You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
The GC’s view of women in Iraq
2004-01-25
EFL
Zeyad has an interesting post on his Healing Iraq blogsite regarding the GC’s supplanting Iraq personal circumstances (family affairs) law with Sharia.

It’s an article written by Raqiya Al-Qaisi, an Iraqi scholar based in London.
The issue of family affairs is one of the most important issues that reflect progress or retardation of society, especially in the case of the relationship between men and women and personal circumstances (alahwal alshakhsiya). The Iraqi personal circumstances law which has been in effect for over 40 years represents an advanced one in its advocation of woman rights. We hoped for more reforms on the existing judiciary code in order for women to obtain additional rights which would conform with the prerequisites of the new Iraq, we did not expect to go steps backward as is the case today in Iraq?

The transitional GC recently passed a decision to abolish the personal circumstances law, and according to this decision which reflects the ’desire of Islamic parties’ the GC agreed that Islamic Sharia (Allah’s law) would rule in cases of personal circumstances of man instead of the existing civil code. And that spiritual Islamic ethics would be included in the future government they intend to form in Iraq.

The GC gave the role of legal courts, according to this law, to clerics and tribal leaders. Which means that the destiny of women in Iraq will be subject to fatwas and personal interpretations of Islamic Sharia texts by Mullahs and tribal sheikhs, when it should be according to a fixed personal circumstances code. This project evoked storming rage and condemnation from Iraqi women because of the stark differences between the two. In the case of the personal circumstances law, legal courts rule depending on evidence and proof, because law is science, and science depends on certain knowledge. Whereas in the second case rulings are made from beliefs based on personal interpretation and misconstruction of Islamic law.
How can there be justice when decisions are based on a whim rather than a fixed code?
It rather lengthy, if you’re interested in more, it’s linked at the title.
Posted by:Gasse Katze

#7  Curiously, I believe he may have enlisted the support of the Soddies. See Prince Saud's comments, above.
Posted by: Fred   2004-1-25 10:45:43 AM  

#6  What the hell is Bush doing about this? Nothing! I don't understand this at all, he should be right on top of this.
Posted by: Charles   2004-1-25 9:36:50 AM  

#5  I believe acceding to sharia is part of the back door deals being made with the likes of Sistani in trade for the cave dwellers’ giving the (temporary) appearance of accepting the GC, and delaying the calls for jihad. But it’s a deal with the devil, as we have seen every time totalitarian scumbags are appeased.

I still maintain that progress in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the hell holes around the Middle East, will be measured by how woman are treated in the law, and in the courts.
Posted by: Hyper   2004-1-25 8:54:38 AM  

#4  phil thats part of the problem. One of the reasons the CPA has been pushing for caucuses is because they CAN'T seem to secure a secret ballot system. Personally I think we need to come down on them hard if necessary MAKE the constitution for them like we did Japan.
Posted by: Val   2004-1-25 6:58:10 AM  

#3  Which brings me back to creating a constitution first. Write into the constitution that men and women are politically and legally equal (the same). Make changes to the constitution dependant on a popular vote say 2/3rds majority and it pretty much guarantees that it can't be changed seeing as women can vote on it.

Kathy I'm assuming a secure secret ballot here.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-1-25 6:22:46 AM  

#2  Only if they can make sure women can vote, and can vote securely and privately, phil. Otherwise they'll either get ordered to stay home or ordered to vote a particular way.
Posted by: Kathy K   2004-1-25 5:54:41 AM  

#1  Whilst I have been arguing against early direct elections. IMO the big argument in favor of early direct elections is that it may forestall disenfranchizing and limiting the rights of women.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-1-25 5:46:41 AM  

00:00