Slave of Allah sez:

"I don't want to pass a new law into the Constitution; we already have a law, and it is in sharia."

Sheik yer'mami sez:

Sharia ain't s#*t and Jiziya will be terminated right NOW you rotten piece of ...... (fill in you favorite swearword)

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 16, 2006 9:42 AM

It seems there really is no hope for the region; they replace one horrific sharia regime with a milder one.

You would think they learned their lesson under the Taliban, but I guess not. We leave and five years later it will be as bad as ever.

Perhaps a wall really is the best idea, the Israelis may be on to something.

Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at February 16, 2006 10:27 AM

I think the underlying reason was not only the women weren't chaperoned, but the man actually hated the fact women were in the position of (somewhat) authority. He really just hates that those women weren't home cooking or getting impregnated.

Afghanistan is one of those countries that still has honor killings. And it is allowed for women leaving the home unaccompanied by a male relative.

Posted by: freewoman at February 16, 2006 10:35 AM

the Constitution says that nothing can be done in Afghanistan that is against sharia law

The new Iraqi constitution--the one soliders died to produce--says exactly the same thing. Article 2(a) says:

No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_05_constit.pdf)

Granted it is followed by a bunch of contradictions about democracy and human rights, but that doesn't mean that 2a can't (and won't) be cited every time someone wants to stone a woman for getting raped.

Posted by: kamala at February 16, 2006 10:41 AM

Freewoman, do you have more info about new laws in Afghanistan?
I think you are right about his underlying motivation.
His argument is that it does not matter what the lawbooks say, sharia must be enforced.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at February 16, 2006 10:44 AM

No Anne, but I do visit RAWA's website. But in the article you could sense the seething that guy has against women whether in power or not.

Isn't it strange that they (Islamists) always say they treat their women with respect and honor and yet, she's so honored that she still shouldn't have a voice. Or wear shoes that make a noise. Or has to wear a burka.......

Posted by: freewoman at February 16, 2006 10:51 AM

From a Mother Jones article titled "Women and Sharia"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/02/baghdad_journal7.html

"Anyway, it seems the pheromone that gets them going is the working-woman factor — if she's not at home, she must be loose."

And from www.bible.ca, this article from their "Islam: Truth or Myth" section, titled "Islamic Law, Sharia"

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-islamic-law-shariah.htm

"The instituting of a national law that incorporates both civil and spiritual laws is one of the principles that makes it difficult for Americans to understand Islamic nations. It is even more difficult for the people in those Islamic nations to understand a government that does not enforce morality as well as civil law. Since they do not understand the principle of the separation of the government from the religion, when people in Islamic nations see Western nation’s magazines with nudity or near nudity, they believe that what they are seeing is Christianity! After all, they are told that the United States is a Christian nation. When they see a satellite program that originates from Playboy, they think that is Christianity! When they see a television commercial for any kind of alcoholic beverage, they think that is Christianity! They do not understand the separation of government and religion. They cannot understand why those who produce such materials are not punished by the government.

Muslims believe that Shariah is not something the intelligence of man can prove wrong, it is only to be accepted by humans, since it is based on the will of Allah. Muslims see their religion and government being ordained by Allah. It is their conviction that Islam is intended to be the religion of all mankind. It is to be the universal religion to replace Judaism, Christianity, and all others. While Muslims may deny it, they are willing to replace other religions first by conversion, then suppression and even armed conflict. In the Philippines, there is a growing Muslim population that is agitating for the institution of Islamic law. They have not hesitated to use violence to try to implement their beliefs."

Posted by: PRCS at February 16, 2006 11:05 AM

test

Posted by: PRCS at February 16, 2006 11:10 AM

This shows just how far backward we've gone. In the 1960s Afghanistan was one of the most liberal/moderate of the Muslim countries. Women were educated and served as government officials. Burqas we're rare and criticized by urban Afghans as a backward tribal custom and few even considered Shari'a a viable option. The King, Mohammed Zahir Shah, openly desired to make his county "like Italy" while following a careful policy of neutrality in the cold war.

Then, after a brief interval as a socialist republic, the Soviets invaded and all hell broke loose. The US began to finance the anti-Soviet resistance. This, in itself, should have been a positive force except that all the support was funnelled through Pakistan, which Zia ul Haq was transforming into an impoverished version of Saudi Arabia. The Pakistani ISI made sure that all the Western support ended up in the hands of the true Muslim believers while cutting out the more moderate fighters like Ahmed Shah Massoud.

Then the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own absurdities, and now we have the blowback. Today, almost all Afghan Sunni men have bought into sharia, while the Afghan women are still marginalized as we see from this report.

The only Afghans who can be counted on to resist Sharia are those Ismaili "Muslims" among the Tajiks of Badakhshan and the Hazaras of central Afghanistan. They have suffered the most extreme genocide by the Sunnis, who consider them heretics and non-Muslims. The Ismailis of Afghanistan reject Sharia and the lessor Jihad, and their women do not wear hijab. They have elements of Hindu and Christian beliefs mixed in their theology. They generally don't make the Haj or attend Friday mosque and as followers of the Aga Khan, they are strongly pro-Western. All together they number about 6-7 million people.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Bush Administration has no desire to rebuild the destroyed un-Islamist middle class that existed under the former monarchy. Karzai and his US imposed regime have completely cut out the Ismailis and the new Afghan constitution's provision for Sharia, continues their marginalization.

Posted by: Provoslavni at February 16, 2006 11:15 AM

And yet Muslim women, like Naseem, think that Islam is alright. Any women that follows this kind of living without some kind of fight, deserves to be treated as no class citizens or non-entities. I mean no insult. I'm just calling it like I see it.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at February 16, 2006 11:15 AM

I sorta agree with you Ironman if the woman agrees to marry into this cult. But the women born into it are so beat down and brainwashed that they can't see a way out. Other than suicide.

I've read that women who run from forced marriages or violent marriages are tracked down and killed. Honor killing. So sad.

Posted by: freewoman at February 16, 2006 11:38 AM

"Then, after a brief interval as a socialist republic, the Soviets invaded and all hell broke loose."

That "brief socialist republic" was actually a Soviet coup de tat that brought the poet-playwrite (and KGB asset) Nur Turaki Muhammad to power in April '78. He was murdered months later by his second-in-command, Hafizullah Amin.

The Pashtoon tribes of the south began organizing their jihad against the "athiests" almost immediately. Pakistan's Zia became their sponsor, those that claim he was their creator are sadly mistaken...and when Amin began making overtures to Pakistan to alleviate his predicament, the Soviets invaded in Dec '79 and killed him and his girlfriend in the Presidential Palace.

"The only Afghans who can be counted on to resist Sharia are those Ismaili "Muslims" among the Tajiks of Badakhshan and the Hazaras of central Afghanistan."

The Uzbeks centered around Mazar-i-sharif are also historically quite moderate in outlook.

Meanwhile, you're quite right about the distribution of US aid to the Mujahadin groups by the ISI; the fanatical Gulbiddin Hekmatyar and his Hezb-i-islami organization received the lion's share. After the collapse of the Najibullah gov't, Hekmatyar laywasted Kabul with his rockets for 2 years until the Rabinni-Massoud government was forced to flee.

An interesting aside: As he bombed Kabul, Hakmatyar's one non-negotiable demand was that the Rabinni gov't break its ties to Uzbek leader Rashid Dostum (who had cast his lot with the Soviets during the 80s and turned on them only when the writing was on the wall).

Anyways, Rabinni and Massoud resisted Hekmatyar's demands and retained Dostum in their cabinet. It was in fact Dostum himself who defected to Hekmatyar in '94 and tipped the balance of power to the latter.

Such is the nature of things in the Muslim world; the tribal politics, the overnight changing of loyalties, the buying of friendship, the betrayals and treachery, things that confound us naive Westerners - brought up on a sense of absolutes (good and bad, right and wrong, keeping one's word) - as we emerse ourselves in the tangled webs of these local cultures.

Posted by: Cornelius at February 16, 2006 11:43 AM

This just shows once again the circular nature of Islamic countries harsh Islamic law- gradually changes to a more liberal (by their standards) environment only to be snapped back to harsh Islamic - these people will never change - they have been going round in this circle for 1300 years and they will keep doing so. The problem is this time they want the rest of the world to join their little merry-go-round so this time we WILL have to do something and in the end they will need to be forcibly change - this planet is too small to have these crazies living in such close proximity - it WILL take a military solution - all this shit in Afghanistan and Iraq is just pissin in the wind!!

Posted by: johnmac at February 16, 2006 12:08 PM

Right in the eyes shalgarai; YOU IMPOTENT,IRRATIONAL,INSECURE,SAND FLEA!

Posted by: mustang65 at February 16, 2006 12:11 PM

I am really puzzled !!! Why do we give money to these people? Palestinians, Afgans, Sudanese, Egyptians, and the list goes on. Then when Katrina happens, we have no money to help our own........

We deserve what we get....

Posted by: Anti-PC at February 16, 2006 12:22 PM

Another example Islamic democracy. How much is this costing the U.S. Taxpayer? Why does the U.S. government continue to support this?

Posted by: Charles Bogle at February 16, 2006 12:30 PM

The folly in Afghansitan and Iraq was, once the governments were defeated in war, the "interim" adminsitrators DID NOT institute, by force of arms, a de facto U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and endorse the EU's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And Shariah would be forced into the dustbin of history, at least in their two conquered zones.

If that move toward freedom was resisted with force by neo-Taliban fighters, then we needed to kill that layer of Shariah-hungry madmen, and try it on the next layer down, and the next and the next.

Eventually you would either reach some group of secularists with a little common sense and desire for enlightened self-preservation, or, if not, then the country would have to be reduced to a place that couldn't threaten the West, by a constant campaigns against radical Shariah-seeking Imperialistic Islamists.

Without this necessary liberating Constitutional foundation of laws for freedom, we only breed future despotic theocratic maniacs. Better trained (by us) to attack us.

Half measures produce whole failures.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 16, 2006 1:00 PM

So many angles to consider this from.

First, I marvel at the misplacement of priorities. This guy's country has been bombed back to the Stone Age several times over during the past 27 years, the government is under constant threat from the Taliban/al Qaeda remnants who have set up shop in the neighboring Waziristan province of Pakistan, illiteracy and poverty are ubiquitous, the opium trade continues to flourish uncontrolled, etc., etc.

There's all of the above to worry about, and he's got his undergarments in a bunch over two women travelling without a male escort.

Second, this sort of story always makes my blood boil, as is likely the case with all my fellow females (pardon the oxymoron). After all, there but for the grace of God go I, and any threat to my independence and self-determination is "treading on the fightin' side of me," to quote Merle Haggard.

The notion of needing a male chaperone is one of the facets of sharia that most firmly cements the notion of women as property. Isn't that, in part, what we "liberated" Afghanistan to put an end to? It's like a "leash law" for 50% or more of the population.

Third, the more I thought about this article, the more I realized that every argument that came to mind against it is hamstrung by the double standards in Islam, underscoring the serious flaws inherent in the cult of Mohammed.

For example, I asked myself, what's a relationship without trust? But there is no trust to be relied upon where misogyny and subjugation are pillars of society, and women are possessions.

Also, what is Shalgari smoking to think mature adults, and members of parliament, who also happen to be female, are going to treat the London trip like Spring Break? The majority of the men probably didn't bring their wives; did they sit in their hotel rooms checking over the Koran in the dresser drawer? Unlikely.

But again, the double standard that was elevated to an article of faith by Mohammed characterizes women as morally deficient nymphomaniacs, and ticking time bombs of adultery. "Deficient in their religion," he said. Baloney.

It's always been my interpretation that Mohammed was blaming women for his own imbalanced desires, like a kindergartner blaming a peer, "but he made me do it!"

My, this is getting long-winded. Almost time for me to go out unescorted again and erode the moral fabric of society with my uncovered head of hair. I think I'll make eye contact with a bunch of male colleagues while I'm at it. The depravity! ;)

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 16, 2006 1:11 PM

"THIS COUNTRY IS THE iSLAMIC REPUBLIC OF aFGHANIstain." So says the arrogant idiot, shalgarai. This diaper or nappy head gives me the dry-heaves.

Posted by: mustang65 at February 16, 2006 1:25 PM

----------------------------------------
"The folly in Afghansitan and Iraq was, once the governments were defeated in war, the "interim" adminsitrators DID NOT institute, by force of arms, a de facto U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and endorse the EU's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And Shariah would be forced into the dustbin of history, at least in their two conquered zones."
---------------------------------------

indeed profitsbeard - the U.S. imposed an American style constitution on Japan and Germany after WW2.
why this wasnt done beggars belief.

------------------------
"THIS COUNTRY IS THE iSLAMIC REPUBLIC OF aFGHANIstain." So says the arrogant idiot, shalgarai. This diaper or nappy head gives me the dry-heaves.
------------------------

errr.. unfortunately he is factually right. It really IS called that - its in the new Afghan constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

more on the constitution here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Afghanistan

this bit is astonishing:
"The president must be Muslim"

and this:
"The Constitution describes Islam as its sacred and state religion."

and this:

"There is no absolute protection of free speech based on individual liberty."

and this:
"Women are protected equally before the law; however, the tenets of Islam are given the most moral significance."

the actual consitution (pdf) is available on this page:

http://www.jemb.org/eng/legislation.html

get a load of the preamble.

now get a load of article three:

"No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan"

Have we just set ourselves up for yet ANOTHER friggin' blowback? sure looks like it.

Posted by: archduke at February 16, 2006 1:40 PM

Shinolite:

Well spoken. This fellow reeks of the type of virtue expected from somebody who suspects there's an orgy going on, but wonders why he wasn't invited to it. Unintentionally, those few words manage to speak volumes on Shalgarai's worldview, both of the moral fiber of his female colleagues as well as --implicitly-- his own entitlements. Ugggh. Hypocrisy.

As for you and your wanton eye contact: Oh, Behave!

Posted by: Chatillon at February 16, 2006 1:50 PM

I really dont know if Islam can be Reformed..

I believe it is so Evil it needs to be Banned..
As nazism is banned in germany..

Islam is a threat to the entire world..
As we see here...

Posted by: jingoist at February 16, 2006 1:53 PM

Articles like these confimed what I have always believed, that a greatness of a faith is by how 50% of its members are treated. Islam frankly flunked this test.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 16, 2006 2:30 PM

Met a fascinating Afghan woman at local bus stop-she wore a white gauzy scarf -hair showing,a
light gauzy overgarment over Infidel cardigan {might have been Hindu I thought] ...Her eyes were BLUE and complexion fairish. Two teenagers with her also wore gauzy scarves-hair showing-they were brunettes with dark eyes. Teenagers looked rather embarrassed as their older companion chatted voluably & and in not too bad English to me. This blue eyed lady was the mother of 7 children, one of whom was going to University here for the first time "Fatimah" liked the hills & mountains of our town so much-reminded her of Afghanistan although much greener-she was trying to find accomodation here & move rest of family from Auckland. She came from a place about a 100 miles from Kabul in Northern Afghanistan - the girls with her weren't her daughters ,belonged to friends she was staying with. I joked about 'her blue eyes' and she told me quite seriously that on her mother's side she was descended from followers of
Alexander the Great-apparently anthropologists used to visit their enclave until war started.
There was certainly no hint of shyness from either of three;all exposed to temptations of Infidel life without any MALE FIGURE to chaperone
them. Found this lady delightful;she had so much zing & zest for living so I gave her my telephone number, whereupon she vigorously shook my hand. Of course she could well be the descendant of some European slave-there were millions of them sold, Russian or even British soldiers were in the region. I like the 'Alexander the Great' version best- she said
these descendants were taller & Europeanlike and refused to integrate with Afghan population...

Posted by: Morgane at February 16, 2006 2:31 PM

nothing is perfect, getting out the Taliban is the right thing to do, people getting killed for teaching girls to read is the Taliban;s creed. Things do not change quickly, but many steps back for those taken forward. l really believe freedom is a human condition, and some muslim will have the courage to ask quesitons and demand change.

Posted by: Lulu at February 16, 2006 6:27 PM

Cornelius,

Thank you for your kind words.

By "brief socialist republic" I was referring to the few years under Mohammed Daoud before the Taraki coup that ultimately was responsible for bringing in the Soviets.

You are right about the Uzbeks being comparatively moderate but they are still Sunni and could, one day in the future, begin to follow true Islam.

It is precisely because the the followers of Agta Khan are "syncretistic heretics" that I support them so strongly and want to see them strengthened.

I believe it is completely consistent to be equally anti-Islamist and anti-Communist.

Posted by: Provoslavni at February 16, 2006 7:19 PM

PROVOSLAVNI: "By "brief socialist republic" I was referring to the few years under Mohammed Daoud before the Taraki coup that ultimately was responsible for bringing in the Soviets."

Daoud seized power from his cousin the King in '73 and held it - with Soviet backing - until he was killed in the Soviet-manufactured coup in '78. His was never a socialist republic to my knowledge, but a just a "Republic" of the typical third world variety. He was progressive by Muslim standards, but this was more a sign of the times than any special feature of Afghanistan.

Though officially neutral, Daoud was faithful in his loyalty to the Soviets. Apologists for Moscow have invented all sorts of reasons to justify his overthrow. In point of fact, the Soviet siezure of Afghanistan was naked opportunism designed to capitalize on the feebleness of the Carter Administration and its passive acceptance of previous Soviet imperial adventures in Angola, Ethiopia and South Yemen over the preceeding 5 years. The chance Carter might lose in 1980 speeded up the Soviet timetable for super-imposing the "social revolution" on Afghanistan.

PROVOSLAVNI: "I believe it is completely consistent to be equally anti-Islamist and anti-Communist."

Amen brother. I despise both camps.

Like Fascism and Communism, I think that while Islam and Communism are superficially diametrical opposites, they are actually symmetrical phenomenon...totalitarian, collectivist, and utopian.

Posted by: Cornelius at February 16, 2006 9:58 PM

Cornelius,

I guess "socialist" is a word so broad as to mean almost anything. I probably should have simply written "leftist" but since Daoud styled himself a "socialist" but not a "communist" he probably desired to make Afghanistan a Central Asian version of Finland.

There is evidence that Brezhnev may have ordered the naked aggression against Afghanistan because of Iran. Many Soviet analists believed the US was about to invade Iran to topple Khomeini and bringing Afghanistan firmly under Soviet military occupation could be seen as a warning to the Americans to stay out.

On the other hand, the Soviet economy was so moribund that it might simply have been a classic case of using a foriegn military adventure to divert internal attention away from the Soviet domestic crisis. If so, it had the opposite effect, since Afghanistan possibly hastened the Soviet collapse by a decade.

Either way, it destroyed all hope of restoring the moderate Afghanistan that existed under the monarchy of Zahir Shah. I personally believe that after the overthrow of the Taliban, we should have rstored the monarchy, but now it's probably too late for that. That's why I think it is essential to strenghten the Hazaras and other anti-Fundamentalist groups, but that can't happen as long as the US remains dependent on Pakistani support.

Posted by: Provoslavni at February 17, 2006 2:12 AM

Cornelius, thank you for your posts, esp. your modern history of Afghanistan. I remember writing a couple of letters to President Najibullah in hopes of getting some sort of interesting reply, such as (1) an autograph, or (2) a returned envelope marked "undeliverable due to war" for a stamp collection.

Alas, I received nothing, except possibly to provoke the establishment of my dossier at the FBI.

I, too, have always believed that the Soviets were taking advantage of a weak Jimmi Carter. They were after a warm-water port, and, although Afghanistan is land-locked, it was close enough to the sea to provide fighter cover for further adventures in any one of several directions. Reagan realized this and stopped them. Too bad he had to rely on the people he did.

Islam is a totalitarian system. What better way to institute control of everyone, than by making half of the population the watchdogs of the other half.

By making women so subservient to men, and giving men the responsibility of watching the women, both groups are controlled. If the women step out of line it is the MEN who are dishonored, as they have not performed their oversight to expectations. No wonder strict islamic societies are so backward and unproductive. By the time they finish putting their asses up in the air five times a day, and watching over the women, nobody has time for science, business, art, or anything else. Even jihad becomes a kind of part-time activity.

It's insane.

And the war goes on.

Posted by: texan at February 18, 2006 12:36 AM