WOMEN LEFT HANGING IN IRAQ

WOMEN LEFT HANGING IN IRAQ The fools who insist the proposed IRAQI CONSTITUTION is progress should look at the face of SHARI’A in next door neighbor SHIA dominated IRAN.  Consider the case of sixteen year old ATEFEH RAJABI, a sixteen year old girl hanged for having had sex with an older, later vengeful man and for talking back to an Islamic judge [STORY HERE].  The judge himself put the noose around her neck.

THE SAD DETAILS of Atefeh Rajabi’s death may soon be unjustly forgotten. We should remember the broader strokes that paint more of the Middle East stepping back into a past.

[FRONTPAGE] . . . according to the Islamic Republic of Iran's interpretation of the Shari'a (I don't know how it's interpreted or done in Arab countries) a woman is automatically the seductress, however young and innocent. According to them, a man, no matter how old and promiscuous, is considered to be a "victim."

ATEFEH’S STORY IS AS OLD as the tale of a snake, an apple, and a man.  If you take a bite of that story where woman is to blame, you find that the apple is rotten at its core.  The myth of the malevolent woman corrupting men now will rot another country in Iraq.

RELATED RECOMMENDED READING
[MEDIA GIRL]  [ALAS A BLOG]  [FRONT PAGE]  [TELEGRAPH]

WHEN THE DUSTSTORM OF REALITY BLOWS and the grit stings the eyes and overloads the cavities of the soul, The Heretik remembers poetry may save us, in the moment still, in an eternity forever.  Wisdom comes in small lines and peace in a hidden cranny of the heart.  The Heretik was wandering in a desert and came upon some wonder by PERSIS KARIM

She was a tired girl trapped in a woman's mind.
Thinking of cigarettes and sex on tender afternoons.
She couldn't help herself. Her anger at injustice
Resided at the tip of her tongue, in the color of her lips.

First she gave herself to the boy next door,
Then later, to a man twice her age.
The reports say she was mentally incompetent.
When she faced the judges, for "acts incompatible with chastity"
Her quiet state of madness grew darker.
She spoke against her accusers, lashing her tongue
100 times against the body of men
wrapped in white cloth and holiness.

Weeks later her body hung from a rope
Tied to the bough of a chestnut tree at Neka Square.
Beneath the black folds of cloth that would erase her,
The citizens passing by saw the scorn in her past-virgin
Face. They made themselves feel better by speaking
under their breath.
She was a whore, a temptress, a victimizer of men.

That night her body lay in the hot, humid ground.
Someone, perhaps the men, dug her up,
Fearful that her skin and bones
Might eat away at the earth
where mortal saviors walk.

She has risen again, some say.
Given her body over to the flight
Of souls, to watchful eyes
That entreat us to remember
The body from where we came.


“Atefeh’s Execution”
PERSIS M KARIM

Comments

[ol cranky]

I'm going to be terribly arrogant an quote myself (because I do not believe in anonymous sources) from I post I made last night regarding Kansas AG Phil Kline's misogynistic attempt to give a zygote rights that supercede the rights of women

...based on King George's assertion that women are assured rights under a new Iraqi Constitution that derives civil law from Sharia, we can put what the Bushevicks consider rights for women to be in perspective. Yes women will have some rights in Iraq but they will not even be close to equal those of men; why anyone is suprised that's OK by BushCo is beyond me - women's rights under Sharia are exactly what the Repubevangelicals are trying to ensure for women here in the US.

[Pepper]

That is a heartbreaking story. It makes me grateful for the rights I have that so many other American women fought for - and I want women everywhere to enjoy the freedoms I have. People like Condi and Karen Hughes have no appreciation for the sacrifices others made so they could be in their positions of power. I also have a few excerpts of the Iraqi constitution that I picked up from the Guardian UK. They list the fact that "No less than 25% of Council of Deputies seats go to women," but it doesn't mean much if women still suffer.

[Rook]

I have no doubts that the extremist conservative christians in America would be no different in their justice towards women in this country.

Look how quickly they turned on Cindy Sheenen.

[ol cranky]

Look how quickly they turned on Cindy Sheenen

They turned, but not through a grass roots effort as they claimed - Move America Forward aka RM&R (the GOP's PR firm) organized the "You don't speak for us, Cindy Sheehan" movement right out of their Sacramento office.

[The Un-Apologetic Atheist]

This is why I am getting to the point I can do little more than look at people with the dirtiest look I can muster, when they ask me "what's the big deal? Why are you so angry about the Christianization of America?"

Islam, the religion that gave us algebra and so many other advancements, turned from their scientific leadership role into that of the religious-oppressors, and I see in our nation the ability to do the same... to slide back into the Dark Ages from which we have only just emerged.

Iran denies both the self-determination and free sexuality rights of women. They attack homosexuals. They attack people for being "sinners". It's a good thing America would never emulate such actions. Except when we do.

[SB_Gypsy]

The evangelist dominionists would sentence me to death 5 times over for my political and religious views...

To me, that says it all.

[Kate]

Yes, Old Cranky, even the AP pretends it was a group of grieving mothers who came up with the "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" tour. I hate Move America Forward. They are one of the banes of my existence. I wish it weren't so.

Heretik, this post is a bone chiller. I fear for the women of Iraq on so many levels. Isn't it enough that they have to worry about their safety and the safety of everyone they love, with bombs going off and people being shot and kidnapped and murdered? Does the state, once it's actually set up, have to terrorize them too?

I agree with Rook. The Christian fascists in our country would like nothing better than to restrict American women in medieval ways too. They infantilize us, care more for those not yet born and those half-dead than those who can speak up and tell their own truths. I'm heartbroken over the state of things. It's overwhelming sometimes. There are too many fights and not enough warriors. We've become like those crazy kung-fu fighters in old Hong Kong flicks, surrounded by masked, armed thugs. I'm glad we have each other.

[dorsano]

I wonder what Iran would be like today if the Eisenhower administration hadn't engineered a coup of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq because Iran's democratically elected government wanted to nationalize the country's oil production?

The abuses and eventual overthrow of the Shah and the rise of an Islamic state caused a paradigm shift in Middle East politics. Would al-Qa'ida exist exist and would 9/11 have happened? Would Bush be president and would I stop in here from time to time for a drink?

I wonder if the women of Iraq and the Iraqi middle class as a whole, doctors, lawyers, judges, civil servants, all systematically targeted for kidnapping and assasination in the low grade civil war taking place in Iraq, will survive their incompetent liberation?

[ThomH]

A few thoughts - and one qualification, to start. I've lived under Sharia law while in Sharjah, UAE (United Arab Emirates) for four semesters. Got back to the States end of 2003 -- so was there for the invasion of Iraq, btw.

Whereas I would fight to death to keep Shiria law or the Biblical / "Christian" equivalent imposed here, I just want to point the status of women under Shiria law might be just a bit more complex than what we're dicussing here tonight.

UAE, where I lived, is 80% expat (non-UAE residents). I spoke with dozens of people from Iran -- and partied w/ more than a few as well. In the case of the girl in Iran, her death seems as much a matter of class as religion. She got the justice she could afford.

Deal: if your family's well-off or connected, you can pretty much get away with almost anything. People in/from Teheran are as sex-crazy or not as any New Yawkers. Likewise, some Iranian women hold jobs, run their own businesses, etc. (I dated one. Teheran, btw, about an hour flight from Dubai, UAE).

If we're talking 'bout some village girl or from a poor family, well . . . that's another story. The law can be --and is-- enforced very selectively. Likewise, certainly, politics also matters -- why Zahra Kazemi was violated and murdered.

So if you're anti-religion in general, certainly you can blame the legal abuses of Sharia law on Islam. But many of the reformers in Iran and elsewhere are people of the Islamic faith. Shirin Ebadi, for one example.

Or any number of the young women I spoke with while in the UAE. They want changes -- equality of opportunity, due process, more representative government. But not necessarily to give up their faith. That's what I meant by the complication. Some of them will argue against Sharia law. Some will point out that Sharia law was understood much more progressively in the past-- the problem is with the present.

I'd argue we're dealing with a certain fundamentalist / patriarchal mindset. Like OC, I don't find it that different from what Tom DeLay and company mean by Biblical Law.

Which brings me to your source, Frontpage -- a David Horowitz publication. He's more out to demonize Iran in particular and Islam in general. Not to mention the American left, which for Horowitz also includes the center.

So where are we? Well, selling the rights of Iraqi women down the river. Don't deny that for a heartbeat.

But there's a canary in the coalmine effect. The rights of women suffer first and horribly when economic and educational opportunities breakdown.

Some have argued our policies toward Iran -- sanctions included-- help keep the Clerics in power, the secular middle class crippled, and the nation on semi-war footing.

The current situation in Iraq needs no commentary. If I'm looking for why abuses occur and why extremes seem acceptable, I might not limit my consideration to religion or ideology. I might also look at the material circumstances -- and even ask myself, from all this inequity, who benefits?

[The Heretik]

Once again, Thom, a salute to the lord of the links. More on Atefeh here. More on plight of Iranian women HEREand HERE

[Kate]

Thom, I disagree with you partly regarding the lack of economic and educational opportunities hurting women more than harsh religious law. It's been demonstrated across the world that when women have control over their own destinies the local economies do better. Educational opportunities are vitally important, of course. But they also often come from the empowerment of women, and not always the other way around.

No doubt you are right regarding the influence of class. It helps to be rich no matter where you live. The sad truth is we don't care if they have sharia. Their constitution could advocate treatment of women as harsh as that of the Taliban. As long as the government is friendly to us and does what we ask, we'll be happy. How completely sad!!

[dorsano]

I wonder why our leaders have so little faith in Democracy

Blair warned, however, that Britain would amend its human rights legislation, if necessary, to enable the authorities to deport foreigners to lands with questionable human rights records. At present, such actions are forbidden under the European Human Rights Convention.

When the flaming liberal Ronald Reagan testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee at the height of the Cold War he said

Sir, if I might, in regard to that, say that what I was trying to express, and didn’t do very well, was also this other fear. I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it.

Where are the Edward R. Murrows capable and willing to engage in the war of ideas with extremist ideologies and where are the leaders intelligent enough to empower them?

It was most fitting that President Kennedy chose him to be the Director of the United States Information Agency (USIA), sworn in on March 21, 1961, because of the high esteem in which he was held nationally and internationally. His leadership, experience and personal qualities of intelligence, integrity and courage rendered high service to his country as he fulfilled his commitment as Director "to tell the world about America," which he did until illness forced him to resign in January 1964.

The "preachers of hatred" glorify suicide bombers. They taunt us and slide a foot to far edge of the line that incites and calls for violence all while taunting us that our ideals of free speech and individual freedom and a decent shot for everyone at a decent life are hollow and hypocritical.

Where are the Bill O'Reilly's, Rush Limbaugh's, Ann Coulter's, Frank Luntz's and Grover Norquist's who will stand up to the "preachers of hate" in a town hall in London or New York and engage and win over the hearts and minds of the audience to the virtues of Democracy and where is the President who will empower them and task them to do so?

[Aaron]

One of the cardinal precepts of all Western fundamentalist religious belief and patriarchal societies in general is the necessity of maintaining tight controls over women. Just examine any modern society at the point in history when it begins expanding the rights and roles of women and you'll see a society that is moving towards liberalization as a whole and away from all religious ideological dogma.

Islamic fundamentalism can not function effectively without repressing the female. You can repeat this statement inserting any Western religion in place of Islam.

The resurgence of fundamentalist Christianity here in the United States is a perfect example. Attempts to regain control over women's bodies, specifically reproductive control in the form of abortion and birth control is an absolute necessity if the Christian fundamentalist movement is going to maintain and expand its resurgence.

When politicians like Rick Santorum attack birth-control, child support and the right to have an abortion, consciously or not they are in fact working towards the creation of a society that places women in a position of subservience. Once women have been controlled, the minds of the young, male and female alike can be shaped in any manner that the society in question deems necessary. But without that control over women, the young in their most formative years are free to develop intellectually and socially nearly unfettered by the prevailing ideologies imposed by society at large.

The United States again is a perfect example, during the 1960s and 70s old paradigms of child rearing were cast aside by many in favor of new approaches and methods of raising the young. Religious conservatives immediately began to see the danger of a generation which started creating their own ethical, moral and social standards rooted not in any religious philosophy that clung to well-established boundaries, but in a much freer secular society which began pushing beyond those old boundaries. This type of liberalized society threatens literally everything from the past and therefore, from a conservative fundamentalist perspective, cannot be tolerated and must be stamped out.

[ol cranky]

Kate:

I think you're missing Thom's point. In Iran (and many Islamic countries), it is the same as it is here in the US: the affluent/well-connected families and their female kin will be protected/allowed to do as they please (i.e., not only et away with "breaking the law", but be able to do so in private). A woman's rights is not a matter of the state of the economy, they're a matter of the state of her families economy (of course, one step out of line and the patriarch of her family could have her treated like a commoner if he so desired).

[Kate]

Ol cranky, I got what he said, I just didn't agree with all of it. Religious fundamentalist law trumps economics, even family economics, sometimes. If that weren't tru, then that Saudi princess who was stoned to death in the middle of a mob (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/princess/) would still be alive, as would countless Afghan women who were powerless in the face of their oppressors. I know a wealthy Egyptian woman who was imprisoned in Syria for five years under sharia. She was released eventually because she had dual citizenship with the US. It was the power of her Syrian husband, who wanted her in jail so she wouldn't get custody of their children, that mattered most, not how much money her family had.

I think money gets some people out of binds all over the world, in religious republics and secular ones. But seeing that the majority of women in most muslim countries are not of the ruling class (and seeing that even some of the ruling class have been persecuted), the majority suffers under fundamentalist rule, and everyone, including the richest and the poorest, benefit when women are given control over their lives.

I was pointing out, too, how sad it is that when women are oppressed their local economies suffer, which of course include their own families' economies. Sharia makes no economic sense.

We're not in disagreement here. We all agree. I'm just saying that if some Iranians living in the UAE (not exactly a cross-section of the muslim world, btw) say that this woman's murder would not have happened if she had been rich it doesn't take away from the harsh reality of religious fundamentalism that represses the rights of all women, regardless of class. The Heretik was right to use her an example of what can go wrong if a woman steps outside her imposed boundaries.

[Kate]

I didn't clarify one point well, so here it is. I was also trying to point out, though apparently poorly, that often economic opportunities and growth FOLLOW the rights of women, not the other way around. This means that women need to be free to control their own lives in order for a community to prosper. When they have control, there is less chronic hunger and malnutrition (and therefore disease and premature death), there is a higher rate of literacy and education, and the local economy is healthier. The Hunger Project has demonstrated this with their democracy initiatives in India, where there focus has been on the political empowerment of women. When the women are empowered, things in the community change, especially things that concern food, water, and health, which are generally in the woman's domain. When women have the right to exercise their voices, they demand things like in-town water sources and schools. They make things happen that matter to families.

One follows the other. I'm just arguing that it is the other way around than what Thom says. It is not always economic and educational opportunities that give women more rights, but rather the political rights of women that leads to more economic and educational opportunities. If we wanted to help poor communities (of which Iraq is one now) to prosper we'd be smart to start with giving women more rights. Instead, we are taking them away in Iraq, basically guaranteeing that the economy there will falter. Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe the Chalabi government will manage to turn Iraq into the next Dubai, though even there the underclass of imported workers suffer so the citizens and ex-pat majority may prosper.

[Kate]

Okay, just one more comment. Heretik, remind me not to write in the middle of the night or first thing in the morning. What the hell is wrong with me?! I can't seem to write what I mean. Through me a burkha and call it a day, will you?

I'm going to try to be as clear as possible about my disagreements with Thom's post, then I'll give up because we're all in agreement, basically, which makes all of my comments sort of silly. Oh the foibles of us bloggers! Insane.

1. Thom argues that family money trumps sharia. I argued that this is not always the case.

2. Thom argues that we would do better to give economic and educational opportunities to Iraqis rather than be so concerned with sharia. I argued, but failed to say, that sharia restricts the political rights of women. When women have full political rights, they have more economic and educational opportunities, and that a number of projects, including the Hunger Project, have shown that economic properity and educational opportunities follow the political empowerment of women. This means that we would do better to discourage the Iraqis from putting sharia into their constitution because it will not only restrict the political rights of women but will also restrict the country's economic and educational opportunities over all.

I swear. I need another cup of decaf.

Sorry for all the comments, ya'll!! Peace and warm wishes --

Kate

[ThomH]

Kate, let me start with your correction:

"It is not always economic and educational opportunities that give women more rights, but rather the political rights of women that leads to more economic and educational opportunities."

Lots of studies of this in "developing nations" from Bangladesh to Kenya. All the evidence I've seen is on your side. From micro-credit to educational reform, the many daily and local efforts of women drive social and economic progress. In contrast to, one might add, the more grandiose World Bank or IMF ventures.

So I'm happy to concede I got that backwards.

Here's what I think I was getting at -- or at least should have been. The enforcement of these laws can depend the culture and material circumstances. And that we have some evidence for this too. (When the Korean bubble burst, for instance, women were disapportionately affected in terms of employment --but also incidents of abuse increased).

My concern here: part of the danger of an "outside" perspective can be trying to legislate reality, telling the "natives" how things should be. Almost the equivalent of an unfunded mandate.

Not in contrast but in comparison, Safia Souhail is arguing for improving and existing what already existed in Iraq --and what the turn towards Sharia law is taking away. In her words:

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened -- we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment."

Likewise, Shirin Ebadi is a lawyer in Iran -- someone both working with and trying to reform the legal system.

If I go off on women's rights in the Islamic world, I'll get email from former students telling me politely to shut up. Support our efforts for reform and equality, please -- but don't tell us what our faith is or what's wrong with Islam. We have our ideas, thank you -- and we know far more about this than white American non-Muslim TJH.

That's more where I think wanted to go. Less "what they should do", and more how we could support their efforts.

Not that I'm above either sexism or paternalism, but just my own efforts to deal with it, here's what I blogged way back on one of my former students:

##
Back to Maryam. Our class was dicussing Wollencraft and Mill, particularly their ideas on woman’s education.

Dealing with the objections that educated women are less family-oriented, more likely to divorce, more likely to compete economically with men, etc., Maryam discussed the situtation in Pakistan and need for a more widely educated society in a global economy. I forget all the details of her argument, but I remember her concluding remark: "When a woman is educated, she educates her entire family."

In brief, what Pakistan and other nations needed was more--not less--literate and highly educated women.

The CIA World Factbook stats on Literacy in Pakistan

definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 45.7%

male: 59.8%

female: 30.6% (2003 est.)

We forget that sometimes self-expression can be an act of courage, an act of self-exploration that creates new possibilities. I am thankful to have had the opportunity to work with students like Maryam, Faiza, Hasina, Mustharia, Arooj and many others.
##

Whatever. You can see clearly that Maryam isn't just arguing for herself. Rightly or wrongly, she feels the need to and makes an excellent case for the social value --the utility-- of women's rights.

All the young ladies I mentioned above were Muslims -- somewhat to very devout, studying at college and hoping for career opportunities, and concerned with the political rights of women and human rights in general.

None of them answered to my previous understanding / cliche/ stereotype of the Islamic woman. All of them could -- and to varying degrees would -- speak for themselves. Had their own ideas.

So I'm just asking people to go a little easy in assuming we already know what Islam is about, how their women need to be "saved," and how we can impose a purely legalistic or political solution.

I do we think we need legal and political guarentees of civil rights and the rights of women. But I'm dubious about how we're currently going about this in Iraq and elsewhere -- and I'm also unsure that just rights on paper however beautiful will prove sufficient.

[The Heretik]

A theme I will explore later and more fully is The Imperial Tourist. In our wisdom, we enter country after country bearing our glorious burden, shining and white, visiting upon the people less learned in our ways all the help we can offer, unasked for most often. When the sun sets on our imperial dream, what remains for the locals left to themselves is a shadow more dark and more ominous than when we first came.

Where we should tread lightly, with respect for local custom, we step boldly, splashing blood underfoot. Where we should touch on the native dreams with a caress, we leave with a slap of the back of our hand.

[ThomH]

Heretik, buddy, this site is wearing me out! I'm taking a break. I thank everyone for an excellent--and to me, very challenging--discussion.

[Tata]

"Woman"?

This is a child. There is no excuse for her execution.