BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shiite members of Iraq’s Governing Council refused to sign the interim constitution at the last minute Friday after the country’s top Shiite cleric rejected two clauses of the document, Iraqi officials said.
The council agreed to the accord unanimously Monday, but Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani rejected provisions put into the text at the request of the Kurds to protect their self-rule area in the north, said a source on the Governing Council, speaking on condition of anonymity
…
..
An elaborate ceremony was planned, emphasizing Iraqi unity. A platform was set up before a map of the nation emblazoned with the slogan, “We all participate in the new Iraq.”
Children dressed in traditional garb from all parts of Iraq were brought in. Twenty-five fountain pens, one for each member, were lined up on a wooden desk that once belonged to King Feisal I, Iraq’s first monarch, at the Baghdad Convention Center at the heart of the U.S. occupation headquarters.
For those who are curious which clauses of the constitution made the shiites take stand... these are more fully explained in the same news link as follows Kurds seeking veto power
One of the clauses was sought by the Kurds to ensure that the eventual permanent constitution, to be put to a national referendum, does not encroach on their self-rule zone in the north. The clause says that if two-thirds of the voters in any three provinces reject the permanent charter, it will not go into effect. The Kurd self-rule region includes three provinces in the north.
“Some of these provinces have only 400,000 or 500,000 people. We cannot have that number of people rejecting a constitution for 25 million people,” al-Bayati said.
An al-Sistani representative reflected those concerns during a sermon Friday at Karbala’s Imam Hussein shrine.
“There is one article that give a specific party the right to veto the permanent constitution if it fails to meet their demands, and this is a dangerous thing,” Sheik Abdel-Mehdi al-Kerbalai told worshippers.
Another cause of dispute was the makeup of the presidency, al-Bayati said. **The draft approved Monday set up a single president with two deputies. But he said the Shiites were reviving their demand for a five-person rotating presidency.
Under that proposal, which was raised in the debate over the final accord, the presidency would rotate between three Shiites, a Kurd and a Sunni — giving the Shiites a dominant role. **
Chalabi among those refusing to sign
The council members that refused to sign were Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council, Ibrahim al-Jaafari of the Dawa party, independent Shiite Mouwafak al-Rubaie and the current council president, Shiite cleric Muhammad Bahr al-Ulloom, al-Bayati said.
Interesting. I think being close to 2/3rd of population (right?) shiites do have a point about a 3-person rotating presidency.
Democracy has a systems of supports, all of which must be present to some degree. Judges, Courts, Representatives, and a political process that ends in an enduring solution. The first US Consitution was never ratified, and the second was not ratified for years after the end of our revolutionary war. The process you are seeing is a healthy process. Sistani is involved, the Kurds are involved, and it is one hell of a big improvement over Saddam.
The Shia ceremonies, despite badly marred by a tragedy had not been performed for 30 years in Iraq.
Somehow people expect instant success from democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Democracy is an unnatural event. The only way to achieve it is compromise and negociation. The trick is not to create a democracy out of sand, but an enduring democracy that will serve Iraqis' well for decades.
A good fight before a constitution is signed is far preferable to a big fight after it is signed.....
You guys are missing the point. No memebers of council including Shia complained about rule of Islam in temprary constitution. Everybody looking for their own interest because USA has given them a life time opportunity by picking up them to serve their interest. This constitution shows the real face of USA about Islam. Muslims all over the world are right about the intention of USA with regard to Islam and do not believe USA's claim that the terrorism fight is not against Islam. Here is the example in Iraq temprary constitution. They want to make Iraqi away from real Islam. Democracy is a part of western secularism which has no place in Islam. There is no solution for Iraq except following real Islamic way of life.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nai Hajrut: *
Democracy is a part of western secularism which has no place in Islam. There is no solution for Iraq except following real Islamic way of life.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. So you reject the whole concept of democracy. Quite interesting.
Will you be so kind to explain to us, in your view, how should the Iraqi people go about selecting/electing/appointing a person or persons to govern the country?
You have human beings that have been herded and slaughtered like sheep for decades by previous regimes. You have generations that have no concept of how their actions and desires relate to the ultimate common good of their nation.
During that time they were cut off from the world, from the free exchange of information and ideas. Forced to live under a false revisionist history that claimed them to be be blessed, while lving under the curse of Saddam. Only recently been given access to what so many take for granted.
It is not surprising that they scatter when berift of the iron staff of a murderous dictator like Saddam. At least under him, there were absolutes - you err, you die!
Now, Iraqis have the helm...but, no idea where they should steer! What direction should they take?
Personal opinion: The more successful the Coallition is in improving conditions; the more effective they are in providing real benefits and freedom to the Iraqi people, the more they and their compatriots
will be attacked.
Reason: It renders the terrorist's and their message irrelevant. The terrorists do not care whether or not conditions actually improve for the Iraqi people. All they care about is that whatever benefits are accomplished by Islamic means. If Western means can succeed, then they are doomed.
The fact that attacks have intensified as of late only prove the Coallition's successes and the terrorist's desperation.
It took years following the American Revolution for the final ratification of the Constitution! How long should it take Iraq?
Originally posted by Faisal:
Interesting. So you reject the whole concept of democracy. Quite interesting.
Will you be so kind to explain to us, in your view, how should the Iraqi people go about selecting/electing/appointing a person or persons to govern the country?
Originally posted by mrpocket:
Reason: It renders the terrorist's and their message irrelevant. The terrorists do not care whether or not conditions actually improve for the Iraqi people. All they care about is that whatever benefits are accomplished by Islamic means. If Western means can succeed, then they are doomed.
The same way as was done during Khalafat. The principle of governing between Islamic way of government and democracy is based on taqwa. Taqwa is a tool as mentioned in Quran to differenciate human beings who were different in race, color and appearance. In democracy, spins, lies, money are the tools to get elected. Look at the US, lobbyist, money from big corporations, special interest group influences the elections. Is it fair thing, no. On the other hand picking up the Majlis Shura is based on their taqwa and their poiseness. Selection of first Khalifa Hajrat Abubaker Siddiq R.A is also based on Taqwa. He brought all his belonging for the cause of Islam and left nothing at home. But Hajrat Omar Fraooq R.A left half the material at home and brought half for the sake of Islam.
World was at peace during Khalafat and will be at peace during the Khalafat period of Imam Mahdi R.A.
It is strange that Khurd want the autonomy from non- Mulsims no from Muslims themselves. In a Khilafat type of Govt., there is no such a thing and also rights of 60% Shia, sunni minority ete. This things happens in democracy and dictatorship like Saddam. He ignored the Islaimc principles, build own palaces, statues, ignored his countrymen and did what every dictator suppose to do to keep his rule.
Terrorists have given a bad name for Islam and Islamic way of Govt. But a good Islamic Govt. can be run without being terrorists.
We are so brained wash by the western democracy concept and forgot about our own rule of governing a Muslim country.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nai Hajrut: *
The same way as was done during Khalafat. The principle of governing between Islamic way of government and democracy is based on taqwa. Taqwa is a tool as mentioned in Quran to differenciate human beings who were different in race, color and appearance. In democracy, spins, lies, money are the tools to get elected. Look at the US, lobbyist, money from big corporations, special interest group influences the elections. Is it fair thing, no. On the other hand picking up the Majlis Shura is based on their taqwa and their poiseness. Selection of first Khalifa Hajrat Abubaker Siddiq R.A is also based on Taqwa. He brought all his belonging for the cause of Islam and left nothing at home. But Hajrat Omar Fraooq R.A left half the material at home and brought half for the sake of Islam.
World was at peace during Khalafat and will be at peace during the Khalafat period of Imam Mahdi R.A.
It is strange that Khurd want the autonomy from non- Mulsims no from Muslims themselves. In a Khilafat type of Govt., there is no such a thing and also rights of 60% Shia, sunni minority ete. This things happens in democracy and dictatorship like Saddam. He ignored the Islaimc principles, build own palaces, statues, ignored his countrymen and did what every dictator suppose to do to keep his rule.
Terrorists have given a bad name for Islam and Islamic way of Govt. But a good Islamic Govt. can be run without being terrorists.
We are so brained wash by the western democracy concept and forgot about our own rule of governing a Muslim country.
[/QUOTE]
Bhai, I asked a simple question.. not a lesson in history or a condemnation of rest of the world. I asked, and I repeat "Will you be so kind to explain to us, in your view, how should the Iraqi people go about selecting/electing/appointing a person or persons to govern the country?" Lets focus on Iraq and 2004. Let us hear how you propose the practical measures in which Iraqis will get a government and a khaleefa.
I already explained in my previous thread about Majlis Shura. Iraqi Muslims should form the Iraqi Majlis Shura from the religious leaders who are poise not corrupt and then they select the leader and associates to run the govt. The leadership can select ministers who are experts in their field.
>>Iraqi Muslims should form the Iraqi Majlis Shura from the religious leaders who are poise not corrupt and then they select the leader and associates to run the govt.
How do you think they will go about doing this? This looks more like a caucus kinds setting, which the USA wanted Iraqis to have and the Iraqis rejected, saying they want direct elections. Seems like you are suggesting Iraqis should have gone with the caucus style way of electing the Majlis-e-Shura instead of each adult muslim getting a chance to have a say in who represents him/her.
Faisal Bhai you might be surprise to learn about Islam's role in Iraq's interim constitution from the Iraqi American who wrote the constitution. He was on PBS TV today along with a professor who was not happy about the mentioning of Islam in the constitution. The Iraqi American says" The press in US all got wrong about Islam's role in the constitution, rules are not based on Islamic sharia but general Islamic principle universally accepted". What do you expect from those hand pick Iraqi council members, in order to keep their personal interest, they can do any thing.
I don't think the present Iraqi Governing Council is representative of the people of Iraq or are shining examples of Islamic teachings, either.
However, the point is, seems to me, what you are suggesting in order to get a Majlis-e-Shura, the Iraqis should appoint "pious" muslim leaders. This is essentially a caucus style process, which would probably work when we are talking about a few hundred or thousand people. But when we are talking about millions of adult muslims, this process is ripe for rigging and to allow US or any other power to engineer the results and get their choice people to the top. That is why, Iraqi people opposed this caucus style method of getting a new government.
In contrast to that, direct elections are more difficult to rig. Now, it will be naive to think that general elections can't be rigged, but since every citizen is involved in the process and casting a vote, so to rig general elections is more difficult and thus they are generally more reliable than caucus-style setting.
The Shia’s are now warning this new constitution can lead to civil war, and Ayatollah Sistani has said it can be reversed when an elected body is set up.
So much for the shining success of this “constitution”.
