According to this report, at least, the new Iraqi Prime Minister has deeply reactionary views on the rights of women.
In the early days of the now-defunct Iraqi Governing Council, Jafari was part of a group that moved for Sharia to govern family status, including marriage, divorce and inheritance.
“Islam makes a woman the responsibility of her father until she marries,” he said, “and then she is the responsibility of her husband.”
Let’s hope this misogyny is resisted.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Looks to me like the Times writer doesn’t know the difference between Iran and Iraq. Or perhaps the editors fell down on this one. Rather odd, anyway.
I thought I heard a report that something like 30% of the seats in the new Governing Council was being reserved for women….I doubt they are going to give away rights that they had during Saddam’s regime….
They’ve come a long way baby, and plan to keep on going!
While I don’t discount the fact that Sistani and his political cronies could always bail on the deal, he seemed credible several weeks ago when he said his party wanted a secular government. Assuming that secular also means “non-sharia”, I sincerely doubt the new PM will or could continue espousing those views in the new government.
Trust but verify.
Well, if Canada is willing to consider sharia for family and other civil law, why is it suprising that Iraq would?
Good point Maggie.
Also is this the same fellow who told the world the US and allies would have to leave Iraq immediately but has now backtracked and emphatically argues for keeping our troops there until peace is secured and/or Iraq security can handle the situation?
It seems to be a Western bias on our part to take statements by Arab leaders or “the street” at face value. I don’t think it works that way over there.
Last fall at the Spirit of America meet & greet for Omar and Mohammed in Palo Alto, during the Q&A after their formal presentation, I asked what steps would be taken to guarentee equal rights for minority religions and women. Mohammed gave a long and generally satisfactory answer regarding minority religions but rather neatly sidestepped the issue of women’s rights. So, I prompted again, “And women?”. Mohammed smiled and offered (enigmatically) that women comprise over 50% of Iraq’s population. Not exactly an inspiring response, but I did not press further. Did this come up at all at your place, Roger?
(My husband wanted to know if I asked about Israel. I told him that there’s a certain protocol attached to this kind of event and I perhaps was pushing it enough without bringing in the Jews, but maybe I just didn’t want to hear the answer.)
Here is a nice piece on the Iraqi Constitution. A discussion of shari’a law, and how it might be worked into the constitution, starts on page 7.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/PO10.brown.final.pdf
Morgan,
Thanks for the link! The real game to watch is how the courts get packed, heh.
Knucklehead:
That’s what I took away from it, as well as a modest degree of confidence that the judges will be secular in outlook. I’ll have to go back and give it a good read-through sometime.
Morgan:
ditto Knucks thanks.
Here’s one interesting bit in the Carnegie study about the possibility of Iran
as a model (I added bold emphasis):
I think the authors of the paper are on to something when they say in reference
to "personal status law" (can someone translate this I have a guess
what this is – marital rights maybe – but not sure) that the laws will be fought
out in the legislature. Turkey is probably a good example of this in their recent
legislative referendum on severe penalites for adultery (voted down). You know
its kind of funny to think about this in the current context of Iraq but it
would have been better for our country if we had the abortion debate in our
legislature rather than through a divining of hidden meaning in the constitution.
“Islam makes a woman the responsibility of her father until she marries,” he said, “and then she is the responsibility of her husband.”
Only the explicit religious sanction makes that different from standard issue Latin American machismo. The quote above, minus the reference to Islam, could have come from Guatemala and many other places.
But, as in Latin America, there is likely to be a large and constantly increasing amount of slippage between this “ideal” and everyday practice. The combination of political rights for women and economic development puts a lot of pressure on traditional norms, and everywhere eventually overcomes them.
It was the 20th century before women could vote in federal elections in the US. The Muslim culture is conservative in terms of traditional roles of women and men.
But there is a huge difference between a paternalistic society that allows women the right to political representation and the Taliban which denies them any rights at all.
Iraq is 97% Muslim and has a 50% literacy rate. Its closets neighbors include Iran and Saudi Arabia.
We can’t reasonably expect the Iraqis to share our views on women’s liberation right away. The average Iraqis is probaly incredibly conservative and, frankly, sexist by our standards. It will take a while for them to get used to the idea of the modern age.
This undoubtedly also includes many Iraqi women. While they presumably don’t want to be second-class citizens, I bet a lot of them also regard Western women as “pushy” and “unfeminine.” They want their daughters to dress and behave modestly, and are disgusted the decadence of Western popular culture. Heck, I have only boys and I too am disgusted by this. I wouldn’t want my boys to date some of the teenage hootchies I see at the mall.
These Iraqi women are devoutly religious and would never dream of running for office. Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Condi Rice might seem like nice people, but they would never in a million years consider following in their footsteps. Their primary interest is their family.
In this environment, it is not surprising to see Iraqi politicans making statementst that we Americans regard as sexist and even reactionary.
But it’s not a problem. Why?
Because if Iraqis hold regular elections, women’s rights will be protected. Regular elections are the key to everything.
We will insist on universal women’s sufferage. And while a little Islamic inheritance law is fine, we won’t permit Iraq to become too theorcatic.
And if the women can vote, they can protect themselves from oppression.
One small introductory observation —– LA Times
That said,the time(if ever there was such a time)when anyone but Iraqis can decide these issues has long passed.Even if we could force a structure on the Iraqis,if they did not accept it as valid,it would eventually self-destruct.Iraq,outside of Baghdad and the Kurdish areas,appears to be a conservative country.Many people believe in very conservative(reactionary)value systems,and we cannot change these attitudes by fiat.Family and tribe are important in Iraq,and will be for the foreseeable future.Institutional systems must take this factor into account.
Education,education,education,will allow Iraq to reach its full potential,and with the advent of a ‘federal’internal structure in Iraq,even if some areas remain ‘backward’,those who want something different can always move to Baghdad if they find Najaf too confining.What we need to keep pressing is respect for diversity and tolerance for others.After Saddam those are relatively easy sales to make to a motivated populace.If a culture of mutual respect arises,we will not have to worry about ‘women’s rights’,as they will be merely a part of the ‘human rights’Iraqis will both demand and respect.
Iraq will NEVER be NYC or LA,and to be frank — GOOD.
While I believe there’s far more to women’s rights than the just sufferage, here’s a women’s sufferage timeline. I have no ability or desire to factcheck the thing so I’m taking it with a grain of salt, but I find it immensely amusing that Switzerland and Bangladesh arrived at women’s sufferage at pretty much the same time (give or take a year).
Knucklehead—
In its defense, Bangladesh didn’t become a sovereign nation-state until late in 1971. Women got the vote in Pakistan with partition and independence. It took a few years for India to get with the program.
You’re welcome, as always.
Patrick,
Bangladesh isn’t the source of my immense amusement. The fact that it took so long for someone to finally climb the Alps and tug on the Swiss’s coats to let them know the 20th century was movin’ right along and they might wanna think about getting on board with the whole women’s sufferage thing is what I find amusing. I can’t fathom how it took Heidi so long to get Marti to cough up the vote – I woulda thought “Well then milk your own freakin’ goats!” would carried a lotta weight there in Bern.
Knucklehead—
I know. Now you know that I know and I know that you know that I know. We’re very knowlegable…and immensely amused.
Best.
Now if I could only spell. Knowledgable?
I once went to a Greek Orthodox wedding in Athens. (Well, just outside of Athens.) I didn’t understand a word of it, but with the help of friends was able to follow.
At one point in the ceremony, the priest makes mention of how the woman shall “fear” her husband. Traditionally, about half the time, the woman discretely (but still, noticeably) digs her heel into the man’s foot at that point, to remind him that, well, they’re just words, you know. That portion of the ceremony always draws a laugh as a result—whether or not the woman does it. (In this case, she did not.)
While I don’t wish to minimize the genuine horror of regimes like the Taliban or the genuine abuse that happens within many homes with a tradition of male dominance, I have to agree with a previous poster when he says that, as long as women’s suffrage is assured, they’ll make out OK in the end. Perhaps not immediately—we can’t reasonably expect that—but eventually.
Sorry for this “spotty” recount, but I heard two Congresswomen, one a Republican and one a Democrat, give an interview on MSNBC recently. They were both very excited about their meetings with Iraqi women and made comments to the following:
(1) Iraqi women were intelligent
(2) They all had numerous questions about democracy and how it worked.
(3) They were stunned about how two members of opposited parties could work so well together to reach a common goal.
(4) They were interested in full participation in their government….they saw it as their children’s future.
NO, I repeat NO, opposite point of view was espoused in this report. Both Congresswomen were amazed by the Iraqi women and very hopeful for women being strong voices in Iraq.
It was an amazing interview…sorry I was so intent on the content that I forgot their names.