Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: Brer Dubya and the tar-baby?
« on: 2004-02-23 02:35:42 » |
 |
[Blunderov]
Gosh! What a surprise.
Best Regards
<q>
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/064371.htm?terms=n606b
Islam to Become Law of Iraq?
The movement towards theocracy in Iraq, including the efforts to deprive
women of basic civil liberties, has been reported on here before - and
it is getting worse. Mohsen Abdel-Hamid, the current president of Iraq's
U.S.-picked Governing Council and a member of a drafting committee
framing the basic transitional law (which acts as an interim
constitution), has demanded that Islam become the principal basis for
Iraq's laws.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports:
If approved, the proposal could have broad effects on secular Iraq,
taking away rights of women in divorce and inheritance cases, shuttering
liquor stores and banning gambling, legal advisers here say. Elements
also run counter to President Bush's goal of turning Iraq into a beacon
for democracy in the Middle East. ... ''If someone proposes a law of
inheritance that conflicts with sharia, or Islam, then it's invalid,''
[Salem Chalabi, a legal adviser to the Governing Council and a member of
the 10-member drafting committee] said. ''The registration of liquor
stores may become illegal.''
Abdel-Hamid is a Sunni Muslim scholar who heads the Iraqi Islamic Party,
which espouses a conservative view of Islam. ... Perhaps the largest
effect would be to moot much of Iraq's 1959 Law of Personal Status,
which grants uniform rights to husband and wife to divorce and
inheritance, and governs related issues like child support, Chalabi
said. Representatives of Iraq's Kurdish and Christian parties, and those
with liberal Western views have voiced opposition to the Islamization of
Iraq's legal code, and the issue remains under discussion. ... ''If this
happens 50 percent of Iraqi society will need to be liberated,'' said
Younadem Kana, a Christian member of the Governing Council. ''We need to
fight for the rights of all Iraqis women and minorities as well.''
This is very problematic - if the United States "liberated" Iraq, only
to have more than half the population reduced to second-class status,
then how will the American government be able to continue justifying the
war? Originally the justification was the "immanent threat" of Weapons
of Mass Destruction, but it appears as though neither the threat nor the
weapons ever existed.
Recently the defense has been that the Iraqi people needed to be
liberated from an oppressive regime - and while that may not necessarily
have justified the war, at least it is a valid issue to point out.
However, it can't work as even a possible defense of the war if
"liberation" doesn't really happen and a theocracy is created.
</q>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Author
Logged
