The Sharia is a version of Islamic law that has gained much force throughout the Middle East and beyond. It is, among other things, singularly bad for women. Not only does it force women into the hajib, it makes rape a death-penalty offense– for the victim…
One of the major reasons I was in favor of pre-9/11 US intervention in Afghanistan was to help get rid of such barbaric customs. Hell, one of the successes president Bush claims in Afghanistan is how much better the women there are treated. Under Sharia law, women’s lives can quickly degenerate; random terror can be arbitrarily meted out by courts or a head of household…
The question is, then, if Iraq falls under Sharia law, and one-half the Iraqi population is subject to some of the cruelest laws on earth, will we have accomplished anything? Is Sharia better than Saddam?
{ 14 comments }
I think the question of Shari being better or worse than Saddam would have to wait for an adequate sample size, i.e. twenty years. Personally, I’d rather not, and consider the question to be more if there is any way to stop it before we get to find out firsthand which is worse, or if it’s a rock/hard place conundrum.
Let’s see: the right to free speech, the right to free press, universal franchise, the right to stand for election, and both torture and physical mutilation outlawed under the new Iraqi Constitution, whether they declare Islam “a” source or “the” source.
Also, the new Constitution has been written by Iraqis, with the assistance of a large number of elected Iraqi women, and all Iraqi women will have a chance to vote on whether they accept it or not.
The question seems self-evident to me. Yes, they’d be better off under Saddam–NOT!
As I’ve noted many times, there are at least four major schools of sharia interpretation, many much more liberal than what is practiced in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia. The very fact that Iaqi women will have free speech, free press, the right to vote, and the right to run for office, under a Constitution that can be modified by democratic means, and that Iraqi women get to decide whether to accept the constitution, says it all for me.
This new Constitution has been written by Iraqis, for Iraqis, and will be either accepted or rejected by Iraqis nationwide.
In a democracy, you have the right to make bad decisions. You also have to pay the consequences of that.
I’d be much happier with wording that said “A” source rather than “THE” source, though. There are those who are not Muslim who would be forced to live under religious rules if Sharia is the only source. [We see not dissimilar issues in Israel, where the conservatives seek to impose strict adherence to religious law by all Israelis, even though many do not share their interpretations. Examples include cars being stoned for being driven on the Sabbath.]
And just as a point of fact, Saudi Arabia is technically following the Hanbali school, but as all orthodox Sunnis must, it accepts the interpretations of the three other schools as legitimate, if not prefered. If a particular school’s line of thought gives a better result (however defined), it is used. Wahhabism is not a “school” or madhab. It is, rather, an approach within a given school.
Way, way, way too much is being made of this.
This is not the Taliban/Pakistani version of Sharia, where among other atrocious laws a woman needs 4 male witnesses to a rape to be considered credible in the eyes of the court. What they’re talking about in Iraq is basically family law, stuff like whether a woman gets half inheritance or full and etc.
Afghanistan today has stricter sharia laws than are being considered in Iraq.
According to Omar in Baghdad, this question has been resolved. The new Constitution will say that no law can be passed which goes against the widely understood values of Islam, and none can be made which go against the values of democracy and human rights.
Thie issue is moot: they came across a convoluted compromise most could live with. Which is how these things usually work.
The question now goes to whether it will be ratified, and how well the Sunni minority accepts the many compromises.
Well they put in Sharia the Kurds will bolt that is for sure.
This is not the Taliban/Pakistani version of Sharia, where among other atrocious laws a woman needs 4 male witnesses to a rape to be considered credible in the eyes of the court.
The Taliban’s version of Sharia was a little less strict than the currently practiced Saudi version.
The Pakistani version is “liberal” As far as I know, women have the right to vote and women are active participants in the political process. Two women have been elected as Prime Minister in Pakistan.
Despite that, women in Pakistan still suffer under the horrific system that Dean describes above. All Shariah laws are apartheid laws and they’re all a violation of basic human rights.
The United Nations should do something to oppose Shariah in all forms; NGOs are also supposed to support basic human rights, but we know how effective these organization have been. What are we paying them for?
Hmm, “in all forms?” Is it not possible to take the most liberal forms of it, and help modernize them instead?
Most of Sharia, like a lot of Christian customs, evolved in an era where the average lifespan was about 30, where people got married and started having kids around the age of 12-14, and so on. The same is true of the (culturally) Christian values most of us here in the US grew up with.
Even the most liberal Sharia laws are directly opposed to fundamental human rights and the notion of equality. If they were reformed, they wouldn’t be Sharia laws anymore. I’d be happy with that, but most Mullahs, who get a lot of power from these oppressive laws, wouldn’t be.
Sometimes, Sharia isn’t a law – sometimes it is just a matter of personal habit or custom. That’s the only form that can really be called liberal. That’s the form that comparable to the Christian customs we grew up with.
1)”The Sharia is a version of Islamic law….”
I think Sharia IS Islamic law, there being different versions of Sharia.
2)It’s probably far more common to be killed illegally by relatives than executed by the legal system for extramarital sex. So a secular Saddam isn’t going to help.
3)Hijab vs. Saddam – easy choice, especially when air conditioners are relatively available.
Mary, you embarass yourself when you say things like “The Taliban’s version of Sharia was a little less strict than the currently practiced Saudi version.”
If you can’t see a difference between a country that
encourages women to be educated,
encourages women to hold jobs,
has among the highest female literacy rates in the Arab world
from a country that
kills women for attending schools
kills women for wearing makeup
kills women for working outside the home
kills women for listening to music
kills women for attempting to teach reading
then you’ve actually lost it and again devolve into pure-and-simple Saudi bashing.
John – we’ve already had this discussion, but once again I’ll point out that the Taliban did allow the practice of other religions. It was, of course, severely restricted, but it was allowed.
According to the State Department, Saudi Arabia “does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice.”
I’m not trying to say that the Taliban were not evil. They were, and the world is a better place without them. The Taliban were extreme because they were trying to establish Wahhabi-style purity in a culture that was unaccustomed to these restrictions. If we compare their regime to the mass murder, oppression and grave desecration that accompanied the establishment of Saudi Arabia, the Saudis still look savage in comparison. From a “>Muslim site:
“The Wahhabi’s believed that visiting the graves and the shrines of the Prophets, the Imams, or the saints was a form of idolatry and totally un-Islamic. Those who did not conform to their belief were killed and their property was confiscated…
1924 AD Wahhabi’s entered Hijaz for a second time and carried out another merciless plunder and massacre. People in streets were killed. Houses were razed to the ground. Women and children too were not spared.
Awn bin Hashim (Shairf of Makkah) writes: “Before me, a valley appeared to have been paved with corpses, dried blood staining everywhere all around. There was hardly a tree which didn’t have one or two dead bodies near its roots.”
1925 Madina surrendered to the Wahhabi onslaught. All Islamic heritages were destroyed. The only shrine that remained intact was that of the Holy Prophet (saw).
Ibn Jabhan says: “We know that the tomb standing on the Prophet’s grave is against our principles, and to have his grave in a mosque is an abominable sin.”
Tombs of Hamza and other martyrs were demolished at Uhud. The Prophet’s mosque was bombarded. On protest by Muslims, assurances were given by Ibn Saud that it will be restored but the promise was never fulfilled. A promise was given that Hijaz will have an Islamic multinational government. This was also abandoned.
1925 AD Jannat al-Mu’alla, the sacred cemetery at Makkah was destroyed along with the house where the Holy Prophet (saw) was born. Since then, this day is a day of mourning for all Muslims.
Is it not strange that the Wahhabi’s find it offensive to have the tombs, shrines and other places of importance preserved, while the remains of their Saudi kings are being guarded at the expense of millions of dollars?
….
Are the Muslims who describe these atrocities Saudi bashers? Is the State department Saudi-bashing? If so, then the world is filled with Saudi bashers.
So, who is to blame for worldwide Saudi bashing? The world or the Saudis?
We (the United States of America) must use our imperialist military might to see to it that this new Constitution of Iraq does not become a mere paper formality like the one Stalin drew up for the U.S.S.R. or the numerous “Constitutions” of African states after the West disastrously “liberated” them from our “oppression” after World War II. We must see to it that the rights of women, as well of minority religions and of property owners, are respected in fact. We must see to it that rape is prohibited and that rapists are prosecuted and punished in fact. Muslim males must be taught to respect women — or else.
I hate all rapists.
Comments on this entry are closed.