Ayatollah Sistani begins on his true agenda

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB08Ak01.html

As expected, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) is emerging as the dominant party, making its chief mentor and spiritual adviser, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the clear winner of the Iraqi elections of January 30 (see Note below). Only US President George W Bush and his tight-lipped advisers know whether this is the beginning of the United States' nightmare in Iraq. Sistani never had any doubts about what he wanted: use the much-cherished democracy of the US invaders to enable his people - the Shi'ites - to emerge as governors of Iraq, after years of being marginalized by the minority Sunnis. The most dominant question is how Islamic the emerging government of Iraq is likely to be.

The US may not have any problem with Islam as a religion; there is no doubt, however, that the entire notion of "Islamic government" has never been an acceptable proposition in Washington. That was true in Afghanistan after the dismantlement of the Taliban regime, and it has been true in Iraq. US presidents, starting from Jimmy Carter, know only too well how chaotic a system can be created under the rubric of "Islamic government". The Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 was the beginning of Washington's nightmare. If Carter had to identify one reason why he remained a one-term president, he would readily state: the Islamic Revolution of Iran, under which the US was humiliated by the Islamic cadres of the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Islamic government is once again emerging as an issue of utmost concern for another president, except this time he, Bush, might be the direct reason for the materialization of an Islamic government in Iraq.

Leading Shi'ite clerics in Iraq are reportedly "pushing for Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution". Such a proposal is in stark contrast from the transitional law the US enacted before installing the Iraqi interim government headed by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi last June. The US then succeeded in pressing Iraqi politicians to grant equal rights to women and minorities and, above all, "to designate Islam as just 'a source' of legislation". The handpicked secular Iraqi members of the government had no problem with that US preference. However, the Shi'ite clerics are now "advocating for Islam to be acknowledged as the underpinning of the government". In addition, the clerics are demanding that the Americans "stay away from the writing of the constitution".

The Shi'ite clerics might be forced to compromise on the issue of Islam in order to forge a compromise to form a government. How far they would go in formulating that compromise depends on the final number of votes the UIA receives.

more

[htuttle]

1. Wonder how long those 'business regulations'....

...that Proconsul Bremer laid down will last? I'm referring to the privatization laws that require that Iraq bascially sell out it's infrastructure cheap to American corporations.

I think they state within their own text that 'they cannot be repealed', but who's gonna tell Sistani that?

[Old and In the Way]

3. I wonder that too.

Once power has been transfered, what's to stop the people from deciding to change the law? Last I knew, the only immutable laws of the universe are metaphysical. If Iraq goes to the UN and says, "we are happy to be free of that tyrant, but we now will rewrite our business laws to reflect our needs"....whose to argue?

Will the Bush go to war over war profits with the newly elected democratic government of Iraq? Maybe over Weapons of Mass Democracy?

[ClintonTyree]

2. DUH..............

this goes into the "firm grasp of reality" category. I'm sure we all knew this would be the result of the "election", all except generalissimo jorge bush and his merry gang of thugs.

You cannot force Democracy on people, especially people who reside in a nation still deeply embedded with a tribal mentality.

Of course our great leader, who doesn't read so much as a newspaper to find out what's really going on in the world, knew better. He'd rather rely on his sucking, soothing sycophants for world knowledge.

And we still have 4 more years to suffer this flea brained mutant. :mad:

[judy]

4. Well, for what it's worth,

I had a conversation with an Iraqi at a Robert Fisk conference, and he said that Sistani might be the best solution for Iraq, for a number of reasons.

1 - He thought Sistani might use Islamic law in order to provide an ethical background for the Government, but not to impose Shariah, as that would probably start a Civil War.
(There is a great film by Abbas Kiarostami - Iran - called "Close Up", that details how small Courts are run in Iran, and it seemed very fair and balanced from what the movie shows)

2 - He would definitely do everything to not have the Americans participate in the writing of the Constitution

3 - He would build Unity in Iraq around getting rid of the occupation troops.

4 - He would do everything to get the Iraqis to take over the rebuilding of the Country, i.e get rid of Bechtel and Halliburton.

I am by no means an expert, and I am just repeating what I was told by a man who for all I know could be a Shiite extremist! But what he said makes sense.
I doubt however, that the Smirkojunta would let Iraq get away with 2, 3 or 4...
I can't help but be glad that Allawi is not winning, however. I just hope people like Riverbend don't end up having to wear a veil :(

[NNN0LHI]

5. That has been kind of my thoughts so far too judy

My biggest worry is that Sistani is very old and he could die of natural causes tomorrow. Sadr is young and I think he could be big trouble for the USA if Sistani were to kick the bucket from natural or other causes.

Don