Iraq contemplates Sharia

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob McDob

Better Health Through Less Flavor
I don't like to get involved in these things, but this just makes me sad.

Decision and response

Women in Iraq Decry Decision To Curb Rights
Council Backs Islamic Law on Families

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 16, 2004; Page A12

BAGHDAD, Jan. 15 -- For the past four decades, Iraqi women have enjoyed some of the most modern legal protections in the Muslim world, under a civil code that prohibits marriage below the age of 18, arbitrary divorce and male favoritism in child custody and property inheritance disputes.


Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out, ordering in late December that family laws shall be "canceled" and such issues placed under the jurisdiction of strict Islamic legal doctrine known as sharia.

This week, outraged Iraqi women -- from judges to cabinet ministers -- denounced the decision in street protests and at conferences, saying it would set back their legal status by centuries and could unleash emotional clashes among various Islamic strains that have differing rules for marriage, divorce and other family issues.

"This will send us home and shut the door, just like what happened to women in Afghanistan," said Amira Hassan Abdullah, a Kurdish lawyer who spoke at a protest meeting Thursday. Some Islamic laws, she noted, allow men to divorce their wives on the spot.

"The old law wasn't perfect, but this one would make Iraq a jungle," she said. "Iraqi women will accept it over their dead bodies."

The order, narrowly approved by the 25-member council in a closed-door session Dec. 29, was reportedly sponsored by conservative Shiite members. The order is now being opposed by several liberal members as well as by senior women in the Iraqi government.

The council's decisions must be approved by L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, and aides said unofficially that his imprimatur for this change was unlikely. But experts here said that once U.S. officials turn over political power to Iraqis at the end of June, conservative forces could press ahead with their agenda to make sharia the supreme law. Spokesmen for Bremer did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

"It was the secret way this was done that is such a shock," said Nasreen Barawi, a woman who is Iraq's minister for social welfare and public service. "Iraq is a multiethnic society with many different religious schools. Such a sweeping decision should be made over time, with an opportunity for public dialogue." There is no immediate threat of the decision becoming law, Barawi said, "but after June 30, who knows what can happen?"

In interviews at several meetings and protests, women noted that even during the politically repressive Hussein era, women had been allowed to assume a far more modern role than in many other Muslim countries and had been shielded from some of the more egregiously unfair interpretations of Islam advocated by conservative, male-run Muslim groups.

Once Hussein was toppled, several women noted wryly, they hoped the new authorities would further liberalize family law. Instead, in the process of wiping old laws off the books, they said, Islamic conservatives on the Governing Council are trying to impose retrograde views of women on a chaotic postwar society.

Although it remained unclear which members of the council had promoted the shift of family issues from civil to religious jurisprudence, the decision was made and formalized while Abdul Aziz Hakim, a Shiite Muslim who heads the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was chairing the council under a rotating leadership system.

This week, several moderate council members spoke strongly against the decision in public forums, calling it a threat to both civilized progress and national unity. Nasir Chaderchi, a lawyer and council member who heads the National Democratic Party, criticized the council's action at a professional women's meeting Thursday. "We don't want to be isolated from modern developments," Chaderchi told the gathering of the Iraqi Independent Women's Group. "What hurts most is that the law of the tyrant Saddam was more modern than this new law." He said he hoped women would continue to protest until the order was reversed.

The council's new policy decree was brief and vague, mentioning neither particular family issues nor individual branches of Islamic law that would replace current civil law. But lawyers and other experts from Iraqi women's groups said the ambiguity of the decision was especially worrisome, since rival Islamic sects in Iraq espouse different policies for women's legal and marital rights.

Some critics said the proposed law might exacerbate tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, already divided over other power-sharing issues in postwar Iraq, and could even destroy families that have intermarried between the two strains of Islam. Under Hussein, they said, the universal application of civil family law prevented such issues from sparking sectarian strife.

Zakia Ismael Hakki, a female retired judge and outspoken opponent of the new order, said Thursday that since 1959, civil family law had been developed and amended under a series of secular governments to give women a "half-share in society" and an opportunity to advance as individuals, no matter what their religion.

"This new law will send Iraqi families back to the Middle Ages," Hakki said. "It will allow men to have four or five or six wives. It will take away children from their mothers. It will allow anyone who calls himself a cleric to open an Islamic court in his house and decide about who can marry and divorce and have rights. We have to stop it."
 
This will obviously be permanent, as we know the US would *never* interfere with the way Iraq is governed.
 
Whatever the US decides to do on this matter will be probably be considered wrong by the world, just because. If the US interferes, they would be evil imperialists trying to impose their culture. If they don't, they would be evil capitalists that don't care about women's rights.
 
Delance said:
Whatever the US decides to do on this matter will be probably be considered wrong by the world, just because. If the US interferes, they would be evil imperialists trying to impose their culture. If they don't, they would be evil capitalists that don't care about women's rights.

One could just avoid that problem and get the UN involved. It would alleviate the US of this problem and make it a world matter.

That way no-one can really complain :)
 
I say sit back and watch the new government get overthrown by Amazon Guerillas. Mmm . . . Amazon guerillas, dressed in skin-tight camo spandex and latex combat boots with stilletto heels . . . and armed with pistols, daggers, and whips.

Oh man, this is gonna be the sexiest war ever!
 
Bandit LOAF said:
As todays news proves, the UN has far more important things to do than further the cause of world peace.

I don't think that we can pass judgment on an organization as big as the UN based on what just one part of it is doing.

I'll use an arbitrary example in no way reflecting reality - to my knowledge at least. Let's say that the RCMP is grossly over budget. One can't say that the government is wasting money in general because only one part of it has been found that way.

In the same manner of speaking we can't discount the UN here.

Delance said:
They can always blame the evil capitalists for everything.

Looking at this situation I don't think that capitalism comes much into play here. This is about human rights, not money. Therefore I don't think that capitalists will be blamed. Or can be blamed for that matter.
 
The UN (which was oh-so-effective in enforcing the sanctions that, had the UN actually followed through fully on sanction enforcement, may well have headed off the need for the so-called "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq) would just try to find a way to pass the blame onto the US.

Remember the UN building bombing in Iraq, a while back, where the US had previously offered to provide security but was turned down by a UN bureaucrat? Guess which country Annan mentioned by the end of that week, when commenting on responsibility for not preventing the attack.

(Hint: It wasn't Uraguay.)
 
sigma_nunki said:
One could just avoid that problem and get the UN involved. It would alleviate the US of this problem and make it a world matter.
That way no-one can really complain :)

I don't think the UN is very eager to help a country out of the mess it maneuvered itself into by breaking international laws...
And I am not talking about Iraq here. (and no I don't think anyone is sad that Saddam is gone - but not only the goal matters)
 
*Throws a smelly boot at the Bush-administration* Bah... That's the kind of crap you get by tearing down governments by force.

LOAF: You know, I'd rather not see USA-involvement down there for a while...
 
I was under the impression the UN already gave America approval to attack after they said they supported any US led attack against a terrorist or terrorist supportive nation? Saddam openly supported Al-Queda.
I don't think the UN is very eager to help a country out of the mess it maneuvered itself into by breaking international laws...
And I am not talking about Iraq here. (and no I don't think anyone is sad that Saddam is gone - but not only the goal matters)

I thought the UN didn't do anything after they got a serious ass-kicking in the 1950's. The modern UN is a hollow shell of what it was designed for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top