“What business is it of yours, Mr. Bremmer?” [Archives:2004/716/Opinion]

March 1 2004

That was how a American correspondent began to ask Paul Bremmer III, the de facto ruler of Iraq now on behalf of the Bush Administration, why should he decide for the Iraqis if they wanted to have the new Iraqi Constitution include anything about Islamic Sharia'a (jurisprudence)?
Yes, Mr. Brenner, why should you intervene in every facet of Iraq's reconstruction – Government or otherwise?
An obvious question to be asked of someone who is supposedly there to make the invasion – turned to occupation as palatable as possible to the Iraqis, in preparation for their full sovereignty and independence.
Or is the occupation indeed a fact of life that sovereignty, as we understood it is as far away from Iraq for some time to come.
Maybe it is just a clear expression of American policy in
the areas in which an American sphere of influence is now entrenched, thanks to the Holy Crusade against Islam, in all its manifestations, which the Bush Administration has decided to take up on behalf of the International Zionist Establishment.
It is the latter, which is absolute in its resolution to make Islam the “archenemy of Western Civilization” and thus secure its bloodline to the American taxpayers' pockets, especially after Israel's usefulness to the West has considerably diminished with the end of the Cold War.

But let us argue with Mr. Brenner on a more narrower sphere.
The outright rejection of anything to do with Islam in any statutes of Moslem society, let alone the objection to Shari'a as being a basis on which the Iraqi Constitution rests, is interpreted by most Moslems, as a clear declaration of American intentions to do away with Moslem culture altogether.
Thus, Islam brought 9/11 to the forefront as grounds for this sometimes American animosity to the religion and its one billion followers.
The inclusion of Shari'a jurisprudence as a basis of mundane legislation should really be viewed as a significant safeguard against oppression and repression and quite frankly the Americans should view this inclusion with greater objectivity, if they are truly promoting a democratic regime for Iraq or any other Moslem country.
For one thing, it should be borne in mind that Islam was born as a social reform movement to counter oppression in all its forms and to raise the standard of the malcontents of the world.
Never mind that Moslem regimes are far from real application of true Islamic jurisprudence in governance, and the underlying cause of this has been the inability to put in place the appropriate institutional framework that would oversee governance as Islam would really have it.
There are historical and sociological reasons for this, but this does not mean that Islamic jurisprudence represents a digression of the rights of citizens of Moslem states, but in fact provides a justification for the enlightened Moslem body politic to oppose any oppressive political order.
That is why very few autocratic regimes have found any degree of longevity over the ages, because most regimes that were oppressive were soon countered by movements that sought to reinstate the stolen rights of the Moslem constituencies, based on the guarantees of civil rights and justice that Islamic jurisprudence is meant to deliver.
Thus oppressive rulers were put to the test by the extent to which they have deviated from proper Islamic governance as called for by Shari'a Law.
Of course, at present most Moslems have been subjected to so much oppression and backwardness, thanks to the rule of regimes bolstered by Western interests that backed many of these regimes, that only a few are able to organize into the effective opposition to the oppressive regimes that they are ruled by, or even recognize that indeed they have overlooked the fundamental responsibility of Moslem body politics to uphold the rights that they are entitled to according to Islamic Shari'a.
On the other hand, Mr. Bremmer and many of the other icons of the Bush Administration, would like the world to believe that Shari'a entails Taliban “Orthodoxy” or Al-Qaeda militancy, both of which are as foreign to Islam as Communist rule.
There is also a tendency to view Iraq's religious leaders as being in the same league as the religious leaders of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.
First of all, the Taliban religious leaders are poorly versed in Islamic jurisprudence and even their top leader, Mullah Omer, never finished religious school and does not hold any genuine credible credentials in Islamic jurisprudence studies.
The Taliban are no more than a rendition of modern Wahhabi dogma, the followers of which must be reared from their very young years to obey their mentors and reject all other principles that do not agree with the autocratic and sometimes even repressive Wahhabi principles.
Even more enlightened Wahhabi followers have come to reject the extremisms of their Taliban brethren and are looking for greater rapport with the followers of the other sects of Islam.
For sure Islamic Shari'a is not simply a dress code for women or a penal code for non-marital sex, which is often the image that Zionist promoters are disseminating about Islam.
It is a very comprehensive statutory foundation by which a Moslem society is to be organized and regulated without prejudice to very important principles of human rights and civil liberties for all the people under Islamic domain.
Religious leaders like Sheikh Sistani of Iraq are sophisticated and far above than to be likened to the mentally closed Taliban or their likes.
They were after all also leaders of the Iraqis in their struggle against Saddam Hussein for a generation and sacrificed a lot along with many of their followers.
They really have a feel for how Islamic jurisprudence should be rightfully applied as a safeguard for a free and orderly society.
But it seems that Mr. Bremmer is not endowed with any sensible feelings towards his subjects.