Theologically, the key to Shi’ism is the concept of the imam, which in Arabic means roughly “leader,” and in the usual Sunni sense would mean “leader of daily prayers in a mosque” or even “religious scholar.” But it has a much deeper meaning to the Shi’ites, something like “person of intrinsic spiritual power, perfect interpreter of prophetic revelation, intermediary between man and God.”

There were only 12 of them (in the main branch of Shi’ism), and all were descendants of the Prophet. They were hounded and assassinated by the caliphs, who rightly saw them as a threat to their political authority, and the last one vanished in the 10th century C.E. The Shi’ites say that, like King Arthur in some British legends, the last Imam is not dead but in hiding, still in the world, directing affairs unseen. And he will return at the end as the Mahdi (hence the name of al-Sadr’s army).

But until then, he can’t be consulted, and with the Imam in “occlusion,” the world is left in an imperfect state. Every form of government is necessarily imperfect, since the imperfection of people is reflected in their institutions. The political position of the Shi’ites, then, is a search for the least imperfect form of government.

Historically, the Shi’ites generally do not look to the “caliphate” as the legitimate Muslim political authority, though they often have supported it as a matter of accepting the prevailing political situation. They have been monarchists in the past, and democrats in the present. And they could set an example in Iraq that the rest of the Middle East, in spite of political prejudice, will come to envy and emulate.

That analysis makes sense, but it’s really a self-defeating position for the Sunni to take, since it will be the Shi’ites who get to determine whta Islam is when it comes to making laws in accordance with Islam.

This inclusion of Islam in the Constitution may also just be a bargaining ploy. The Shi’ites get the Sunnins to sign on to the new Constitution, get the country going to the point where it’s impossible to pull out, and then strip out the offending provision about Islam.

Considering the state of modern Iran, if Iraqi Shi’ites are paying any attention, and they certainly must be, it’s not likely that they will want to make the same mistake and follow Khomeini’s deviation.

We are used to the concept of religion as seperate from civil government here in the west because it is compatible with traditional christianity, and was institutionalised after the Magna carta in the 12th century. Traditional Islam makes no no such distinction. Laws encompassing all aspects of life, from taxes to inheritance, to acceptable forms of dress are an integral part of the “covenant” with God established by Mohammad and his early followers.

Muslims, if they want to live in a truly democratic society that values individual liberty, equality for women, religious pluralism, and secular civil law, have no choice but to reject the very words of Mohammad. That may be to much to expect from the greater muslim word, let alone Iraq.

I fear that the grand experiment will fail and we will be faced with a Kurdish nation that likes us, a Shiite nation that (with Iran) will try to restrict our access to oil, and a bubbling pot of resentment and terrorism in the Sunnis. Not surprisingly, Bush will be claiming victory. I hope I am wrong and Democracy works but I just don’t see it.

In any event, another great piece. Well done.