Afghan marriage law can't be changed

[Orion]

Afghan marriage law can't be changed: cleric

A controversial law in Afghanistan that includes a provision making it illegal for a Shia Muslim woman to refuse to have sex with her husband cannot be changed, one of the drafters of the legislation said.

The comments by Mohammad Asif Mohseni, a top Afghan cleric, seem to contradict the message from Canada's foreign minister, who said Afghan justice officials were going to delete contentious clauses.

Mohseni told reporters in Kabul on Saturday that the legislation cannot be changed because it passed by both houses of parliament and was signed by Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.

But last week, Lawrence Cannon said the legislation is under review by the Department of Justice in Afghanistan and that assurances for the changes came from Afghanistan's foreign and interior ministers.

Karzai himself said the law will be studied and may be sent back to parliament.

The law says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse, and regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone. The legislation has sparked international outrage.

Afghanistan's new democracy in action. Does the West have a right to demand social reform in a democracy that they helped to build, or is it Affghanistan's choice alone to do what they want with the new powers?

 

[BulletWounD]

Afghan marriage law can't be changed: cleric



Afghanistan's new democracy in action. Does the West have a right to demand social reform in a democracy that they helped to build, or is it Affghanistan's choice alone to do what they want with the new powers?

The problem is that the Afghans subjugated human rights to Sharia Law in their constitution- Big mistake. I'm afraid that all we've done is create a more durable, more legitimate, better, faster, stronger etc. form of Islamic governance and Afghanistan will indeed transform into a Democratic Theocracy.

This is the thinking behind the law:

Afghan Cleric Defends Law Legalizing Rape in Marriage

KABUL — A key backer of an Afghan law that critics say legalizes marital rape and rolls back women's rights rejected an international outcry as foreign meddling on Saturday and insisted the law offers women many protections.

[...]

"It is essential for the woman to submit to the man's sexual desire," the law says.

[...]

"The Westerners claim that they have brought democracy to Afghanistan. What does democracy mean? It means government by the people for the people. They should let the people use these democratic rights," Mohseni told reporters in the capital, Kabul.

[...]

"In Shariah law, it states that a woman cannot go out without the permission of her husband," he said. He argued that the law is permissive because it allows a woman to go out for a medical emergency or other urgent reason without asking.

[...]

The law says that every fourth day a man "can pass the night with his wife, unless it is harmful for either side, or either of them is suffering from any kind of sexual disease."

"If she is not sick, and if she does not have another problem, it is the right of a man to ask for sex and she should make herself ready for it," Mohseni explained.

[..]

Mohseni said much of the uproar has come from people misinterpreting the law. He said a woman can refuse sex with her husband for many reasons beyond illness, including fasting for Ramadan, preparing for a pilgrimage, menstruating, or recovering from giving birth.

[...]

Conspicuously absent from that list, of course, is "because she doesn't want to."

Mohseni argued that women and men are very far from equal in today's Afghanistan and should not be treated as such. He said many rural women are illiterate and would not be able to find work. Men are typically expected to provide for their wives and children.

"For all these expenses, can't we at least give the right to a husband to demand sex from his wife after four nights?" he said.

FOXNews.com - Afghan Cleric Defends Law Legalizing Rape in Marriage - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

 

[celticlord]

Afghanistan's new democracy in action. Does the West have a right to demand social reform in a democracy that they helped to build, or is it Affghanistan's choice alone to do what they want with the new powers?

Yes.

Other nations have a right to encourage specific social reforms, and even to precondition diplomatic or economic relations with Afghanistan on those reform.

Afghanistan has the right to tell other nations to go to hell.

How far each wishes to pursue their respective "rights" is the stuff of diplomacy.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The problem is that the Afghans subjugated human rights to Sharia Law in their constitution- Big mistake.

How is it a mistake? It seems that this was exactly what they wanted.

 

[celticlord]

How is it a mistake? It seems that this was exactly what they wanted.

Isn't that the entire thrust of the cliche about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?

Sure it is what at least a part of the Afghani people want. That does not mean it will turn out well (regardless of how it is viewed by other nations).

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Isn't that the entire thrust of the cliche about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?

Frankly, I don't see very much of the "road to hell" or "good intentions" in this article. We helped them establish a democracy and then we were disappointed with what they chose to do with it. Why are we crying over the fact that they are exercising the self-determination that we claimed was their right?

This is just another case of well-meaning liberals-- meaning anyone who believes in democracy and human rights-- not seeming to grasp the idea that other people really, truly, legitimately do not want the same things that they do.

Sure it is what at least a part of the Afghani people want. That does not mean it will turn out well (regardless of how it is viewed by other nations).

Yes, but I don't think it will turn out particularly poorly, either. Been less than a century since marital rape has been recognized as a criminal matter in the West, and it's certainly not going to cause any great upheaval in Afghani society.

If we wanted them to become a liberal democracy like us and recognize such matters as womens' rights and other modern cultural innovations, we should have recognized that it would have required considerably more effort on our part.

As far as I am concerned, the Afghan government is sufficient for our purposes.

 

[Orion]

Korimyr, you made the same point that I was about to...

The West has been a democracy for a while but it has only been in the past century or so that people have been given legislated equality and freedom. For instance, desegregation, women's suffrage, the race/gender movements, etc.

Democracy just means that people have the right to representation and the right to vote, and, as like with the West, people use their vote to bring popular morality into the picture. Afghanistan is just using the renewed tool of democracy to implement its national beliefs. It's up to internal civil rights movements to increase awareness and rights for women.

In any case, although I disagree with letting men rape their wives, the women still have more freedom than when the Taliban was there. Women were virtual prisoners of the home back then, regardless if their husbands wanted to let them go out or not.

 

[celticlord]

As far as I am concerned, the Afghan government is sufficient for our purposes.

As long as they are refusing safe harbor to those who conspire to attack the US and US citizens, I agree. They are a sovereign state, and thus have the right of a sovereign state to order their own society as they wish.

 

[celticlord]

Frankly, I don't see very much of the "road to hell" or "good intentions" in this article. We helped them establish a democracy and then we were disappointed with what they chose to do with it. Why are we crying over the fact that they are exercising the self-determination that we claimed was their right?

I should clarify: I mean that merely because this is what they want does not mean that it is on a path towards a stable and prosperous society. The Taliban, for example, when they controlled Afghanistan, imposed a tenuous stability at the expense of all prosperity.

The challenge of Afghanistan is the same as the challenge of Somalia: how do tribal societies exist in the modern world of nation-states?

 

[FlyOnTheWall]

Afghan marriage law can't be changed: cleric



Afghanistan's new democracy in action. Does the West have a right to demand social reform in a democracy that they helped to build, or is it Affghanistan's choice alone to do what they want with the new powers?

No, the west has no right to demand social reform.

 

[celticlord]

No, the west has no right to demand social reform.

Actually, the West has every right to demand whatever the West wishes.

Whether or not those demands are met is a different story.

 

[BulletWounD]

No, the west has no right to demand social reform.

Sure they do. I think celticlord already pointed out that we have the right to base diplomatic/economic relations on anything we want.

 

[FlyOnTheWall]

Sure they do. I think celticlord already pointed out that we have the right to base diplomatic/economic relations on anything we want.

Any imperialistic country would agree with you.

That is the problem with America, they believe they have the right to do whatever it wishes. Just wait until other countries have the upper hand on America and boy will we hear a different song being sung....

 

[BulletWounD]

Any imperialistic country would agree with you.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "imperialism." I think most people would agree with the basic premise of my argument in any country.

That is the problem with America, they believe they have the right to do whatever it wishes.

Basically, we do - and so does any other country. We can do whatever we want insofar as we don't violate other treatises or our own domestic law in doing so.

Just wait until other countries have the upper hand on America and boy will we hear a different song being sung....

:roll:

 

[FlyOnTheWall]

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "imperialism." I think most people would agree with the basic premise of my argument in any country.



Basically, we do - and so does any other country. We can do whatever we want insofar as we don't violate other treatises or our own domestic law in doing so.


:roll:

Who cares about violating any treaties when there was a full blown invasion? Dont you think America has already violated Afghanistan's sovereignty? :roll:

 

[BulletWounD]

Who cares about violating any treaties when there was a full blown invasion? Dont you think America has already violated Afghanistan's sovereignty? :roll:

We violated the sovereignty of the autocratic taliban. It was their decision to harbor, fund, and coalesce with Al-queda, even after 9/11 - not our's.