Posted on 08/22/2002 5:55:34 PM PDT by SBeck
The War on Women
By LASHAWN R. JEFFERSON
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government threw its full energies into combating terrorism emerging from militants in the Islamic world. But it has done little to expose and condemn the ways some states are using radical interpretations of Islamic law, or Shariah, to subordinate and exclude women. The U.S. should be equally concerned about the consequences of these interpretations on Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
Just this week, an appellate Shariah court in northern Nigeria upheld a "death by stoning" sentence against a woman for having sex outside marriage. The case of Amina Lawal, the 30-year-old Nigerian woman sentenced to death, should raise grave concerns about how Islamic law is used in Nigeria and in other countries to brutalize and subordinate women. No country that values human dignity and the equality of all its citizens can afford to have a legal system in place that endorses discrimination, torture, and cruel and inhuman punishment. Immediate reform of the aspects of Shariah that deny women equality under law and in practice is needed.
Combined with local traditions, the effect of such verdicts is to make women afraid. A public sentencing sends a message to all women: that if they step outside the strictures of Shariah, they, too, can expect a painful and ignominious death. If she loses her final appeal, Ms. Lawal can expect to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death, leaving behind three motherless children. But countless other women in Nigeria will fear for their own lives as a result.
Shariah need not be bad for women. Throughout the world, Muslim women want to live observant lives with human dignity and respect for their rights. Many Muslim women I know and work with are faithful Muslims and categorically reject the abuse of Shariah to sow their oppression.
In Saudi Arabia in March, at least 14 girls may have died unnecessarily in a school fire because of extreme interpretations of the Islamic dress code. Members of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice interfered with rescue efforts because the fleeing students were not wearing the obligatory public attire (long black cloaks and head coverings) for Saudi girls and women. Also in Saudi Arabia, women's testimonies in court are equal to half those of a man.
A woman in Pakistan who has been raped and wants the state to prosecute her case must have four Muslim men testify that they witnessed the assault. Absent these male witnesses, effectively the rape victim has no case. Equally alarming, if she cannot prove the rape allegation, she runs a very high risk of being charged with fornication or adultery, the criminal penalty for which is either a long prison sentence, including public whipping, or, though rarely, death by stoning.
The application of Shariah is not limited to criminal matters, but in some countries some aspects of Shariah also govern civil matters. Morocco's "personal status code" (the Mudawwana) is one example. Under it, women are treated as legal minors and denied legal autonomy to conclude their own marriage contracts. This code establishes male authority over female family members, requires women to obey their husbands in all matters, and sharply limits women's -- though not men's -- access to divorce. Moroccan law further discriminates against women in the marriage process by allowing men to have up to four wives simultaneously.
There will no doubt be significant and vigorous disagreement about whether the above examples are faithful interpretations and applications of Shariah. While this is being debated, millions of women living under Shariah contend with laws and practice that make a mockery of international human rights protections and endanger their lives.
There are varying interpretations among Islamic jurists about whether these applications are correct, but they are grossly unfair to women, antithetical to human-rights principles, and should be reformed.
How do we protect vulnerable women in countries like Nigeria where a radical interpretation of Shariah is being enforced? The international community must pressure governments to reform criminal laws and strengthen secular justice systems so that the rule of law applies across society. Civil societies must be strengthened, and local women's groups that are pushing for reform should be supported. The U.N., European Union, and other multilateral bodies should redouble their efforts to support long-term projects that improve women's legal and other status.
The U.S. identified the restoration of Afghan women's basic rights as one of the principal goals of ousting the Taliban. This must be a goal not only for Afghanistan, but also for the other parts of the world where the growing power of discriminatory law, including certain interpretations of Shariah, is a pernicious and chronic threat to women's very existence.
Ms. Jefferson is the executive director of Human Rights Watch's Women's Rights Division.
Fire away.
This is inaccurate. Although it may be Pakistani law, it is not shari'a. Mohammed very specifically stated in the Koran that 4 male witnesses were required to convict a woman of adultery. This is very obviously a strong protection for a woman against false accusations of adultery(or true accusation, for that matter.)
There is no specific requirement in Islamic Law for number of witnesses to a charge of rape.
On NOW at RadioFR!
Joining Doug from Upland will be Marsha Richards of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation! The teachers union in the State of Washington does not like the people at EFF. They would love to whack their knuckles with a ruler, give extra homework, keep them in at recess, and give them detention!
Miss a show? Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!
Cool. That means we can kick @ss in Saudi Arabia, etc. based on women's rights. How could the liberals argue against that?
"Islamic law is used in Nigeria and in other countries to brutalize and subordinate women."I've got news for you, Lashawn: It's not just women. What about non-Muslims? Did you know that Christians are enslaved by Muslims in 21st century Africa?
"No country that values human dignity and the equality of all its citizens can afford to have a legal system in place that endorses discrimination, torture, and cruel and inhuman punishment. "More news, Lashawn: Muslims fully intend to establish a world-wide Islamic theocracy with the Koran as its only constitution and the shariah as its law.
"Immediate reform of the aspects of Shariah that deny women equality under law and in practice is needed."Just how do you intend to bring about this reform, Lashawn? The shariah is an integral part of the Muslim religion. Do you think Muslims are going to listen to you?
"the growing power of discriminatory law, including certain interpretations of Shariah is a pernicious and chronic threat to women's very existence. "And not only women's. The very existence of anyone who does not accept Islam.
"How do we protect vulnerable women in countries like Nigeria where a radical interpretation of Shariah is being enforced?"You don't.
"The international community must pressure governments to reform criminal laws and strengthen secular justice systems so that the rule of law applies across society."Islamic theocracies do not accept secular justice systems. They particularly revile the seperation of religion and state. The avowed goal of Muslims is the establishment of a worldwide Islamic theocracy with the shariah as law. There will be no seperation of religion and state. There will be no secular justice system. Non-Muslims do not receive the same protection under Muslim law as do Muslims.
"the effect of such verdicts is to make women afraid."They should be afraid. So should men. You should be afriad.
"A public sentencing sends a message to all women: that if they step outside the strictures of Shariah, they, too, can expect a painful and ignominious death."Not just women.
Islam is an imperialist, intolerant, political movement as much as a religion. Its strategy is violence.
If the people of the world do not wake up and stop the spread of Islam, they are going to wake up living under the shariah.
That may or may not be how it is interpreted today, but it is definitely not in the Koran.
It's actually quite a funny story. Mohammed's favorite wife, Ayesha, got left behind on the march and was alone for some hours with a handsome young soldier. Obviously, this caused gossip in the army and many expected Mohammed to divorce her or even have her executed. Something like the way Julius Caesar's wife had to be above suspicion.
Instead, he had a convenient revelation from Allah that made it essential for there to be four male eyewitnesses before a woman could be convicted of adultery. He also put in very strong penalties for anyone who accuses a woman of this crime and then is unable to prove the accusation.
This is what the Koran says. Modern laws in Muslim states may differ, but Muslim Law (shari'a) is eternal and unchanging. (In theory.)
True. Except that it won't happen. What we have today is essentially a case of a mouse attacking an elephant. The elephant has other things on his mind and really can't be bothered with a stupid mouse. So he just keeps swatting it away without destroying it.
However, the more effective the mouse becomes at attacking, the closer comes the time when the elephant has had it up to here and destroys the mouse.
Even leaving nukes out of the equation, all Muslim countries combined have perhaps 1% of the military potential of the US alone. They can't even grow their own food or make any but the very simplest of their own weapons.
They will be a threat only as long as we allow them to be and not one second more. Personally, I'd like to see them destroyed before they manage another massive attack on the US, but I doubt that will happen.
This form of decadence and the millions that subscribe to it are capable of destroying the elephant and delivering it to the mouse.
If it were not for "Liberals", we would have no need to fear Muslims (or anyone else); in fact the September 11 massacre would never have occurred and bin Laden would be about as significant as Charlie Manson, Richard Speck, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacey.
If we could eliminate "Liberals" now, we would swat that disgusting little mouse into oblivion without a second thought.
As long as "Liberals" hold significant power, we will be threatened by two-bit Manson-wannabes like bin Laden, Saddam, and the rest of the Muslim world.
How do you propose we eliminate "Liberals"? Gas chambers and ovens, perhaps. Be careful where you step here, last I've heard most of the cretins you mentioned were white and male which fits the profile for most of us conservatives.
Absolutely. However, we have the saving grace that very few liberals are really anxious to die for their fantasies, although they're quite willing to have you, me and others die for them.
If the Islamists become truly effective in attacking us, the biggest noticeable result would be a really dramatic decline in liberalism. The problem is that 9-11 was an event. It is now in the past and as a country we are slipping back into bad habits.
So we are in the odd position where effective attacks on us make us stronger, and ineffective or nonexistent attacks make us weaker. If they were smart, the Islamists would leave us alone and we'd probably manage to destroy ourselves.
Luckily, they aren't smart.
I particularly like your observation that "Liberals" are quite willing for you and me to die for their fantasies. If they have their way, we will die for their fantasies, and so will they.
I think you're right again that an effective attack by Islamists would result in a dramatic decline in "Liberalism". It would have the effect of jerking these jerks out of their fantasy world and into reality.
It can be argued that Muslims by definition are not smart; if they were, they wouldn't believe all that Islamic hogwash. The same can be said of "Liberals". In fact, the two have much in common.
But fools can be dangerous, especially in large numbers and especially when they are led by scoundrels, and this describes both Muslims and "Liberals". They are both dangerous. Of the two, "Liberals" are the more dangerous. They are the Muslims' enablers, and if it were not for them, the Muslim threat would be insignificant to nonexistent.
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.