August 19, 2005

JUST SAY, NO:

Kurd: Islam may get bigger role in Iraq (QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, August 19th, 2005, AP)

The United States is pressuring Kurds to accept demands of majority Shiites and Sunnis on the role of Islam in government in order to reach agreement on a draft constitution, a Kurdish official taking part in the negotiations said early Saturday.

Those demands would give the Muslim religion a bigger role in Iraqi society at the expense of women's rights and civil liberties, said the official, who refused to allow his name to be used because of the sensitivity of the issue.

He told The Associated Press that Kurdish leaders who support more secular policies are bowing to American pressure - dropping among other things their demand for self-determination, or the right to secede.


That would be a bad deal and the Kurds shouldn't take it. Better to just go their own way now and have an independent Kurdistan immediately.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 19, 2005 9:24 PM
Comments

Agreed.

Posted by: obc at August 19, 2005 11:17 PM

I'll second the motion.

Posted by: AllenS at August 20, 2005 6:24 AM

Here's more.

oj, in an earlier post, you told me not to worry about incorporating sharia into Iraqi law, should I start worrying now?

Posted by: erp at August 20, 2005 9:18 AM

Why wouldn't or shouldn't it be?

Posted by: oj at August 20, 2005 9:23 AM

oj, is that a yes? Start worrying now.

Posted by: erp at August 20, 2005 9:57 AM

Why? Why wouldn't a Muslim nation use shari'a law? It's like saying we shouldn't have incorporated the Common Law.

Posted by: oj at August 20, 2005 10:03 AM

erp:

I suspect it is 'dangerous' only when sharia is imposed on a mixed nation, like Nigeria (or Sudan), or what may happen in Europe in about 20 years.

Look at it this way - an Islamic reformation may only occur when an Islamic nation decides for itself that sharia is not the way to go. We know that, but they aren't going to listen, even if they like us.

Posted by: ratbert at August 21, 2005 1:54 PM

With all due respect ratbert, but women under sharia are very much like the negro slaves in the pre-civil war south. Their male masters were perfectly happy with the way the laws were written and enforced and Muslim women like the slaves in the old south are powerless to effect change.

I'm hoping that this contretemps was anticipated and in the end the president will get what he wants. He's had a splendid track record so far, so I'm giving this a bit more time before I put my head in the oven.

Posted by: erp at August 21, 2005 4:29 PM

erp:

No they aren't.

Posted by: oj at August 21, 2005 6:23 PM

erp:

By 'dangerous', I assumed you meant to the West, not to the women of Islam. Of course they live in thrall. But it isn't part of the WOT to free them.

However, it certainly would be an effective strategy. Nothing would point out the hollow masculinity of radical Islam more quickly than some Amazon muslimas taking matters into their own hands. But we couldn't save them. And think how the left would react to such violent cultural upheaval. I'm still amazed that the feminists (with so few exceptions) did not and do not speak out for the women of Afghanistan.

Posted by: ratbert at August 21, 2005 11:09 PM
« SLAYING SMOG: | Main | THE WONDERS A GOP PRESIDENT AND GOVERNOR CAN PERFORM FOR CA: »