Chapter 2, Section 23- The part of the Iraqi constitution that Scares America

[hylandrdet]

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BillofRights.pdf

23. In addition to the rights stipulated in this constitution Iraqi citizens enjoy the rights stipulated in international treaties, agreements, and international legal documents that Iraq has signed or joined or that are considered binding according to the provisions of international law, so long as these do
not contradict Islam.

[The provision on international human rights instruments is very strong. The only qualification has to do with the Islam. Notably, this draft refers simply to “Islam” rather than “Islamic law.” Nowhere in this bill of rights is any guidance given for authoritative determination of what constitutes Islam; if such guidance is given (and it may not be) it would have to be in other sections of the constitution.]


In a word, there is no guarantee of more individual rights under this proposed constitution.

Iraq's proposed constitution will be dictated by Islamic principles, which means that the vast majority of their laws will be about controlling individual behaviour, in accordance with Islam.

Love him or hate him, Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq under his personal pursuit of power and not under his Islamic beliefs. So it is quite possible that this new constitution, under the standards of Islam, could actually hamper the current individual rights in Iraq because they, the Iraqi people, could be going from the "frying pan" into "the fire".


http://www.opctj.org/articles/william-rivers-pitt-02-12-2003-175400.html

Osama Bin laden, in 2003, called for the ouster of Saddam, proclaiming him as a socialist leader and a bad muslim. This suggests to me that Osama felt that Saddam was not acting in accordance with Islam, when it came to the caretaking of his people's morality and welfare.

In layman's terms, he thought Saddam was a liberal!

So as we wait these final hours to Iraq's new constitution, we must ask ourselves. Did this war make things better or worse for the Iraqi people?

Just food for thought!

 

[mattskramer]

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BillofRights.pdf

23. In addition to the rights stipulated in this constitution Iraqi citizens enjoy the rights stipulated in international treaties, agreements, and international legal documents that Iraq has signed or joined or that are considered binding according to the provisions of international law, so long as these do
not contradict Islam.

[The provision on international human rights instruments is very strong. The only qualification has to do with the Islam. Notably, this draft refers simply to “Islam” rather than “Islamic law.” Nowhere in this bill of rights is any guidance given for authoritative determination of what constitutes Islam; if such guidance is given (and it may not be) it would have to be in other sections of the constitution.]


In a word, there is no guarantee of more individual rights under this proposed constitution.

Iraq's proposed constitution will be dictated by Islamic principles, which means that the vast majority of their laws will be about controlling individual behaviour, in accordance with Islam.

Love him or hate him, Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq under his personal pursuit of power and not under his Islamic beliefs. So it is quite possible that this new constitution, under the standards of Islam, could actually hamper the current individual rights in Iraq because they, the Iraqi people, could be going from the "frying pan" into "the fire".


http://www.opctj.org/articles/william-rivers-pitt-02-12-2003-175400.html

Osama Bin laden, in 2003, called for the ouster of Saddam, proclaiming him as a socialist leader and a bad muslim. This suggests to me that Osama felt that Saddam was not acting in accordance with Islam, when it came to the caretaking of his people's morality and welfare.

In layman's terms, he thought Saddam was a liberal!

So as we wait these final hours to Iraq's new constitution, we must ask ourselves. Did this war make things better or worse for the Iraqi people?

Just food for thought!

Hmmmm. Was Iraq founded on Islam? America was supposedly founded on Christianity. Thankfully we, in America, have moved beyond a pro-Christian bias, at least to some degree. We are allowed to eat pork and work on the Sabbath and do a variety of other things that the Bible discourages, if it does not prohibit. I think that I see a parallel developing. Iraq will become the Islamic example of what was colonial Salem Massachusetts. Given decades, perhaps Iraq will evolve and progress to where the USA is today as far as being tolerant of people whose religion doesn't match that of the majority.

 

[Gunny]

In layman's terms, he thought Saddam was a liberal!

Saddam was a liberal? Go figure.......

 

[hylandrdet]

Saddam was a liberal? Go figure.......

Uh, you are aware that Islamic definitions of liberalism and conservativism are quite different from America's definition... Right?

 

[hylandrdet]

Hmmmm. Was Iraq founded on Islam? America was supposedly founded on Christianity. Thankfully we, in America, have moved beyond a pro-Christian bias, at least to some degree. We are allowed to eat pork and work on the Sabbath and do a variety of other things that the Bible discourages, if it does not prohibit. I think that I see a parallel developing. Iraq will become the Islamic example of what was colonial Salem Massachusetts. Given decades, perhaps Iraq will evolve and progress to where the USA is today as far as being tolerant of people whose religion doesn't match that of the majority.

You must understand that it was the separation of church and state that made our rights possible. If Iraq is truly dedicated to establishing a true democracy, Islamic or any other form of religious principles, cannot be a major factor in their legislation process.

Anything less than that is either socialism or worse!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You must understand that it was the separation of church and state that made our rights possible. If Iraq is truly dedicated to establishing a true democracy, Islamic or any other form of religious principles, cannot be a major factor in their legislation process.

Anything less than that is either socialism or worse!

You have fallen prey.

There is no seperation of chuch and state in the Constitution, its an invention of the modern left.

Christianity is a major influence and part of our law, govt society and culture.
Go read what Washington has to say if this country ever loses that.

 

[Merlin]

You must understand that it was the separation of church and state that made our rights possible. If Iraq is truly dedicated to establishing a true democracy, Islamic or any other form of religious principles, cannot be a major factor in their legislation process.

Anything less than that is either socialism or worse!

I not sure any more of the name of the judge or the exact date, but I think it was in 1947 that some judge took it upon himself to separate the Church and state. But I do distinctly remember having rights before he separated them. But then again, that was before judges made laws and just interpreted them as they were meant to be.