<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
Girl Blog from Iraq... let's talk war, politics and occupation.<br><br>
</font><font size=2><a href="http://www.riverbendblog.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.riverbendblog.com/</a><br>
riverbend@velocall.com<br>
</font><font size=3 color="#FF3300">email riverbend<br><br>
</font><font size=3><b>Baghdad Burning<br><br>
</b></font><font size=3 color="#FF3300">... I'll meet you 'round the bend
my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#808080"><b>Thursday, January 15, 2004<br>
</b></font><font size=3> <br>
<b>Shari'a and Family Law...<br><br>
</b>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.<br>
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.<br><br>
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?!<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br>
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?<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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.<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">Juan Cole had something to say about
the subject</font><font size=3> and he referred to an article written in
Financial Times appropriately titled,</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
"Iraqi plan for Sharia law 'a sop to clerics', say
women"</font><font size=3>. Unfortunately, the writers of the
article apparently have no background on secular Iraqi law beyond what
the GC (Governing Council) 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#808080">- posted by river
@</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF"> 7:55 PM<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3><a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>