| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq’s Governing Council Puts Family Law Under Islamic Law |
| 2004-01-18 |
| The US-backed Iraqi Governing Council has outraged Iraqi women because of its recent vote to cancel current family laws and to place family law under the jurisdiction of Islamic (sharia) law. According to the Washington Post, Iraqi women denounced the decision at various protests and conferences. At one conference, entitled "The Importance of Women in Society," only three Iraqi male lawmakers met over 150 women concerned about the Governing Council’s recent decision to not back their legal rights. I came across this while reading a German paper and googling brings up feminist.org as the only reference? Hello anglo-american press? Moving these laws under Islamic law could create clashes between the various Islamic schools of thought regarding marriage, divorce, and other family issues. Zakia Ismael Hakki, a female judge, stated, "This new law will send Iraqi families back to the Middle Ages. It will allow men to have four or five or six wives. It will take away children from their mothers. It will allow anyone who calls himself a cleric to open an Islamic court in his house and decide who can marry and divorce and have rights," reports the Washington Post. If the USA condones the re-introduction of sharia in Iraq it might as well leave and stop talking about Iraq as the shining beacon for the Arab world. For the past forty years, Iraq’s civil code had legal protections for women such as prohibiting marriage below the age of 18, arbitrary divorce, and polygamy. According to Agence France Presse, Iraq’s civil code in 1959 [pre-Saddam] was at one point considered the most progressive in the Middle East. The chief US administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, has to approve decisions made by the council. He has not yet responded to requests for comments. You better don’t approve that Paul, or you make a joke out of the liberation of Iraq. If you think that "concessions" like these have to be made in order to appease the islamist factions in Iraq, sorry, I have no understanding for this. In that case, the new constitution and "free elections" can go right in the trash can. |
| Posted by:True German Ally |
| #6 Dar THis governing council is unelected. And that means that teh Americans should remind to the GC that it has not enough legitimacy to make long-term commitments for Iraq. And a law is a long term commitment. Its legitimacy is just enough for short term measures aimed at restoring normal life in country. Say, taking care of sewage. Long term commitments are for the future elected government. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-1-18 2:06:01 PM |
| #5 We didn't go in there to liberate just 50% of the Iraqis. Besides, in dealing with the Islamists, Women's Rights really is the MOAB. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-1-18 1:58:43 PM |
| #4 A couple of Iraqi bloggers registered their feelings regarding this step backwards . Zayed commented on this on Friday with satire and analysis. And Riverbend's outrage is expressed in her post last Thursday. If we're to convince the Iraqis that the future bodes better than the past, then we have to stop this misogynic crap. |
| Posted by: Gasse Katze 2004-1-18 1:41:44 PM |
| #3 I just don't understand the administration's thinking on this one. It is ridiculous. If this is some effort to appease Sistani, it is foolish. |
| Posted by: Remote Man 2004-1-18 1:23:19 PM |
| #2 I don't believe that the clerics speak for the Iraqi people on this matter.American readers,you may want to call your Congresspersons to express your views. |
| Posted by: El Id 2004-1-18 1:12:55 PM |
| #1 Sickening. It's bad enough Afghanistan is restoring Taliban Lite™, but I fully expected Iraq to be more modern in outlook. While it is up to the Iraqis themselves and not we Americans to determine what their future will be, it must be a democratic decision--and excluding half the population in that decision ain't democracy. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-1-18 1:05:34 PM |