Showing posts with label Shi'ites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shi'ites. Show all posts

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Ten Steps Backward for Afghan Women

Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a law in February, curtailing the freedoms of Shiite women. Karzai supported the law to gain Shiite support in the upcoming presidential election. What would the law do?

  • “Unless the wife is ill, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.”
  • Wives are obliged to have sex with their husbands at least once every four days.
  • Women can only leave the house if they have "a legitimate purpose."
  • Wives cannot work or get an education without their husband's permission.

The law triggered a firestorm of criticism, both international and Afghani. In response, Karzai ordered a review of the proposition to verify that it does not violate Afghanistan's constitutional protections. Even if though it had been passed by Parliament and signed by Karzai, the act does not become law until it is published in the official gazette.

However, Karzai also defended the measure, saying it had been "mistranslated" by the Western media.

The law only applies to Afghanistan's Shiites, who make up between a tenth and a fifth of the population. But women's rights groups are worried that it could influence pending legislation concerning Sunni families and violence against women.

About 300 women took to the streets of Kabul on April 15 to protest the law. They were taunted as "enemies of Islam" and, oddly, "whores." Some women professed their support for the law. Other women were members of the police force separating the two groups.

I would like to see more of them.


Saturday, March 29, 2008

"I'm so worried about what's happened today in the Middle East, you know"

You know how the surge was supposed to foster a reconciliation among the Iraqis? Apparently, that didn't happen.

It's hard to make sense of everything, but this much is certain: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has launched an offensive against the Mahdi Army, a militia led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and is personally leading the troops in Basra. Both Sadr and Maliki are Shi'ites, but Sadr is popular among the urban poor, nationalistic, and opposed to foreign influence--whether the influence is American or Iranian. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's Badr Corps, allies of Maliki, are supported by both the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. has provided air cover for Maliki's forces.

From there, things get a little fuzzy: The New York Times paints a picture of limited U.S. and British involvement. The Times also seems to say that the Mahdi Army is upholding its end of a cease-fire agreement and that Iraqi forces are fighting splinter groups who are not controlled by al-Sadr. The Washington Post seems to think that the U.S. will involve itself (or is involved) more deeply in Basra than what the Times portrays. Also, the battle in Basra could last a good while. Meanwhile, Joe Klein's analysis is that American involvement is a bad idea: It will cause more American deaths, it could lead to Sadrist retaliations across Shi'ite Iraq, and it will not solve anything. Also, there's disagreement among officials both in the military and in intelligence about with whom we should have sided in the first place, if at all. Sadr, with his independent streak, could be the best hope for a stable Iraq. And we're launching air strikes at his followers.