Nor should men be prevented from having multiple wives, they add.

"There was no clear point about Islam," he said. "It just said that Islam should be respected. But we want a legal article that states frankly that no laws should violate Islamic law.

"The religious people should have a role in writing the constitution," he said. "Islamic law is so broad, and Shiite Islamic law has so many branches. There is an answer from Islam for everything in society."

"The infidel coalition forces want to make a constitution for our dear Iraq and carry out their infidel agenda through the current government," Ayatollah Haeri wrote. "This is the most dangerous thing for Iraq and Islam. They want to change our identity, habits, morals and Islamic way of life."

And "our" response?

The Americans also persuaded the authors to designate Islam as just "a source" of legislation.

A State Department official said the United States "would urge an inclusive and participatory process," but that for now the Bush administration was simply watching the debate unfold. "This is an Iraqi process," said Edgar Vasquez, a State Department spokesman.

Just this week, President Bush, in his State of the Union address, told these Islamists in Iraq that we Americans have no intention of dictating what kind of government they should have. It is up to them to choose their own.

That is the most immoral statement I have ever heard from President Bush. However, it is typical of thinking on the Right. Liberals or Conservatives make up dominant choices now for us in America. The Left want to destroy America directly while the Right seem unable to catch on that their muddled minds and approaches have exactly the same ends as those on the Left.

How dare we have some 1500 Americans killed and well over 10,000 maimed in that cess pool of Iraq so that sand savages can vote themselves into theocracy! Which is worse, Saddam Hussein or Islam? I know that Saddam crushed humanity for only 35 years while Islam is going into its 15 century. On the basis of sheer numbers, Islam is far worse. And the President is willing to spend our blood and treasure to let Iraq jump from the frying pan into the fire.

The Right will kill us with their damned religion. They have incorrectly identified it as the source of life, of values, of all that is good. Which religion? It does not matter. To them all are equally good. Just listen to Bush. Just listen to right wing talk radio--they all are mentally corrupted and constipated by their completely uncritical acceptance of religion as good. They extend this to Islam.

Then they start parsing Islam into "extreme, radical, fundamentalist, and hijacked" Islam, in order to avoid having to look religion in the face and see it for what it is. I have yet to hear one of these Rightists indicate that he or she has read even the first book telling the truth about Islam. They "just know."

If we do not impose--by force if necessary--a rights based government in Iraq, then we will have engaged in the most heinous exercise of altruistic self-sacrifice since Vietnam. We would also have demonstrated the really poisonous nature of this term "democracy." This temporary Iraqi democracy will have voted itself into tyranny because we refused to impose a republican form of government in which democracy is a means of participating through voting for citizens.

All of the people who fought, died, and live maimed for life from Vietnam did so in vain. It was a war of altruistic self-sacrifice, and America did the sacrificing. We allowed Afghanistan to establish an Islamic constitution. It is just a matter of time before it is a full tyranny again. Now comes Iraq and another altruistic failure, but one with horrendous consequences far worse than Vietnam.

The rational self-interest of America and the cause of individual freedom require a republican form of government in Iraq. If we have to cram it down their throats, we should. This is the reality we should face but are not.