Log In | Register
Iraq has confronted historical challenges for longer than the national life of most countries of the world. Iraq is the ancient cradle of Western civilization known as Mesopotamia.
It is fitting against this backdrop to reflect upon the metamorphosis in the government of current Iraq; from a dictatorship under Saddam Hussein; to a struggling democracy under the guidance of Western powers; to what?
EMPIRES OF THE PAST
Babylon, the name for Iraq in the Bible, was the first of the Prophet Daniel's four successive empires. Daniel lists these empires under various types as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia/Greece, and Rome. Although there have been many and other empires throughout the world, including Asian, African, and pre-Colombian American empires, Daniel is concerned directly with those "world" powers bearing upon the covenant status of Israel.
In addition, Daniel does not account for any other empires, except these four, even though Islam and other conquerors have held Jerusalem and its environs over the centuries. I believe that Islam and its kindred political rivals were ignored by Daniel for the simple reason that with the loss of the Second Jewish Temple under the afflicting hand of the Rome in 70 A.D. (C.E.), the national life of Israel ceased.
There is a strong biblical establishment for the notion of God's connection to the Land of Israel by His presence in the Temple, His dwelling-place. Thus is evident in Jonah 1:3.
The Bible predicts the resurgence of Babylon at the End of Time under a "Roman" peacemaker known as "the Prince who shall come" (Daniel 9:26).
THE NATURE OF THE LAST EMPIRE
I believe that current events in Iraq are precursors to this resurgence. In some uncanny respects, it is as though the stage - its actors and props - being reset to mirror conditions prior to the loss of the Second Jewish Temple. This climactic event is featured in biblical prophecy as the rebirth into a single composite relio-political entity of elements of each of Daniel's afore-oppressive powers.
Thus, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia/Greece, and Rome morph into the single leopard-like beast depicted in Revelation 13:2. Nearly all concerned with biblical prophecy agree that this symbolic beast is the Antichrist; however, whereas they consider him or her a threat against traditional government and religion, I disagree.
My research indicates that this Antichrist is a force for good in the world and will brig about the lasting peace known as the Millennium. Thus, I have chosen to refer to this leader as the Good Antichrist.
In furtherance of the objectives of the Good Antichrist, I wish to show how it is possible for seemingly mutually-exclusive lines of prophecy to converge in a solitary fulfillment in a new Iraqi style of government.
A BICAMERAL IRAQI LEGISLATURE
I propose a bicameral (two house) legislature similar in nature to the United States Congress. The United States House of Representatives and Senate are fashioned after the governmental likeness of democratic republicanism. There is a fundamental compatibility between democratic republicanism and the philosophical underpinnings of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish sectarianism.
The religion of Islam predominates modern Iraq. There are two primary sects of Islam in Iraq: Shia and Sunni.
According to "The World Factbook", issued by the United States Central Intelligence Agency; as of October 9, 2008, the ethnic breakdown of Iraq is Arab 75-80 percent and Kurdish 15-20 percent. The religions of Iraq are Muslim 97 percent (Shia 60-65 percent and Sunni 32-37 percent) and Christian or other 3 percent.
The essential differences between Shia and Sunni are historical and philosophical. These differences are further complicated by the element of religion.
Historically, Shia and Sunni disagree regarding the line of succession of the caliphs following the death of the prophet Mohammed. The caliphs are political successors of Mohammed entrusted with the duty of guarding Islam. Matters of religion and state were not separated by Mohammed.
Shia Muslims believe the legitimate succession, and therefore the pure faith, devolved upon the blood descendants of Mohammed; i.e., leadership "stayed within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself". Thus, Shia Muslims believe that leadership should have passed to Mohammed's cousin/son-in-law, Ali.
--http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm
Sunni Muslims, however, argue that a new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. The first successor was Mohammed's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr.
Philosophically, Shia and Sunni approach Islam much in the same way that American Democrats and Republicans approach politics.
Our American Founding Fathers recognized the necessity of forming an altogether new system of government blending the best in a pure democracy, our historical heritage from the Greeks; and, a pure republic, our historical heritage from the Romans. The United States enjoys a democratic-republican system of government (not to be confused with the political parties, which the system predates).
The Founding Fathers saw an element of merit in the democratic ideal of citizenship and personal responsibility toward the body politic. Likewise, the Founding Fathers recognized the practicality of surrogate representation entrusted to an elected official chosen through a regular schedule of voting.
Democracy tends to emphasize power in the people, visualized as power flowing from the bottom upward; whereas, a Republic recognizes power in leadership, either elected or divinely ordained. This latter power flows from the top down to the people.
There are elements of truth and practicality in both positions insofar as they reflect typical aspects of the social psyche. There are natural leaders and natural followers, and whereas power sharing between the different groups is inevitable because of our social interdependence; the degree of power exercised by the one
group over the other must be minimized through checks and balances in order to avoid civil strife, or even civil war.
A bicameral approach to power sharing works because the people have democracy through a House of Representatives; and the republic has its voice through the Senate. Both the House and the Senate must agree before a piece of legislation becomes law. Their coordination is a check and balance.
The difference between Shia and Sunni philosophy is uniquely fitted, theoretically absent the element of religion, to dovetail into a bicameral approach to secular power sharing.
PHILOSOPHY AS WORLDVIEW
The Shia and Sunni philosophical approaches to both religion and law is also expressed in their attitude toward inspiration and authority, not unlike the debate between Catholicism and Protestantism within Christianity. At the basis of Sunni thought is the notion that inspiration and authority rest in the the people. Shia, on the other hand, find their inspiration and authority in "revealed" sources, such as the Quran and the psuedo-prophetic leadership found in their line of successors. Revealed sources refer to the body of inspiration resulting from revelation, a supernatural process by which God properly communicates through prophets. Revelation usually involves dreams and visions, during which the free-will of the prophet appears to be temporarily suspended. An anointed Son of God is greater than a prophet; God speaks directly to the Son without having to resort to dreams and visions or the suspension of His free-will.
Insofar as the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims stems from the initial question of political leadership, the resolution of their differences is at least partly political.
THE ROLE OF THE KURDISH PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ
The Kurdish people live in significant numbers in northern Iraq. The majority of Kurds are officially Muslim, belonging to a school of Sunni Islam. The Kurds ought to join with the Sunnis in the makeup of an Iraqi House of Representatives.
THE NATURE OF AN IRAQI CONGRESS
Finally, I propose a Congress of the Iraqi people comprising a House of Representatives and a Senate. The House would represent the interests of the Sunni and Kurds; the Senate would represent the interests of the Shia.
The Congress would neither debate nor settle matters of religious faith. I do not personally subscribe to the notion of a strict separation of religion and government. Questions relative to their proper relationship and public parameters ought to be decided by the non-legislative branches of government.
ADDITIONAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
The judicial branch of government should be exercised by a quasi-priesthood entrusted with the responsibility of weighing the ethical and moral relevance of legislation.
A powerful executive should have the authority to dismiss members of Congress or the entire Congress, without cause. This executive would be the final arbiter in matters of state and religion, an executive whose titles and powers are fashioned after both a political Caesar and a religious Pontifex Maximus.
