Wasn't Afghanistan supposed to be a better place since the US government replaced the ruthless Taliban regime with the new "pro-democratic" government?
Not really!
Afghanistan has recently "passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands," writes the British Guardian.
Below is one provision of the new law:
"Tamkeen is the readiness of the wife to submit to her husband's reasonable sexual enjoyment, and her prohibition from going out of the house, except in extreme circumstances, without her husband's permission. If any of the above provisions are not followed by the wife she is considered disobedient."
Nothing says "democracy" and "human rights" at work better than legalized sexism, forced sex, and starvation.
Thank you George W. Bush for invading Afghanistan and making it a better place for Shia men (never mind Shia women and their rights)...
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
Blessings and best wishes - S.
How long before we evolve into a decent world for all?
Man's Inhumanity to Man
The Scottish poet Robert Burns ( 1759- 1796), who was passionate about freedom and respect for humankind, wrote, "Man's Inhumanity to Man, makes countless thousands mourn" ( "Man Was Made to Mourn," Stanza 7, 1786). Throughout history, countless thousands continue to mourn as a result of pain, torture, and loss of life inflicted upon them or those near and dear to them--innocent men, women, and children. In spite of the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed, perpetrators and victims of pain and suffering have been found among all peoples, all nations, all religions, and all races. Yet, we must also note the poets, journalists, statesmen, and ordinary people, who, in many voices and often at great risk to themselves, elect to speak out against the inhumanity they see, in the hope that in time parents might raise their children in peace.
But apparently Allah is okay with that?
It wasn't that long ago in the U.S. that "rape within marriage" was legal, and there are still many Christians (and others) who believe that it is a wife's duty to serve and obey her husband, and who don't accept the concept of marital rape.
I think that law in Afghanistan sucks, and I'm also aware that many of us who condemn such things are living in glass houses.
The law in Afghanistan that the Shia religious leaders wanted for their sect does suck and yes, there are many of us who condemn such things that are living in glass houses.
"Wasn't Afghanistan supposed to be a better place since the US government replaced the ruthless Taliban regime with the new "pro-democratic" government?"
Nope. George Bush invaded Afghanistan because he wanted to run an oil line. Same bushit, different day.
They went from Jirgas to complete monarchy to constitutional monarchy to an “Islamic state” in Kabul, which nobody listened to except those around Kabul. In the absence of unity among the former organizations of mojāhedīn, conditions of political anarchy and civil war continued to prevail in Afghanistan. Then there was no unified administration, no end to civil war, and no new constitution.
They now have an executive branch, a bicameral parliament, and a judicial branch. The Constitution of Afghanistan became the official law of Afghanistan when the 2003 Loya jirga approved it by the consensus on January 4, 2004. Yeah, they are obviously unique in this world to have problems with their constitution.
So this all has to do with George Bush and oil? Nothing else?
Hint: Wasn't Afghanistan supposed to be a better place since the US government replaced the ruthless Taliban regime with the new "pro-democratic" government? First line of the article . . . Bush administration started a war, claimed they were going after Bin Laden (when they really wanted an oil line) and later decided we shouldn't really care why they started the war because we were delivering democracy and freeing the women.
My pleasure. No need to thank me.
Your abject hatred couldn't see that some of us could answer "no."
Gee, Sandy, I'll bet you always color within the lines, too. With your tunnel vision stuck on Bush, that's all you see?
Think, Sandy, it's really not all that hard to do. Math problem: Ruthless Taleban regime - 100% of Afghanistan ruled by the Taleban. Pro-democratic government Afghanistan - twisted Taleban rules apply to 15% of 30 million as per their constitution, albeit a violation of "the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was founded;" albeit "It also violates several specific Constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal rights to all Afghan citizens." Let's see, 100% (pre-Bush), 15% (post-Bush).
In my opinion, we should be voicing our disgust at this law instead playing the age old blame game, which achieves nothing, especially for the women of Afghanistan.
If you want to blame Bush for Article 131 in the Afghanistan constitution, no one can stop you, have at it. But at some point the blame in our country needs to be put aside so we can take a good look at our government and our politicians. We have to take a look at how much power these people have and how are they using it and abusing it? Why, even after we have a new president, is our government still lying to us? But if we continue to point fingers at each other, we'll never move forward. What do you want to do?
And the question is, wasn't Afghanistan supposed to be a better place since the US government replaced the ruthless Taliban regime with the new "pro-democratic" government?
The answer to that isn't "it's Bush's fault." IS Afghanistan a better place or not?
The final statement is, Thank you George W. Bush for invading Afghanistan and making it a better place for Shia men (never mind Shia women and their rights)...
Is Bush responsible for Shi'a beliefs? Would this have happened if Afghanistan wasn't invaded? Wasn't it the Taleban who controlled the entire country AND enforced these very same beliefs on the entire country?
We also have to eventually accept the fact that the Afghanis have some responsibility for their own constitution. We can say the Coalition forces manipulated, influenced, coerced the Afghanis but they're no dupes. They are just as much a player in this whole deal.
I am a moral and cultural relativist. I understand that there are no universally-accepted concepts of right and wrong or good and evil, and that there is no one proper and correct way to live.
But since some of my tax dollars are being spent to support this Afghan government, I'd appreciate it if they didn't pass laws saying it's OK for husbands to beat and starve their wives. I'd much rather the money be spent supporting women who'd rather not be abused by their husbands or by their government.
But understand that I am not supporting the idea of rape in or out of marriage. It is as repugnant to me as to you and others. But I am not supporting the idea of a woman being subserviant to her husband as the Bible enjoins which happens in this country all the time. My point only is that you and Wil B. are wanting to enforced your opinions of what is right and wrong on a people who have an entirely different moral sense of what is right and wrong. This is one of the main reasons for war in the first place. Rather, I believe in educating people to a higher standard. And incidentally, they believe the same thing about us. Muslim countries dont want to become just like this country where we have not only allowed but mandated immoral and unconscienable situations to exist and are experiencing the deleterious effects all the time to our own horror some times. They don't want children carrying guns to school and killing other kidds like we have here. They don't want indiscriminate sexual demonstrations in public like we tolerate and even encourage here.
Are they primitive? Yes. Are we primitive in other ways? Yes. But we are "we" and "they are they." What people don't understand in this country is that we cannot have peace (which they chant in the streets for and carry signs) unless everybody in the world comes to one mind with regard to what is moral and what is not moral. And that is the role of religion. And it is religion that sets the stage for this debate here. Moral values have to be established by an authority above question, which is where the idea of God comes into play. When you ascribe to religious standards that were established a thousand years or more ago for a people who were primitive and unable to accept values beyond their capacity, you are acting stupidly and in contradiction to the very base of religion, "progressive education" commensurate with the times. We (the US) are naively and stupidly trying to imagine that we can establish our values contrary to their religious values by rule of law and force of arms. They (AND WE) will have to adopt a common religious moral value system that is modern. But you want your cake and eat it too. Just as they do. That is why we have wars and conflicts.
Given that I'm an atheist, and that I've just explained to you that I'm both a moral and cultural relativist, I can't begin to imagine why you think I'd say anything like that.
"What I'm suggesting is that you don't have to like the way others conduct their lives but you have no right or obligation to "enlighten others" to your way of thinking."
What I'm suggesting to you is that when they're operating on my dime, I most certainly do have a right to ask, or even insist, that they operate according to my way of thinking.
" It's just that I don't have any desire to impose my will on them as you apparently do."
That's OK because I'm not asking or expecting you to. Maybe you're the kind of guy who'd sit back and watch your neighbor beat his wife to death rather than impose your will on him, but I'm not.
"We went into Afghanistant to "get the Taliban", not to change their culture and religious views."
You're kidding, right?
"If you think that being a ruthless dictator like Hitler is the way to impose your (and my) ideas or right and wrong on them, then so be it."
I've suggested refusing to provide the Afghan government with financial and military support, and to instead direct assistance to those who oppose the continued oppression of women (and others) in Afghanistan. I think if you're going to throw around comparisons to Hitler, they might be better suited to those who advocated the invasion in the first place.
That is simply not true, Donald. The Taliban was targeted, along with Al Qaeda, from the get-go. Bush condemned them as a bunch of murderers on 20 Sept., 2001.
"And my reference to Hitler was to point out that your self righteous idea of imposing your moral values on others by coersion or force is what the Nazis did or wanted to do."
Except that I haven't said anything about imposing my moral values on others by coercion or force. I've said that I would prefer to withdraw financial and military support of those who behaving in ways I don't like.
"If we think that the morality perspective of the Muslims and Afghans in particular should be changed more along the line of that which both you and I think, we need to do it by persuasion and not by force."
Again, I haven't advocated the use of force.
"If your "dime" helps protect us from a barbaric people even if we allow them to remain barbaric, then that "dime" is well worth it. "
It might be worth it to you, but not to me. And it's my dime.
"Anyone who thinks that the women of Afghanistan are lovely and enlightened and the men are all barbaric they need a wake up call."
I don't need a wake-up call.
"The whole society is barbaric and needs a religious revolution to change in any effective way."
Hmmm...it seems like you're the one who needs a wake-up call. Talk about some serious over-generalization.
"Too many people in this country are sitting in over stuffed easy chairs before a TV and thinking of how all the other unenlightened people of the world should conduct themselves."
Well, I'm not one of them.
"All this when, partially thanks to atheists and other materialists, our own country is falling apart socially due to failing moral standards in the guise of "being modern"."
So you think the country would be better off if only everybody were as spiritually enlightened and morally superior as...let me guess...you? That's pretty much what the Taliban think about themselves and their country, isn't it?
However, that being said, it is not all of Afghanistan who will be following the Personal Status Law quoted here. This legislation covers about 15% of Afghanistan's 30 million, which is only the Muslim Shiites. The majority of the population is Sunni and they won't be affected by this law.
No, I'm not condoning what is happening there in case it sounds like I am, but realize this is a hell of a lot better than when Taliban were in control. The thing is to encourage human rights and women's rights groups to continue pressure on the government to overturn it. The problem there is that there is an election on Thursday, and it's believed that Karzai allowed this law to pass on July 27 in order to sway votes from the Shia leaders. The nerve of a government official doing something immoral and offensive to us in order to sway votes and win an election.
What compounds this issue is that millions of Afghani women may be denied their chance to vote because there aren't enough female officials to staff the women-only polling stations. Cultural norms there say that women can't vote in a male-run station, particularly since people are frisked before voting (can you imagine?).
I'd encourage all the commenters here to take an active part in voicing concern over women's issues in Afghanistan, and I appreciate Savo for bringing this subject to light.
But Article 7 (and the Preamble) says that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will be respected. And the Preamble also says that the purpose of the constitution is to "[f]orm a civil society void of oppression, atrocity, discrimination as well as violence, based on rule of law, social justice, protecting integrity and human rights, attaining peoples' freedoms and fundamental rights;".
And Article 22 says "Any kind of discrimination and distinction between citizens of Afghanistan shall be forbidden. The citizens of Afghanistan, man or woman, have equal rights and duties before the law."
So it looks to me like this new law is violating the Afghan constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all because Karzai is worried about the election.
" The thing is to encourage human rights and women's rights groups to continue pressure on the government to overturn it."
I agree. If the people of Afghanistan really want to "regain [their] appropriate place in the international family", they might want to recognize that some members of that family don't think much of laws that allow husbands to beat, starve, and imprison their wives for failing to submit to their demands for "sexual enjoyment".
The Supreme Court has already found that the Law is in accordance with the Constitution, most likely on the basis of Article 131 of the Constitution which recognises the specificity of the jurisprudence of the Shi’a sect with regard to personal affairs. However, the analysis below demonstrates that a number of the Law’s provisions violate the fundamental principles on which the Constitution is founded. It also violates several specific Constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal rights to all Afghan citizens. The review of the Law should prioritise those provisions of the Constitution that protect the rights of all Afghans rather than endorse a law that authorises seriously discriminatory traditions.
No Peace Without Justice / Newsroom / Appeal for Afghani Women /
I'm anxious to see if Karzai gets reelected, how he handles this situation. And if not him, his successor. Time will tell as this is unconscionable.
"I'm anxious to see if Karzai gets reelected, how he handles this situation. And if not him, his successor."
So am I. Thanks for the NPWJ link.
In my country, the United States of America, there are STILL pockets in the south where women who are abused by their men refuse to turn them in because they have nowhere to go. The community is small and rural and it isn't like those of us who live in urban areas can find shelter from the abuse.
They would rather not involve the authorities than risk being beaten worse after they've called the police. This I know because I lived and worked in one of those rural areas after having lived my whole life in urban California. It exists. Though my heart goes out to ANY woman who is abused over there, I think it needs to be brought to the attention that this STILL happens here.