‘Marriage under Sharia’ permits child prostitution

April 8, 2009 — xanthippa

My first law of human-dynamics is:  if a law can be abused, it will!

That is why every law must be examined very, very carefully; all the ways it can be perverted and abused must be considered and weighed.  This should – preferebly – be done before such a law is accepted and before it becomes the norm in a society.

Sharia is based on the Koran and the Sunnah (the ways of the Prophet Muhammad).  It governs every aspect of a person’s life.  Here is the definition of Sharia from the Islamic Dictionary:

“Way to the water.” The “way” of Islam in accord with the Qur’an and Sunna, ijma’ and qiyas. Sharia is the law of Islam. It is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunna, though there are many sources outside these two, such as Arab Bedouin law, commercial law from Mecca, and the law of some conquered nations such as Roman and Jewish law. The Sharia extends beyond what Westerners consider law. It covers the totality of religious, political, social, including private life and makes no distinction between sin and law.

While there are several ‘schools’ of Sharia, they all have the same roots and tend to be considered complementary of each other, rather than in opposition to each other.  And, they are in agreement on many of the most fundamental rules of human behaviour and social organization.

One thing that is troubling about ‘Sharia Courts’ is that there is no formal differentiation between these various legal interpretations of the Islamic laws:  rather, it is the leadership of the local Mosque which determines what ‘school’ of Sharia applies to the congregation.  If a change occurs in the leadership (or ‘elders’) in the Mosque, the legal standards are automatically changed, without any notice being given to the populace.

It is my conviction that Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow was a victim of such a change.  She grew up under the interpretation of Sharia where rapists were caught and punished.  That is why, after this 13-year-old child was raped, she went to her local officials and ‘demanded that justice be done’.  Unbeknown to her, her town Mosque was recently taken over by officials who subscribed to the most extreme form of Sharia, where the rape victim is stoned to death for adultery.  That explains why she kept begging for her life and calling for help, while the officials who sentenced her to death praised her for ‘demanding that justice according to Sharia be done’…

Both courses of action are possible under different schools of Sharia!  How was the child to know that things could change THAT drastically?!?!?

Which brings me back to my original statement:  if a law can be abused, it will!

Now, I would like to ask you to consider  the rules which govern marriage under Sharia:  I have posted some of the major rules here and here. And, human nature being what it is, I would like you to consider the most twisted possible interpretation of these rules which will not be breaking the letter of the rules.  Because, sooner or later, that is exactly how every law will be applied.  (The background information is in my two earlier posts on this, linked at the beginning of this post).

The example of Muhammad, the Prophet:

  • Muslims emulate the behaviour of Prophet Muhammad, because Islam teaches that they are supposed to do that in order to lead good and pious lives.
  • Muhammad had married his ‘only virgin wife’, Aisha, when she was 6 years old (thought he waited until she was 8 (or 9 – the lunar year calculations are a little different from the solar ones)).  Therefore, that is the example that all Muslims are taught to emulate.
  • Therefore, most countries governed by Sharia allow – nay, encourage – marrying girls of  ‘Aisha’s age’.

‘Age of consent’ in the Koran:

  • Neither the Koran, nor the Sunnah, specify what is the minimum age for a person (male or female) to enter into marriage.  Therefore, there is no prohibition against very young people entering into marriage.
  • In order to ensure adequate protection of the ‘fair sex’, females – both children and adult women – have male guardians to look after them.  A girl/woman’s first guardian is her father, then her husband, her brother, and, eventually, her son.  As such, this guardian represents the girl/woman’s interests in all legal matters, such as management of property and conracts, like marriage and divorce.
  • The Koran has very specific laws about divorce.  IVery specific rules are set out in order to ensure that a husband retains control of any offspring sired – but not yet born – at the time of divorce.
  • Among these rules are ‘special cases’ for widdows, as well as for divorce from women who are no longer fertile because they have reached menopause or because they have not yet reached sexual maturity.
  • Putting these things together, the majority of Muslim scholars support the marriage of pre-pubescent girls, provided her father/guardian permits the marriage.  Some assert that ‘sexual enjoyment’ is permitted with females as young as one day old, though penetration is not ‘recommended’ (but not forbidden).
  • Following a divorce, the guardianship of the girl/woman reverts back to her father – or her closest male relative, who is free to (and encouraged to) arrange the next marriage for the girl/woman in question.

‘Bride Price’

  • Many Muslim scholars do not like the term ‘Bride Price’ – it is supposed to be a ‘nest-egg’ to support the wife in the case of divorce, until her guardian can arrange another marriage for her.  In practice, however, that is exactly what it is.
  • The size of this ‘present’ is usually set by the bride’s father or guardian, who arranges the marriage.

Hmmm…  is it really that difficult to see how this can be (and is) exploited for prostituting children?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

Marriage under Sharia – part 2

April 7, 2009 — xanthippa

In Part 1 of ‘Marriage under Sharia’, I explained the types of marriages which Sharia (Islamic law) permits: Nikah (‘permanent’ marriage), Nikah Mut’ah (temporary marriage) and Nikah Misyar (traveler’s marriage).  I also explained the Mahr – the ‘marriage present’ or ‘bride price’ which is paid by the groom at the time of the marriage.

Here, I would like to look at who is and is not eligible to enter into a marriage contract well as the rules of divorce under Sharia.

3.  Islamic Divorce (Koran, Chapter 65)

In Islam, divorce is not considered sinful, as it is in some forms of Christianity.  To the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable and there are very specific rules under Sharia which regulate it:  both the husband and the wife (through her guardian) can request a divorce.

In practice, it is much easier for the husband to obtain divorce than it is for the wife, as in some schools of Sharia, women are sometimes not allowed to address the court (and thus request divorce) without her husband accompanying her there.  Other times, women may be allowed to go to court, but a a male relative intervene on their behalf or the divorce will not be granted against the husband’s wishes (this may be difficult, as in many cases, the husband is in full control of whom the wife may or may not contact – including her relatives).  There are even cases where young married women are told they are too young to request a divorce:  to come back when they ‘reach maturity’!

The wife must observe a ‘waiting period’ (iddah) of three menstrual cycles following the divorce, to see if pregnancy resulted from the marriage.  (The ‘waiting period’ for a widow is 3 lunar months and 10 days.)

Special Case 1:  Pregnancy

If the marriage resulted in pregnancy, the husband must support the wife for the duration of the pregnancy.  Once the child is born, it is the father’s choice to either take custody of the infant right away, or to continue to support the mother (ex wife) while she nurses the child.  Once the child is weaned (or a specific time period set by the father is up), the child will be handed over to the father and his obligations toward the mother will end.  (This will also end any claim – legal (guardianship) or moral – that the mother has towards the child, including visitation rights.)

Special Case 2:  Infertile wives

There is a special provision in Koran for divorce from women who are not fertile, because they are either too old or too young to have their ‘monthly courses’.  Their ‘waiting period’ cannot  be ‘three monthly courses’ – because they do not have them.  Therefore, their ‘waiting period) is set at 3 months.

Special Case 3:  Unconsummated Marriage

If the marriage has never been consummated (and this ‘consummation’ is up to the will of the husband – he has up to 1 lunar year to ‘consummate’ the marriage from the date of the marriage contract), the ‘waiting period’ following divorce is cut down to 1 lunar month.

4.  Who may marry whom

There are very, very specific rules over who is – and who is not – allowed to marry whom.

A man may marry any female except those who are

  • direct blood relatives:  mother, sister or daughter
  • direct ‘nursing’ relative:  his wet-nurse (she is considered to be his ‘milk mother’)
  • a female child who is a direct blood relative of his ‘milk mother’ (that is, anyone a woman who was nursed by his ‘milk mother’
  • a female who is a ‘milk mother’ relative of (was nursed by) his wives or his mother
  • not ‘of the book’ – that is, not Muslim, Christian or Jewish  (all children resulting from this marriage MUST be Muslim) – this prohibition does not apply to female slaves.

In addition, a woman may never marry any man who is not a Muslim, because it is not permissible for a non-Muslim to be the ‘superior to’/’in the position of power over’ (in business, politics – or marriage, where the husband is the superior of the wife) a Muslim.

A man may re-marry his ex-wife, provided she had been married to another man in between the marriages to him.

In order to get married, the terms of the marriage must be negotiated by the groom and the bride’s guardian.  The bride must then formally consent to the marriage – silence is considered to be ‘consent’.  In practice, this ‘consent’ is often forced by threats – and if the bride refuses, the alternative is ‘honour killing’ or the ‘ever-growing-in-popularity’ honour suicide!

Islam does NOT set any age limits on the age of the bride or groom.

However, the Koran states that onlywomen are to be veiled:  men and children (including female children, before they are ‘ready for marriage’).  It is up to the father to decide when his daughter is ready for marriage.  When he judges that she is available for an Islamic marriage, he signals that fact to the community by having her wear the veil (hijab)  in public.

(If you take nothing else away from this post, please, understand this: when we see little girls, as young as 7 or 8, wearing hijabs to school, we are allowing their fathers to advertize that they are actively seeking a suitor for their daughters!)

There are many Islamic experts who assert that it is ‘not recommended’ that a female should ‘reach her first course [of menstruation] in her father’s house’, but rather that she should do so in her husband’s house!

There is no limit on how young a female should be upon marriage:  the Ayatollah Khomeini unequivocally stated that a man may ‘enjoy’ a girl – a suckling –  as young as 1 day old – he just should not ‘penetrate’ her ‘right away’…

Here is a YouTube video of an Islamic expert, being interviewed on the topic of Islamic marriage with ‘underage girls’:

What is more – Islam dictates that in order to live a righteous life, men must emulate the actions of Prophet Muhammad.  He is well documented to have married his ‘only virgin wife’, Aisha, when she was 6 years old, and he consumated the marriage when she was 8 years old (sometimes reported as 9:  this discrepancy is due to the use of Lunar callendar to measure age in Islam – as Allah is the name of the Arabic Lunar God, not the Arabic word for ‘God’ as it is often stated to – and the lunar and solar years do not line up perfectly).

Therefore, it is ‘pious’ for Muslim men to marry females who are as young as Aisha was when Muhammad consumated his marriage with her:  8 or 9 years old!  And, a Muslim woman must submit to her husband’s sexual desires and preferences at his whim:  there is no option for her to say ‘no’ to anything her husband may desire.

The Prophet Muhammad is even reported to advise one of his friends that it is better to marry a child-bride, rather than a grown woman, so he can ‘have sport with her’…

I suspect I have left out a lot that really ought to be said…but, it is a beginning at bringing about an understanding of what Marriage under Sharia truly means!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 2 Comments »

Marriage under Sharia

April 3, 2009 — xanthippa

Sharia is more than a legal code.  Sharia is based on the Koran and the Sunnah (the ways of the Prophet Muhammad).  It governs every aspect of a person’s life.  It also contains detailed rules governing marriage and divorce.  In this post, I would like to explore some of the various rules and regulations over the customs and practices of marriage in Islam.

If my understanding is erroneous or imperfect, please, do comment on it:  I will be very happy to have any of my misconceptions corrected.  My aim is to bring the reality of marriage under Sharia forward, so that even non-Muslims may understand it and its implications.

There are several aspects of Islamic marriage which are addressed under Sharia.  These are the terms of the marriage itself, the terms of any divorce (which is permitted and regulated under Sharia), the ‘marriage present’, or ‘bride price’, which is obligatory under Sharia, and who may or may not enter into a marriage contract.

1.  Islamic marriage

There are several types of marriages in Islam. In all cases, a marriage is a social contract, with legal documents specifying the terms of the marriage.  Here is a list of the main ones, with a brief explanation:

Nikah

This is the most common Islamic marriage.  It is a ‘permanent’ marriage – and somewhat similar to the ‘Western’ concept of ‘marriage’.  However, instead of equal obligations among the husband and wife, the husband is responsible for the welfare of the wife, and becomes her legal guardian (as a woman cannot be emancipated under Sharia – her status is equal to that of a minor).

According to the Koran, a man may have up to 4 wives through Nikah marriage at any point in time. A wife is not permitted to have multiple husbands at the same time.

Divorce is permitted, provided it follows the proper rules under Sharia.

Nikah Mut’ah

This is a ‘fixed term’ or ‘temporary’ marriage (mainly practiced under Shi’a form of Islam – and which is promoted in Iran as an alternative to young people having extra-marital affairs).

Even before the marriage is entered into, a time limit is specified for the duration of this marriage. This period can last years, or it can be as little as one hour.  Following this period, the marriage is dissolved.  The same rules and obligations now apply to the couple as under an Islamic divorce.

‘Fixed term’ or ‘temporary’ marriages do not count towards the maximum of 4 wives.

Nikah Misyar

This is also termed ‘traveler’s marriage’ – and also does not count towards the maximum of 4 wives.

Under this type of marriage, the husband’s obligations are significantly reduced, as he does not have to support this wife.  In return, she retains more independence.  This is mostly a ‘Sunni’ practice, just as the nikah mut’ah is a mostly Shi’a practice.

The husband is not responsible for the maintanance of this wife, though he enjoys the marital privileges of ‘visiting her’ as frequently (or seldom) as he pleases.

Special Case 1:  female slaves (prisoners)

If a man cannot support a wife (or multiple wives) sufficiently, it is recommended that instead of entering into a marriage, he should purchase a female slave.  Sharia has very specific rules on slavery:  female slaves are ‘permitted’ to a man who owns them, without binding him with the obligations a marriage entitles.

Female prisoners are considered equivalent to slaves:  that is why, according to some Islamic scholars, part of the ‘punishment’ of a female prisoner is rape by her jailers.  Both ‘slaves’ and ‘prisoners’ are referred to in the Koran as ‘those whom your right hand possesses’.

Special Case 1:  ‘broken’ wives

It is well recognized that sexual intercourse with infants or other very young females may cause permanent physical damage to them (including sterility).  Sharia has a specific rule to deal with this ‘special case’:  if a young ‘wife’ becomes ‘broken’ through the husband’s sexual practices, the husband cannot divorce her and remains responsible for her maintenance for the rest of her life.  She will remain ‘available’ to him – but will not count towards the maximum of 4 wives.

2.  Mahr – Marriage present (bride price)

When the marriage contract is signed, the groom must give the bride a ‘present’:  this is meant to be her ‘nest-egg’ and support her in case of divorce.  In some traditions, the bride’s parents request a very high ‘marriage present’, in order for the groom to prove his worthiness.

Because under Sharia, a woman is not a legal person (as in, a mature person – her legal standing under Sharia is equal to that of a minor), a woman may ‘own’ property, but not control it.  Just like minors in ‘The West’ who have a trust-fund, there is guardian who is appointed to oversee any property ‘owned’ by a woman and who controls it.  Under Sharia, this guardian of a woman’s property is also the woman’s guardian.

So it is with this ‘marital present’:  it is usually (not always) entrusted to the male guardian who authorized the marriage contract.  The reasoning behind this is that in the case of divorce, this man will again become the guardian of the ‘bride’, and will therefore be able to use this ‘marriage present’ to maintain her until he can arrange another marriage for her.

In my next post, I will explore the rules of divorce under Sharia as well as who may or may not enter into a marriage contract… and some of the real-life implications of these rules.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

Women’s rights must not be subject to referendum

April 2, 2009 — xanthippa

Sometimes, it takes us a while to recognize things for what they are.

For example, when Britain adopted Sharia as a parallel, not state-controlled legal system, the publicity spin on the whole thing was – to some people – palatable.

Not to me – I consider it a matter of principle that a government must exercise control over its judiciary, just as the judiciary must exercise control over the government:  the two are parts of the ‘checks and balances’ of our legal system.  Therefore, I consider any legal system parallel t0 – yet independant – of the government and its judiciary to be a serious breech of our governance structures, and therefore unacceptable.  It is a threat to the very foundations of the way we govern ourselves!

Nor can I ever accept the principle that there ought to be different classes of citizens, with different sets of laws for each class.  To me, that very concept is highly repellent!  No longer are citizens equal to each other in the eyes of the law – they no longer even share the same law…  NO!  A person’s a person, no matter how small!  (or of which religion…)

These are two very powerful reasons why I could never support a judicial apartheid:  whatever form it may take!

These two reasons alone would make any parallel legal system 100% unacceptable to me – no matter how good they might be.   Yet, my rant  has not even touched on what I find unacceptable about Sharia…

Yet, the outrage many of us expresses at Britain’s official acceptance of Sharia as the legal system for its Muslim citizens was shrugged off by much of the MSM who assured us that Sharia was just a traditional way of doing things, that it really was a question of cultural preference, and that Muslims in Britain want it anyways, so we ought to butt out and shut up.

It’s not really all that long ago that Ontario’s Premier, Dalton McGuinty (his name – and track record – always makes me think of ‘bodymaster McGuinty’ from ‘The Valley of Fear’), almost instituted Sharia in Ontario.  And, before he considered it, he had commissioned a study, to make sure that Sharia would not be harmful to any Ontarians.  Marion Boyd, a lifelong feminist (as well as an environmentalists) and former NDP member of provincial parliament, authored the study which found that Sharia law was just fine, and fully compatible with feminist principles…

And let’s not even mention France… Muslim feminists, like Wafa Sultan advise women who are attempting to escape from oppression under Sharia law not to go to France, as they would not be safe there.

And Barak Obama, the higly popular US President, had (August 2006) campaigned in Kenya for his kinsman, Raila Odinga, whose election platform included the imposition of Sharia!

It seems to me that we have rather normalized the idea that ‘Muslims want to live under Sharia’ and that it is not our place to interfere…

In the last few days, many of us (myself included) have sharply criticized the new proposed law in Afghanistan, which would strip women (among other things) of parental rights, the freedom of movement and would legalize marital rape.  This ‘new law’ would govern the Shi’a minority (about 20%) of the Afghani population.

Please, indulge me in a chain of logic here:

  • The Shi’a minority in Afghanistan is ‘very conservative’ (some would say radicalized)
  • This Shi’a minority recognizes Koran as the only authority on law
  • This Koran-only-derived law is called – yes – Sharia
  • Therefore, this law which advocates ‘marital rape’ and strips women of basic human rights is – Sharia!!!

Perhaps we ought to thank the Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, for actually spelling out in this new Afghani law exactly what Sharia truly means!

As the following video shows:  women’s rights must never be subject to a referendum:

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

‘Democracy’ is not an absolute

April 1, 2009 — xanthippa

I never thought this would have to state this so specifically:  rape is not acceptable, ever, ever, ever – not even within marriage!

Yet, not everyone seems to understand that!

Let me explain:  the new law proposed in Afghanistan would make rape within marriage perfectly legal – at least among its Shi’a minority. In addition, it would strip mothers and grandmothers of all parental rights, and deny the women freedom of movement (they could only leave their houses with their husband’s permission).

That is bad – very bad.  It is a law that contravenes human rights – obviously – and it contravenes the treaties to uphold these human rights which the Afgahni government has entered into.

What is even worse is how so many people here, in ‘The West’, have reacted to this proposal.  From radio call-in shows to all kinds of other fora where people express their opinions, the reaction I hear is rather frightening!

So many of ‘us’ are saying things along the lines of:

‘Well, it is their democratically elected government which is passing this law, so we must not interfere!’

‘It’s their culture, and if they democratically decide to make these rules, it would be wrong for us to stop them.’

‘We must not criticize this law.  We brought them democracy, and they are democratically choosing to do this, so to criticize this law would be hypocritical of us.’

These sentiments are SO outrageous, I don’t know where to start…

Fist and foremost, let me start with ‘democracy’, as it was originally concieved of by the ancient Greeks:

Brought to us by Athenians in the 4-5th century BCE (though there were earlier proto-democracies as far back as perhaps 2000 BCE), democracy was a straight ‘rule of majority’.  Only free males were considered citizens (women and slaves were excluded), and could vote.  This was a major advance over the previous systems, but…

The problem with this type of democracy is that majority opinion rules.  It can easily become a ‘tyranny of the majority‘ – and tyranny in any form is a bad thing. (Sad that I have to even state that…but, it seems, in today’s world, I do.)

Let me give an example:

Imagine there is a small village of only 5 farmsteads.  They have an ‘absolute democracy’ – meaning, whatever the majority votes, goes.  On one of these farmsteads, there live 4 beautiful, very intelligent young women – their father has saved and scrimped, and is proudly planning to send them off to the big city to get a University education.

This is not to the liking of the other 4 farmers, each of whom has a son – and each of whom would like to see his son marry one of these beautiful, intelligent women.  So, they hold a vote:  unsurprisingly, the vote is 1 for letting the girls go to school, and 4 for letting the 4 young men marry them instead.

Majority rules!!!  Instead of buying textbooks, the funds are used to celebrate 4 weddings…

That WAS democracy in action!

Or, let’s consider another example:

A country has ‘absolute democracy’.  Most of the people in this country are Christian.  About 40% of the population belongs to other religions:  Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Budhism, Sikhism, or some other religion.  Some of this 40% may practice no religion at all.

Still, 60% of the population is Christian.  One day, a radical preacher introduces a bill which would force the conversion of every one of those 40% of the population to become Christian – no more Mosques, Synagogues, or any other temples.  No more questioning of the Christian dogma – by anyone, anywhere!

It’s put to the vote:  and, surprisingly enough, 59% of the population votes to pass this bill into law!  Now, everyone is forced to become a practicing Christian.

Again, majority rules!!!  This was decided democraticly!

I sincerely hope that you found both of these outcomes unacceptable!

Why?

Because they oppress a part of the populace!

That is why we do not practice ‘absolute democracy’.  Instead, we have improved on this ancient concept in some very, very important ways.  I suppose it started with the Magna Carta…  (Or, if you are a history buff, with Cyrus the Great!)

Cyrus the Great (even more than King John – who was forced into it) recognized and stated a really important principle – later paraphrased by my favourite philosopher, Theodor Seuss Geisel:

‘A person’s a person, no matter how small!’

In other words, Cyrus brought us the idea that there are some rights which are inherrent to each individual – and which no ruler – monarch or democrat or anyone else – has the right to strip from him or her.  Considering that at that time, Cyrus was an absolute monarch, that is a rather enlightened thing to say.

Yet, Cyrus did not just say it – he codified it.  We have ‘the cylinder’ which was Cyrus’s constitution:  individual rights are inherent to the individual, and nobody can strip one of them!!!  Oh, how we need ‘a Cyrus’ now!!!  It was in the very area where Afghanistan and Iran is now, that this cradle of democracy and human rights was located.  So, please, do not let anyone tell you that recognition of and respect for inherrent human rights is not part of the Afghani cultural heritage:  it originates there!!!

From the first declaration of human rights by Cyrus the Great, to the US constitution, to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms – we all recognize that while we may be ruled by a democracy, it is a constitutional democracy:  it is only allowed to pass laws which do not violate basic human rights!!!

If you are up on the UN’s document, you will see that my first example violates Article 16.2 of the UN’s declaration, while my second example violates Article 18.  That is what makes these scenarios unacceptable to us – and rightly so!

Now, the proposed Afghan law also violates a few of these – specifically, it violates Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 13, Articles 16.1 and 16.2, Article 18, Article 20.1, all 3 sections of Article 21, perhaps Article 22, Article 23.1 and 23.4, perhaps Articles 25 and 26, Article 27.1 and 27.2, and, finally, Article 28.

That is quite a score – for a single law!!!

Please, I invite you to follow the link to the UN’s declaration of Universal Human Rights and Freedoms, and verify that I have indeed listed the breeches of the UN’s declaration accurately:  if anything, I erred on the side of not listing an Article or two which might also be breeched!

And, the fledling Afghani government HAD signed a treaty, which binds it to respect and not breech these human rights!  Therefore, any laws it DEMOCRATICALLY passes MUST NOT BREECH these basic human rights and freedoms.

This is not a question of denying the Afghanis the right to rule themselves democratically.  This is a question of demanding that they only pass laws which respect the basic rights and freedoms of its citizens – something the Afghani government has legally bound itself to do!

Hiding behind the word ‘democracy’ does not permit ‘tyranny of the majority’ – yet, that is what those who would accept this Afghani law which strips its Shi’a female citizens of their fundamental rights and freedoms are willing to accept.  People in our own culture lack the ability to differentiate between ‘tyranny of the majority’ and a ‘constitutional democracy’!

Shame on us all!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 7 Comments »
Newer posts »