Mali women's rights deferred for "peace and calm"

"Perhaps Muslim conservatives can learn from their secular, Christian, and Jewish “conservative” counterparts?"

Sure. Jewish conservatives can teach their Muslim counterparts to pour acid on women for wearing loose fitting trousers:

thenational.ae/article/20080908/FOREIGN/818255716/1011/rss

haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1013163.html
ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3582713,00.html

First of all, the conservative Muslims are contesting 10 articles of the new code, out of 1,100:

“which included more than 1,100 articles, about 10 of which are contested”:

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=85960

They are not contesting the vast majority of the bill. One of the main problems they have is that marriages would be secular. It is not surprising that Muslims would not want their traditional Islamic marriages to be illegal. Because of issues like this, they feel that they are being forced to adopt Western values:

“The secretary of Mali's highest ruling Islamic council, Mohamed Kimbiri, told IRIN the council will do all it can to block enforcement. ‘This code is a shame, treason [for Muslims]...We are not against the spirit of the code, but we want a code appropriate for Mali that is adapted to its societal values. We will fight with all our resources so that this code is not promulgated or enacted.’ He said despite consulting members of the religious community on the code's wording, parliament members ignored religious leaders' suggestions and bowed to donor wishes.
‘We do not want a code imported from donors, notably the European Union, which conditions its aid on certain social reforms, including the adoption of this code,’ Kimbiri said. ‘The assembly adopted it under pressure. But we will not be pressured [into accepting] a code that is not ours.’”

This sentiment is also understandable.

The conservative Muslims are also against articles such as those that say the women do not have to obey the man. Although I do not agree with their stance, this attitude towards women is certainly not unknown in the West. For example, in the UK, 20% of men think it is acceptable for a man to hit his wife if she wears sexy clothing in public, and 26% think that a woman should be held co-responsible if she is raped if she is wearing sexy clothes. In relation to the issue of obeying men, 11% of men in the UK think it is OK to hit a woman if she does not treat him with respect:

homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/violence-against-women-poll?view=Binary

There are plenty of misogynistic men in the West.

I left out the link for the second quote in the above post:

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=85676

Code Pink Goes to Afghanistan:

They are inviting you to come with them to see the richness of Afghan culture. Of course they are anti war and would like us to leave the country so it can revert to fundamentalist-Taliban style rule.

This may be the most perverse expedition in modern history. The presence of the US military, allows girls to go to school so they can reach their potential and not have acid thrown in their faces. Still not great, but lights years away from parts of Pakistan where acid throwing, school burning, etc are common place and limit the potential of all girls. So here comes, Code Pink, a progressive-anti-war-civil rights-free speech-woman's group on their trip to Afghanistan. Where the end result will be end the war and get out. Perversely, if the US military gets out, as demanded by Code Pink, women and girls in Afghanistan will be the losers. Winners will be anyone that can get a pinker to put on a Turban (preferably pink) and pose with a RPG launcher. Be sure to copyright the photo, it will be valuable.

http://www.codepink4peace.org/section.php?id=172

(note: Picture of head cheese-pinkers mugging with Hugo Chavez on banner. Other trips you can join with travel itineraries posted here, Iran-Jordan-Syria-and or Gaza.. price is right though-- $1725 for 10 days in Iran--note a one day side trip to have tea under an old Cyprus tree, sounds like an opportunity to get to really know the Iranian people and have lively discussions with other pinkers)

Here is how Code Pink describes the trip:

“Join CODEPINK’s small delegation to Kabul, Afghanistan to witness the current situation and return home to speak about it on the 8th anniversary of the US invasion. Our trip will include a meaningful introduction to Afghanistan’s rich history and culture, struggle and resistance, as well as exploring various aspects of the reconstruction and development process today. We visit with NGO’s and human rights groups, woman’s organizations and small business collectives, schools and an Afghan peace-education programs.

This delegation seeks to enhance understanding of Islam and Afghan culture as well as the role the Afghan people want the U.S. to play in building a lasting peace in Afghanistan. Participants will return with a first hand understanding of the political and humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and experience the rich cultural heritage kept alive amidst more than 25 years of conflict.”

"Western Civilisation is a Sin!" said banners held aloft in the crowd.

Hmm. I wonder what would happen here if someone put up a banner reading "Islamic Culture is Disgusting!"

As long as women do not have the same rights as men, Mali will never have real peace.

GrimReaper - re. your posting of the 'CodePink' screed.

They're idiots. Sure, the peoples of the region currently called 'Afghanistan' *did* once have a rich history and culture - a fizzing fusion and interaction of classical and post-classical Greek, Persian, Hindu and Buddhist influences, with Jews and Christians stirred into the mix as well, all expressed in paintings [there were amazing cave paintings in the cliffs behind the Bamiyan Buddhas], sculpture, music, dance, architecture, poetry. But then Islam arrived, bringing its usual fruits of desolation and delusion.

I see the repulsive troll "dave742" is back, with his apologia and moral relativism. For those who nay not remember, dave742's avatar with the old IntenseDebate system was the *Hizb'allah logo*.

Grim Reaper, thanks for posting the Code Pink idiocy. on their website, they describe such gains as have been made in women's rights in Afghanistan as "self-generated".

That such gains could not have been made without Western--principally American--military presence in the country is not something you are going to hear from Code Pink.

"Rare, if not extinct, are secular, Christian, or Jewish “conservatives” who organize “rallies” against women’s rights."

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape." -"conservative" Phyllis Schlafly

The list of organizations in the U.S. that fight against women's rights is countless. You want to see secular, Christian or Jewish "conservative" rallies? Just make it known that Jihad Watch is a pro-ERA, CEDAW organization. You'll witness all the rallies you could possibly imagine.

dave has a non-functioning link:

http://homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/violence-against-women-poll?view=Binary

"For example, in the UK, 20% of men think it's acceptable for a man to hit his wife if she wears sexy clothes in public".

You forgot to mention the fact that these "men" just happen to be Mohammadans. There are certainly not 20% of Mohammadans, male or female, in the UK.
Get over yourself,dave742!

Hersperado:
You have to put www in front of the link. Lots of websites start with www, you know:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/violence-against-women-poll?view=Binary

"That such gains could not have been made without Western--principally American--military presence in the country is not something you are going to hear from Code Pink."
Posted by gravenimage

And I guess the gains made by girls and women in Afghanistan since 2001, made possible principally by Canadian efforts, is not something you are going to hear from anyone.

dave,

What's the percentage of Muslims in England and Wales as of 2009? How many of those 11% who defended hitting their women were Muslims? Apparently, the pollsters didn't bother to factor that crucial information into their survey.

Hesperado:
20% of men in the UK thought it would be OK to hit a woman if she wore sexy clothes in public. 2.7% of the population in the UK is Mulsim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

You apologetics are not working.

dave:

1) Your wikipedia link is the 2001 estimate. You think that in 8 years, that figure hasn't gone up dramatically, with increased immigration and births?

2) More importantly, what that poll measures is the opinion of people. Their opinion is against the law, and against the opinion of the vast majority of their fellow citizens (80%). In Islam, the permission to hit your women for perceived rebellion (a broad and elastic term up to the discretion of the man) is legal, according to the higher, divine law of Sharia which to the Muslim is superior to all other human laws.

There is no equivalence here. The one shows a problem in society, which English and Westerners in general have been airing and discussing and admitting is a problem that reflects poorly on their own society for decades, and taking concrete measures based on this mature admission, with this sociocultural and political process of self-criticism only increasing with each decade as the West progresses. (The same goes for a long laundry list of other faults which Westerners admit about their own societies.) By contrast, Muslims don't admit their Sharia law has any problems at all: it is perfect and divine to hit women: Allah commanded men to do it in the divine Koran. If a Muslim by chance does say it's wrong, he's going against his own Koran, which would mean either he's lying to fool the inquiring Infidel, or he's not a Muslim by mainstream standards.

Check, and mate, mate.

Hesperado:
1) You cannot explain the numbers from the UK poll through by saying that all only Muslims account for all the negative opinions. Some of the opinions about women being responsible for rape are more than 1 in 3.

2)Your characterization of Sharia is inaccurate.

dave,

"2)Your characterization of Sharia is inaccurate."

I don't recall that I characterized Sharia.

Hesperado:
"I don't recall that I characterized Sharia."

Reread your post. If you still don't understand, we can be done.

dave742

"sharia is a dictator's dream handed to him by 'allah'."

So says Nonie Darwish, who grew up in a society that had been shaped by sharia for over a thousand years.

I believe her. As for you, taqiyya master, I don't believe a word you say - since every word you say is a lie, even 'a' and 'the'.

End of story, mate.

dave,

I guess I did characterize Sharia -- as a "divine law ...which to the Muslim is superior to all other human laws."

Let's unpack that:

1) divine law -- it's based on what Mohammed said, and what Mohammed said is based on what God told him. That part seems accurate.

2) which to the Muslim is superior to all other human laws -- Actually, I shouldn't have included "other" since Sharia isn't a human law except of course insofar as humans understand it and apply it as faithfully as they can to complex circumstances of life, many of which aren't specifically, let alone clearly, prescribed by Mohammed in the Sunna or God in the Koran. So, we have which to the Muslim is superior to all human laws. That seems unremarkably factual. It is massively hammered home in Islam that the laws of God are superior to the laws of man.

Then there's my statement:

Muslims don't admit their Sharia law has any problems at all: it is perfect and divine...

I can't see that that is disputable. A problem pertaining to Sharia in an Islamic context might arise due to human error in understanding it, but the proscriptions and prescriptions are not subject to error, since they are divine. Also, Islamic culture has a much stronger reverence for authority than modern Western cultures, and a figure like Bukhari, as well as the founders of the schools, etc. are not to be lightly disputed, if at all. Gates of Ijtihad, and all that.

Hesperado:
The Sharia has responded to changing circumstances from the start of Islam to the onset of the colonial period. Do me a favor and ask about the Gates of Ijtihad in a few weeks.

dave,

The fact that Sharia "responds to changing circumstances" does not mean that my characterization of Sharia was incorrect.

In your last response, you committed a logical fallacy whose official term I don't know but which amounts to seizing on a comparatively less important appendange of your interlocutor's argument (namely, my "Ijtihad" comment which was subsumed under my additional point of the Islamic reverence for authority) and only addressing that, while ignoring the comparatively more important content of your interlocutor's argument.

Hesperado:
I guess I have a hard time distinguishing the more important content from the not so important content in your posts. Sorry.

dave,

By "important" in this context I did not mean self-important, nor did I mean important in general terms of virtues outside our discussion and its specific areas of focus, but rather in terms of the substance of my response to your response, the latter of which was an inadequate response to my argument defending my characterization of Sharia which you, starting off this whole thing, characterized as "incorrect".

Your inadequate response ignored the more important part of my argument -- i.e., the part that more directly and substantively attended to your challenge -- and you instead latched onto the less important part of my argument -- i.e., the part that less directly and less substantively attended to your challenge.

Rather than "more important" and "less important" in that context, perhaps better terms -- for those, that is, who insist on latching on to less important matters -- to have used would have been "central" and "tangential".

Hesperado:
"a figure like Bukhari, as well as the founders of the schools, etc. are not to be lightly disputed, if at all" -Hesperado

"In one fatwa in al-Ramli’s collection relates explicitly to this legal methodology, making it clear that the true solution to a legal problem, the authoritative version, here called al-qawl al-sahih or the correct version, is usually the opinion of Abu Hanifa, the founder of the school, but sometimes that of others. And indeed, not infrequently Abu Hanifa is cited as holding the rejected solution…. the simple fact is that in scores of fatwas in the collections under study Abu Hanifa is mentioned as holding opinions that were rejected by the consensus of the jurists."

Haim Gerber, Islamic Law and Culture, 1600-1840 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), p. 74 and p. 120

dave,

Introduction:

Please note that I have structured this comment with an "Introduction", followed by two sections, each under the rubric of roman numerals, I and II. The purpose of this structure is to communicate to you (and to spectators) clearly that there are two sections. I now inform you that section I is more central and requires a direct and full response from you, while section II is less central and does not require any response from you, though it would be cool if you also responded to it in addition to section I.

I.

It's nice that Abu Hanifa "in scores of fatwas in the collections under study ...[held] opinions that were rejected by the consensus of the jurists."

Now, what does that have to do with the fact that the Koran has God telling Muslim men to beat their women, thus making wife-beating legal with the added special distinction of conforming to the higher divine law of Sharia superior to all human laws -- in contrast to the modern West (let alone most of the rest of the world) where beating one's women is illegal?

Unless you can find me a fatwa by Abu Hanifa that specifically says, "Allah was wrong about telling Muslim men to beat their women" or "Hey, you guys may think that's what Allah said in 4:34, but in fact he did not say that", you are just blowing obfuscatory smoke and perhaps hoping I will forget our original point of dispute.

II.

Again you latch onto the less central parts of my presentations, and ignore the more central. This is the third time you've done it:

1) Way back near the beginning, I wrote:

More importantly, what that poll measures is the opinion of people. Their opinion is against the law, and against the opinion of the vast majority of their fellow citizens (80%). In Islam, the permission to hit your women for perceived rebellion (a broad and elastic term up to the discretion of the man) is legal, according to the higher, divine law of Sharia which to the Muslim is superior to all other human laws.

You responded:

1) You cannot explain the numbers from the UK poll through by saying that all only Muslims account for all the negative opinions. Some of the opinions about women being responsible for rape are more than 1 in 3.

2)Your characterization of Sharia is inaccurate.

Nothing there responsive to my clearly indicated "more importantly" point.

I unfortunately lost my head temporarily and let you lead me by the nose, and went off on your excursion into my characterization of Sharia.

Your second latching on to less central parts of my presentation occurred during that cul-de-sac you drove me down in your van:

2) In the context of that cul-de-sac -- already tangential to my more central point (cf. #1 above) -- you ignored another more central point I made, about Sharia being in Islam divine law and thus superior to human laws, and latched on to my less central point about Ijtihad.

3) Then, in response to that, I wrote:

The fact that Sharia "responds to changing circumstances" does not mean that my characterization of Sharia was incorrect.

In your last response, you committed a logical fallacy whose official term I don't know but which amounts to seizing on a comparatively less important appendange of your interlocutor's argument (namely, my "Ijtihad" comment which was subsumed under my additional point of the Islamic reverence for authority) and only addressing that, while ignoring the comparatively more important content of your interlocutor's argument.

Then, your response to my two paragraphs totally ignored the first, clearly delineated, paragraph and its point, and instead latched on to the second paragraph and its secondary point:

I guess I have a hard time distinguishing the more important content from the not so important content in your posts. Sorry.

Wow, I just realized a late addition to my last comment:

There weren't merely three times where you have latched on to the less central part of my presentation and ignored the more central part -- your last comment to me, educating me about Abu Hanafi, in fact constitutes a fourth time: and it was basically a reformulation of the second time you had latched on to a less central part of my presentation, as I document above in my immediately preceding comment, under section II.2.

Three times, and maybe I could cut you some slack. But with four times, it seems you are here just to obfuscate.

Hesperado:
I do not have as much time fo this as you seem to have. I need to be brief.

Yes, there is a tradition of hitting wives that stems from 4:34. The Qur'an is over a thousand years old, and its view on the subject was certainly not out of line with the era, and was probably progressive. Shafi'i, mentions that the ideal is not to hit the wife:

"Among the early commentators who treat the the Prophet's view on this issue, perhaps the most nuanced, and certainly the most sensible, was al- Shafi'i (d. 204/820). The well-known jurist and theologian was aware of the contradictory reports transmitted in the traditions and tried to reconcile the differences between them by suggesting a chronological sequence. First, the Prophet forbade men to beat women; second, he received the revelation of Qur'an 4:34; and third, in accordance with this revelation, he allowed men, to beat their wives. However, al- Shafi'i continues, the Prophet's admoni- tion 'the best of you will not beat them' qualifies his own permissive statement, because it implies that every man has the possibility of choosing not to beat. In concluding his reflection on the subject, al-Shafi'i says that according to the Prophet's words, beating is permitted, but it is not a religious duty (fard), adding finally: 'we choose what the Messenger of God chose himself, and we prefer that the husband does not beat his wife when she goes too far against him in her words and in similar things.'"

Disciplining Wives: A Historical Reading of Qur'an 4:34 Author(s): Manuela Marin Studia Islamica, No. 97 (2003), pp. 5-40

As for what reality was like before the colonial period, the record is pretty scarce. However, wives were allowed to put stipulations in their marriage contracts, and one of the most common reason for doing so was being beaten. If men beat their husbands, they could divorce them:

“Adult women could better protect themselves by taking advantage of the right to insert stipulations into the marriage contract, with the agreement of the groom to be sure. We have the most consistent information on this practice in the case of Egypt, where a marriage contract drawn up as early as the ninth century conferred upon the bride the power to effect the divorce of any second wife her husband might acquire and sell or manumit any slave woman he took as a concubine…One study of seventeenth–century marriage contracts estimates that a third of them included stipulations.”

Tucker, Judith E., Women, Family, and Gender in Islamic Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)

One third is not a trivial practice.

More to the point is the topic of the thread. I have not read that the conservative Mali group is asking to beat their wives.

I will lastly make a meaningless comment. Beating wives is quite widespread in the West. I know Muslims who have families in Iran. Bangladesh, etc. They relate that the problem with wife beating is not more or less widespread than here. I have not been able to find any data on this, so I know it means nothing. I, however, believe it. I do not think that actual male behavior varies much; whether hitting the wife is legal or not, approximately the same number will actually do it regardless of culture. It is a problem with humans, not Islam.

Hesperado:
Concerning this statement of mine:
"It is a problem with humans, not Islam."

Many humans have a problem with having to excercise control over others. When the "other" is weaker, this iften turns to physical methods to make the other submit. It is about domination. Again, this is a human problem that will take millenia to solve.
These human issues also manifest themselves in the actions of nations, since nations are composed of humans. Some nations seem to want the rest of the world to submit to their military dominance, and to follow their orders, rather than allow less miltarily advanced nations to find their own path. Do you know any nations like this?

Ladies and gentlemen

dave742 observes the first rule of any Defender of Islam when confronted with uncomfortably knowledgeable and logical opponents: DENY DENY DENY.

One must also observe, re. the 9.,36 posting by dave742 above, that he also employs another very common tactic of Mohammedan 'argument' (if one may call it that) - a completely reflexive, almost robotic resort to tu quoque or turnspeak.

Memo to non-Muslims newly arrived at this forum.

Whenever a Mohammedtroll such as dave742 pops up on the comments floor, it is a good rule of thumb to assume that the posted article, for some reason or other, is one that you ought to read, and re-read, several times.

Look steadily and with concentration at the one thing that the Mohammedtroll does not, at all costs, want you to look at.

Look at how many of the Muslims in Mali, especially the clerics, appear to be absolutely enraged by the mere idea of a law that would state that girls cannot be married off until they reach the age of 18...whereas at present there is *NO* officially recognised minimum marriageable age, and many girls are married off at 13 or 14 (and probably earlier, even much earlier, to judge by observed common practice in other heavily sharia-steeped states such as Yemen and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and Iran).

Now think about the shocking power differential that exists between husband and wife, when the man is 30 or over, and the girl is...well,.somewhere between six and fifteen. And reflect on what happens to that power differential, if the bride is not ten, or twelve, or thirteen, but...eighteen, having attained her full physical and mental development. Will the man be able to crush her quite as completely and cruelly as he can, if he chooses, crush the little prepubescent or barely pubescent bride he is currently permitted to take?

And for a converse example: the Shah of Iran raised the marriage age of girls, to 18. Khomeini's very first act was to lower it to nine years; and Khomeini, that learned Islamic cleric, steeped in Shiite Islam, declared marriage to a prepubescent girl to be 'a divine blessing', and decreed that fathers should make sure that a girl is married off young enough that she does not see her 'first blood' (i.e. experience her first period) in her father's house (!!!).

dumbledoresarmy:
"whereas at present there is *NO* officially recognised minimum marriageable age" -dumble

Mali law:
"Women may legally marry at age 18 and men at age 21. The marriage code allows girls under age 15 to marry with parental consent or special permission from a judge."

state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78745.htm

US law:
Women may marry legally at age 18, and in most states 16 with parental consent. In 7 states, you can marry at an age less than 16 with parental comsent. In New Hampshire, you can marry at 13 with parental consent.

If Mali is being pressure to raise the age to 18 without a provision for younger with parental consent, then Mali would have the highest marriage age of any country in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

Why would Europe pressure Mali to adopt a law that is more strict than anywhere else in the world?

dumbledoresarmy:
Here is my link for US marriage laws:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

dumbledoresarmy:
Here is my link for US marriage laws:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage