Monday, 22 August 2005 - 8:46 AM CDT

Fantastic article. I hope you don't mind me posting "nice post, here!"

Monday, 22 August 2005 - 6:24 PM CDT

Wrong again.

"Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak recently announced that he would allow other candidates to run against him in the next presidential election. Yet only candidates from officially recognized parties will be allowed. Parties are recognized by Parliament, which is dominated by Mubarak's National Democratic Party. This change moves Egypt closer to the system of presidential elections used in Iran, where only candidates vetted by the government can run. The Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and most important opposition party, is excluded from fielding candidates under its own name. Egypt is less open today than it was in the 1980s, with far more political offices appointed by the president, and with far fewer opposition members in Parliament, than was the case two decades ago. As with the so-called municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, the change in presidential elections is little more than window-dressing. It was provoked not by developments in Iraq but rather by protests by Egyptian oppositionists who resented Mubarak's jailing of a political rival in January." - Juan Cole

I thought you were the guy who was so contemptuous of sharia law. Why aren't you bitching about the sharia-based Iranian-style Shiite theocracy the United States is setting up in Iraq? These are the vermin who killed Steve Vincent in Basra last month, doncha know. Bush claiming this too now as part of the wave of democracy sweeping over Iraq?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522840,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001317.html

Monday, 22 August 2005 - 6:40 PM CDT

Meant to use one of your own:

Drudge Report

IRAQ CONSTITUTION DRAFT SAYS LAWS MUST CONFORM TO ISLAM

Nice work, George Dumbya.

Monday, 22 August 2005 - 8:44 PM CDT

A cut and paste:

Article 2, Algerian Constitution

"Islam is the religion of the State"

Article 2, Bahranian Constitution

"The religion of the State is Islam. The Islamic Shari'a is a principal source for legislation. The official language is Arabic."

Preamble, Djibouti Constitution

"L’Islam est la Religion de l’Etat"

Article 2, Egyptian Constitution

"Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)."

Article 4, Iranian Constitution

"All civil, penal financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally
to all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and the wise persons of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter."

Article 103, Section 2, Jordanian Constitution

"(ii) Matters of personal status are those which are defined by law and in accordance therewith fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sharia Courts where the parties are Moslems."

....

I'll summarize. EVERY SINGLE CONSTITUTION IN THE ARAB WORLD MENTIONS EITHER "ISLAM" OR "SHAR'IA" AS A BASIS OF GOVERNMENT OR LAW!!

And dumb liberals go..."my...my God...an ARAB COUNTRY mentioned ISLAM IN THE CONSTITUTION! AAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

Why weren't you in the streets when Arafat put the "Islam" in the Palestinian Constitution in 1995? Not PC enough?

Monday, 22 August 2005 - 9:41 PM CDT

I'm thinking of something the evolutionist Richard Dawkins once wrote about how a certain insect could still benefit against its predators by looking five percent like a turd. Or about how some sea animal was way ahead of its neighbors if all it had was even five percent of an eye.

You and Cole are wrong if you believe that our force-presence in Iraq hasn't done something significant to liberate these neighboring countries' democratic movements. Syria knows that it's next on the hit parade and that's how we helped Assad's boy make the decision to withdraw from Lebanon. The whole Arabian Peninsula is seeing the signs of women's liberation, even if they are small. Libya is chastened, the Saudis are on their guard against the Wahhabists and other murderers, and the whole damned region is basically having to come to terms with the future.

I say that we are going to be in a position to profit from all of this, even if you're dissatisfied with the timetables.

Monday, 22 August 2005 - 9:55 PM CDT

Excellent and useful comments, Robert.

Does the anti-war Left accept that Iraq is choosing its own system and that the Bu$hitler Imperial War Machine, Inc., is not actually calling all the shots? Do they now wish that the Chimperor were in a position to insist on something other than sharia?

Why couldn't these [patriotic Americans] have accepted the War for Iraq as a fait accompli two years ago and spent their energy instead trying to engage the rest of us on the critical issues of liberalism in a modern democratic society? Not only would it have been a help to the Iraqi people to know that America as a whole supported their aspirations, but it would have done much to deprive the Islamofascists of their proaganda organs here in the West.

No time for regrets, though. We must now see to it that sharia is itself put on trial before the court of world democratic opinion.

Monday, 22 August 2005 - 10:12 PM CDT

What's your point? Are you saying that by conforming to Laws of Islam, women will be oppressed and all men will be terrorists? Do you not realize that Mohammed taught respect for women and peace? Do not confuse the terrorists' interpretation of Islam for the true religion. Morons will misinterpret and bastardize Islam for their own benefit just as morons will do the same to Christianity, or any other religion. I doubt many mainstream Christians would claim a kinship to David Koresh, just because he used the name of Christianity to justify he derangement.

Monday, 22 August 2005 - 11:32 PM CDT

How deftly they manage to brush aside the real issue and crow for all they're worth.

The real issue is that American soldiers are being killed for a murky set of reasons in a part of the world where we don't belong. Now, you would have us believe that our citizens were killed so that people who hate us and are religiously bound to exterminate us will be given the chance to set up their own theocracies and then they will somehow find it in their hearts to refrain from killing us with renewed vigor.

How stupid, how naive. It's not enough that the rulers of our country are arrogant and devoid of nobility, but they are thoroughly incompetent as well.

Tuesday, 23 August 2005 - 5:31 AM CDT

Since you don't seem COMPLETELY insane, I'll rebut your points.

The real issue is that American soldiers are being killed for a murky set of reasons in a part of the world where we don't belong.

All I can say about this is that it was amazing you could be wrong twice in the same sentence.

Now, you would have us believe that our citizens were killed so that people who hate us and are religiously bound to exterminate us will be given the chance to set up their own theocracies and then they will somehow find it in their hearts to refrain from killing us with renewed vigor.

Who are these people who hate us? Iraqi citizens? And you're saying that ALL Iraqis hate us?

This is clearly a false statement, as false as statement as me claiming "no IRAQIS hate us". You'll find that not only is Iraq a country with millions of people, but that the insurgents are in the clear minority. It only takes a minority of people to reduce a country to chaos. Furthermore, it seems that the insurgents not only hate us, they hate their fellow Iraqis as well, as they seem to enjoy killing them.

Second, the liberals are desperate to paint future democratic Iraq as a Iran type state. The fact (that you continue to ignore) is that every country in the Arab would has enshrined either Islam or Shar'ia into its constitution. Countries that are our allies like Kuwait or Qatar. Our nominal allies like Saudi Arabia. Westernized countries like Egypt. Out and out hostile countries like Palestine and Iran. Look up the constitutions yourself if you don't trust me. So my question is how come you're not protesting against the Palestinian government? I didn't hear you bitching in 1995.

It's not enough that the rulers of our country are arrogant and devoid of nobility, but they are thoroughly incompetent as well.

Funny, that's not the way I read the results of the 2004 election. A huge number of people voted in that election, and they picked Bush over Kerry (maybe Kerry was either more incompetent, or more "devoid of nobility"). I'm sure you'll either say the election was stolen (the liberal explanation of a vote or a poll that doesn't agree with you), or that the people are "hypnotized" (no comment).

Tuesday, 23 August 2005 - 6:27 AM CDT

You missed the point entirely. It seems only a week or so ago that TP was railing against the evils of sharia. Now he is apparently thinking of it as fledgling democracy. That's what is so odd.

And this goes to the idiocy of the casus belli, or I should say one of the alleged. The goal was to depose Saddam. And replace him with what? The major opposition party in all of the un-democratic Arab regimes is made up of radical Islamists. I personally tried to warn everyone I knew of this before we went in as did virtually the entire left. Can His Majesty somehow have not been aware that once Saddam was gone the Shiite majority was going to replace him with an Iranian-style, sharia-based theocracy? Yet these are the same people, the same ideology, the same radicalized version of Islam, which the Emperor and his minions rail against on a regular basis. WTF?

The issue is not what I say about sharia. I've got no 'splaining to do. You do. The issue is how you guys deal with this vast, gaping chasm in your policy: you hope to wipe radical Islam from the planet (so says TP), yet George Bush took the United States to war and poured lives, limbs, and dollars into ensconcing a Shiite theocracy in Iraq (and not a nice one at that to judge from the situation in Basra alone where Taliban-style militias rule the roost). The bottom line is that we ran the Taliban out of Afghanistan and are now setting them up in Iraq. Hello? No wonder you want to change the subject and shift the focus to Egypt.

So your new spin is how swell sharia is???

Tuesday, 23 August 2005 - 3:03 PM CDT

You seem absolutely determined to take the position that we have patiently explained and turn it into a cariacture for your own purposes.

As I said to an above poster:

Second, the liberals are desperate to paint future democratic Iraq as a Iran type state. The fact (that you continue to ignore) is that every country in the Arab would has enshrined either Islam or Shar'ia into its constitution. Countries that are our allies like Kuwait or Qatar. Our nominal allies like Saudi Arabia. Westernized countries like Egypt. Out and out hostile countries like Palestine and Iran. Look up the constitutions yourself if you don't trust me. So my question is how come you're not protesting against the Palestinian government? I didn't hear you bitching in 1995.

To re-explain: not all Arab countries are the same. Islam + Shar'ia does not equal Iran, no matter how many times you believe repetition will make it so. Arab government does not equal "Iranian-style, sharia-based theocracy".

Is Shar'ia wonderful? Here's your problem, Rider. As not Arab countries are the same, neither are all versions of Shar'ia alike. Some are relatively benign. Others are extraordinarily strict and cruel. My question would not be, "will Iraq have Shar'ia, or not have it?" but rather "in what manner will Shar'ia be implemented in Iraq?"

Whenever you say, "all versions of Shar'ia, no matter what they're like" are bad, you basically have to give a blanket condemnation of Islam, and the Arab world.

When you give a blanket condemnation of the Arab world, you imply that there have to be changes made to Arab governments to protect human rights.

But when a chance actually comes along to do some good for human rights in the world, you protest and undoubtedly wish that we would retreat - so that the more hard-core Islamists can take over, and impose an even more stringent version of Shar'ia -- which I suppose would make you very happy indeed.

I don't believe the President said, "Iraq will never have a constitution where Shar'ia plays some role in community law", but you would desperately like to believe that he did. I remember someone saying an Arab constitution with Islam was like a physics book that failed to mention gravity. The more you keep repeating "Iraq = Iran", the more foolish you look.

This Iraq = Iran argument keeps looking weaker the more often you make it. But if you want to keep trying, go ahead, if you must.

Tuesday, 23 August 2005 - 5:28 PM CDT

Rider:

It seems only a week or so ago that TP was railing against the evils of sharia. Now he is apparently thinking of it as fledgling democracy. That's what is so odd.

The facts on the ground say that the Shiite majority want sharia in their constitution. How is Bush supposed to get around that? By being the imperialist monster you already think he is? By disrespecting the wishes of a democratized Iraq? We have always run the risk of coming out of this with an Islamic republic.

However, I say that the circumstances of our occupation there and the very nature of democracy itself will take whatever aspects of sharia that are finally incorporated into their system and alter them in a very public way. Iraq is bound to remain in the spotlight of the Middle East's efforts towards true political modernity for many years to come. How better to address the cultural/ideological drag of sharia than to put it through the paces in such an environment? Let the whole world see that our values will trump theirs in practice, thereby eventually achieving the secularized and deislamicized government we know can prosper there.

Tuesday, 23 August 2005 - 5:36 PM CDT

Douth:

The fact (that you continue to ignore) is that every country in the Arab would has enshrined either Islam or Shar'ia into its constitution.

It's a great point. The great change to sharia will come as it gets knocked around by the demands of women and free trade and technology and everything else.

It's part of the plan towards secularization that the very most forward aspects of sharia be made to serve as a rhetorical basis of the political culture ---but not the actual basis. That is largely what's happened in the Christian West. The Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church and evangelicals here want the Decalogue on every corner. It doesn't mean anything in practice, but is a sufficient sop to those who thinks it does.

Tuesday, 23 August 2005 - 7:41 PM CDT

Piffle, pishposh, and bunkum. How utterly silly, Rob.

Do you think everyone is so ignorant of the Muslim world that we do not know that even secular countries which are predominately Muslim do not recognize anything comparable to our doctrine of separation of church and state? They all make gestures in the direction of Islam and the imams and mullahs. Even in highly-secularized Turkey there is overlap.

But it is a far cry from having Islam as the official state religion and what is brewing up in George Botch's Iraq. The new constitution states that any law which is un-Islamic (not consistent with Islam) will be declared null and void. And how will this be decided? If the Shiites have their way, and so far they continue to stiff-arm the Sunnis, there will be an Iranian-style court of mullahs who are appointed and accountable to no one except the Grand Ayatollah.

Now, I defy you to sit there and tell me with a straight face that that is what the president had in mind when he determined to attack Iraq, that that "accomplishment" was worth the sacrifice of even a single American solider, or that the president can proudly claim that result as a great success. From start to the present hour, the war has been an appalling disaster, and it now appears the outcome is going to be even worse.

I agree with James Webb, Reagan's SECNAV who said last year,

"Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence."

And now add an Iranian-style Shiite theocracy to boot. Save what's left of your credibility and quit trying to defend the indefensible. Bush is ignorant, incompetent, and a master of deceit. Get over it and move on. Sixty percent of the American people have done just that.

Tuesday, 23 August 2005 - 7:59 PM CDT

Rider:

If the Shiites have their way, and so far they continue to stiff-arm the Sunnis, there will be an Iranian-style court of mullahs who are appointed and accountable to no one except the Grand Ayatollah.

Not with Sistani. From everything I've read, he doesn't go in for that sort of thing. After all, the Shia have a great example next door of how poorly things go when the mullahs run everything. I think the Iraqi Shia will be more careful than that.

Tuesday, 23 August 2005 - 10:21 PM CDT

First of all,I am not a liberal and I defy you to come up with one real concrete reason why our troops are in Iraq. You can come up with things like "WMD" and "connections to Al Quaeda" or even that we so loved the Iraqi people that we just had to rid them of our longtime ally Saddam Hussein. Perhaps we were overcome by pity for all the little brown babies that were starving while palaces were being built for Hussein. ( I really doubt it.).

No, I can't really tell you why we are there now even though I am pretty certain that I have a deeper understanding of the region and some of the issues at hand than you do.

Understand that we are not an Empire and that the days of Empire are long over. Americans never had much interest in telling other people what to do or how to live.
The Iraqis do not want us there. It will be time for our soldiers to come home, the sooner the better.

As for Shar'iya and the building of an Islamic state, I can see that you don't understand what this means and how blatantly wrong you are when you cite Saudi Arabia as an ally (even nominally) and Egypt as "westernized". Perhaps you need to experience a little taste of how they treat the infidel over there. Or perhaps you need to be descended from people who had to fight the muslims for 700 years to kick them out of our homeland.

And lastly, you don't seem to understand bravery or nobility, because if you think the current crop of politicians are either of these, then you are a fool.

Wednesday, 24 August 2005 - 12:03 PM CDT

"I think the Iraqi Shia will be more careful than that."

Your confidence in Sistani and the Shia is truly touching.

Wednesday, 24 August 2005 - 12:03 PM CDT

"I think the Iraqi Shia will be more careful than that."

Your confidence in Sistani and the Shia is truly touching.