Now Iraqi women can be STONED to DEATH for adultery! Thank BUSH!

[LynnTheDem]

2005;

The "Alliance"...Al Sistani. The IRANIAN Shia supreme cleric leader the US "msm" insists on calling "Iraqi";

La Repubblica: "Putting it in a nutshell, there will be no more stoning of adulterous women, is that it?"

Al-Yasari, cleric al Sistani's spokesman:

"Well, it depends. In the case of married women whom eye witnesses can accuse of betraying their husbands, the punishment can only be that. But in any event there will be very few exemplary sentences, and they will always be issued after a fair trial."

Issue Feb 8, 2005;
http://www.repubblica.it/

2006; Guess who's declared the new Iraqi government...al Sistani's Alliance;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1567511.htm

*****

The majority United Iraqi Alliance supports sharia...
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060101faessay85104/isobel-coleman/women-islam-andthe-new-iraq.html

United Iraqi Alliance pushes for sharia...
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Iraq:_Uneven_voter_turnout_elects_women_who_push_sharia_law_while_anti-woman_violence_rages

Although questions of implementation remain, the new Iraqi constitution makes Islam the law of the land.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

Iraq Constitution:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-08-30.htm

***

But hey, stoning for adultery was what Sistani's Alliance was gung ho for last year...they've probably changed their stance this year...right? And Iraq's Constitution doesn't really have anything to do with Sharia even though it says it does. Really it doesn't.

And although Iraq was secular under Hussein and bush was warned by every expert on the subject around the world that removing Hussein would put the Islamic fundie Shia in control, it's not bush's fault. So stop saying that!

:sarcasm:

[f-bush]

1. What a surprise

pretty soon that's the way it's going to be here also!

[LynnTheDem]

5. Read what al Sistani has to say about marriage...OY!

The American Talebornagains must worship Sistani to pieces. Click on "marriage" from the top menu, then "miscellaneous rules for marriage" from the second menu;

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=3&lang=eng&part=3

Not quite "freedom" or "democracy" or "women's rights/equality" there.

[f-bush]

7. Yeah, no kidding...

thanks for starting this thread.

[Roho]

33. You do know that Sistani's party only got a minority don't you ???

[Mr.Green93]

2. It's their culture

What can we do about it?

[LynnTheDem]

9. We can learn from it...(laff)

"Democracy" can't be installed by external force.

Meddling in other nations' internal affairs, esp by invasins & occupations, usually makes things worse than before.

bush has, in fact, made things worse for the people of Iraq.

A whole lot of people, American, "coalition" and Iraqis, are dead and things are now worse than before bush's war of aggression...for Iraqis and for us all.

Making people hate you isn't a good way to convince a society to change their cultures.

Killing people isn't a good way to convince a society to change their cultures.

Being the biggest bully and hypocrite on the block isn't a good way to convince a society to change their cultures.

A society as a whole must want changes, for changes in that society to happen. The majority of Iraqis are religious fundie Shia; they voted, they won. That's "democracy". What can we do about it? Well, we could install another secular thug a la Hussein. Or we could have encouraged change by civil discussions and education...but we can't really do that now, can we. Too many Iraqis are a bit pissed with us for destroying their country & killing their families.

bush meddled; bush made things worse for everyone. I know what we can and should do about that.

[Roho]

29. So what do you suggest?

Rage against Bush isn't going to help Iraqi women, and impeachment is at least 18 months away if ever.

What do you suggest we do to prevent sharia from being implemented in an orthodox conservative manner?

As discussed below women are NOT yet being stoned nor are there ANY laws that allow such punishment as we type.

But you are partially correct in that if we do nothing it could very well end up being your worst case scenario.

[Roho]

32. Do you think

Iraqi women need our help?

If so do you think doing nothing while Bush fucks them over again, and again, will win hearts and minds that can be turned into good will once the rat bastards are tossed out of power?

Should we let them suffer so we can say during the run up to elections in 08 "Look what you let happen to these poor Iraqi women Bush. Thanks"

[Beaverhausen]

19. It wasn't their culture until we invaded their country

So glad we have given them their "freedom." :eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Well, for one thing, under Saddam Hussein, women were not

subjected to religious laws, were not required to wear the hijab, and had equal access to education and careers.

Some "democracy" Bush has brought to the women of Iraq.

[MindPilot]

3. Iraq is Bush's model for America

We went in there to give them freedom and democracy, and now they have a state religion. An entirely faith-based country with a completely destroyed economy and infrastructure. It's the Christian vision for the United States. End times? Bring it on!!

[no_hypocrisy]

4. That's so . . . . Judeo-Christian. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

6. ugh...

"An entirely faith-based country with a completely destroyed economy and infrastructure. It's the Christian vision for the United States."


that is a repulsive comment. Real Christians do not have that "vision". Quit giving the Republicans an excuse to tell their friends, and a link, to prove the bizarreness of the Democratic Party. Yes, the twisted portion of the "Christian Party" (as they probably would rather be called at THIS time in history,) does not reflect Christian teaching of love, respect, selflessness, and non-judgemental actions.

I beg of all the most fervently disgruntled posters on this "democratic underground" to try and find it within themselves to not throw BLANKET STATEMENTS over ALL Christians as being like these "leaders" in the churches, and gov't, who are nothing but, in their daily comments and opinions.

I do not want any more Republican controlled Congresses or White Houses, and this behavior of saying Christians are, as I've read on here, nuts, blind, disaster-wanting, judgemental, will ONLY drive thousands of votes to the Republicans within each state.

Please, let's all work towards a Democratic Victory for this fall.

[Divine Discontent]

8. REMEMBER.....

this is about the WOMEN of Iraq. Stop blaming others for something the fanatics within Muslimdom, who think STONING a woman is somehow NORMAL!!!??????


SICK SICK SICK.

Bush has any balls, as our pResident, he'd attack that practice in a public address.

[LynnTheDem]

10. And some nations think it's ok to execute mentally retarded and

children!

VERY SICK.

Sure wish he'd attack that, too!

[Lars39]

12. All who go under the name of Christian need to be examining

the leadership of their churches; local, state and national.
I've grown tired of christians who have lucked into attending a local congregation that "isn't like that" ,totally ignoring what their state and national conventions or organizations actually want.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. That IS the view of the Talibornigains, the fundie mega-churches

that are pushing for a Christian theocracy in America. They would change us as certainly as the Shia majority is changing Iraq. Making excuses for them only empowers them.

If, as a Christian, you do not believe in their agenda MAKE YOUR CHURCH TAKE A STAND AGAINST THEM!!!!

You say the real Christians don't have that vision, LET THEM SPEAK OUT AGAISNT IT!!!!

How can we "fervently disgruntled posters" NOT throw blanket statements out about Christians in this country when we hear only one voice coming from the "Christians" -- the voice of Dobson, and Falwell, and LaHaye, and all the Dominionists who seek to undermine this country?

[Taxloss]

11. It's their values. What right do we have to criticise?

Clearly Saddam was suppressing this part of local culture.

Or does that rule not apply here?

[pocket]

13. I don't think he actually suppressed it

this has always gone on in Iraq, before, during, and after Saddam's rule.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Wrong.

Under Saddam's secular state the clerics did not have the authority to impose Sharia law. Women had rights, written into their constitution (which Saddam, of course, could ignore at will but everybody else HAD to follow). That's why Bin Laden called Saddam an infidel, and called for his overthrow.

[LynnTheDem]

17. see post #9

:)

[Roland99]

16. Does this mean we can stone Limbaugh and Gingrich, too?!

[Rocknrule]

34. No

I'm sure the type of theocracy Bush and pals have in store for us excludes the Chosen People (aka Republicans) from abiding by any law

[Roland99]

35. Can we form a splitter group?

Splitters! Splitters!



;)

[Mythsaje]

18. "Fair trial?"

Oh, please. With the jury made up of men, I suppose.

In what way is that "fair?"

[Nutmegger]

20. Is this "freedom and democracy"?

Nice to know that scores of humans have perished for this.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Iran next?

Which will make Iraq look like a cakewalk after all.

[Roho]

21. Thanks lynn for having deleted you first attempt at this thread.

I'm not sure how you did it or if it was even you that did it, but I will assume you have some clout here if you can have a thread deleted and repost pretty much the same thing with only slightly better documentation.

Having said that I still need to take issue with your premise that Iraqi women can now be stoned.

Let me first say that Bush has monumentally screwed up Iraq and brought extreme suffering to the Iraqi people for no other reason than ignorance, greed, and American global hegemony.

Before going through your links I'd also like to agree that the plight of women in Iraq has indeed gotten much worse than before the invasion. However, the troubles Iraqi women face today are REAL and IMMEDIATE life and death issues and not a hypothetical interpretation of shari'a that YOUR links admit is anything but decided.

Issues facing Iraqi women today include lack of food, electricity to store food, clean water, and medicines for their children.

Let's look at your links for a minute ignoring for sake of argument that two of your link are from the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, and one from a christian site run by Freedom House, another globalist org whose board is stacked with alumni from such venerable institutions like the CFR, The weekly standard, and the American enterprise institute.

from the christian site first...

"Understanding what the Iraqis have produced requires a close reading of dense texts. Article 2 states that "Islam is the official religion of the state." This in itself need not create problems. Many states, including established democracies in Europe, have state religions, and the practice is not held to be in violation of international human-rights standards."

Now from this first CFR link...

"These criticisms are not without merit, and the ambiguity of the new constitution is a cause for concern. The centrality of Islamic law in the document, however, does not necessarily mean trouble for Iraqi women. In fact, sharia is open to a wide range of understanding, and across the Islamic world today, progressive Muslims are seeking to reinterpret its rules to accommodate a modern role for women."

Finally, from the second CFR link...

Women, Islam, and the New Iraq
by Isobel Coleman
Although questions of implementation remain, the new Iraqi constitution makes Islam the law of the land. This need not mean trouble for Iraq's women, however. Sharia is open to a wide range of interpretations, some quite egalitarian. If Washington still hopes for a liberal order in Iraq, it should start working with progressive Muslim scholars to advance women's rights through religious channels.

The last one is troubling because you quote only the first sentence of the article when the very next line casts severe doubt on the premise of this thread.

Taken together your links paint a picture that stands in stark contrast to your assertion that women can NOW be stoned to death.

What they do say is that sharia itself does not equal the stoning of women. Instead they suggest that NOW is the time for progressive activist to work WITH the religious leaders in Iraq to create a modern model for the rest of the islamic world to follow if successfully implemented.

Now let's talk about a few misconceptions.

Saddam didn't force secularism on a country hell bent to return to the stone ages (no pun). Saddam didn't force women to attend university or hold position of respect and authority. These are things the Iraqi people worked hard to achieve and maintain under Saddam.

We all know Bush's "stand up to stand down" policy is horse shit and evidence of that can be seen in the abc reporter getting wounded while on a carefully arranged pr stunt leading up to the SOTU. The Iraqis can barely control the trucks they drive never mind police the country.

So here lies another problem with your assertion. The American military is pissed off that they are acting like police instead of soldiers. For sharia to be implemented to the extent that women start getting stoned to death it will be with the US military helping. From the soldiers I've read and listened to there is NO WAY they will participate in such activities in a country many of them believe they were sent to "liberate" without the stories getting back home pdq.

Please don't take this post personally because I think we both have only the best intentions for our sisters in Iraq. We need to work now with the religious leaders from all sections of Iraqi society to make sure your worst case scenario doesn't become a reality.

We also need to stop putting IRANIAN in all caps as if being Iranian is a problem in and of its self.

Iranian women have struggled as long, and as hard as you and I have and they need our support as well. Turning the wack job running the country right now into the next kim jong il only adds to the likely hood that the US and friends will turn Iran into another Iraq.


Roho

[LynnTheDem]

24. Know what they say about assumptions?

;)

[Roho]

26. thats it?

I spend an hour going though your links (to try and articulate clearly why your OP is not only over the top but disingenuous) and you only respond to the first line of my post?

How about an explaning the other deleted thread for those of us that took the time to put thoughtful replies together.

If you didn't get it deleted that's cool, perhaps a quick note explaining how you were able to repost a deleted thread when - from what I've gathered - that is against the rules.


Why won't you address some of my concerns? In the last thread you became quite indignant when I questioned the premise but to your credit you have added several links to this version. I would like to discuss this because I think we progressives can and need to play a role in helping shape the direction any Sharia implementation takes.

Where I live in Ontario we had a form of sharia until our Premier bowed to pressure from group concerned that ANY form of sharia would lead to abuse. The baby was thrown out with the bath water and all faith based community councils were abolished, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim.

The proponents of sharia in Ontario had drawn up guidelines much like the leaders in Iraq are trying to do now. The final result was a "modern sharia" that could in no way compromise the rights granted all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Could the same model be applied directly to Iraq? I doubt it, but the process showed me that muslim religious leaders are not all the fanatical zealots many in the "west" paint them to be.

Is Sistani a moderate? Doesn't look like it, but again does that mean we on the left assume the worst and abandon the process?

Everyone knows Bush owns this mess. The pukes have no ideas but WE DO! Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by making outrageous claims that Bushco can refute lickety split making all of us look like the boys/girls that cried wolf.

Roho

[LynnTheDem]

27. Mods deleted the first post and asked me to repost.

And that's it.

Have a good day. :)

[Roho]

28. So

despite the "evidence" I was able to pull from links in your OP you are standing by your assertion that women can NOW be stoned to death in Iraq?

I can't see any reason why you would not be willing to defend your position.

[LynnTheDem]

30. This isn't rocket science.

Al Sistani's spokesman said women would be stoned for adultery.

Al Sisani's party was yesterday announced the winner of "elections" and is Iraq's new "government".

That is what I originally posted. Both are facts. Put em together.

Period.

Again, have a nice day. :hi:

[Roho]

31. I will but ...

Just because you say have a nice day doesn't mean you are being polite.

Stephen Harper was just elected Prime Minister of Canada, but he only won a minority government so most of his extreme RW policy announcements are left on the campaign trial.

Sistani must also face a different reality now that his party has won the election.

And most importantly....

THE STATEMENT YOU QUOTED WAS MADE BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION WAS EVEN RATIFIED.


I would appreciate it if you would admit the leaps of logic and gross omissions you make in your OP.

That would be polite.

[mzmolly]

23. "Operation Iraqi Freedom?"

*sigh*

We need to start referring to these kind of Muslims as the "right wing" and "conservative" because that is what they are. To a slightly greater degree than *, but none the less, let's lay it on the line.

"The Conservative Muslims have taken over Iraq" should make Bush proud huh?