Iraq's Shiite leaders disagree on whether new government should be religio

[Rose Siding]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Top Shiite Muslim leaders, who are expected to wield the most power after next month's parliamentary elections, are locked in a fierce dispute over whether the new Iraq should be a constitution-based democracy or an Iranian-style state in which clerics reign supreme.
...
"There are those who want a Taliban emirate and those who want an Iranian government, and we'll fight both with our ideas," said Jawad al Bulani, the head of the Shiite Political Council, a grouping of moderate Shiite factions. "This dispute - this difference of opinion - came up, and we have to get over it. We must prove that we can present a moderate, balanced list and not let one sect overtake the other."

At the core of the debate is a concept known in Arabic as "walayat al faqih." Literally, it means "custodianship of the jurist." Practically, it means absolute rule by clerics. Observers point out that Iran, which strictly follows walayat al faqih, would like to export the model to Iraq in hopes of preventing a secular Shiite-run democracy from emboldening reformers in the Islamic republic next door.
...
Walayat al faqih "hasn't been found in Iraq, not in the past or the present, and I don't know anyone calling for it," al Hakim said, adding that he opposed it. "People are using this provocative issue to scare European and Arab countries."

Other leading Shiite candidates, including several of al Hakim's allies on the slate, suggested that he was at the very least disingenuous in refusing to acknowledge his well-known support of the Iranian model. When moderate Shiite politicians who belong to the Hezbollah group were told of al Hakim's remarks, they looked incredulous.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10508314.htm

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Like they got a choice.

:silly:

[Erika]

2. Their original draft re instituted Sharia as law.

Last January Iraq's Constitutional draft ok'd Sharia as family law.
This would relegate women to chattel firmly under a man's thumb. At that time, we ruled out the Sharia part. We'll see what now comes.

Saddam was secular and allowed women far more rights than they would have under Sharia. It looks like women and Christians are possibly taking a big hit under this "new" government.

Many Americans do not know the difference between the treatment of Afghani women/Christians under Taliban and Saddam's treatment of women/Christians under secular law. They should learn.

Saddam did not run a theocracy. The taliban in Afghanistan did.

[BadGimp]

3. re: "Many Americans do not know the difference between.."

duh - many Americans cant find Iraq on a map if you offered em a Big Mac as a reward.

[Erika]

4. National Review On Line did a report

last year about how women in Iraq are now feeling negative effects because of the power restored to clerics and the lack of a secular government with Saddam's ouster. Many high ranked women in Iraqi government were let go and told their place was at home and men needed their jobs. NRO is an extremely conservative magazine. It was responding and reporting as to Sharia being placed in the constitution and the harmful affects on Iraqi women, who were appealing for help from the outside. I, for one, called my DC reps and said no way were our troops dying so women could be berated. Our government was successful in getting Sharia tossed out...for then.

It just burns me that Bush and his wife are bragging about liberating Iraqi women when just the opposite has been true. The only areas in Afghanistan which women have received some liberation is in the central U.S. occupied cities. Women outside those areas are actually seeing worsening conditions because of lack of medicine, interruption of service, etc.

It sickens me that our troops are dying under completely false pretenses.