salim Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I don't know if any one had refere to this interesting article before on this topic. Though the writer seems very knowlegable about Shiasm, yet I think he ran into some very basic msunderstandings. I might have time to go over some later.. Have fun reading it first http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol...%20Straight.htm لا ادري اذا تطرق احد الى هذا المقاله الممتعه قبلي على هذا العمود. بالرغم من ما يبدوا من معرفه الباحث بتفاصيل كثيره عن المذهب الشيعي الا انه لايخلوا من بعض المغالطات . قد يتوفر الوقت لاحقا لاعرج عليها .. ولكن لنتمتع بقرائتها الان.. بالانكليزيه Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobileone Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 UN ruling on polls urged Published: 13 December 2003 BAGHDAD: Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, Iraq's highest-ranking Shi'ite cleric, wants the United Nations to rule if early elections can take place in the country, in a new embarrassment to the US occupation authorities. Washington, which has decreed a lengthy delay before proper elections are held in 2005, can ill-afford to snub the religious leader of Iraq's majority community. "Ayatollah Sistani maintains his call for elections in Iraq unless a neutral UN committee, appointed by Secretary General Kofi Annan, visits Iraq and reaches the conclusion that in the current circumstances it is technically and politically impossible to hold general elections," said interim Governing Council member Muwaffak Al Rubaie. He met the Shi'ite leader, who along with three other ayatollahs make up the Shi'ites' supreme religious authority, at his power base in the holy city of Najaf. The Governing Council signed a November 15 agreement with the US-led coalition to transfer sovereignty to a transitional national assembly by May 31 next year. General elections would not take place until March 2005, a date Al Sistani has rejected as far too late. The deal gave no role at all to the UN, but stipulates that the transitional assembly will be made up of notables elected by a 15-member committee. Five of the committee would be appointed by the Governing Council, the rest by provincial assemblies. Several Shi'ite figures demanded the world body be brought into the process. Governing Council member Mohammad Bahr Al Olum urged that the written agreement give the transitional government the right to call on the assistance of the UN or a country of its choice. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © Gulf Daily News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobileone Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 washingtonpost.com In Iraq, an Ayatollah We Shouldn't Ignore By Robin Wright Sunday, December 14, 2003; Page B03 A quarter-century ago, the United States misread the power and legitimacy of a Shiite ayatollah -- and ended up "losing" Iran, then one of two pillars of American policy in the Middle East. The impact is felt to this day. Could Washington be on the verge of making the same mistake in Iraq in a way that could also compromise, even betray, the very democratic process that the Bush administration has begun to demand for the entire region? The problem stems from the game of chicken the United States is playing with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani over the future of Iraq. The cleric, the most powerful leader in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was toppled, wants elections for a government that will assume control when the American occupation ends on July 1. But the United States, still smarting from its encounter with Ayatollah Khomeini after Iran's 1979 revolution, has a bad case of ayatollah-itis. Policy-think is shaped by an unspoken fear: Beware Shia-istan. So the administration is balking at popular elections. It has lots of reasonable arguments: There's not enough time for voter registration, party formation and a campaign. There's too much violence and security is uneven, especially in Sunni strongholds. Saddam and his aides are still at large. Any election would be flawed. Washington also fears the precedent of ceding to an ayatollah -- even over the issue of a popular vote -- and further alienating Sunnis, both in Iraq and in oil-rich or strategic neighboring countries. To transfer power, L. Paul Bremer, the administrator of the U.S.-led authority that governs Iraq, has instead devised an indirect system to choose a new Iraqi government through 18 regional caucuses. It's so complicated, however, that even some U.S. officials refer to cheat sheets to explain the different phases that begin in early January with selection of coordinating committees, continue in February with a prolonged caucus process and wrap up with selection of members for a new national assembly in May. Those Iraqis would then pick a new government in June. Not until the following year would the Iraqi people vote in a popular election. As now envisioned, the process orchestrated by Bremer is also weighted in favor of former exiles and the aging opposition leaders who were handpicked by the United States to be members of the Iraqi Governing Council and who have been unable to provide inspiring or popular leadership. Many Iraqis have said they are suspicious of the outcome of the political transition before it has even begun. Some officials in Washington who are involved in implementing the Iraq policy aren't all that confident that the current exit strategy will work either. They have said privately that they worry that the plan will gradually unravel: Key Iraqis will either opt out of participating in committees and caucuses, or will decide down the road that the new government has no more legitimacy than the current U.S.-selected council. The stakes during this pivotal period involve more than who ends up ruling in Baghdad. Sistani has come to represent the dilemma that the United States will face repeatedly in the Middle East in the years ahead: When should we encourage and facilitate elections in countries with large Muslim populations? Over the next seven months, Iraq will be the test case for American credibility, since President Bush, in two eloquent speeches last month -- in Washington and London -- pledged that the United States will no longer compromise on democratic principles in the 22 Arab nations because of economic or diplomatic ties. Iraq's Shiite majority already has its doubts as a result of two American missteps in Najaf, one of the two holiest sites in Shiite Islam and Sistani's home base. After the United States occupied the country, it alienated Shiites by appointing a former colonel in Saddam's army -- and a Sunni Muslim -- as mayor of Najaf. Intensely unpopular, Abul Munim Abud was arrested by coalition forces three months later at the request of an Iraqi judge. Charged with kidnapping three children of a political opponent, misuse of government accounts, corruption and misuse of power, he was sentenced by an Iraqi court to 14 years in prison. More importantly, Iraq's first free local elections were due to be held in Najaf last June. The U.S. military had conducted a voter registration drive and built ballot boxes, while 18 candidates had festooned the streets with colorful posters declaring their positions. Then Bremer overruled the local U.S. military commander and abruptly canceled the election. Publicly, the occupation authority said conditions were not suitable for a vote, although U.S. officials privately said it had been canceled in part because they were concerned about the outcome. Najaf is a microcosm of the awkward choice that the U.S. occupation continues to face in Iraq: allow real elections and accept the result, or orchestrate the process so that it leaves behind a friendly government, which may or may not endure. Whatever our fears or past experience elsewhere with the Shiite clergy, and whatever the possible risk, the greater risk may be in not building a bridge to Sistani. The reclusive ayatollah is probably the person the United States needs to cultivate most at this vital political juncture. Some of the Governing Council's 24 members have appealed to the 73-year-old Sistani for support, but he has so far resisted. As the senior cleric for Iraq's largest power bloc, he is more influential than any of them. He is also the closest thing Iraq has to an elected leader. Shiite clerics gain status because followers voluntarily support them and provide funds that in turn empower them to act on behalf of the community. Unlike their Sunni counterparts, they have more authority over the faithful because they are empowered to interpret God's word, while Sunnis clerics act more as spiritual advisers. The distinction, very roughly, is comparable to the difference between the power and influence of Catholic and Protestant clerics. Sistani already proved his willingness to work with the United States when he indirectly bestowed legitimacy on the U.S. invasion and occupation. Even when he urged elections, he did not call for any public demonstrations to back him up -- as Khomeini did to support his fatwas in Iran. Among Shiites, Sistani is also modest politically. He is hardly an advocate of liberal Western-style democracy but he does believe that the popular will should prevail. He has long advocated separation of politics and religion. A practitioner of the so-called "quietist" branch of Islam, he wants fellow clerics to stay out of government. Sistani does want Iraq's new constitution to be compatible with Islam, a position adopted by allies from Egypt to Pakistan that will nonetheless make Washington nervous. He does not, however, favor the brand of militant Khomeini-ism that, Iraq analysts warn, has spread throughout Shiite-dominated southern Iraq largely undetected over the past dozen years. The radicalization of Iraq's Shiites has increased particularly since Saddam's sweeping crackdown against their 1991 uprising -- an event inspired by former President Bush when he called for Iraqis to topple their leader after the first Persian Gulf War. Today, at least a third of Iraq's roughly 15 million Shiites are Khomeini-ist, estimates Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert who has studied Iraq's Shiites for two decades. Wary or disillusioned with other systems, they favor a theocratic state with a trusted religious leader at the top, which is not an idea Sistani favors. This could well be a moment for the United States to seize -- and stem a burgeoning tide of radicalism. Significant numbers of Shiites still favor secular rule, as do vast numbers of Sunnis and Kurds. Together they constitute a majority. In the tumultuous decades since Iran's revolution, Muslims in the Middle East have generally become cynical about the failure of Iran's ayatollahs to create a viable government of God. That has led to widespread rejection of theocracy across the Middle East, with many Arabs fearing religious rulers just as much as Western governments do. The most effective way to foster a legitimate and secular government is through popular elections -- now, not in 2005, when too many of America's good intentions may already have unraveled. The notion of a popular vote is gaining momentum. In Hilla last week, protesters demanded a local governor be elected, not appointed. They said they were inspired in part by Sistani. There are no easy answers. Yet direct elections, however imperfect, may be preferable to waiting. "We've got to allow, encourage and facilitate Iraqis to grapple with their own future," said one U.S. official recently, "and quit trying to do it for them." To ensure that Iraqis feel they are fully invested in their country, many Iraq experts and even some U.S. officials warn that Washington is going to have to compromise further on its exit strategy -- before it is too late to implement it effectively. Author's e-mail: wrightr@washpost.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Just another American Posted December 18, 2003 Report Share Posted December 18, 2003 I'm going to be kind of radical here and point out that drafting a constitution does not have to be a vast committee exercise. The men who wrote the US Constitution did not represent all the states (Rhode Island stayed home, for one), were not elected by women, minorities, or the poor people, and worked in total secrecy for several months. The Constitution was later ratified by each state, but not all at once. Once again, women, minorities, and poor people did not have a say. Yet it worked (eventually). And it's important to try to understand why. Those men who met in Philadelphia in 1787 thought hard about how to make sure their constituencies wouldn't lose too much power. They discovered that the best way to avoid tyranny was to make sure every citizen had rights--even the citizens of states who were not present at the Philadelphia Convention. An important point is that a constitution is NOT a set of laws. It is a description of who owns the power, how it is shared, how it changes hands, and finally, how the constitution itself can evolve. The writers of the US Constitution were deliberately vague about who had rights. They couldn't include racial equality, because that would have meant leaving out the southern states, where slave-owning is equal. But they didn't specifically say that only whites had rights, because they hoped that would change someday--and it did. The same progression happened with women's rights. So if you have enough opposing interests who write your constitution, who are reluctant to share power with each other, and they apply some wisdom and some lessons from history, then it really wouldn't matter if a smaller group of people were involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted December 27, 2003 Report Share Posted December 27, 2003 To bad Iraq isn't filled with white-wealthy land owners with slaves, or they would be easier to form into our own image. You compare apples with carrots, and that is why the road to freedom will have to be done IN SPITE OF THE AMERICANS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 God, I envy you guys, what an exciting time! Building the framework of Democracy, Constitutional Conventions! Wow!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Achillea Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 To bad Iraq isn't filled with white-wealthy land owners with slaves, or they would be easier to form into our own image. Ah yes. Our image. Vibrant, free, and prosperous. Can't have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 To bad Iraq isn't filled with white-wealthy land owners with slaves, or they would be easier to form into our own image. Ah yes. Our image. Vibrant, free, and prosperous. Can't have that. My point is that one cannot compare the birth pains of a woman with the death pains of a cancer victim, only because "they both have pains" I think the fact that many americans keep insiting that iraq can be like america "if they only try!!!" is ignorant and proof that we were not serious about democracy. If they were willing to lie about why we should invade and occupy why would they be honest about Arab federalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody1965 Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 George B., what is the point of all your cynicism? What message do you really have for the Iraqis other than discouragement? You want them to hate the U.S.? Reject democracy? What is it? Other than being negative, I don't see what you're trying to accomplish here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Achillea Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 My point is that one cannot compare the birth pains of a woman with the death pains of a cancer victim, only because "they both have pains" I think the fact that many americans keep insiting that iraq can be like america "if they only try!!!" is ignorant and proof that we were not serious about democracy. If they were willing to lie about why we should invade and occupy why would they be honest about Arab federalism? 1) If we're going to go into medical analogies, Iraq's current 'pains' are those of a cancer victim who has had the tyrant-tumor removed and is now waiting for the surgical incision to heal up. 2) So, you feel that Iraq can never be vibrant, prosperous, and free because they're not Americans? That's rather racist, not to mention colonialist and imperialist. 3) You still haven't proved 'they' lied about why 'they' went in. Just because the loony left keeps chanting it doesn't make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 George B., what is the point of all your cynicism? What message do you really have for the Iraqis other than discouragement? You want them to hate the U.S.? Reject democracy? What is it? Other than being negative, I don't see what you're trying to accomplish here. I want the american people to get honest. They are fed on the stories of movies and believe democracy is "just add water" European leaders would always lie to their populace, when colonizing and invading in the name of "Christianity and Civilization," when it was always about "Money and Power." American leaders (during the Cold War) would always exploit the nations in the name of democracy and fighting communism. This American leader is no different! Wide-eyed stories of peace and prosperity when our government has NO intensions of doing that. The road to badWord is paved with good intensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 I believe al-Sistani is aware of imperial maneuvers conserving colonialization. The conquering power will always dictate terms that have its interests favored, especially if a democratic process threatens those interests. The United States always battled democratic processes else ware (Africa, Asia, Latin America) if they believed the outcome would not favor its geo-political interests and finances. Shiite Cleric Questions US Plan For Iraqi Sovereignty-NYT 01/08/2004 Dow Jones News Services (Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.) NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--U.S. plans to formally return sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30 were jarred by a statement questioning the U.S. plan by the country's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the New York Times reported Thursday. According to the Times, Sistani said the plan to install a transitional government by June, to be followed by indirect elections next year to choose delegates to a constitutional convention, wouldn't "ensure in any way the fair representation of the Iraqi people." The reclusive cleric said he preferred that elections be held before the transfer of sovereignty in June, the Times reported. But he said he had been told by the U.S. that this wasn't feasible - a stand that the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, has explained by saying there isn't time to prepare accurate and comprehensive voter rolls in Iraq, which has 25 million people and no history of free elections. There had to be "another solution that is honest to the Iraqi people's demands," the Times quoted the cleric as saying. Sistani's statements have been closely watched by the U.S. for signs of whether Iraq's Shiite majority, roughly 60% of the population, will accept the longer political process favored by the Bush administration, which endeavors to win wide assent to a constitution that guarantees minority rights. The U.S. fears that Shiite clerics will push for a quick transition to majority rule, heightening the risk of violent clashes, even a civil war, between Shiite militants and the Sunni Muslim minority. (END) Dow Jones Newswires Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 Bush's advisers debating military force against Syria Senior aides to President Bush are vigorously debating what to do about Syria as evidence mounts that the government in Damascus is stepping up support for the terror group Hezbollah and allowing anti-American insurgents to reach Iraq, according to U.S. officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobileone Posted January 25, 2004 Report Share Posted January 25, 2004 Sistani's website............ http://www.sistani.org multilingual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_Tom Penn Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 For a good laugh, carefully research the authors of the articles posted by George B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.