An August 17 Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that religious differences did not precipitate the week-long extension approved by the Iraqi parliament to draft and approve Iraq's constitution. This claim contradicts a Journal news article the previous day, which reported that the delay was due, in part, to questions over the role of Islamic law in the new constitution.

The Journal editorial dismissed religion as a factor in the delay and quoted an anonymous “Iraqi insider” affirming that “federalism and its corollary of sharing oil revenues” were "[t]he really tough disputes":

At least the last-minute brinksmanship doesn't appear to be about religion, despite repeated alarms in the U.S. about the rise of a Shiite “theocracy.” Most of the Iraqi framers seem to agree with constitutional language asserting that Islam will be “a” -- not “the” -- principle source of legislation. This is not so different from the vague appeals to divine providence found in some of America's founding documents, and certainly is no reason to fear Iranian-style clerical dominance.

The really tough disputes are over federalism and its corollary of sharing oil revenues. “Get those right and everything else falls into place,” one Iraqi insider tells our Robert Pollock, who is reporting from Baghdad. By federalism we mean a political system modeled more or less on the United States of America, in which power is shared between a central government and the provinces.

But an August 16 report (subscription only) in the Journal's own news section refuted the editorial's claims that the delay is unrelated to religious disputes. It is true that the Journal stressed the significance of federalism as an area of contention. Staff reporter Farnaz Fassihi wrote: “Shiites too are adamant about creating an autonomous regional government in the oil-rich south,” and “perhaps the ultimate deal breaker will come from the Sunnis ... [who] refuse to accept federalism as a principal basis for the new Iraq.” But the article also named “the role of Islam” as a key issue over which the members of the Iraqi constitutional committee were divided. Fassihi reported that Iraqi Shiites were calling for Islam to form the basis of constitutional law, and that Kurds and Sunni Arabs were wary of the potential for Iranian-style governance:

Iraqi officials announced that their differences over key issues such as rule of regional governments, women's rights and the role of Islam in the new constitution remained irreconcilable and the constitution isn't ready to be submitted to the parliament on time as the law required. In order to avert a political crisis, the parliament unanimously voted for a one-week extension in hopes that more time will bring the sides closer to a consensus.

[...]

The Shiites too are adamant about creating an autonomous regional government in the oil-rich south. Another point of contention has been Shiites calling for Islam as the main source of law and changing Iraq's civil family law to the strict Sharia law, a move that will severely compromise women's rights in Iraq. The question of Islam is hotly disputed by the Kurds and Sunni Arabs, who say they worry that the country or at least parts of it ruled by Shiites would slowly morph into an Iranian-style Islamic government.