Muslim veil descends on Iraqi women

[Guest $iLk]

Renewed zealotry threatens hard-won rights, writes James Hider

quote:

---

SUHAIDA Maya never used to wear a hijab, the headscarf that Muslim women don as a mark of religious modesty. An English teacher from Shattra, a town in central Iraq, she always wore whatever she wanted.

Now she and her daughter both cover up for fear of the rising number of Islamist puritans in the south.

"We have to cover up," she said, her defiance shown by the bright pink of her unwanted hijab, and the women's rights group she runs. "The Islamic parties even come into schools' sports lessons and tell girls that they have to wear skirts over their tracksuits. It's like being in Iran."

Many women in Iraq, especially in the Shia south, are increasingly concerned that Islamic parties are imposing their strict religious ways on women who once enjoyed some of the most liberal rights in the region.

Leaked drafts of Iraq's forthcoming constitution bear out fears that restrictions on their rights may soon be enshrined in the law. The latest copy of the charter, due to be finalised in three weeks, revealed wording that could roll back a 1959 secular law that enshrined women's equality. Article 19 of the new draft states that "the followers of any religion or sect are free to choose their civil status according to their religious or sectarian beliefs".

In other words, domestic issues, including the issues of divorce and women's inheritance, could fall under Islamic codes that human rights advocates say would make women second-class citizens. Under some rigid interpretations of Islamic law, a husband can divorce his wife merely by stating three times in front of her that their union is terminated.

Women's testimony in court is also given less weight than men's, at a time when rights groups say domestic violence is rising rapidly. Obtaining convictions in rape cases would be particularly difficult, analysts say.

Another problem would be that many Iraqi marriages are mixed, and it was not clear who would decide which sectarian law would resolve domestic disputes.

"These are the dark days we are going through," said Yennar Mohammad, the head of the Baghdad-based Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq.

"Imagine you have a committee where half the constitution writers are Islamist groups and some of them are nationalist groups with a tribal mentality. We are looking at a committee, or selected misogynist group, that have only one thing in common ... that they want to keep women in an inferior status in this society."

A concern for Ms Mohammad is the possibility of young girls being married off. She said: "Under Islam, when the Prophet married his last wife, she was nine years old. In the United States they give a name to this kind of sexual union. Under Islam this is legal and anyone can do it."

The issue is symbolic of the dilemma facing Western diplomats, who insist that Iraq has the democratic right to write its own constitution, but worry that dominant religious conservatives may use that very freedom to crush democratic development.

Zalman Khalilzad, the new US Ambassador to Iraq, voiced his fears for women's rights. "A society cannot achieve all its potential if it does things that prevents -- weakens the prospects of -- half of its population to make the fullest contribution that it can."

Not all women want equal rights, however. Ethar Moussa, the editor of the magazine Our Eve, sponsored by a leading Shia Islamist party, argues that there is no equality in divine law and creating it could lead to corrupting Western influences.

"When we come to have outright equality, the door would be wide open for many liberties that are basically unacceptable," she said, her face veiled and her body covered. "The Islamic principle states that there should be justice, not outright equality between men and women ... all we want is justice."

That is not enough for Ms Mohammad. She said: "We are practically being turned into slaves by the constitution, by admitting that Islam is the formal religion of the country and by handing over the writing of it ... to a bunch of religious bigots who want to see women inferior in society."

Women's advocacy groups have started demonstrating publicly, but fear their lobbying is being overshadowed by more pressing issues. "Unfortunately we don't have a militia," Masoon al-Denuchi, Deputy Minister of Culture and president of the Iraqi Women's Group, said bitterly.

---

"Combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland, and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein - and the people of Iraq are free."

- George W. Bush

[Guest $iLk]

[Guest]

Bush has NEVER said Mission accomplished,NEVER!!

He said that MAJOR operations were over, and that is true, but the mission is NOT accomplished until Iraq has a security force in place, and the government is in place.

BTW, the Burqa thing, AIN'T gonna happen, the Kurds won't have it.

Iraq will become a true federalist republic, NOT an Islamic state.

BTW $iLk, I don't know why you're so pissed off, but your being brainwashed, CUT IT OUT!!!

I know you can think for yourself, I know you can think logically and unemotionally, please do so.

You are an emotional basket case, and I for one would like to know WTF is going on....

If you are having some troubles, let's talk about them, but you're all over the place dude.

[Guest $iLk]

1.) I haven't quoted Bush as saying "Mission Accomplished". You are correct that he hasn't said it. But prior to "major combat operations" ending, we lost less than 100 U.S. soldiers. According to the Pentagon - we are at or over 2000 by now.

2.) I don't have as much faith in the Kurds Jag, 90% of documented "honor killings" in Iraq happened in the Kurdish north of Iraq according to Human Rights Watch. The only thing going for the Kurds is that they weren't bombed to Hell and back and are still stable.

3.) I believe that al Sadr and his allies are in the majority in forming the new Constitution. And by all accounts, legislation is to be derived from Islam. And I'm willing to bet not in a "freedom of religion" sort of way.

4.) I'm angered quite a bit... for a laundry list of reasons. I voted to re-elect President Bush, and I can't say that I have anything to show for it. Federal spending is higher than ever, both discretionary and defense. Our borders remain all but undefended, with 10 Million illegals crossing every year. Republicans who control Congress have dropped any pretense of Financial restraint, and are basically gutting the military in order to pork-barrel spend. We've got a war in Iraq that was a war of choice - not of necessity. We've got thousands of our fellow men and women dead or maimed in Iraq.

The point of the matter is that as far as I can tell, the "War on Terror" is over, except as a pretext to pass legislation. No one is seriously worried about it, else the Republicans and Democrats wouldn't be spending us into a hole every year - without really accomplishing much on the anti-terror front.

Do I need to pull up the dozen or so quotes from Bush about not caring where Osama bin Laden is? You're damn right I'd care. He's responsible for the deaths of thousands and Bush has said that he doesn't really consider him a priority.

The goals post-9/11 should have been to annihalate al Qaeda, then take pre-emptive policies and identify other groups and nations to work with in order to annihalate other groups.

Iraq was hardly necessary. 500,000 Iraqis have starved as a result of sanctions, and while I don't hold much respect for the UN - Bush rushed to war instead of giving the inspectors time.

[Guest $iLk]

Short story is, there is a deficit of decency as Zell Miller put it, where there are no statesmen willing to stand up for the values of America above party.

Our goals have hardly been altruistic toward the Iraqi people. There's a larger picture in mind that Conservatives should be dead-set against.

[Guest]

IRAQ was one of the MAIN financial contributors to Terrorism, be it Al Quaeda, Hammas, et al.

Saddam never met a terrorist he didn't like.

He had terrorist training camps throughout Iraq, just as in Afghanistan.

He ignore UN sanctions, used Oil for food, etc, etc ad nauseum.

THERE WAS EVERY reason to take his butt out of the picture, and so we have, and did.

[Guest $iLk]

1.) IRAQ was one of the MAIN financial contributors to Terrorism, be it Al Quaeda, Hammas, et al.

According to whom? Most U.S. Intelligence agencies and reports are divided on the issue. I believe it might have been confirmed that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers against Israel $25000 apiece - but beyond that, little to no links from Saddam Hussein to Islamic Terrorism have been confirmed.

Now if you'll look to the west of Iraq, there is a country called Syria. Near there is a country called Yemen. And a little ways in another direction is a country called Saudi Arabia (15 of the 9/11 hijackers...), and to the East of Iraq is a country called Iran.

Are you going to tell me that we picked on the weakest country with dubious ties to terrorism and are spending $80 Billion per year in an occupation with thousands of our fellow men and women dying while far more real threats with extensive ties to terrorism are left alone?

I'm still going to tell you it's not worth it. We could have assassinated Saddam instead of tearing up a country looking for him.

2.) Saddam never met a terrorist he didn't like.

Except for those assassination attempts on his life several times I suppose...

3.) He had terrorist training camps throughout Iraq, just as in Afghanistan.

Assuming he did, was he a greater threat than Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, or Syria? And why not use that as a pretext for war instead of WMD's (which North Korea & Iran were working on for sure)?

4.) He ignore UN sanctions, used Oil for food, etc, etc ad nauseum.

You do know the United States has been found guilty in the UN's world court for many crimes? By your logic - since we are ignoring the UN - that makes us a rogue state right?

UN sanctions were the international communities way of not solving the problem in the early 1990's. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis starved - some of those surely by Saddam, France, etc. - but we were the ones enforcing those sanctions. The blood is on our hands as well.

THERE WAS EVERY reason to take his butt out of the picture, and so we have, and did.

Positive: Saddam Hussein is going to stand trial

Negative: U.S. is going to spend nearly half a trillion dollars in an occupation, untold numbers of American and Iraqi civilian casualties, and the Iraqi people are going to be living under an Islamic theocracy by all accounts.

I'm still gonna stick with "It wasn't worth it." and am going to point at Assad in Syria, the Saudi government, and Tehran, as well as North Korea.

Jaguar - please point out in the United States Constitution where it is the duty of the United States of America to run around policing the world, occupying countries, and setting up puppet-states?

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the rest of our founding fathers would be appalled at what U.S. policy is with Iraq.

The PNAC statement of principals is not my Constitution.

[John Prezioso]

Lol!!!!

You mock me for my extrapolation of what Reagan's opinion on Iraq would be, then you turn around and have the arrogance to tell us what the Founding Fathers would think.

Classic. Simply classic.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

Classic. Simply classic.

---

I suppose Thomas Jefferson would have been all about sending our army to the Middle East to "spread freedom" - of course I find that hard to believe considering that prior to World War 2 we always dismantled our military after fighting a purely defensive conflict.

[John Prezioso]

Can we just continue this debate here. ?

[Guest Capn Crunch]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Bush has NEVER said Mission accomplished,NEVER!!

He said that MAJOR operations were over, and that is true, but the mission is NOT accomplished until Iraq has a security force in place, and the government is in place.

BTW, the Burqa thing, AIN'T gonna happen, the Kurds won't have it.

Iraq will become a true federalist republic, NOT an Islamic state.

BTW $iLk, I don't know why you're so pissed off, but your being brainwashed, CUT IT OUT!!!

I know you can think for yourself, I know you can think logically and unemotionally, please do so.

You are an emotional basket case, and I for one would like to know WTF is going on....

If you are having some troubles, let's talk about them, but you're all over the place dude.

---

LOL "NEVER" ... you sound like you're scared, dude. "NEVER" hhaahahahaha

How about the fact that he stoood in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" is that good enough for you moron?

[John Prezioso]

So, Crunch - what ARE you going to do with all your free time once your banned, anyway?

[Guest Capn Crunch]

I'm going to purchase an island in the South Pacific and retire there. I think I'll name it WMD island....kind of like fantasy island but more realistic or maybe less realistic given it's name. I'll also hire you and your mother to entertain me with your grass skirt dances in the island tradition. you of course will have to wear the large coconuts because your breasts are larger than your mother's. (should have eased up on the oreo's when mommy's boyfriend told you to)

[Guest Capn Crunch]

Anyway, Bush NEVER said that he would be honest or NEVER said the he had an exit strategy for Iraq. Are you seeing the consequences of your actions now?

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

I'm going to purchase an island in the South Pacific and retire there.

---

And you PROMISE you'll stay there?

[teknocack]

That was uncalled for and it will probably get you banned. Whether you like it or not things are a little different in these forums. If you want to keep it up then please do. That will just shorten the time you are around.

[John Prezioso]

Hey no worries. I get my revenge every time I make him (or her) continue to illustrate how juvenile, unsophisticated, and immature he/she is.

He/she is already as good as banned, imo.

[teknocack]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

Hey no worries. I get my revenge every time I make him (or her) continue to illustrate how juvenile, unsophisticated, and immature he/she is.

---

Yeah, gender is a little unclear isn't it? Oh well, must suck to be "it".

[Guest Capn Crunch]

why would gender make a difference?

[teknocack]

This thread got hijacked a long time ago and I apologize for contributing to it.

The hijacking that is, not the thread.

[John Prezioso]

Well, no serious discussion will take place with "IT" around anyway.

[teknocack]

LOL! Stop it Prez, yer killin' me!

[Guest Capn Crunch]

You are excused for contributing to this forum but you are still held responsible for your actions techno-cock

[teknocack]

[Guest Capn Crunch]

that is all...return to base, geek