Posted on 07/27/2005 11:36:04 PM PDT by BigFinn
Renewed zealotry threatens hard-won rights
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," she said, her defiance shown by the bright pink of her unwanted hijab, and the women's rights group she runs. "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."
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 new 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," said Yennar Mohammad, the head of the Baghdad-based Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq.
"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 concern for Ms Mohammad 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 prevents -- 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."
That is not enough for Ms Mohammad. 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 fear their lobbying is being overshadowed by more pressing issues. "Unfortunately we don't have a militia," Masoon al-Denuchi, Deputy Minister of Culture and president of the Iraqi Women's Group, said bitterly.
A concern for Ms Mohammad 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."
----
WOW. They allowed saying this?
oh, of course, it's another "Iraq is a mess" story, but it's atypical of the MSM to tell uncomfortable truths about the founder of Islam.
Phyllis Schlafly ? Is that you? < / don't flame me..sarc>
Teach Iraqi women the power of a democracy. Let every Iraqi vote on these types of issues... Put this on the ballot and VOTE. Up or down, yea or nay. If the only thing the Iraqi people can vote for are political elites, it won't work.
Perhaps with your equating of Mrs Schlafly with Islamofacists you would be more at home on DU.
Well, that is a little overboard...but the sarc tag gives you a pass.
Schlafly rocks! You would be wearing a burka if not for her.
Watch the MSM try to blame Bush for this.
I seriously doubt if the draft constitution will make it past the general assembly which has to approve it before it goes to the voters.
Well, if that happens, no one can say we didn't try. People can't be saved from themselves, and the next time, we might just have to stand off and return the entire country to the sand from which it sprang.
I pray that you're right. I'd hate to think that we're propping up an islamic theocracy.
So much for the grand western style democracy in Iraq. The religion of peace strikes again.
I prefer to stand back and let them make their own choices, even if I disagree. I believe that, ultimately, they'll do the right thing. Recall that we in America had to amend our own constitution about 30 times.
However that was our decision as a people, not one imposed on us from the outside.
I wonder what happens if they don't let the women out of the house to go and vote.
Your points are well taken. My understanding is that the idea of their federal framework is to provide an umbrella protection of the overall tenets of Islam to the entire country but not to prohibit anything the Kurds, Sunni, or Shia might want to practice in their own spheres of influence. To do that would indeed be a cause for civil war. I agree though, that to allow oppression of women will "turn back the clock" (my God I hate that overused expression) and doom the idea of freedom. What do the Turks do? Where is an Ataturk when you need one?
All mudslimes should be required by law to wear Spandex so that their strap on bombs could not be hidden.
Is THIS what we wnet to war for in Iraq???
To assist the Shiite nutjobs in imposing their radical versions of Islam on Iraqis????
For the possible "rest of the story", read Unveiled: One Woman's Nightmare in Iran by Cherry Mostesha. It is one of the best books on Islam's political consequences that I have ever read.
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.