Sharia mania

In case you missed the commentary about that controversial Afghan law on the Star's main website  today, here it is, or at least part of it, again. It's by Nelofer Pazira, president of Pen Canada and author of Return to Kandahar, who is none to pleased by the Western reaction to the law.

Any law or practice that treats any members of society, men or women, with prejudice should not be tolerated. But with the hysteria the West has showered on this issue, I wonder whether we're not projecting our own fears of sharia onto what's unfolding in Afghanistan. In Canada, we hear the word sharia and we tremble because all we know of Islamic law is the Taliban, the Danish cartoons affair and executions in Saudi Arabia.

In the case of Afghanistan, the new legislation will affect women of the Shiite minority – about 5 per cent of the population. The majority of all Afghan women are in fact hostage to far more draconian practices, enshrined in customs and traditions that date back to pre-sharia days – and are in some cases contradictory to Islam.

These practices include dowries, forced marriages and women's absolute obedience to men. Even in its conservative interpretation, Islam recognizes women's rights to land ownership. It insists on the "consent" of both sexes when entering a marriage contract or sexual relations.

What is branded as "sharia" for Shiites in the legislature is basically giving Afghan men the right to control their wives, which is already practised widely throughout the country. While Hamid Karzai's government may call for review of the law – even going so far as to provide verbal assurances to its Western patrons that the law will be revised – the attitude of Afghan men won't change with the rewording of a legal document through external pressures, especially from the West.

<SNIP>

Sure, we must fight to protect the legal rights of women. But we must also seek ways to bring about change so that legislation is relevant to the lives of women and men in Afghanistan. The majority of Afghans cannot read and write; an even greater majority don't go to the courts to resolve family and marriage problems. The few who are educated enough to seek legal help are skeptical about the rule of law because of the corruption and lack of trust in the Afghan government and the judicial system.

This government has lost its legitimacy because most Afghans view Karzai as a Western puppet. Karzai, of course, has been making concessions to conservatives to prove he is the leader of a sovereign state – in the hope this will help him win the next election. But causing him this international public embarrassment and forcing him to give in to even more Western dictates is undermining his already shrinking local popularity – let alone any chance of re-election.

By all means, help Afghan women. But spare me the hysteria.

Especially since, as I and others have pointed out, there is a racist element to the ''hysteria'' that is not at all helpful to advancing peace in the Middle East and the '''Stans.''

Like I have said before: You know what might work in Afghanistan, since the West is propping up its own man anyway?

Kick out the guys from the government and put in a bunch of women, women who obviously will never be able to leave a fortress of a capital for their own protection.

Any nation that treats women like dirt will always remain in the muck.

Comments

[sooey]

The focus is pretty disingenuous. How would a law like that make any difference to most Afghani women who have no rights anyway?

By the way, what's the point of educating women about their rights if the men in their lives don't think they should have any?

[Sebastian Stoker]

I share Sooey's sentiments at this point in time.

What is the west doing, other than making matters worse?

Talk about disingenuous, until 9/11, western governments were unconcerned with the plight of Afghani women. Now every head of state, and member of his government, is not just a feminist, but a Feminist, when Afghanistan is mentioned. And they take this sleazily fake stand knowing that no one would dare to call them on it, not with all those poor women in peril. What about religious abuse of women elsewhere? Female circumcision? Honor killings? There is no shortage of women to save.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Sooey Sweetie, Stoker you Smoker,

Right on cue, Ezra Levant is posting notice of a movie dealing with precisely this topic on his website, with hints that the usual suspetcs in the HRC's may attempt to suppress it. Check it out under "The Stoning: Real human rights vs. counterfeit human rights" on his blog http://ezralevant.com/.

He also includes a plug for the 300, whioch I enjoyed, and I hope the Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator did too (I saw it twice).

[Sebastian Stoker]

From Levant's site:

"...The journalist is played by Jim Caviezel,... He also played Jesus in Mel Gibson's The Passion."

"And as to Canada's embarrassing HRCs? I think it's more likely that they'd charge the movie with "hate speech" against radical Islam than go see it."

That says a great deal.

Thanks Stygian, it is great to get info from such unbiased sources as Levant.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Stoker you Smoker,

It does say a great deal. Levant is rightly biased, and he's quite correct, and the best source on HRC's we have.

But I hope that this time he's embarrassed the HRC's out of accepting any charges of "Islamophobia".

And while we're on the subject, I hope that the Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator will second my main objection to "The Passion of the Christ": nearly all the dialogue in Latin should actually have been in Greek.