This afternoon I saw on the news (Al-Arabiyah) that:
"Al-Marji'yah, represented by Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistain demanded Islam to be the only source for legislation in Iraq and that the coming government must not try to separate religion from the State."
I didn't like this worrisome statement for sure but decided to wait for a while and gather more information before I make my comment on it.
Well, at least one Iraqi blogger wasn't that patient and chose to attack back, something that I don't recommend as it might drive people to say/write some unreasonable things.
For example, our friend "Baghdad Dweller" whom I respect has posted some superficial analysis of this subject and more worse posted some statements that are far from being accurate.
"Toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime and giving the Iraqis the freedom to choose has now set the country on a course to a bloodless Islamic revolution. Already, the effects are being felt. Whereas women under the Ba’ath regime, brutal as it was, enjoyed more freedom than most women in the Middle East, they are now unable to go outdoors without head scarves for fear of being harassed or assaulted."
No offence Dweller, but women do go out without wearing scarves, maybe not as they used to do in the past but the definitely do. One visit to any of Baghdad's universities or crowded market places can clear the confusion. Not to mention that there are 6 female ministers in the current interim government and 25% of the seats in the National Assembly will be occupied by women, now do you se something like that elsewhere in the ME?
And I completely understand that when you're outside Iraq, you will find no other way but to watch and read the-in most cases-biased media outlets to get the information you need and eventually this will lead to the formation of a confused vision.
Anyway, back to the main subject and the alleged statement; I chose to wait until the next news hour and of course until I chill out a little bit after the disturbing news and then I heard this update on the story "Haider Al-Khaffaf, a senior Sistani's aide says that no such statement was released".
And going back to Friday's news, another senior aide of Sistani said from Kuwait that "the future constitution of the country is an issue that is left for the National Assembly to deal with".
Away from false statements and true statements, let's go back to similar situations that took place not far ago; Dweller has given what I consider a very good example, she mentioned last year's resolution 137 issue which was called for by the head of the SCIRI (who's considered a strong candidate for the PM position in the coming government as he's heading the list of the Iraqi United Alliance). But even at that time, when the GC was partially in charge, the role of the people and the other members of the GC was so evident in refuting the resolution in question and thus the Islamists failed to pass the law.
Another important thing I'd like to point out here is that Ayatollah Sistani played the role of a 'safety valve' in Iraq, his wisdom has helped control the anger of the masses in more in an instance an I don't expect him to ruin what has been built so far and push the country into a civil war.
On the other hand, there are rules and regulations that govern the writing of the constitution and these were agreed on by almost everyone (with a few reservations though) but there is a general agreement on these rules, and anyway, passing any legislation will require the approval of 2 thirds of the assembly's members.
Even though the Alliance list seems to be winning a similar majority of the seats now but the future as I expect is hiding a lot of surprises; will the ten or fifteen parties that stood united through out the electoral process keep the same unity when their different interests and agendas contradict each other?? Will a secular Turcoman member of the Assembly for example help Al-Hakim pass such laws just because they were allies during the elections? From what I see, I think the answer is NO.
Dweller added "Although the Election was people Vs terrorist but a big deal of it was Religion Vs Secularism, religion that used by clerics and Mullah to advance their political cause."
Well, maybe elections were religion Vs secularism, but that would be the perspective of the cleric-like politicians and not the people's. It is true that Mullahs seize power in Iran but that Iranian model cannot take place in Iraq, simply because there's no place for a totalitarian regime in future Iraq and power can not be monopolized by any particular small group.
Bottom line is, the last word will be the people's from now on in Iraq and Iraqis will never accept a one man rule no matter what; They're tired of being controlled and they will never, ever approve a new kind of tyranny under any name.