Skip to main content

Specify the "Tenets"

Nina Shea

Before approving Iraq’s new interim constitution, Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul Bremer should insist that Iraq’s Governing Council define the “tenets of Islam” that the council’s March 1 draft states are to be used as a standard for legislation.

Described as an eleventh-hour “compromise” after some council members demanded a state based on Islamic sharia law, the provision stipulates that no law may contradict “the universally agreed upon tenets of Islam.”

The proposed constitution does not indicate what those tenets are, or any source where they may be found. This vague formulation risks empowering unelected religious authorities to override basic rights in determining what is “Islamically correct.” It could also lead to further sectarian violence in a struggle over interpretation.

As demonstrated by devastating bombing attacks of sacred Shiite sites in Baghdad and Karbala on March 2, Iraq’s post-Hussein period has been wracked by Muslim-on-Muslim strife, between Sunnis and Shiites, and between some rival Shiite factions.

This is not a “compromise,” but a killer amendment. It will likely be the Trojan Horse that betrays the historic bill-of-rights provisions and democratic structures set out elsewhere in the constitution.

This provision endangers other sections of the proposed constitution by raising the possibility that an unanticipated power structure will determine the unspecified Islamic principles to which all legislation must be held accountable. It leaves open the prospect that unelected clerics will hold veto power over the legislature, as in Iran, or that judges will strike down extensive portions of statutory law because it does not conform to their notions of Islam, as happened in Pakistan.

In several Islamic countries, basic women’s rights to equality, and rights to freedom of religion and expression, in particular, are denied and reforms are thwarted by applications of extreme Islamic law. The examples of two of Iraq’s neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Iran, demonstrate that for democracy to take root, Islam must be enshrined in a way that is compatible with constitutionally provided democratic mechanisms.

In order to further President Bush’s policy of democratizing Iraq, it is crucial that this provision be deleted or clarified before Ambassador Bremer signs the proposed constitution into law. This last-minute provision defers the central defining question about Iraq’s future: whether it’s to be a democracy with a bill of rights or an Islamist state. We have a great national interest in ensuring that the former path is taken and there must be clarification now, before it is too late.

Related Articles

Persecuted Christians: In Search of New Beginnings and Brighter Tomorrows

Lela Gilbert

My peaceful life in Jerusalem was interrupted by a hectic sequence of airplanes, meetings, interviews and speaking engagements in the United States fr...

Continue Reading

Saturday People, Sunday People, and the Threats They Both Face

Lela Gilbert

Lela Gilbert talks about her book "__Saturday People, Sunday People: Israel Through The Eyes of a Christian Sojourner(Saturday People, Sunday People)"...

Watch Now

Debate: Is Obama's Iran Deal Good for America?

Michael Doran

Is this agreement a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to halt nuclear proliferation, or does President Obama have this wrong?...

Continue Reading