Should Iraq be allowed to have religion involved in its Government?

[magomago]

I keep hearing Bush and Rumsfield talk about a secular Iraq. But obviously you have the Iraqis wanting religion.

Now I (as an Iraqi) don't want a Iran-Style theocracy but I think that as long as the rights and religous freedoms of others are allowed then considering the country is over 90% Muslims it should have some kind of religion with it (like Bush wants here)

Isreal has it, right? And we are their most ardent supporter so I'm wondering why something similar cannot exist within Iraq?

 

[Drift3r]

Saddam ran a secular nation and that was one of main reasons we funded his raise to power using foreign welfare. To make sure that Iraq stayed secular by whatever means necessary. In fact some would say he did a mighty fine job at making sure it stayed secular while he was in charge of things.

Now if the Iraqi people want a Democratic Iraqi government founded on Islamic laws and principles I don't see how Bush or Rumy could stop it without having a huge revolt on their hands. If they do try though well.....I can picture now. U.S. troops are moved to Southern Iraq to suppress and arrest any Shiite leader pushing for a Iraq based on Islamic principles. Next thing you know they are being caught up in hit and run attacks day in and day out in both Southern and Central Iraq and as well as in a few Northern areas. You then see news reports of people on the streets in Baghdad screaming "Death to the Imperialist American Crusaders !"

 

[magomago]

I think we might be at odds at definition of secular. When I think secular I think similar to here in the USA. While Saddam was way more secular than Iran there was still religion in school and state run businesses and other orginizations stopped as people prayed during they prayers (similar to how many state run companies in Isreal close for the Sabbath)

Now if the Iraqi people want a Democratic Iraqi government founded on Islamic laws and principles I don't see how Bush or Rumy could stop it without having a huge revolt on their hands

Isn't that what we they (and me ) are asking for right now?

 

[mastertech01]

My impression of the goal is just about what you describe as your desire. I dont think we want to drive out religious people from government, just keep radical theocracy from taking over. If Iraq just becomes a huge IRAN that would be unacceptable towards development of a republic government. I believe something on the order of what Turkey has would be quite acceptable. But thats just one opinion from someone on the outside looking in. The people of Iraq will ultimately decide collectively for themselves the final makeup if they can do so without killing off millions in some ethnic cleansing.

 

[Gaard]

Should Iraq be allowed to have religion involved in its Government?

'allowed'?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: magomago
I keep hearing Bush and Rumsfield talk about a secular Iraq. But obviously you have the Iraqis wanting religion.

Now I (as an Iraqi) don't want a Iran-Style theocracy but I think that as long as the rights and religous freedoms of others are allowed then considering the country is over 90% Muslims it should have some kind of religion with it (like Bush wants here)

Isreal has it, right? And we are their most ardent supporter so I'm wondering why something similar cannot exist within Iraq?

You have some of the loudest and most vocal and organized Iraqis wanting religion in Iraq. I have seen a story that large numbers of Iraqis do not want to live under sharia and want a secular country. They are the ones not causing any trouble and that don't get on the news.

 

[Warin]

The people of Iraq should be 'allowed' to have whatever government they want.

THEY should decide, not a cabal of foreigners led by Bush and Co.

And people in the US wonder why so many people hate 'Americans' :Q

 

[JellyBaby]

Warin, regime change isn't quite like change a tire. And when your true motives for regime change are ulterior, you'll do your best to institute a government that will service your agenda. For instance, Iraq's oil production will be 100% government controlled no matter what happens. Private enterprise will never be allowed inflence therein. So what Iraqis want or deserve becomes largely inconsequential. That's the reality of it.

What should happen? We have several examples of representative democracies to use as examples. If it was up to me I'd set them up with the template of the U.S. Constitution and supporting law, as it was in the beginning, so Iraq can build on it as they see fit.

 

[magomago]

Should Iraq be allowed to have religion involved in its Government?

I have seen a story that large numbers of Iraqis do not want to live under sharia and want a secular country.

1) The Sharia isn't meant to be interpreted literally. It was created according to the conditions of the time If you think about when it was institued nearly over 1300 years ago if someone stole something and you lived in the desert that would be a serious hit to the owner of the stolen good that it could threaten his and his family's wellbeing if it was one of their flock or their water or something...that is why back then cutting off a hand was acceptable because that was necessary. That isn't the case anymore - even in Iraq where its a bad situation right now if someone stole something it USUALLY doesn't put anyone's life on the line. Also like I said - the term secular depends on where you are living. While even my mom who would be an ultra right winger if she were in Iraq does not want an Iran style theocracy (since that isn't even an Islamic Democracy - they can say what they want) but she still wants religion to play a part.


As for "Allowed" that is what I mean. We are essentially choosing their government for them? No?

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Warin, regime change isn't quite like change a tire. And when your true motives for regime change are ulterior, you'll do your best to institute a government that will service your agenda. For instance, Iraq's oil production will be 100% government controlled no matter what happens. Private enterprise will never be allowed inflence therein. So what Iraqis want or deserve becomes largely inconsequential. That's the reality of it.

What should happen? We have several examples of representative democracies to use as examples. If it was up to me I'd set them up with the template of the U.S. Constitution and supporting law, as it was in the beginning, so Iraq can build on it as they see fit.

God, the hubris in your comment is overwhelming.

You make the assumption that the US has a right to decide for these people. You may feel that it does, given the outcome of the War, but since the conflict was founded on rather shaky moral ground, the 'rights' of the US is less the right of the just, and more the right of the school yard bully.

You also assume that you can enforce western values and ideals on a copletely different culture.

There is NOT an American inside ever Arab just struggling to get out. This rather inane view of the world is part of why the world generally sees the US as unethical bullies.

 

[da loser]

I see no reason why you would want religion involved in the government, unless you fear the infidels are corroding society. All it does is try to force everyone to be muslim. The same is in the US, you have some christian groups that are trying to prevent change in society. What laws could be put into place that agree with all muslims to avoid separation?

Also, I hope that it's not allowed, but in the end it'll be the iraqi people deciding no matter what we want. Right now, it looks like we're being pressured to get free elections going instead of appointing leaders. If that's the case, religion will most likely be involved since the strong institutions in iraq are from the mosques.

As for the state-owned oil company, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we create a it's stated-owned, we're controlling the oil. If we open it up to the capital markets, we'll control it as well. So far, the contracts have been given to almost everyone but the US. France must think this is the best possible scenario that could've occured, Americans can't take the oil otherwise they went in for oil, and France doesn't have to do anything and act morally superior.

The only solution is an Alaskan solution, give each adult some cash. Of course, then you get some government taxing you anyway. But if everyone is relatively rich, you won't have a clamoring for government services, ala Republicans

 

[JellyBaby]

God, the hubris in your comment is overwhelming.

Irritating, aren't I? And I wonder why the rest of my neighbors hate me.

 

[JellyBaby]

As for the state-owned oil company, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we create a it's stated-owned, we're controlling the oil.

Come and listen to my story about a man named Jed,

Poor mountaineer barely kept his family fed.

And then one day, he was shootin' at some food,

And up through the ground came a bubbling crude.

Oil that is. Black gold. Iraqi tea.

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

God, the hubris in your comment is overwhelming.

Irritating, aren't I? And I wonder why the rest of my neighbors hate me.

At least you're honest

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Should Iraq be allowed to have religion involved in its Government?

'allowed'?

Yes, allowed. Just like we did for Japan and Germany. If that have 1/2 a wit, they'll take us up on it. Personally I don't think any country in that region has 1/2 a wit.

We're kind of the nice guys of war see.

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Gaard
Should Iraq be allowed to have religion involved in its Government?

'allowed'?

Yes, allowed. Just like we did for Japan and Germany. If that have 1/2 a wit, they'll take us up on it. Personally I don't think any country in that region has 1/2 a wit.

We're kind of the nice guys of war see.

That is so true though. Any other country would have given germany to the UK, italy to france and japan to Russia or something along those lines. If you think about it, its quite amazing that aside from Russian civil struggles no established country's borders have drastically changed in a 100 years.

There is an old saying: The spoils of war go to the victor. or somethign like that. When the US is asked to help it has never aquired any of those countries and never requests a fee or anything of the sort.

My point is the United States came into Iraq and whoop a little ass. They are in charge and are giving the people of Iraq the choice to build their own government. A government which must be supportive of all Iraqi social and religious groups. Now i would think that this is the one thing that everyone would agree on.

OR would you suggest that the Iraqi's get a government that is just like the previous administration? Also if the Iraqis have a exact copy of our basic governing philosophies then they could add religion at a latter date as long as the majority of them believed that.

my $0.02

 

[mboy]

Originally posted by: Warin
The people of Iraq should be 'allowed' to have whatever government they want.

THEY should decide, not a cabal of foreigners led by Bush and Co.

And people in the US wonder why so many people hate 'Americans' :Q

Funny how u hate us, but we are your military. If anything happens to your little country, who do u time and time again call for help to bail you out? Yep, us Americans! You should thank god everyday that a country like the US isnt full of a bunch of P*ssies like yours is!

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: mboy

Funny how u hate us, but we are your military. If anything happens to your little country, who do u time and time again call for help to bail you out? Yep, us Americans! You should thank god everyday that a country like the US isnt full of a bunch of P*ssies like yours is!

Funny how I never said that I personally hated America or Americans. Nice leap in logic there.

As for the other, Canada has never once had to call on the US to 'save' us.

P*ssies huh?

Tell that the the dead of World War 1 and 2, Korea, 39 UN Peace Keeping Missions, and the dead of the PPCLI in Afghanistan.

Grow up.

 

[LunarRay]

Canada is a good ally of the US. Not too much separates us from each other... in fact, many of my relatives landed in Nova Scotia and instead of coming down toward Boston and NY stayed up there... Good Folks up there... even took in some of the folks from the Vietnam exodus..

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: magomago
I think we might be at odds at definition of secular. When I think secular I think similar to here in the USA. While Saddam was way more secular than Iran there was still religion in school and state run businesses and other orginizations stopped as people prayed during they prayers (similar to how many state run companies in Isreal close for the Sabbath)

Now if the Iraqi people want a Democratic Iraqi government founded on Islamic laws and principles I don't see how Bush or Rumy could stop it without having a huge revolt on their hands

Isn't that what we they (and me ) are asking for right now?

I believe Iraq under Sadaam was very secular. He used propaganda and a form of religious segregation to stay in power. The Sunni and Shiite are VERY different and it will be hard to have any form of theocracy in which they will agree.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Brie

Originally posted by: magomago
I think we might be at odds at definition of secular. When I think secular I think similar to here in the USA. While Saddam was way more secular than Iran there was still religion in school and state run businesses and other orginizations stopped as people prayed during they prayers (similar to how many state run companies in Isreal close for the Sabbath)

Now if the Iraqi people want a Democratic Iraqi government founded on Islamic laws and principles I don't see how Bush or Rumy could stop it without having a huge revolt on their hands

Isn't that what we they (and me ) are asking for right now?

I believe Iraq under Sadaam was very secular. He used propaganda and a form of religious segregation to stay in power. The Sunni and Shiite are VERY different and it will be hard to have any form of theocracy in which they will agree.

*cough* No they aren't *cough*

Same book, same prophet, same god, same prayer...

Split occured when a caliphite died who should be the next to be it. One group said "It should be Imam Ali since he married the daughter of the prophet" another said "no - it should be the ummayad" and it turned into an arguement. Ali was killed by those who opposed him - those who followed him beleive he was martyred and built a mosque where it happend. He is revered as a Martyr in the "shi'ite" split. Not a saint, not some special demi god, not someone who can do miracles...just as a martyr.
Sunnis disagree with this and don't acknowledge he is a martyr. the only problem is you have some extremeists like those is Saudi Arabia that will persecute those because of an incident hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

The Quran and Islam itself is the same within both branches to my knowledge - but some political split occured long ago that people still harbor today...The Shi'ite look at him as a good man a a martyr...nothing more and the Sunnis don't and some will go to not even allow those who are shi'ites to talk to them, to be nice, to give them cookies , etc



The split is not like a catholic/protestant or something similar to that where in one you have a pope and in another you don't.

And who said Theocracy? That is what amazed me. I said should they have religion involved in their government- not should they institute a theocracy.

 

[etech]

BBC

Muslim schism

In early Islamic history the Shia were a political faction ("party of Ali") that supported the power of Ali, son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed and the fourth caliph (temporal and spiritual ruler) of the Muslim community.

Ali was murdered in 661AD and his chief opponent, Muawiya, became caliph. It was Ali's death that led to the great schism between Sunnis and Shias.

Caliph Muawiya was later succeeded by his son Yazid, but Ali's son Hussein refused to accept his legitimacy. Hussein claimed the right to become caliph and fighting between the two resulted.

Hussein and his followers were massacred in battle near Karbala in AD680.

Both Ali and Hussein's death gave rise to the Shia cult of martyrdom and sense of betrayal.

Shia has always been the rigid faith of the poor and oppressed waiting for deliverance. It is seen as a messianic faith which awaits the coming of the "hidden Imam", Allah's messenger who will reverse their fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice.

Today, they make up about 15% of the total worldwide Muslim population. "

Shias are the one that you will see beating themselves and opening cuts on the heads of their children.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: etech
BBC

Muslim schism

In early Islamic history the Shia were a political faction ("party of Ali") that supported the power of Ali, son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed and the fourth caliph (temporal and spiritual ruler) of the Muslim community.

Ali was murdered in 661AD and his chief opponent, Muawiya, became caliph. It was Ali's death that led to the great schism between Sunnis and Shias.

Caliph Muawiya was later succeeded by his son Yazid, but Ali's son Hussein refused to accept his legitimacy. Hussein claimed the right to become caliph and fighting between the two resulted.

Hussein and his followers were massacred in battle near Karbala in AD680.

Both Ali and Hussein's death gave rise to the Shia cult of martyrdom and sense of betrayal.

Shia has always been the rigid faith of the poor and oppressed waiting for deliverance. It is seen as a messianic faith which awaits the coming of the "hidden Imam", Allah's messenger who will reverse their fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice.

Today, they make up about 15% of the total worldwide Muslim population. "

Shias are the one that you will see beating themselves and opening cuts on the heads of their children.

I'm going to challange that.
a) While I don't consider myself part of Sunni or Shi'ite , technically I would be a Shi'ite
b) Mom's parents were Rich Land owners in Baghdad and Shi'ite

And the important feature that I compltely disagree with is what is bold - In Islam there is no prophet/messenger beyond Muhammed. That simple. There is no "secret messenger" who is going to come and help everyone - that goes against the basic fundamental principles of Islam. That is one of the first things taught to kids along with the beleif that God is one entity (meaning there is no trinity) and omniscient.

I'm going to send a letter to BBC

 

[DaiShan]

Being that we "liberated" Iraq, they ought to be able to use their new found liberty to choose whichever form of government they wish. Also you cited israel as a theocracy, I have a friend from israel, it isn't as you imagine. They don't have church leaders making all of the decisions, and they are surprisingly progressive given that religion plays a role in their government.

 

[etech]

magomago

I'm going to challange that.
a) While I don't consider myself part of Sunni or Shi'ite , technically I would be a Shi'ite
b) Mom's parents were Rich Land owners in Baghdad and Shi'ite

And the important feature that I compltely disagree with is what is bold - In Islam there is no prophet/messenger beyond Muhammed. That simple. There is no "secret messenger" who is going to come and help everyone - that goes against the basic fundamental principles of Islam. That is one of the first things taught to kids along with the beleif that God is one entity (meaning there is no trinity) and omniscient.

I'm going to send a letter to BBC

One example of a rich Shia does not disprove the contention that Shia is primarily a religion of the poor.

As for the second, I am losing faith in the BBC. You are correct in that Muhammad said that "No prophet will come after me". I made a mistake in quoting that article without further checking. Thank you for the correctionl.

Let me know what the BBC says.