With all this attention focused on Sistanti's demands for direct elections, the far more volatile debate between Al Sadr and Bremer as to whether Islamic law will be "a" or "the" source of Iraqi law is being overshadowed. In my opinion, this latter debate is much more difficult and much more dangerous. Sistani's demands are neither weak nor modest (the now-complete undressing of the Rummy and the CPA by this aging, reclusive cleric has been a sight to behold), but his is a decidedly moderate voice and there is every indication that his intentions are good. Al-Sadr, by comparison, is a radical hard-liner. More importantly, Sistani's demands are ultimately procedural - they relate to political mechanism for the transfer of sovereignty, and are innately amenable to compromise. In contrast, the question of whether Sh'aria (with all its un-egalitarian, fundamentalist mandates) will be the sole basis for Iraqi law can only be answered with a yes or no. For the sake of Iraqi women, religious minorities, and any future person or country who might someday become the target of a state-sponsored fatwa, I hope that the CPA and Governing Council's opposition to al-Sadr will be unequivocal. Yet the consequences of that opposition may be far worse than any uprising Sistani would lead.
From Juan Cole's site:
In response to Mr. Bremer's news conference, ash-Sharq al-Awsat reports that the radical young Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr threatened an armed challenge to the Americans, alluding to the 1920 rebellion against British colonialism and to the "Sha`ban Uprising" against Saddam of spring, 1991, if Islamic law is not made the sole source of Iraqi law. Muqtada's office called Bremer's refusal of Islamic law as the principal source of legislation a sign of "vehement enmity toward Islam."
http://www.juancole.com/2004_02_01_juancole_archive.html#107726382870125898