| Add Memory | Add To Friends | |
| upchuck (profile) wrote, on 8-21-2005 at 12:29am | |
| This thing just keeps getting uglier and uglier. I could be talking about multiple things in my life right now, with that statement I guess. But I'll stick to politics for now. This is great. You know, the whole Iraq thing. See, I will admit that I was part of the silent majority who believed that it probably was a good idea to change the regime in Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam was a noble goal, and it was accomplished. I also thought that it was sheer brilliance (absolutely no sarcasm here, really) to give the terrorists an active front in their own backyard. You see, if the terrorists were busy in a place like Iraq, they wouldn't be able to export terror internationally because all their resources would be tied up there. But now. Regime change is not going so well. We are replacing a moderate (in terms of the Foxnews term "Islamofacism") non-democratic regime under Saddam, into an Islamic democracy ruled by clerics. Our representatives at the Iraqi Constitutional assembly have agreed to let Iraq be an Islamic state. They have agreed to change the status of Islamic Law in relation to secular law. Instead of the constitution saying that Islamic Law is "a" major source for secular law, we have conceded to is saying that Islamic Law is "the" major source for secular law (today's Jordan Times @ jordantimes.com). In essence, any law passed by a new government has to conform to Islam, or what the religious clerics think is Islamic Law. But, never fear, our ambassadors have worked very hard to insist on equality and women's rights. This is why I'm thankful for the class that I just got done taking. Women's rights according to Islamic Law are not equal to mens rights. The whole gender realtionship in Islam is one of complimentary roles. In Islam, every women has the right to children. A woman can divorce a man if he does not provide her with children. But women don't have the right to "rebel" (Arabic term 'nushuz') against her husband. That is women's rights under Islamic Law. So it comes down to, who do we blame? Do we blame Bush for going in with no real plan to deal with the post-invasion scenario? Or do we blame liberals for crying foul and bitching and whining because people actually believe that going into Iraq was a good thing, thereby forcing the hand of the administration into settling for a less than reasonable compromise? I don't know. I'm tending towards option number one right now, but then again, I don't think it would take much for me to start believing number two. And the great thing is that as my mind is being changed at this very minute, so are many other people's around the country. What to do, what to do? I have no idea, but things are conspiring and I think we are headed towards a rough patch in American history. I wouldn't say it is the downfall of our nation, but a definite rough patch. Hegemony can't last forever. |
|
| Post A Comment |
|
jessa_lynne | 08-21-05 10:31pm you know, i always found it narrowminded when people claim that islam as a religion is unfair to woman. it isn't any more so than christianity is, and it's only the extremists that continue to abide by sexist rules, just as extremists in the christain religion do, right here in the united states.
|
upchuck | Re:, 08-21-05 10:43pm I was talking in the narrow minded sense. If you look at what I said it was "Islamic Law." That is the combination of Koranic Islam, with hadith, and tribal tradition. It wasn't intended to say that Islam is unfair to women. My point on this is that it is the radical Muslims who are trying to make Islamic Law as the basis for secular law in Iraq. It is those some radicals who will be put in charge of making sure that laws are in agreement with what they consider Islamic law. If the judges were moderates there would not be a problem, but the radicals are trying to carve out a bigger part of political control than moderates by doing this, and we are giving in. |