The Iraqi women who fear that democracy will crush freedom http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1709676,00.html From James Hider Oppression and inequality may be enshrined in the new constitution SUHAIDA MAYA never used to wear a hijab, the headscarf that Muslim women don as a mark of religious modesty. An English teacher from Shattra, a town in central Iraq, she always wore whatever she wanted. Now she and her daughter both cover up for fear of the rising number of Islamist puritans in the south. “We have to cover up. The Islamic parties even come into schools’ sports lessons and tell girls that they have to wear skirts over their tracksuits. It’s like being in Iran,” she said, her defiance shown by the bright pink of her unwanted hijab, and the women’s rights group she runs. Many women in Iraq, especially in the Shia south, are increasingly concerned that Islamic parties are imposing their strict religious ways on women who once enjoyed some of the most liberal rights in the region. Leaked drafts of Iraq’s forthcoming constitution bear out fears that restrictions on their rights may soon be enshrined in the law. The latest copy of the charter, due to be finalised in three weeks, revealed wording that could roll back a 1959 secular law that enshrined women’s equality. Article 19 of the draft states that “the followers of any religion or sect are free to choose their civil status according to their religious or sectarian beliefs”. In other words, domestic issues, including the issues of divorce and women’s inheritance, could fall under Islamic codes that human rights advocates say would make women second-class citizens. Under some rigid interpretations of Islamic law, a husband can divorce his wife merely by stating three times in front of her that their union is terminated. Women’s testimony in court is also given less weight than men’s, at a time when rights groups say domestic violence is rising rapidly. Obtaining convictions in rape cases would be particularly difficult, analysts say. Another problem would be that many Iraqi marriages are mixed, and it was not clear who would decide which sectarian law would resolve domestic disputes. “These are the dark days we are going through,” Yennar Mohammad, the head of the Baghdad-based Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, said. “Imagine you have a committee where half the constitution writers are Islamist groups and some of them are nationalist groups with a tribal mentality. We are looking at a committee, or selected misogynist group, that have only one thing in common . . . that they want to keep women in an inferior status in this society.” A serious concern for Ms Mohammed is the possibility of young girls being married off. She said: “Under Islam, when the Prophet married his last wife, she was nine years old. In the United States they give a name to this kind of sexual union. Under Islam this is legal and anyone can do it.” The issue is symbolic of the dilemma facing Western diplomats, who insist that Iraq has the democratic right to write its own constitution, but worry that dominant religious conservatives may use that very freedom to crush democratic development. Zalman Khalilzad, the new US Ambassador to Iraq, voiced his fears for women’s rights. “A society cannot achieve all its potential if it does things that prevent — weakens the prospects of — half of its population to make the fullest contribution that it can.” Not all women want equal rights, however. Ethar Moussa, the editor of the magazine Our Eve, sponsored by a leading Shia Islamist party, argues that there is no equality in divine law, and creating it could lead to corrupting Western influences. “When we come to have outright equality, the door would be wide open for many liberties that are basically unacceptable,” she said, her face veiled and her body covered. “The Islamic principle states that there should be justice, not outright equality between men and women . . . all we want is justice and this is enough.” That is not enough for Ms Mohammed. She said: “We are practically being turned into slaves by the constitution, by admitting that Islam is the formal religion of the country, and by handing over the writing of it . . . to a bunch of religious bigots who want to see women inferior in society.” Women’s advocacy groups have started demonstrating publicly, but they fear that their lobbying is being overshadowed by more pressing issues. “Unfortunately we don’t have a militia,” Masoon al-Denuchi, the Deputy Minister of Culture and president of the Iraqi Women’s Group, said bitterly. “The only thing we can do is lobby and talk and talk and talk.” A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES # Islamic law, or Sharia, (which means “the way to the water”) is enforced in various forms in the Middle East, most notably in Saudi Arabia, where amputations, flogging and the death penalty are variously used for crimes such as rape, drug smuggling, murder or renouncing the Muslim faith # The laws of the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam are based principally on the Koran, but differ in their use of supplementary religious sources compiled after the death of the Prophet Muhammad # Sunni law draws also on the Hadith (collected sayings of the Prophet), the ijma (consensus of the community), and qiyas (the various forms of reasoning) # Shia law is also founded on anecdotes from the lives of the 12 imams that followed the Prophet, but the code also has roots in local customs # Under Shia law, daughters inherit everything their parents leave. Under Sunni rules, daughters share their inheritance with uncles, aunts and grandparents # Shia Islam allows temporary marriage, in which a man can marry a woman for a short period of time while away from his usual family. Sunni law does not allow the practice
This practice to me is hilarious. People will go to prostitutes and have temporary 1 hour or 1 night marriages with women that they have to pay in order to do things 'religiously' and not have it be what it is, prostitution. Idiots
Yah, seriously, I mean only every single Arab leader said this would be the case , and if Iraq is a real democracy, Iraq will be nothing short of an Iran clone. The reunification of Persia is drawing closer...
I like your title wnes. You would blame this on Democracy? Nice spin. Are you opposed to democracy now? But let me guess, you won't blame Islam at all, even though that is the basis for this human rights abuse. From what I have read, this is only one of the drafts, written by the more conservative members. It seriously doubt it would pass.
Islam Dominates Iraq's Draft Constitution http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050726195035 By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 26, 4:15 PM ET BAGHDAD, Iraq - Framers of Iraq's constitution will designate Islam as the main source of legislation — a departure from the model set down by U.S. authorities during the occupation — according to a draft published Tuesday. The draft states no law will be approved that contradicts "the rules of Islam" — a requirement that could affect women's rights and set Iraq on a course far different from the one envisioned when U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein. "Islam is the official religion of the state and is the main source of legislation," reads the draft published in the government newspaper Al-Sabah. "No law that contradicts with its rules can be promulgated." The document also grants the Shiite religious leadership in Najaf a "guiding role" in recognition of its "high national and religious symbolism." Al-Sabah noted, however, that there were unspecified differences among the committee on the Najaf portion. Those would presumably include Kurds, Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites on the 71-member committee. During the U.S.-run occupation, which ended June 28, 2004, key Shiite and some Sunni politicians sought to have Islam designated the main source of legislation in the interim constitution, which took effect in March 2004. However, the U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, blocked the move, agreeing only that Islam would be considered "a source" — but not the only one. At the time, prominent Shiite politicians agreed to forego a public battle with Bremer and pursue the issue during the drafting of the permanent constitution. Some women's groups fear strict interpretation of Islamic principles could erode their rights in such areas as divorce and inheritance. It could also move Iraq toward a more religiously based society than was envisioned by U.S. planners who hoped it would be a beacon of Western-style democracy in a region of one-party rule and theocratic regimes. Members of the constitutional committee said the draft was among several and none would be final until parliament approves the charter by Aug. 15. The drafting committee met Tuesday to discuss federalism, one of the most contentious issues, according to Sunni Arab member Mohammed Abed-Rabbou. He described the discussion as "heated" and said no agreement was reached. Parliament speaker Hajim al-Hassani, a Sunni Arab, urged Iraqi media to refrain from publishing supposed texts unless they are released by the constitutional committee. Sunni Arabs involved in writing the charter have complained that Shiites and Kurds are trying to steamroll their version of the draft without proper consultation and discussion. The Sunnis agreed only Monday to resume work on the committee after they walked out to protest the assassination of two colleagues this month. "It's very important that the constitution is produced through the participation of all Iraqis," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters Tuesday. "This is important for ending and defeating the insurgency, for having a political compact and I want to say to the Arab Sunni community that they can count on us for such a compact." Sunni Arab support is crucial because the charter can be scuttled if voters in three of Iraq's 18 provinces reject it by a two-thirds majority — and Sunni Arabs are a majority in four provinces. Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent of Iraq's 27 million people but dominate areas where the insurgency is raging. U.S. officials are eager for the Iraqis to meet the Aug. 15 deadline as a major step in building a stable constitutional government, considered key to pacifying the Sunni insurgency and enabling the U.S. and its partners to begin drawing down troop strength. If the deadline is met, voters will decide whether to approve the charter in mid-October and if they do, another general election will take place in December. In an Internet statement Tuesday, al-Qaida's wing in Iraq warned Iraqis not to take part in the constitutional referendum, saying democracy goes against God's law and anyone who participates would be considered an "infidel," and earmarked for death. According to Al-Sabah, the draft constitution would declare Iraq a sovereign state with "a republican democratic federal system." However, the word "federal" appears in brackets, indicating opposition among the committee. Sunni Arabs are suspicious that federalism, a prime goal of the Kurds, would lead to the disintegration of Iraq. In other developments: _Gunmen fired on two buses carrying workers home from a government-owned company on the western edge of Baghdad, killing 16 and wounding 27, police and a company official said. _Two gunmen in a speeding car assassinated a top aide to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, police said in Baqouba, a city northeast of Baghdad.
Well, here's the big question of it all. What happens when a democracy chooses things that we disagree with? If 51% of Iraqis want to enact laws that repress 49%, that's democracy in action. It is Islam, certainly, that creates these things, but it is democracy that enables it. (dictatorship obviously does so also, as is the case in many other Arab states - it just wasn't that way, oddly enough, under Saddam) Up until Gulf War I, Iraq was considered the most secular, more progressive and more culturally advanced of the gulf states.
Well, that was something Bush apologists always hate to admit. It's pretty much fruitless to argue with them. I can attest this. In addition, the term "tyranny of majority" is never in their dictionary.
Out of a population est. at 27 million, it is estimated that 16 mil Iraqi were eligible to vote. Of that, reported totals were that about 8 mil voted. Of that 8 mil the Shiite coalition est. 4 mil votes The Kurdish coaltion est. about 2.5 mil votes The Sunnis stayed home. Not all the providences had secured election sites, so not all Iraq was included, thus so many estimates. If 51% of Iraqi agreed on anything it would be amazing, there are over 100 religious and political factions wanting a part of the action, coalitions are fragile. I wouldn't call too much of this democracy in action. Just call it an election. We did the best we could.
A country of an overwhelming Muslim majority wants an Islam-inspired government, that's the bottom line, and through democracy they will get it. I don't think you can pick and choose which form of democracy is ideal for you to live under. The Iraqis already agreed to protection of religious freedom and ethnic minorities, and that is probably as far as they will go. I don't think people complained when we elected a fundamentalist Christian administration to lead our country, which is now seeking to change the very way we live by enacting laws and overturning old ones through the Supreme Court and other venues. That's democracy for you, love it or leave it.
That isn't necessarily democracy in action. That is "majority rules" which isn't exactly the same thing. Inherent in democracy is constitutional protection of minorities. In the US, if 90% of the population wanted to pass a law that forced women to being 2nd class citizens, they should be stopped by the protections in the Constitution. The US should push for a constitution that is not strictly based on the Koran and one that does not subjugate whole groups. This isn't anti-democratic, it's pro- pluralism and common sense.
How do you know a majority wants a government based solely on Islam? Isn't the article expressing the views of Iraqis who want just the opposite? Why can't you pick an ideal democracy, isn't that what we are trying to do with the Iraqis? I'm not sure what your point is there. George Bush isn't trying to base our laws by the Bible, like some Iraqis are. If he was, I would oppose it just like I oppose these Iraqis. I wouldn't say "well, that's democracy. I guess I'll just sit here and post on clutchcity and do nothing about it."
But that particular Constitution is unique to American democracy - if a country has a different Constitution, different rules can be applied. Or even within our own Constitution, minority and women's rights were not equal until the last century, but we still had a democracy well before then. I agree - but ultimately it's up to Iraq to pick the Constitution that they want.
Wars have unintended consequences, although a blind man should have seen this coming. Bush opened Pandora's box. A lot of us aren't going to like what was inside. Keep D&D Civil!!
Hey Deckard - in case you missed my post in some other thread, can you send me an email through the board? I have school finance questions for you.