Iraq draft says laws must conform to Islam -text

You grab lists, but you don't understand what's behind them. I'll take a few hits on the marriage ones:

A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife or wives

Subject to interpretation. Others say it means he will not have sex with her until she straightens up.

A Muslim man is allowed to have four wives at one time

Cultural thing, practiced around the world. Mormons had it too, some still have it.

A Muslim man can divorce his wife or wives instantaneously.

That is not considered proper. In order to prevent capricious divorce, they must live together for three menstrual cycles (three months if menopausal) after the announcement. Any intimacy between them breaks the pending divorce.

A Muslim woman must pay money to the husband by court orders to have the marriage dissolved.

In this case she is considered to be the contract breaker and must give back some or all of the money she got from the husband. The judgement of amount (if any) will be based on whether she's just divorcing for the hell of it, or if she has sound reason.

BTW, here you just admitted women can initiate divorce in Islam.

If a divorced couple wants to remarry each other, the wife must marry another person, must have complete sex with him and must be divorced by him willingly.

This only applies after a third divorce between the same two people. It was invented to stop the then-current practices of constant divorce and remarry. We both believe this is not a good thing, and it isn't because it's supposed to act as a deterrent.

Rich men from the Middle East travel to Southern India to take advantage of this law on financially poor women

Abuse of a loophole. Sickening.

"You grab lists, but you don't understand what's behind them"

Not lists, documentation. Again, this from the poster who thinks sharia isn't so bad.

"BTW, here you just admitted women can initiate divorce in Islam."

No, I didn't...I did cite another example of the inequal treatment of women under sharia...

You: "Actually, you haven't submitted anything in the Quran stating that a woman can't initiate divorce."

I have, repeatedly. Islamic law is based on the quran. You actually haven't READ any of the sources or documentationYou deflect this:

"Hmm, if a muslim rejects hadith antiRepub, it would make him a heretic, a blasphemer, and earn him a death sentence."

Completely true statement.

"According to the Muslims who do accept them for their various reasons. A majority of Christians don't accept Catholic canon, and long ago they would have been labeled as heretics, subject to death. Does that make them wrong?"

Oh, I knew that was coming.
"A majority of Christians don't accept Catholic canon"

Oh really? According to whom? You? Couldn't resist that, could you? Your agenda is showing.

Again, you change the subject.

You make the wildest, baseless accusations based on nothing but your opinion.

Now.

No, again, sharia is NOT "Subject to interpretation". It is, islamic law and it IS currently in practice today in Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

It is the reality of the world situation...

You might want to actually READ the posts. It will save you much humiliation.

You are completely ignorant of sharia, islam and world events.

Again, don't waste my time with your lies, deceptions, and ignorance.

I suggest you actually read a "book" and stop wasting your time googling...

No, I didn't...I did cite another example of the inequal treatment of women under sharia...

You cited an example where a woman divorcing her husband must give back her wedding money. Is English so hard?

I have, repeatedly. Islamic law is based on the quran.

You have not shown one passage that prohibits a woman from divorcing her husband.

Oh really? According to whom?

Religious census. Depending on the source, Catholics aren't even the majority of Christians in the world.

No, again, sharia is NOT "Subject to interpretation". It is, islamic law and it IS currently in practice today in Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

All of which practice it differently. Shari'a wasn't handed down by Mohammed long ago. It is not one document. It is purely the result of interpretations of Muslim religious texts and even the opinions of prior religious scholars, their attempt at putting the "will of Allah" as they see it into law. The culture where the shari'a was derived also has an influence.

I suggest you actually read a "book"

Any encyclopedia will tell you I'm right. Just look up the definition of Fiqh to see that there are differing views on shari'a and which Hadith are to be believed. A Hanafi ruling will probably be quite different than a Jaferi one.

No surprises here. You didn't actually READ the Iraqi constitution. Under islamic law, apostasy IS a crime.

Islamic law when implemented DOES NOT differ from region to region. If you were at all familiar with it, you never would have claimed otherwise.

Article (90):

2nd -- The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the parliament members.

Text of the Draft Iraqi Constitution - 2

CHAPTER ONE: BASIC PRINCIPLES

Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.

Article (2):

1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

Pay attention here:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

Of course you don't have a clue as to what that means, but the rest of the thinking world does.

I originally stated that under islamic law women cannot initiate divorce.

You claimed otherwise, no less than 7 or eight times I believe.

Here's one: "Actually, you haven't submitted anything in the Quran stating that a woman can't initiate divorce.

I did advise you in the beginning of our discussion to READ.

A woman CANNOT, repeat CANNOT initiate divorce under islamic law.

Shall I repeat that again for you? She CANNOT initiate divorce.

Once more with emphasis? She CANNOT INITIATE divorce.

Is it becoming clear now? I gave you the opportunity, 7 or 8 times, to "catch" what you overlooked so you wouldn't look foolish.

Again, you are either ignorant or willfully attempting to deceive.

Here's what that "big" word you used from your google search actually means:

Under islamic law, a woman cannot anul the marriage on her own, (her husband can and for no reason) She must REQUEST permission from an Islamic judge to decide if she has valid reason for the "khul".

That is to say that she does not have the same right that an Islamic man enjoys in getting rid of his unwanted wives at his whims and fancies and she is unable to INITIATE the proceedings.

In addition, A woman has to ransom herself to be free from her tyrannical husband; she can ransom herself from her husband for more than he gave her…29.10.32

The ‘khul’ is an expensive process on the part of an Islamic woman to get rid of her unwanted husband. She must pay an amount that may (or may not) exceed the amount of mahr that she received from her husband after the consummation of marriage. Even when a husband beats her severely by breaking her bones, she still has to pay the husband to get rid of the tyrant.

AntiRepublicrat would have you believe women are treated equally on this too.

I stated: You make the wildest, baseless accusations based on nothing but your opinion.

You claim: "Religious census. Depending on the source, Catholics aren't even the majority of Christians in the world."

Census? Source? What source?
YOU are not a source...

Your opinions are irrelevant.

Islamic law when implemented DOES NOT differ from region to region. If you were at all familiar with it, you never would have claimed otherwise.

Okay, so why do women drive cars in Turkey, but not in Saudi Arabia? Why are there multiple schools of Islamic jurisprudence corresponding with sect and geographic location? It is so incredibly obvious that you are wrong.

No surprises here. You didn't actually READ the Iraqi constitution. Under islamic law, apostasy IS a crime.

Apparently I'm not the one who hasn't read it. You're really selective.

"First, Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:"

Notice, a basic source of legislation.

"No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam"

Undisputed rules. It also doesn't state that all Muslim laws must be enforced.

"No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution."

This is the one that blows you out of the water, because among those rights and freedoms is (I've hilighted for the reading-impaired):

"guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people, and the full religious rights for all individuals, and the freedom of creed and religious practices."

"Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status."

"Iraqis are free in their adherence to their personal status according to their own religion, sect, belief and choice, and that will be organized by law."

"The followers of every religion and sect are free in ... the practice of their religious rites ... the administration of religious endowments and their affairs and their religious institutions"

"The state guarantees freedom of worship and the protection of its places."

"All bodies or practices are forbidden which use racism, terrorism, denouncing people as non-Muslim..."

Wow, no less than six guarantees of religious freedom, protection from those who would want to kill or repress non-Muslims. That's far more than we have in our own constitution. If we had a Christian version of the last in our own laws, a lot of FReepers would be in jail.

A woman CANNOT, repeat CANNOT initiate divorce under islamic law.

Saying it over and over makes it no more true. You need to cite your source.

She must REQUEST permission from an Islamic judge to decide if she has valid reason for the "khul"

In other words, she initiates the divorce much in the same way a woman here would file for divorce with the court.

Even when a husband beats her severely by breaking her bones, she still has to pay the husband to get rid of the tyrant.

Payment is up to the courts. A high payment is for a capricious divorce. A low or no payment is for a justified divorce such as your example. All of this is based on the premise of the husband not being insane, impotent, or other things, which would qualify the wife for a haqq-i-faskh, the equivalent of an annulment.

Census? Source? What source? YOU are not a source

Any source. Do you deny that there are at least a billion non-Catholic Christians in the world? Do you think these people believe canon to be law?

Again, "if a tradition did not meet the requirements for a sahih Hadith, it was not accepted into the family of sahih Hadith by Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari, Dawud, or Muslim. Therefore, the standard Hadith collections are considered by traditional Muslim scholarship to be sahih. Thus, it is unjustified to use a weak Hadith defense when a sahih Hadith is used to present the actions and teachings of Muhammad."

"woman has to ransom herself to be free from her tyrannical husband; she can ransom herself from her husband for more than he gave her…29.10.32"
m11.13 (Ref: 8, p546)
Ref: 9, p192)

Again, the woman needs to ask permission of a judge and "ransom" herself with an expensive payment.

The woman CANNOT INITIATE divorce proceedings.
Maliki school—khul is a divorce by giving something in return.
Hanafi school—khul is end of marriage with the utterance of the word ‘khul’.
Shafii school—khul is a separation sought with something given in return and with the pronouncement of the word ‘khul’. Can be through mutual agreement or through the order of Kadi on payment by wife to the husband a certain amount not exceeding what was given to her as dower (mahr).
If the husband forces the ‘khul’ then the wife can keep the mahr.
Khul can be demanded only in extreme cases. Can’t be on flimsy grounds. (Although a husband can initiate divorce on no grounds)
Hadis “The women asking for separation and ‘khul’ are hypocrites”.
Khul is makruh ie it is disliked

Your arguments are the talking points of islamist apologists who are "uncomfortable" with the truths of their faith.

I've quoted sources. Your answer is to state that those sources are optional and open to interpretation. The above states otherwise, but I suspect you're well aware of this.

quran002.228
" Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."

"but men have a degree (of advantage) over them." Clearly establishes men and women are NOT equal in islam...according to your quran.

quran004.034
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.

quran 002.282 Woman's witness is only half of man's.

quran002.222

"They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness,

You: "In other words, she initiates the divorce much in the same way a woman here would file for divorce with the court."

No. She needs to ask permission, pay ransom, etc.

The husband has no such limitations.

Your arguments are the talking points of islamist apologists who are "uncomfortable" with ~~the truths of their faith~~ how people have interpreted into their religion as law.

BTW, nice to see you're now getting an education on the differences between schools of Islamic jurisprudence now that you know they exist. But knowing and realizing are two different things. You see there are multiple schools yet cannot see the obvious related fact: different schools means different implementations of shari'a.

No. She needs to ask permission, pay ransom, etc. The husband has no such limitations.

You're using some messed up translations. She has to give money back, and possibly a fine if she's pretty bad. Asking permission from the court is the same thing as initiating a divorce. Either she or the husband initiates, and the husband certainly isn't doing it if she's the one petitioning the court.

You keep saying that it isn't perfectly equal as if I'd said they are perfectly equal, and I never said that, only that you made it seem worse than it is in order to villify a religion you hate. Hate and ignorance always go hand in hand.

Re: Iraqi Constitution and this statement:

a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

The LA Times "gets" it....http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept (registration needed)

Especially interesting are the statements of the islamist secularists and islamic clerics who also "get it"....

"BAGHDAD — As Iraq's transitional National Assembly prepares to approve a new draft constitution as early as today, legal experts and some political leaders warned Wednesday that the charter's explicit endorsement of Islam could give religious hard-liners a tight grasp on a country that was once one of the Middle East's most secular.
In an effort to strike a compromise between the nation's religious and secular communities, Iraq's proposed constitution reserves a central place for Islamic law in the legal system while safeguarding personal freedoms and democracy.

But the text's ambiguous language and apparently conflicting provisions left neither side particularly happy, and if approved, the document probably will be the subject of heated debate in Iraqi courts for years to come.

For instance, the draft constitution makes Islam the "official religion" of Iraq and "a main source" of law rather than "the" source, as many Shiite conservatives sought. But secularists remain concerned about a clause that prohibits any law that "contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."

Critics fear the provision could be used by religious hard-liners to impose a strict version of Islamic law, such as banning alcohol, restricting women's rights and imposing harsh Koranic punishments such as stoning.

The Iraqi draft constitution also calls for gender equality and privacy rights and prohibits laws that contradict democracy or "basic freedoms" guaranteed by the charter.

"It's not a workable document," said Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, an Islamic scholar and law professor at Emory University. "They brushed their differences under the carpet and crafted language that they could vote for. It's a time bomb that will explode as soon as it's enacted," he said.

An-Naim said a similar move to make laws conform to Islam by Sudan's Arab-dominated government in the 1980s sparked a 20-year civil war when southern Christians rebelled. "It was a disaster."

In Iraq, Iyad Jamal Din, a Shiite Muslim cleric and political activist who opposes mixing religion and government, voiced similar concerns. "It tries to preserve human rights, but within a choking religious society that is a clone of the Iranian system," he said. "I fear this constitution will lead us into a dark society controlled by extremists."

Although Iraq's charter does not envision installing a "supreme leader" like Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, questions are already emerging about certain provisions.

For example, what are the "undisputed rules" of Islam?

What constitutes "contradicting?"

Since alcohol is banned in the Koran, should Iraq become a dry nation? Are women required to cover their heads? Does a prison sentence for a thief contradict the Koran, which calls for amputation of the hand?

"The problem is that there are no agreements on these questions," said Peter W. Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who advised Kurdish politicians on the constitution. "It allows any cleric to make his own interpretation of the law and opens the door to a whole range of abuses."

Galbraith said the draft fell well short of the sort of democratic government the Bush administration hoped to install in Iraq. "The U.S. now has to recognize that they overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state," he said...."

In Iraq, non-Muslims said they were anxious about their rights under the proposed constitution. Standing in front of a row of amber scotch and whiskey bottles, Baghdad liquor store clerk Bassam Aboudi, a Christian, is bracing for further intimidation by religious zealots.

Already hundreds of liquor store owners have closed shop or fled the country amid bombings and assassination attempts by Islamists. If the country officially embraces Islamic law, Aboudi said, he will join the exodus. "This is what is driving so many people out of the country," he said.

You don't approve of the translations, so they're "messed up"

In that case, it was just prejudicial language, really not changing the meaning.

You ask for sources. When I post them,

You have not yet posted something saying a woman cannot initiate divorce.

and then go on to state that islamic law "isn't so bad".

No, I state it isn't as bad as the ignorant out to villify the religion say it is. I do not believe it "isn't so bad."

Of course, your arguments have been based on your opinions, google searches and the encyclopedia.

... college courses in Islam (BTW, taught by a guy who was not sympathetic to Muslims), personally knowing Muslims, and, unlike you, actually having been to Muslim states where shari'a is law.

Meanwhile, your knowledge seems to be entirely from books written by hate-filled Christians who don't like the religious competition.

Are you not aware that your comments and posts to and from myself and other posters can be and ARE referred to?

Your statement regarding sharia as not so bad... "No, I state it isn't as bad as the ignorant out to villify the religion say it is. I do not believe it "isn't so bad."

Then why did you state that you thought it "isn't so bad?"

You might want to re-read not only your original statement, but statements and comments from other posters as well...just to refresh your memory.

"You have not yet posted something saying a woman cannot initiate divorce."

Oh haven't I? I have...repeatedly.

You, antiRepublicrat, haven't supported any of your statements with ANY sources.

You state that your knowledge, (or lack thereof, as you've demonstrated), comes from "college courses in Islam (BTW, taught by a guy who was not sympathetic to Muslims), personally knowing Muslims, and, unlike you, actually having been to Muslim states where shari'a is law."

Yet you don't even know the difference between secular Turkey and sharia Saudi Arabia...

Now you, who knows me not, presume to know my faith, life experiences, travel ventures and friendships...

I don't recall sharing ANY of that information with you.

Why would you make such a stupid statement?

Apparently the following statement you made sums it all up very well:

"Meanwhile, your knowledge seems to be entirely from books written by hate-filled Christians who don't like the religious competition."

"hate-filled Christians who don't like the religious competition."

And there we see you clearly, don't we AntiRepublicrat? You're an ignorant, narrow-minded religious bigot.

Don't bother me any more...I have no use for hateful bigots.

Then why did you state that you thought it "isn't so bad?"

I never said it isn't bad in an absolute sense. I only state it isn't as bad as you say it is.

Oh haven't I? I have...repeatedly.

You've shown she has to go to court to get a divorce. In other words, she initates the divorce by going to court. Is English really that hard?

Why would you make such a stupid statement?

Because your level of ignorance shows that you most likely haven't been there.

You, antiRepublicrat, haven't supported any of your statements with ANY sources.

My sources are simple fact that you have confirmed. You listed schools of Islamic jurisprudence after I told you of their existence. The very fact that they exist means that shari'a is NOT the same all over Islam and that Hadith are weighted differently by different groups. Yet you still insist that there is one shari'a to rule them all.

And there we see you clearly, don't we AntiRepublicrat? You're an ignorant, narrow-minded religious bigot.

So says the person who villifies another religion by spreading lies about it.

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.