by Taylor Marsh
After what happened in the Swat region, this was easily foreseen, especially with President Karzai's popularity plummeting and an election on the horizon. The Independent's article today also throws a shadow, maybe even complications, across Obama's Afghanistan strategy. From The Independent:
... Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.
In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent."It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable." [...]
That extremism is hitting the Af-Pak region just as President Obama unveils his new strategy, with Secretary Clinton in the Hague making our case today, should be a chilling signal to us all.
When Sharia law was agreed to in Swat, Ahmed Rashid, a leading voice in all things Taliban, wrote what it meant to the unraveling in Pakistan, which we saw take yet another lurch yesterday.
While the government insists the legal change will allow only a limited application of Islamic justice through the local courts, the Taliban interprets it as allowing the full application of Sharia, affecting all aspects of education, administration and law and order in the region.However the deal may be interpreted, it is an unmistakable defeat in the country's losing battle against Islamic extremism. Even though the military regime of former President Pervez Musharraf entered into several controversial, short-lived cease-fires with the Pakistani Taliban in the Pashtun tribal belt, Musharraf's army never conceded major changes in the legal or political system.
In all the arguments against Obama's Afghan strategy, many coming from the left, what the President's commitment means to women is rarely in the mix. But how can any country be stable without women as part of the political mix? The answer is simple and sobering. It can't.
We'll have to see if any reporter on the trip with Clinton asks her about this latest development aimed at women, compliments of Pres. Karzai. Mrs. Clinton has shown her commitment to women's rights as human rights as first lady, so it's a perfect question to ask. As an independent journalist, unfortunately, I don't have a seat at that table, because I don't have a new media (or traditional) sponsor. But if I did it would be the first question I'd ask.
First, Afghanistan is not representative of Islam- it fails to meet the minimal standards. As does the Swat region.
Second, Karzai and the Taliban selectively picked various laws and codified them for their own political expediency. It is not from Islam to do this. Nor is it from Islam to make a law forcing wives to have sex with their husbands, ie. legalizing rape.
Third, Afghanistan is a failed society with 60% illiteracy in men, 80% for women. There is almost no infrastructure and family is the only stable societal institution. It needs strong families to save the people from criminal predation and further desolution of society. How this is determined is not up to the American people unless they intend to make it a colony.
Fourth, secular Western values and standards as exemplified in Europe show marriage to decrease, prostitution to increase, and sexual slavery of women to be a growing enterprise. Turkey, a secular Muslim nation, may have had female leaders, but they have legalized prostitution and is a gateway to EU smuggling sex slaves for prostitution.
Fifth, Western secularists fail to realize that massive modern governments have been necessary to enable women to gain their legal rights yet and still many women in the West suffer 100s of 1000s of sexual assaults, over 1000 intimate homicides, and perhaps millions of abuse cases annually . Is America the best example?
2. Quran is very explicit in explaining that women must be sub-servient to their husbands in all matters, including sex.
3. This is another case of quran. Quran can only be taught in arabic so the afghans memorize it in madrassas but have no idea what they are reading. This is why there is so much illiteracy.
4. Just because west has flaws doesn't mean it's inferior to islamic governments. Far from it.
5. Treatment of women in islamic countries is worse, what's your point?
NOW!
I think they take out all their bitterness and frustration through violence against women and others. They are at the bottom of world development, therefore use this domination to have some sense of power.
Shia law has never included women; women have always been second class citizens.
There was a 12 yr old little girl somewhere in the Middle East who was buried up to her neck and then stoned to death because she had been raped and had the nerve to report this to the police.
The courts ruled in favor of the rapist and this little girl died.
Muslims have been abusing women for thousands of years but you do not hear about in the main stream media because god forbid we offend anyone.
Remember the cable TV network created to promote better understanding of Muslims in America
and beheaded his wife.
Where was N.O.W, I thought they stood for women’s rights?
A regime capable of such senseless, wanton cruelty has no place in a supposedly civilized world. Why are we sending troops to aid these countries? We should be leveling them.
Religion needs to be eradicated, also. It never has been, and will never be, anything but the most destructive force on earth.
These are serious issues we are dealing with, and whether it's racism, discrimination, or any other form of injustice, the way to deal with it is not to dismiss those with other cultures or worldviews--no matter how repellant--but to engage them and try to change that culture. Getting off your own high horse and not being so bloody ignorant would be a good start.
The government also accepted adultery being made a crime under the penal code, subject to up to five years in prison.
It has also agreed to a catch-all clause stating injunctions in the Koran and Sunnah, the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, would have effect "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law".
Rights activists said the concessions would water down the impact of the changes and would be confusing, with rape and adultery being crimes under both Islamic law and the penal code.
"They have hoodwinked women into believing that this is a law for the protection of women. It is a law for the protection of religious extremists." Asma Jahangir, chairwoman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404839/Rape-victims-face-adultery-charge-unless-4-male-witnesses.html
'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1029023/Muslim-council-Malaysia-orders-women-stop-wearing-lipstick-high-heels-prevent-getting-raped.html
All the more reason why we should cut our losses and vacate Afghanistan as soon as possible, for we can't control it, and the administration's current proposals of seeking alliance with the so-called "moderate" elements of the Taliban entails a deal-with-the-devil too steep to stomach.
A six-party coalition of Islamic groups, the Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) or United Action Forum, planned the rally after claiming the new legislation would violate Islamic law.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-419958/Pakistani-president-signs-controversial-rape-law.html
Sura 2:282 - Woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man's in court.
Sura (24:4) - "And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses (to adultery), flog them..."
Sura (24:13) - "Why did she not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought witnesses they are liars before Allah.
Certainly, many religious traditions are regressive. Most have made considerable progress towards modernity. Burt not all. Many Islamic states and communities actually pride themselves for following such primitive laws.
Verse 24:4 is not about free women, but about "married women": if their accuser can't bring four witnesses to substantiate the claim, he is to be flogged for perjury.
Verse 24:13 does not say "why did she not bring four witnesses," but "why did they [her accusers] not bring four witnesses?" That is, if they can't prove it they are to be punished for libel.
If she can't ( need Muslim male witness for that) then the victim becomes criminally liable for adultery ( zina) . Result: P-stan and now A-stan (+Jordan, Saud, Iran, Somalia etc) now threaten women for reporting this crime.
This is what happened when Arabic tribal customs became enshrined in Islam and then expended all over the world with the waves of Arabo-Islamic imperialism.
This is the opinion of some Sunni and all Shia jurists, and so you're mistaken about including Iran in your list (Iran is a Shia country).
This'll probably be misconstrued as a defence of extremism, but I'll say it anyway: rather than mouthing off arrogantly and ignorantly, maybe constructive and respectful engagement is the way to effect positive cultural change. It is possible to vehemently disagree on values without being disagreeable.