Posted on 08/22/2005 11:13:09 AM PDT by Charlesj
Iraq draft says laws must conform to Islam -text
BAGHDAD, Aug 22 (Reuters) - A draft constitution for Iraq to be presented to parliament on Monday will make Islam "a main source" for legislation and ban laws that contradict religious teachings, members of the parliamentary drafting panel said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.netscape.cnn.com ...
I think the drop in support we're seeing in current polls is a definite result of a failure to communicate.
I'm sure this "world's greatest poker player - doesn't show his hand" persona is useful in some circumstances, but IMHO the American people need to understand what we are sacrificing for, and we ought to all be asked to sacrifice something.
I understand that we ought to trust our president, but I tend to think he needs to trust us, too, and I don't want to let a GOP president "get away with" something I wouldn't want a Dem president doing.
No way did I think you were rude or condescending...I really wasn't kidding when I said you "slapped some sense into me"...
after reading your post, I went back and read mine...and I almost died of embarrassment...oh, well.
Thanks for the kindly slap...I think I have my "back-bone" back!
A lot of Muslim women actually believe the stuff about head scarves, etc., and others don't. It all depends on the interpretation."
Most middle eastern countries do not allow women to drive, non-muslims have no rights in court against muslims, non-muslims must pay the jizya tax, and women don't have the same property rights or divorce rights as men do.
A theocracy in Iraq, (which is in place in Iran) would be bad.
"The Iraqi Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of Islam.
There is no corresponding demand that the law incorporate Islam."
Sounds fair to me, but will they go for it?
Your tag line is quite appropriate.
Thanks for the link.
There's a good example for you. The Quran explicity gives women the right of divorce and remarry, says they can't be held against their will, and states that they will be taken care of after the divorce (alimony). If she initiated the divorce where the husband wasn't at fault, she just has to give back the dowry, if any. True, a man may divorce by saying so three times, but then begins a waiting period where they have to live together without relationships, for the purpose of getting them to work out their differences. A woman wanting divorce simply needs to go to the court as we do in this country.
But that's from the Quran. Misogynist societies may warp it into something different that treats the women as slaves.
Then let's hope that by the time we're out of there we've trained their army well. Have you seen a link to the text yet?
You don't have a clue as to what sharia is.
"The Quran explicity gives women the right of divorce and remarry, says they can't be held against their will, and states that they will be taken care of after the divorce (alimony).
"If she initiated the divorce"
Under islamic law, a woman is NOT allowed to initiate divorce.
Your statement is "A woman wanting divorce simply needs to go to the court as we do in this country."
The above is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
Again, a woman can NOT initiate divorce proceedings and she is NOT entitled to an equal share of the marital assets. She is considered, under sharia, as half a man.
Sura al-Nisa´ 4:11: "God charges you, concerning your children: to the male the like of the portion of two females, and if they be women above two,
Unfortunately, this is a common attitude and is wrong. Immorality and freedom cannot co-exist. Immorality, by it's very nature is selfish. A community of human beings cannot exist in freedom when all members or even a majority of members are obsessed with self-indulgence. It will either degenerate to anarchy or tyranny.
Your response is a classic illustration of this: Individualist choices reign supreme. There is no standard of conduct, no unifying code of moral behavior. It's all what each individual wants. That is anarchy, yet paradoxically, it leads to tyranny because the anarchist demands others respect HIS anarchist desires and uses force to back it up.
Thus you get the paradoxical scenario of the anarchist screaming that pornagraphy should be freely available for him to choose by forcing everyone to be exposed to it and demanding that, instead of him actively seeking out what he wants, others must actively seek to avoid what they find objectionable. The individual who has just imposed his tyranny upon his fellow citizens then celebrates what he has done as an extension of liberty because he can now engage in his personal license without any effort and without any stigma and he has forced the decent and moral to expend effort to avoid his filth.
Under the Quran it is.
"but, in accordance with justice, the rights of the wives (with regard to their husbands) are equal to the (husbands;) rights with regard to them, although men have precedence over them (in this respect). And God is almighty wise." (2:228)This says they're equal. The later inequality is only in the context of the man having a duty to support his wife. He is given extra powers commensurate with that extra responsibility.
"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best." (Quran sura 4, aya 128).She can divorce.
Again, a woman ... is NOT entitled to an equal share of the marital assets. She is considered, under sharia, as half a man.
No, not an equal share. But he is responsible for alimony.
"For divorced women a reasonable maintenance (should be provided). This is a duty on the righteous." (Qur'an 2:241)The Bible provides nothing for the woman in the case of a divorce. Also, the Quran places no blame or disfavor on the woman in a divorce, while the Bible considers her to be defiled if she remarries. You have to understand the times. In the pre-Muslim culture, women had no rights and could be instantly divorced at will and left out in the cold. While not the best by today's standards, Islam was a vast improvement.
She is considered, under sharia, as half a man.
That is for testimony, not marriage, as back then it was considered that a woman could have undue influence put on her by her husband and family. They also thought women were more emotional and therefore might distort facts due to their emotions. Anyone who's married can understand that one ;>).
Sura al-Nisa´ 4:11: "God charges you, concerning your children: to the male the like of the portion of two females, and if they be women above two,
That's inheritance law, not divorce law. The reason for it is that the men are/were charged with providing for their families while the women have no such financial responsibility. The men receiving the greater share are expected to use it to maintain their current or future wives.
This is different from the Bible, which only gives inheritance to a daughter if there is no son, and makes no mention of the widow. To be fair, the Quran was written long after the Bible, and society had evolved a bit as far as consideration for women.
What good is freedom if we don't have the opportunity to make wrong choices? How do humans learn if they're always forced to do the wrong thing?
Where did I say that there is no "standard of conduct"? We as a society have the right to look down on poor choices, we have the right to shun them if we so choose. But we do not have the right to prevent people from making those choices if they so desire. That's what freedom is.
Our Constitution doesn't just protect good choices. On the contrary, it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It protects unpopular opinions. It protects the right to make choices of which others do not approve.
Your attitude is what's wrong. You whinge about "anarchy" but seem to see freedom only as the right to make *your* choices. That's selfish, and it's contrary to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
Liberty is more than the enshrinement of your own particular preferences (or mine, for that matter). Freedom means the right to make unpopular, foolish or even outright bad choices, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Freedom isn't pretty, but it is vital.
Government-enforced morality is meaningless. A person forced to live a moral lifestyle at gunpoint is not truly moral. Living in a free society involves the right to do immoral and stupid things. It is not the society's responsibility to protect people from their own foolish decisions.
Your response is a classic illustration of this: Individualist choices reign supreme. There is no standard of conduct, no unifying code of moral behavior.
There is a unifying code of moral behavior in our society. It just isn't enforced at gunpoint by the government. People in this country are free to shun those they consider to be immoral.
Thus you get the paradoxical scenario of the anarchist screaming that pornagraphy should be freely available for him to choose by forcing everyone to be exposed to it and demanding that, instead of him actively seeking out what he wants, others must actively seek to avoid what they find objectionable.
You are arguing against a strawman. Relying on an anarchist for a definition of freedom is like relying on a communist for the definition of capitalism.
No reasonable definition of freedom includes the right to force others to watch pornography. Similarly, no reasonable definition of freedom includes the right to ban others from watching pornography.
""I have said these same things before the invasion of Iraq.
Though apparently not here.""
I have made my feelings about this subject before.
My life doesn't revolve around the Free republic web site, so whether I've said those exact words or not I don't know.
But I've been a member long enough here to know the sentiment of many on here. A response denouncing the war before we went in would have been a one sided comment on this forum. The people I talk to and see know me and what I've said, and I wasn't the only one saying it.
Do you believe that most people were for this war before we went in?
"Under islamic law, a woman is NOT allowed to initiate divorce."
Again, I reiterate...she is not.
You state: "Under the Quran it is."
Not true Read: Ibn Abidin, 2:415; al-Mughni, 8:234.
"Talaq", Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974).
al-Ikhtiyar, 3:182.
al-Bukhari, Talaq 1-9, Ahkam, 13; Muslim, Talaq 44, Radha` 67-70,73; Abu Dawud, Nikah 4, Talaq 1-5; Ibn Maja, Talaq 2; al-Darimi, Wudhu' 93, Talaq 1; al-Muwatta', Talaq 53; Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 2:62,63,81; 3:82,62,87.
Cf. al-Jaziri, 4:322-332.
al-Ikhtiyar, 3:190-191.
al-Bukhari, Talaq 3,7,37; Abu Dawud, Talaq 49; al-Nasa'i, Talaq 9; Ibn Maja, Talaq 32; al-Muwatta', Nikah 17-18; Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 1:214; 2:25,85; 6:42,96,193.
W. Juynboll, p.229.
al-Jaziri, 4:280.
al-Sabuni, 1:344, also Mahmud Shaltut, al-Islam `aqida wa Shari`a, p.172.
al-Aqqad, al-Mar'a fi al-Qur'an, p.103ff.
ibid. p.105.
You state: "but, in accordance with justice, the rights of the wives (with regard to their husbands) are equal to the (husbands;) rights with regard to them, although men have precedence over them (in this respect). And God is almighty wise." (2:228)
This says they're equal."
No, this distinctly states they are NOT equal and the men have precendence over them.
You: "The later inequality is only in the context of the man having a duty to support his wife. He is given extra powers commensurate with that extra responsibility."
And double the assets of the woman. Again, no equality here.
In other words, your reasoning is that the man deserves the greater portion because a woman is incapable of supporting herself. (Nida li al-jins al-latif, p.11. Salih, al-Hidad li'm ra'at al-Haddad).
You: "If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best." (Quran sura 4, aya 128).
Me: "But even so, SHE CANNOT, under sharia, initiate a divorce.
Again, a woman ... is NOT entitled to an equal share of the marital assets. She is considered, under sharia, as half a man. In matters of marriage and inheritance.
You: "No, not an equal share."
That's what I said.
"The Bible provides nothing for the woman in the case of a divorce."
We're not talking about the Bible. The topic is sharia. Except for islam, no other religion, or country for that matter, imposes religion as a law for it's inhabitants.
You: "She is considered, under sharia, as half a man.
That is for testimony,"
You prove my point of the inequality between men and women under sharia.
You: "They also thought women were more emotional and therefore might distort facts due to their emotions.
Anyone who's married can understand that one ;>)."
I'll let that statement from you speak for itself.
You: "To be fair, the Quran was written long after the Bible, and society had evolved a bit as far as consideration for women."
In light of the above, it is apparent islamic law needs to evolve much, much more in it's consideration of women.
Are you seriously arguing that there can be a shortage of wrong choices, or that they could ever be eliminated?
I'm saying that doing the right thing is meaningless when you are forced by the State to do the right thing.
I'm saying that "government morals" is both an oxymoron and anathema to freedom.
Not my reasoning, their reasoning, which was applicable in their society. I notice you quote a lot of Hadith instead of Quran. You may want to know that not all Hadith is universally accepted by all Muslims. They were also often written by the same type of misogynists that are in charge of most Muslim countries today.
But even so, SHE CANNOT, under sharia, initiate a divorce.
I never claimed she gets half of his assets (which itself would cause problems if he had more than one wife). You, however, claimed she cannot initiate divorce, which she clearly can.
In light of the above, it is apparent islamic law needs to evolve much, much more in it's consideration of women.
Of course it does. I never claimed otherwise. But it is not as bad as people such as you claim it is. What is bad is misogynistic interpretations.
What is Turkey? (Serious question)
You prefer I quote quran regarding women's issues?
Happy to oblige:
Regarding women: Quran4:34 ( wife-beating)
Here's what I was stating about a woman’s testimony
Quran(2:282) and inheritance Quran(4:11) worth half of a man’s.
Note: these are islamic teachings, not just cultural ones.
Of course, I could go on...
You: "I never claimed she gets half of his assets (which itself would cause problems if he had more than one wife). You, however, claimed she cannot initiate divorce, which she clearly can."
You claimed women were treated equally, and then proceeded to make statements, as above, that prove in islamic law they clearly are NOT.
And again, a woman CANNOT initiate divorce proceedings. I've already documented this. Why do you persist in this deception?
"You may want to know that not all Hadith is universally accepted by all Muslims."
The Hadith Collections compiled by the Sunnah writers are said to explain the quran. They are, together with the quran, islam. I cite them as such a reference.
Do you accept, as a muslim, this hadith?
- in which Mohammad states most of hell's inhabitants are female and women are deficient in intelligence and piety?(Bukhari, I:6:304).
Is is unversally accepted by all muslims that they are allowed to pick and choose which hadith they accept? Do muslims not believe that the hadith are supposedly also "inspired" oral traditions that explain the quran?
Regarding sharia and your agreement that reform is needed:
"Of course it does. I never claimed otherwise.
But it is not as bad as people such as you claim it is."
Oh yes it is, in fact much worse than you are willing to admit, or accept. We have not begun to discuss the non-muslims subjected to islamic law.
You: "What is bad is misogynistic interpretations."
And what is worse is taqqiyya.
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.