Approximately 900 people attended a two-day performance by two famous Iraqi singers organized by the Wasit Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). (Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Joe Thompson, Multi-National Division-Center.)
The assembled crowd cheered when the Iraqi constitution was read that outlined the rights and freedoms entitled to every Iraqi.
MNF-Iraq reported:
Discussing the Rule of Law and human rights does not normally bring a large crowd, but the people of al Kut swarmed to the al Kut Municipal Theater recently to hear such a message.
Approximately 900 people attended a two-day performance by two famous Iraqi singers organized by the Wasit Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT).
“It has been five years since singing was allowed in Wasit,” said Sabah al-Kayat, one of the performers for the event.
“The PRT continues to plan and support cultural events that stimulate a cultural revitalization and return to normalcy in Wasit through plays, films, poetry contests and journalism conferences,” said Vanessa Beary, the Wasit PRT public diplomacy officer.
This return to normalcy would not be possible without the support of the Iraqi Security Forces, the PRT and Coalition forces.
“I’m really so happy and joyful to be among you today, with my sons and brothers from the (Iraqi) Police and the Iraqi Army in this song recital, which expresses the freedom of all Iraqi people in our society to express himself in various ways according to the law,” said Maj. Gen. Hamood Facil Hanin, provincial directorate of police, during his remarks at the first night of the event.
Hanin went on to read excerpts from the Iraqi constitution, outlining rights and freedoms entitled to every Iraqi. His remarks were met with enthusiastic applause from the crowd.
Bob Kagler, team chief of the Wasit Provincial Reconstruction Team, Col. Richard M. Francey, Jr., 41st Fires Brigade commander and Capt. Hayder Adnan Ali Al-Saidy, the Iraqi police Wasit province liaison officer to coalition forces give opening remarks at the PRT sponsored rule of law and human rights singing event. (DVIDS Image)
++
ReplyDeleteMUSIC TO MY EARS!! :)
Congrats Iraq!! (thumbsup)
love the Iraq T-Shirt.. wonder if they
can be purchased here in the states??
==
Gateway you have to get video of this to add.
ReplyDeleteGod bless Iraq.
Isn't that Derek Jeter? (Lower right)
ReplyDeleteGreat news. I didn't see any women there-I hope they were allowed, or will be soon.
ReplyDeleteI know, step by step.
Iraq is still an Islamic country, so their progress is still far short of what we'd consider freedom. They have concerts and only men can attend. They have swimming and only men can swim. Are the criticisms of the war, that women's rights have gone backwards accurate? One suspects they may be. In our desire to 'stabilize' we have had to pull together the authority that exists in the country, in many cases this has meant reinforcing the power of traditional and Islamic leaders.
ReplyDeleteThis is unfortunate, not just because women have few rights, but it no so subtley reinforces Islam.
Those who don't yet understand that Islam itself is a huge problem for the West are missing the point entirely.
Thus this news is not so great as it seems at first.
Well, I think this is still great news. I'm sure all the radical Islamists haven't been flushed out, but they will be. Once people feel secure, there will be more secularism.
ReplyDeleteZeke,
ReplyDeleteI once saw a Muslim Cleric on MEMRI say that while you can force people to act piously, you cannot be sure people are truly religious in their hearts unless they feel that they are free to not be religious.
It is the same with Saddam's Iraq. Sure, there was security, but it was the security of the police state. Nobody committed a crime out of fear of ending up in a mass grave somewhere. Sure, women didn't have to cover up, but that was so Uday could take a gander at who he was about to escort to the rape room.
Iraqis are now free. Free to set up a religious state - or not. I think the Iraqis that voted in the 2005 elections voted their religion. However, in the upcoming provincial elections this year and the nationals next year, I believe it will be an entirely different story. They are working to eliminate the crazy list system and I think a lot of secular candidates will be elected because I believe this time the Iraqis will vote their wallets and their personal security.
Kafir,
ReplyDeleteNo, Iraqis are not as you said "free to set up a religious state - or not" -- no, their Constitution (thanks to American "help") does not allow for a non-Islamic option.
" ...First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established...."
Cindy;
ReplyDelete"a fundamental" and "established" are the escape hatches. General agreement with the least abusive aspects of Islam will satisfy them, and there are more than enough schisms and disputes within Islam to make sure that there will be no theocracy. Sistani's version of Islam isn't pretty itself, but does include the provision that clerics should have no role in governance, as it detracts from their religious mission.
And, if it comes to that, constitutions can be amended. Of course, that could go either way, but there is widespread revulsion against fundamentalist Islam, and even Islam itself, amongst the many victims of extremism in Iraq now. The ground has shifted.
wow, you're as up to speed on islam in iraq as commenter Elector of Saxony is on the influence of Catholicism on Robert Mugabe.
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeleteIraqi Constitution
[Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of
legislation:
A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam.
B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.
C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this Constitution.]
Analysis & Commentary
[Article 2: Official Religion and Bases of Legislation
This article attracted the greatest amount of international attention and has widely been termed “contradictory.” That characterization probably goes too far, but there are some tensions in the final language that reflect compromises made among the drafters.
• The reference to Islam as the official religion provoked little debate. The provision would certainly make it difficult to object to state funding for religious institutions, religious instruction in the schools, and use of Islamic symbols in public life—but such practices would have likely continued even if the clause had been omitted.
• The reference to using Islam as a “basic source” of legislation is a compromise between those who wished it to be mentioned as “a source” and those who wanted it to be “the source.” The significance of the impact of such phrasing was almost certainly exaggerated in much of the discussions that took place both inside Iraq and internationally. Interestingly, this part of the article does not mention Islamic law, only Islam.
• Potentially more significant is the provision that bars passage of any law that contradicts “the fixed elements of the rulings of Islam.” (The translation is my own—less felicitous than the AP reference to the “undisputed rules” but more faithful to the original Arabic.) The formula appears to be an oddly worded compromise between those who wished to make reference to the “fixed elements” (thawabit)—which would presumably be very general and fairly few in number, given the diversity of the Islamic heritage—and those who favored protecting “rulings” (ahkam), a far more specific—and clearly legal, not only religious—term.
It is not clear precisely what the effect of combining these two terms will be. In the short term, the article is likely to have little practical impact. The wording suggests that the provision might only apply to legislation passed after the constitution is adopted (although the opposite interpretation is not implausible either), so that the existing Iraqi legal order is likely to remain intact. The impact on future legislation is completely dependent on who has authority to interpret the article. The primary burden, at least in theory, would seem to fall on the parliament: It is to use Islam as a source for legislation and take care to avoid violating the fixed rulings of the religion. And the parliament is quite likely to be dominated by Islamist parties and influenced informally by leading Shiite clerics. At least at present, such clerics give fairly few specific instructions, but it is clear that when they do so, any government would have difficulty ignoring them (as Paul Bremer discovered). The Supreme Federal Court would probably be called on to play a major interpretive role as well, and the composition of that body is therefore critical for the meaning of Article 2 in the long term.
• The article also prohibits passing laws that violate the principles of democracy and the stipulated rights and freedoms. This provision also gives strong but very uncertain advice to the parliament. In the long term, it might provide a formula for strengthening some of the fairly weak constitutional provisions for rights.]
==