by W. Patrick Lang
“According to Kurdish and Sunni negotiators, the US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, proposed that Islam be named “a primary source” and supported a wording which would give clerics authority in civil matters such as divorce, marriage and inheritance. If approved, critics say that the proposals would erode “women’s rights and other freedoms enshrined under existing laws.” The Guardian
How sad is that? The new constitution might lead to an erosion of “women’s rights and other freedoms enshrined under existing laws.”
Under existing laws!! That means the laws of the Saddamist state that we destroyed in the name of human rights.
It should have been clear in advance that the removal of one tyranny in a context like that of Iraq would likely lead to another with the “players” re-shuffled. The new “management” of Iraq just has a different agenda than the old one.
Yesterday, on the parade of “heads” that is Sunday Morning TV … CONTINUED BELOW:
we had the chance to hear Professor Laith Kubba, now adviser to the former “Dawa” leader, Jaafari. Jaafari is now the Iraqi PM. Kubba is an American citizen who teaches at an American university and whose nuclear family lives in London. He was speaking yesterday as an Iraqi government person, “We are re-building our country,” etc. Since I don’t think he was talking about tornado damage in the Mid-West, I deduce that he meant Iraq. This dual citizenship thing is getting out of hand.
Under questioning, Kubba gravely, and with a straight face, told us all that under the law code that will be based on the new constitution, families will have the option to choose whether questions of family law; divorce, inheritance, propert rights, the independence of women, the age of majority in children, etc. shall be decided before the courts on the basis of a secular European based law code or on the basis of some version of Sharia (Islamic law either Sunni or Shia). I suppose the Sunnis could choose to have their cases decided under Hanafi or Shafa’i law and the Shia would choose otherwise.
I suppose it is possible that a government dominated by Shia Divines might accept that Christians and others could be judged on the basis of an essentialy irreligious law code. That idea hasn’t worked well in other places run by Islamic zealots. Sudan and Afghanistan would be examples, but IT COULD HAPPEN.
Such people are small minorities in Iraq. The great majority are Muslims; Sunni (Arabs, Kurds and Turkomans) or Shia (Arabs). Are we really supposed to believe that a government under the influence of people who think that Islam is a “seamless garment” in which all aspects of life are properly subjected to the divine will, would accept to have MUSLIMS, who by definition have submitted to the will of God, decide their family life issues by CIVIL law?
Can it be that Laith Kubba believes that the Ayatollah Sistani would agree to having Muslims decide to have such cases judged on the basis of European law? Sistani has already told Jaafari that he “wishes” that no law should be made which conflicts with Islamic principles. We were also told yesterday by the speaker of the National Assembly that agreement had been reached on the principle that “no law shall be made which conflicts with Islam..” Today all will be made clear.
As for Kubba, one can only hope that he does not suffer the fate of so many liberal enablers of radical revolution. Exile.
PL – Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio
Part 1 was posted as a diary:
No Constitution Would be Better than an Islamic State
The Iraqi Constitution is just another irony of this failure of occupation that this irresponsible administration has forced upon the world. All the lives lost, all the money wasted to have the end result gives the Iraqis, especially the women, less rights than when Saddam was in power. What a fucking waste. What a fucking pathetic waste.
A fourteen year-old female born into a Sharia-bound family would be permitted to decide … whom to marry and what laws her family must obey?
One trap after another.
.
Kurdistan Observer August 20, 2005 — Talks on Iraq’s new constitution have stalled over the role of Islam, and the distribution of the country’s oil wealth. The leadership of the country’s Kurdish minority, said it may drop its contentious demand for the right to secede.
The United States is putting intense pressure on negotiators to finish the charter, which Washington hopes will in time take the steam out of the insurgency.
Mullah Bakhtiyar, a senior official from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the political party of Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani, said all parties were showing flexibility in order to finish drafting the constitution. “As for the self-determination for the Kurds, this issue did not enjoy the support of Sunnis or Shiites, and we almost gave up this demand,” Bakhtiyar said.
The Kurds have enjoyed de-facto independence since 1991. If they drop their demand to guarantee the right of self-determination — a code word for eventual secession that goes beyond mere federalism — it would represent a major concession and remove an obstacle to agreement on the charter.
But a comprehensive compromise on a constitutional draft remained elusive, with the main outstanding dispute focusing on the role of Islam in the new state, pitting Kurds and secular groups against Islamist parties representing Iraq’s Shiite majority.
Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni representative on the drafting committee, said the talks had bogged down after “deep differences” emerged. He said Shiites were demanding that the new charter explicitly state that the decrees of their religious leadership were sacred — something both the Sunnis and Kurds oppose.
Shiite lawmaker Saad Jawad Kandil said the division of Iraq’s potentially vast oil revenues also remained unresolved, along with the question of whether federal units could maintain relations with foreign states.
Shiites insist that foreign affairs should be the job of the central government, while the Kurds prefer that each region have the right to maintain ties with other countries, Kandil said.
~~~
Today on Democracy Now! (watch/listen or read transcripts later in the day):
Juan Cole’s 10-Point Plan for U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq
More than two years after the US invaded Iraq, there is a debate in this country that is increasingly dominating the public discussion on the occupation: the issue of withdrawing US troops. We speak one of the most respected independent Iraq analysts, Juan Cole, who released a 10-point plan, outlining what he calls a responsible stance toward Iraq.
Draft Constitution May Strip Iraqi Women of Basic Human Rights
Iraq’s parliament received a draft of the country’s constitution but delayed a vote for three days on the highly contested document to win support from Sunni leaders. The document stipulates Islam is the official religion of Iraq, and is a fundamental source for legislation. We go to Baghdad to speak with Iraqi feminist Yanar Mohammed.
Sad that in the same vein, “liberals” here are considering giving up on abortion for the sake of electoral gains.
Juan Cole has put up his translation of various key provisions of the draft, and makes some of the same points you do.
He also – IMO – puts his finger on why the process is doomed. Noting that the three-day delay was “announced” (in variance to the provisional constitution), his take is:
It is so sad that it makes me want to bow my head in sorrow and weep. This constitution, bought with blood, is going to enslave Iraqi women. What’s the hurry? There should be hurry to stop Iraqi bleeding and less hurry for a quickly wrought savage 18th century style constitution.
A lot, if not most, of the Turkomens are Shi’a.
Is it likely that the Sunni’s, left out of the negotiations over the past week, will vote against the new constitution in October??
If so, what has really been accomplished?
If not, one could ask is this the Nobel Cause that Casey Sheehan and over 1800 other Americans died for? (Not to mention the 100,000 + Iraqi’s)
I don’t think that BushCo. envisioned that an Iraq aligned with Iran in Fundamental Muslim Ideology would be the end product of a “successful” preemptive war. I don’t think that most Americans did either. How incompetent does our administration have to be, before America “gets it”??