Posted on 07/19/2005 8:26:54 PM PDT by nj26
A working draft of Iraq's new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women's rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance. The document's writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.
The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not "violate Shariah," or Koranic law.
The Americans and secular Iraqis banished such explicit references to religious law from the interim constitution adopted early last year.
The draft chapter, circulated discreetly in recent days, has ignited outrage among women's groups, which held a protest on Tuesday morning in downtown Baghdad at the square where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by American marines in April 2003.
One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family's sect or religion.
Under that measure, Shiite women in Iraq, no matter what their age, generally could not marry without their families' permission. Under some interpretations of Shariah, men could attain a divorce simply by stating their intention three times in their wives' presence.
Article 14 would replace a body of Iraqi law that has for decades been considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East in protecting the rights of women, giving them the freedom to choose a husband and requiring divorce cases to be decided by a judge.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
" Damn France and Jimmy Carter, the Shah was the best thing going for the M.E."
Yes. I agree on the point about an Islamic theocracy, but a theocracy does not allow for a real democratic process, Iran has been rigged since the Shia got the boot, the Mullahs run the country.
That will not happen in Iraq. Sistani and many Immans on the Sunni side and obvious to us the Kurds simply say a theocracy is not what they desire. All they have to do is look around and see what harm it has done elsewhere. I think we have to be very carefull here, in how we all are interpreting what is coming to light. A theocracy will require one main Islamic sect to be in total control. Becuase as we are quite aware, there are so many vary well defined and sometime totally oppositional aspects to the two main sects in Iraq. They never could rule as one. It is not possible based on every other Muslim country we can observe.
And if the majority rules, then the Shiite's under Sistani are in. And he continues and historically can be shown he never has favored a theocracy. This is just one example where we must realize there is a vast difference in how Iran and Iraq view theocracies. Iraq is on the record saying it will not allow that to happen.
So in that respect if what I say is true. Perhaps some of us are, with all justifications, a bit weary without examining the situation. Another thing. We must always remember the Sunni are the traditionalist. Right? They believe their ultimate leader whatever you want to call him, must come from Ali. Polarly opposite are the Shiite. They believe anyone can become the top dog. Also the Sunni and Shiite interprete many laws a bit differently, depending how their clergy interprete things in the Hadith and other books that define their system of law. Then we have the Kurds. And they are not to far behind the Sunni in population. They are as you probably aware rather modest in their Islamic beliefs. So the end result is I find it a bit hard to see how a real Islamic theocracy could be set up that would prove satisfactory for all Iraq. Perhaps I am of based, but that are some of my thoughts on the theocracy issue.
I'd like to ask where exactly you got those quotes from the Koran. there is no Tabari or Bukhari books/chapters
No, there constitution does not have to be the same as ours, but they should not back-track & take away women's rights. That say-it-three-times-divorce thing is Biblical era stuff. You don't think it needs some adjusting? Who takes care of the women?
"there"=their
This is a draft, not the final document. None of these things have been accepted yet. The media is, once again, using this as an opportunity to make people question the coalition's work here. It appears that once again, the media is successful in leading people to its agenda.
Women can vote. Women can hold office. Women own businesses here.
I'm actually OK if they do decide to throw out the clause stating that women have to hold one quarter of the Parliament seats. When you start getting into quotas, you start falling away from a true democracy.
Let's watch and see what they do before everybody starts falling in line with the media and trashing the entire ongoing efforts here. Rome was not built in a day and neither will the New Iraq be.
I get so frustrated when I see people freaking out because of something the New York Times says. Do people really just blindly believe everything they read or what they see on CNN??
The Iraq I see every day and the Iraq portrayed in the New York Times and its cohorts bear very little resemblance to each other.
Islam is incompatable with freedom or democracy. We all knew this then and we know it now!
I fear that in a few years Iraq will be an Islamic theocracy and we'll all be wondering why we have 1,800+ fewer sons and daughters.
Yea, we (Freepers) complain every day about the MSM's bias but whenever a negative piece comes out a huge block of Freepers believe its contents without question.
Hello, out there, guys. Try listening to Allegra and others who are over there, not to a smarmy liberal carefully working up a hit piece designed for the specific purpose of discouraging us.
(And yes, I fall prey to it too sometimes; the finger points my way too).
We have soldiers dieing for this?? NOT acceptable!
Get a freakin' grip.
Stop overreacting.
Realize that you are flipping out to a New York Times article for crying out freakin' loud. You're blindly doing exactly what they want you to do.
To the independent thinkers on here who realize this: Kudos.
From what I've seen it is and that should concern us all.
Yes, but "what you've seen" is this piece from the NYT, treating as a done deal text which Allegra states is not an approved anything but a draft.
That's where the MSM bias comes in; they decide to report only the news that makes us feel poorly about being in Iraq, and of that news the most speculative bad news is reported as solid fact.
Propaganda which is pure fiction never works (just ask Baghdad Bob). It's carefully ignoring some facts, exaggerating others, and presenting enough that the reader feels he's gotten a "complete picture" that makes the story effective as propaganda.
When you get the news that the new Iraqi constitution HAS implemented Sharia in the final version then that's bad. When you get news that some factions WANT Sharia in the Iraqi constition it means little.
Think about how the debates over our own Constitution would have appeared if the Internet existed then and every argument appeared on the net in a discussion forum.
I do try to be wary of media bias, but at the same time, look at what's happening in Basra, look at the emergence of religious militias.
If there's one thing Islamic fanatics have shown an ability to do it's intimidate their entire community into silence and submission.
No it means we need to make sure it doesn't happen, not just site on our hands and hope that it works out. By ignoring the very likely outcome you are the one who is being blinded by ideology. We cannot allow it to happen. If we wait to see, and it is in the Consitution, it will be too late.
Warning signs are to be ignored at your own peril.
I agree, but I don't think our guys over there need the press to point out the dangers.
I personally am not going to influence the Iraqi constitution by one letter, so my being informed of this draft wording doesn't do me any good.
... so, what's the point of this article again? Well, it does have a lot of FReepers throwing up their hands and saying "nuts to it, let them all stew in their own mess" which if implemented would just happen to coincide with what the Islamists and the leftists would like to see happen. Well, I'm sure the press doesn't have that in mind, no. (/s)
AMEN!!!
How in the world do you intend to stop what they wish to do???
Once again, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.