Iraqi Governing Council to place family law under sharia

[Hamel]

Women in Iraq Decry Decision To Curb Rights
Council Backs Islamic Law on Families

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 16, 2004; Page A12

BAGHDAD, Jan. 15 -- For the past four decades, Iraqi women have enjoyed some of the most modern legal protections in the Muslim world, under a civil code that prohibits marriage below the age of 18, arbitrary divorce and male favoritism in child custody and property inheritance disputes.


Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out, ordering in late December that family laws shall be "canceled" and such issues placed under the jurisdiction of strict Islamic legal doctrine known as sharia.

This week, outraged Iraqi women -- from judges to cabinet ministers -- denounced the decision in street protests and at conferences, saying it would set back their legal status by centuries and could unleash emotional clashes among various Islamic strains that have differing rules for marriage, divorce and other family issues.

"This will send us home and shut the door, just like what happened to women in Afghanistan," said Amira Hassan Abdullah, a Kurdish lawyer who spoke at a protest meeting Thursday. Some Islamic laws, she noted, allow men to divorce their wives on the spot.

"The old law wasn't perfect, but this one would make Iraq a jungle," she said. "Iraqi women will accept it over their dead bodies."

The order, narrowly approved by the 25-member council in a closed-door session Dec. 29, was reportedly sponsored by conservative Shiite members. The order is now being opposed by several liberal members as well as by senior women in the Iraqi government.

The council's decisions must be approved by L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, and aides said unofficially that his imprimatur for this change was unlikely. But experts here said that once U.S. officials turn over political power to Iraqis at the end of June, conservative forces could press ahead with their agenda to make sharia the supreme law. Spokesmen for Bremer did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

"It was the secret way this was done that is such a shock," said Nasreen Barawi, a woman who is Iraq's minister for social welfare and public service. "Iraq is a multiethnic society with many different religious schools. Such a sweeping decision should be made over time, with an opportunity for public dialogue." There is no immediate threat of the decision becoming law, Barawi said, "but after June 30, who knows what can happen?"

In interviews at several meetings and protests, women noted that even during the politically repressive Hussein era, women had been allowed to assume a far more modern role than in many other Muslim countries and had been shielded from some of the more egregiously unfair interpretations of Islam advocated by conservative, male-run Muslim groups.

Once Hussein was toppled, several women noted wryly, they hoped the new authorities would further liberalize family law. Instead, in the process of wiping old laws off the books, they said, Islamic conservatives on the Governing Council are trying to impose retrograde views of women on a chaotic postwar society.

Although it remained unclear which members of the council had promoted the shift of family issues from civil to religious jurisprudence, the decision was made and formalized while Abdul Aziz Hakim, a Shiite Muslim who heads the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was chairing the council under a rotating leadership system.

This week, several moderate council members spoke strongly against the decision in public forums, calling it a threat to both civilized progress and national unity. Nasir Chaderchi, a lawyer and council member who heads the National Democratic Party, criticized the council's action at a professional women's meeting Thursday. "We don't want to be isolated from modern developments," Chaderchi told the gathering of the Iraqi Independent Women's Group. "What hurts most is that the law of the tyrant Saddam was more modern than this new law." He said he hoped women would continue to protest until the order was reversed.

The council's new policy decree was brief and vague, mentioning neither particular family issues nor individual branches of Islamic law that would replace current civil law. But lawyers and other experts from Iraqi women's groups said the ambiguity of the decision was especially worrisome, since rival Islamic sects in Iraq espouse different policies for women's legal and marital rights.

Some critics said the proposed law might exacerbate tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, already divided over other power-sharing issues in postwar Iraq, and could even destroy families that have intermarried between the two strains of Islam. Under Hussein, they said, the universal application of civil family law prevented such issues from sparking sectarian strife.

Zakia Ismael Hakki, a female retired judge and outspoken opponent of the new order, said Thursday that since 1959, civil family law had been developed and amended under a series of secular governments to give women a "half-share in society" and an opportunity to advance as individuals, no matter what their religion.

"This new law will send Iraqi families back to the Middle Ages," Hakki said. "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 about who can marry and divorce and have rights. We have to stop it."

Looks like Iraq is going to be Aghanistanized

[Hamel]

url for above article

A word from Baghdad Burning blog:

Shari'a and Family Law...
On Wednesday our darling Iraqi Puppet Council decided that secular Iraqi family law would no longer be secular- it is now going to be according to Islamic Shari'a. Shari'a is Islamic law, whether from the Quran or quotes of the Prophet or interpretations of modern Islamic law by clerics and people who have dedicated their lives to studying Islam.

The news has barely been covered by Western or even Arab media and Iraqi media certainly aren't covering it. It is too much to ask of Al-Iraqiya to debate or cover a topic like this one- it would obviously conflict with the Egyptian soap operas and songs. This latest decision is going to be catastrophic for females- we're going backwards.

Don't get me wrong- pure Islamic law according to the Quran and the Prophet gives women certain unalterable, nonnegotiable rights. The problem arises when certain clerics decide to do their own interpretations of these laws (and just about *anyone* can make themselves a cleric these days). The bigger problem is that Shari'a may be drastically different from one cleric to another. There are actually fundamental differences in Shari'a between the different Islamic factions or 'methahib'. Even in the same methahib, there are dozens of different clerics who may have opposing opinions. This is going to mean more chaos than we already have to deal with. We've come to expect chaos in the streets… but chaos in the courts and judicial system too?!

This is completely unfair to women specifically. Under the Iraqi constitution, men and women are equal. Under our past secular family law (which has been in practice since the '50s) women had unalterable divorce, marriage, inheritance, custody, and alimony rights. All of this is going to change.

I'll give an example of what this will mean. One infamous practice brought to Iraq by Iranian clerics was the 'zawaj muta'a', which when translated by the clerics means 'temporary marriage'. The actual translation is 'pleasure marriage'- which is exactly what it is. It works like this: a consenting man and woman go to a cleric who approves of temporary marriage and they agree upon a period of time during which the marriage will last. The man pays the woman a 'mahar' or dowry and during the duration of the marriage (which can be anything from an hour, to a week, a month, etc.) the man has full marital rights. Basically, it's a form of prostitution that often results in illegitimate children and a spread of STDs.

Sunni clerics consider it a sin and many Shi'a clerics also frown upon it… but there are the ones who will tell you it's 'halal' and Shari'a, etc. The same people who approve it or practice it would, of course, rather see their daughters or sisters dead before they allow *them* to practice it- but that's beyond the point.

Anyway, secular Iraqi family law considers it a form of prostitution and doesn't consider a 'pleasure marriage' a legitimate marriage. In other words, the woman wouldn't have any legal rights and if she finds herself pregnant- the child, legally, wouldn't have a father.

So what happens if a married man decides to arrange a pleasure marriage on the side? In the past, his legitimate wife could haul him off to court, and ask for a divorce because the man would be committing adultery under Iraqi family law. That won't be the case now. Under certain clerics, a pleasure marriage will be considered legal and the woman won't have a case for divorce. Under other clerics, he'll be committing adultery- so who gets to judge? The cleric she chooses, or the cleric he chooses?

Another example is in marriage itself. By tribal law and Shari'a, a woman, no matter how old, would have to have her family's consent to marry a man. By Iraqi law, as long as the woman is over 18, she doesn't need her family's consent. She can marry in a court, legally, without her parents. It rarely happened in Iraq, but it *was* possible.

According to Iraqi secular law, a woman has grounds to divorce her husband if he beats her. According to Shari'a, it would be much more difficult to prove abuse.

Other questions pose themselves- Shari'a doesn’t outlaw the marriage of minors (on condition they've hit puberty). Iraqi secular law won't allow minors to marry until the age of at least 16 (I think) for women and the age of 18 for men.

By Iraqi civil law, parents are required to send their children to complete at least primary school. According to Shari'a, a father can make his son or daughter quit school and either work or remain at home. So what happens when and if he decides to do that? Does Shari'a apply or does civil law apply?

There are hundreds of other examples that I can think of and that make me feel outrage. I practice Islam, but do I want an Islamic government? No. I feel that because we have so many different methahib and religions, any religious government is bound to oppress some faction of society. It's already happening in the south where fundamentalist Shi'a are attacking Christian families and shops.

Juan Cole had something to say about the subject and he referred to an article written in Financial Times appropriately titled, "Iraqi plan for Sharia law 'a sop to clerics', say women". Unfortunately, the writers of the article apparently have no background on secular Iraqi law beyond what the GC members have told them. The fundamentalist GC members claim that civil Iraqi law forced people to go against their doctrine, which isn't true because a large part of civil law was based on Shari'a or the parts of Shari'a that were agreed upon by all the differing Islamic factions (like the right to divorce) and taking into consideration the different religious groups in Iraq.

Women are outraged… this is going to open new doors for repression in the most advanced country on women's rights in the Arab world! Men are also against this (although they certainly have the upper-hand in the situation) because it's going to mean more confusion and conflict all around.

What happens when all the clerics agree that a hijab isn't 'preferred' but necessary? According to this new change in the 'ahwal shakhsiya' laws or 'personal circumstances' laws, all women will have to cover their heads and according to Shari'a, if a woman's husband decides that she can't continue her education or work, she'll have to remain a house-wife.

Please don't misunderstand- any oppression to women isn't a reflection on Islam. It's a reflection on certain narrow minds, ignorance and the politicization of religion. Islam is a progressive religion and no religion is clearer on the rights of women- it came during a time when women had no rights at all.

During the sanctions and all the instability, we used to hear fantastic stories about certain Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar, to name a few. We heard about their luxurious lifestyles- the high monthly wages, the elegant cars, sprawling homes and malls… and while I always wanted to visit, I never once remember yearning to live there or even feeling envy. When I analyzed my feelings, it always led back to the fact that I cherished the rights I had as an Iraqi Muslim woman. During the hard times, it was always a comfort that I could drive, learn, work for equal pay, dress the way I wanted and practice Islam according to my values and beliefs, without worrying whether I was too devout or not devout enough.

I usually ignore the emails I receive telling me to 'embrace' my new-found freedom and be happy that the circumstances of all Iraqi women are going to 'improve drastically' from what we had before. They quote Bush (which in itself speaks volumes) saying things about how repressed the Iraqi women were and how, now, they are going to be able to live free lives.

The people who write those emails often lob Iraq together with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan and I shake my head at their ignorance but think to myself, "Well, they really need to believe their country has the best of intentions- I won't burst their bubble." But I'm telling everyone now- if I get any more emails about how free and liberated the Iraqi women are *now* thanks to America, they can expect a very nasty answer.

[Stuart Mackey]

Hmm..I do beleive I said befor the US went into Iraq, something about the law of unforseen circumstances, and this is one of them it would seem.
Iraqi society has not had the time to evolve past the strictures of its predominat religion, in 50 years time, with a secular govenment, this would likley not be an issue.

[Gil Hamilton]

Well, shit, I hope those articles aren't true.

[weemadando]

Congratulations to the US for liberating yet another nation from oppression and bringing it into the 21st century, leading them into the light of democratic equal society.

[Darth Wong]

They certainly sound believable. The moral of this story is simple: you cannot do Imperialism half-way. Either do it right or stay home.

[Sarevok]

This is not realy good. Coming from a muslim country I know how bad these laws can be. Did you know a muslim man can divorce his wife just by saying it three times ? Then there used to be laws in Pakistan untill 1996 that prevented daughters from marrying without parental consenst. These are just some of the examples.

[Illuminatus Primus]

They certainly sound believable. The moral of this story is simple: you cannot do Imperialism half-way. Either do it right or stay home.

Exactly, the pitiful pandering lip-service the "War on Terror" has turned out to be is pitiful.

Fundamentalist Islam is the enemy, we can't say it, we start expensive wars during periods of existing deficit on fabricated pretentions, lie to connect them to previous terrorist attacks, and then make previously more secular nations more Islamic.

Quite frankly the idiotic idea the average person and apparently politican has that democracy is inherently good is a wet-dream. Societies need strong and firm (even authoritarian) rule before they've reached competence to exercise democracy.

Even worse, this is our own puppet provisional authority.

[Bob McDob]

[quote="Hamel]

Looks like Iraq is going to be Aghanistanized[/quote]

Afghanistan? This is 153,235.312 times worse than Afghanistan, which based on its recent history is at least improving somewhat. This is definite, undeniable regression.

[TheDarkling]

Hmm..I do beleive I said befor the US went into Iraq, something about the law of unforseen circumstances, and this is one of them it would seem.
Iraqi society has not had the time to evolve past the strictures of its predominat religion, in 50 years time, with a secular govenment, this would likley not be an issue.

This was hardly unforseen, I think most people realised that Saddam was the only thing keeping the Fundies in line.

[Sarevok]

[quote="Hamel]

Looks like Iraq is going to be Aghanistanized

Afghanistan? This is 153,235.312 times worse than Afghanistan, which based on its recent history is at least improving somewhat. This is definite, undeniable regression.[/quote]

Wrong. Iraq is a better place than Afganistan. Keep in mind family law covers things like inheritence, divorce etc only. The actual laws that govern Iraq are seperate and will hopefully remain secular. That means women wont be required cover their heads or wear burqa.

[Bob McDob]

Wrong. Iraq is a better place than Afganistan. Keep in mind family law covers things like inheritence, divorce etc only. The actual laws that govern Iraq are seperate and will hopefully remain secular. That means women wont be required cover their heads or wear burqa.

Even so, it's not exactly an encouraging trend

[HemlockGrey]

Of course, if the governing council really starts to regress, does the United States morally obligated to intervene and impose certain restrictions?

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I don't know why anyone in government had the balls to go tell the Fundamentalists Muslims to go screw themselves and stay out of the new government so stuff like this doesn't happen. Hopefully, they don't impose any more religous laws on the country.

[Joe]

Bremer is going to have to put his foot down on this. The GC isn't there to institute this kind of sweeping change.

[TheDarkling]

I don't know why anyone in government had the balls to go tell the Fundamentalists Muslims to go screw themselves and stay out of the new government so stuff like this doesn't happen. Hopefully, they don't impose any more religous laws on the country.

Maybe because that would serve as a rallying cry and when they say the US is making a war of Islam and wishes to turn Iraq into a godless western state, it would carry a lot more weight.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't know why anyone in government had the balls to go tell the Fundamentalists Muslims to go screw themselves and stay out of the new government so stuff like this doesn't happen. Hopefully, they don't impose any more religous laws on the country.

Maybe because that would serve as a rallying cry and when they say the US is making a war of Islam and wishes to turn Iraq into a godless western state, it would carry a lot more weight.

But it is necessary! The terrorists and radicals are the only ones being honest about this conflict. Regardless of what horseshit is spewed, the war on terror is a war on violent fundamentalist and radical Islam.

[TheDarkling]

Maybe because that would serve as a rallying cry and when they say the US is making a war of Islam and wishes to turn Iraq into a godless western state, it would carry a lot more weight.

But it is necessary! The terrorists and radicals are the only ones being honest about this conflict. Regardless of what horseshit is spewed, the war on terror is a war on violent fundamentalist and radical Islam.[/quote]

You admit that and all the Islamic world will hear is " war on terror is a war on ........ Islam" and you can kiss goodbye to any support you would get.

[revprez]

You admit that and all the Islamic world will hear is " war on terror is a war on ........ Islam" and you can kiss goodbye to any support you would get.

And still at some point in the future somebody is going to have to come up with some way to get the world riled up about Islamofacism, otherwise the US won't be able to sustain regime change as part of the over all the grand strategy.

Rev Prez

[Sarevok]

You admit that and all the Islamic world will hear is " war on terror is a war on ........ Islam" and you can kiss goodbye to any support you would get.

And still at some point in the future somebody is going to have to come up with some way to get the world riled up about Islamofacism, otherwise the US won't be able to sustain regime change as part of the over all the grand strategy.

Rev Prez

Islamofacism... thats a new term. How did you come up with it ?

[Crayz9000]

That term's been floated around before. It's not new.

[Sarevok]

That term's been floated around before. It's not new.

But it is not good and is demeaning to muslims. It would better to call Al-Queda and like just terrorists.

[PrinceofLowLight]

That term's been floated around before. It's not new.

But it is not good and is demeaning to muslims. It would better to call Al-Queda and like just terrorists.

It's not necessarily terrorists, it's regimes like Taliban that are fascism with an extremely heavy Muslim basis. It's not demeaning, it's just a specific term for the elements in Islam that are like that.

As for the article, I actually became physically ill when reading it. I was actually okay with this whole shindig, including the lies and manipulation, up till this point. After all, Americanizing the ME is a very good thing no matter how you slice it. It's now officially all for nothing.

[Durandal]

Remember, we can't criticize religion. If we do, we're close-minded bigots, remember? Islam is a religion of peace, after all.

[Joe]

Remember, we can't criticize religion. If we do, we're close-minded bigots, remember? Islam is a religion of peace, after all.

It's not so much that we can't criticize Islam. It's that Islam is simply beyond criticism, in the Islamic fantasy world.