Support NeoGAF

[ShadowRed]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iraqpollpoliticsreligion




BAGHDAD (AFP) - Three out of four Iraqis believe Islam should be the main or only source of law and legislation in their country, according to a poll of 2,700 Iraqis.


While just over 74 percent thought Islam should be the sole or main source of legislation, just 2 percent said religion should play no role in law-making, a poll showed Friday.

The findings come as parliament prepares to draft a new constitution, which will notably focus on the role of Islam, Iraq's official religion, in society.

The poll was based on some 2,705 interviews conducted from April 11 to April 20 by an Iraqi firm employed by the conservative US International Republican Institute.

Predominantly Sunni provinces of Anbar and Ninevah, where insurgents are believed to be concentrated, and Kurdish Dohuk were excluded from the poll. Respondents were drawn from Iraq's 15 other provinces.

In findings similar to a previous poll done by the democracy group, 48 percent of Iraqis continue to believe religion "has a special role to play in government", while 46 percent believe religion and government "should respect one another."

However, power cuts were a more pressing worry than security for the man on the street at the time of the survey.

More than 250 Iraqis, many of them recruits to Iraqi security forces, have been killed in the past week.

Inadequate electricity was "the most important issue requiring a government solution," for some 55 percent of respondents, the poll showed, followed closely by unemployment and national security.

And 67 percent of Iraqis now think the country is going in the right direction, the most optimistic response in the last year, the poll showed. Some 22 percent said Iraq was going in the wrong direction.

Sentiment hit an all-time low in early October 2004, as US forces started pounding Fallujah from the air ahead of a November ground assault on the town, 40 kilometres (25 miles) west of Baghdad, the poll showed.

Some 45 percent of of Iraqis said the country was going in the wrong direction at the time, edging past the 42 percent who felt more positive.

 

[DarienA]

I don't have a problem with this... Islam as a religion in it's purest form is great... it's just that when it gets abused.. like any religion....

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

and this is why my fine feathered friends

'Pleasure marriages' regain popularity in Iraq
By Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — In the days when it could land him in jail, Rahim Al-Zaidi would whisper details of his muta'a only to his closest confidants and the occasional cousin. Never his wife.

Al-Zaidi hopes to soon finalize his third muta'a, or "pleasure marriage," with a green-eyed neighbor. This time, he talks about it openly and with obvious relish. Even so, he says, he probably still won't tell his wife.

The 1,400-year-old practice of muta'a— "ecstasy" in Arabic — is as old as Islam itself. It was permitted by the prophet Mohammed as a way to ensure a respectable means of income for widowed women.

Pleasure marriages were outlawed under Saddam Hussein but have begun to flourish again. The contracts, lasting anywhere from one hour to 10 years, generally stipulate that the man will pay the woman in exchange for sexual intimacy. Now some Iraqi clerics and women's rights activists are complaining that the contracts have become less a mechanism for taking care of widows than an outlet for male sexual desires.

The renaissance of the pleasure marriage coincides with a revival of other Shiite traditions long suppressed by the former regime. Interest in Shiite customs has accelerated since Shiite parties swept Jan. 30 elections to become the biggest bloc in the new National Assembly.

"Under Saddam, we were very scared," says Al-Zaidi, 39, a lawyer from Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. "They would punish people. Now, all my friends are doing it."

A turbaned Shiite cleric who issues wedding permits from a street-side counter in Sadr City says he encourages permanent marriages but gives the OK for pleasure marriages when there are "special reasons." The cleric, Sayid Kareem As-Sayid Abdullah Al-Mousawi, says he grants licenses for muta'a in cases where the woman is widowed or divorced, or for single women who have approval from their fathers.

Shiites, Sunnis split

"Clerics who blessed them were hounded by security during the previous regime," he says. "I can assure you, these (muta'a) marriages are flourishing in (Shiite cities) Najaf, Karbala and Kadhamiya in an amazing way. There are a lot of hotels (patronized) by Shiites who approve of such marriages."

Shiites and Sunnis both permit men to take more than one permanent wife, but the rival branches of Islam are deeply split over pleasure marriages.

Most Shiite scholars today consider it halal, or religiously legal. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest religious authority in Shiite Islam, sets conditions and obligations for muta'a on his Web site. ("A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband and does not inherit from him ...")

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and other Shiite lawmakers have said they want Iraq's new constitution to use the sharia, or Islamic law, as its basis. That could give muta'a formal legal protection. Sunni Arabs and Kurds, who are mainly Sunni, oppose the idea. But the practice is growing among Sunnis and Shiites alike.

Sunni scholars fear that giving official sanction to pleasure marriages — many of which are only verbal agreements between the couple — are little more than legalized prostitution that could lead to a collapse of moral values, especially among young people.

"We have reports about one-hour pleasure marriages that are flourishing among students," says Sheik Ali Al-Mashhadani, a Sunni imam at the Ibn Taimiya mosque in Baghdad. "I'm advising parents to watch their sons very carefully, particularly those who are in the colleges and universities."

Short-term marriages were considered idolatry by Saddam's ruling Baath Party in the 1970s and '80s, says Kamal Hamdul, president of the Iraqi Bar Association. Muta'a were punishable by fines or prison, he says. Couples took the practice underground, meeting in out-of-the-way apartments and hotels — and rarely telling even family members.

Pleasure marriages began to resurface after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. One reason is that Shiites, 60% of Iraq's population, have a greater ability to shape social mores than they did under Saddam, a Sunni Arab whose top aides were also Sunnis.

Payments to women vary

A woman agreeing to a pleasure marriage that involves a one-time encounter might be able to count on about $100. For a muta'a that runs longer, she might be paid $200 a month, though the amounts vary widely and can depend on whether she has children.

Zeinab Ahmed, 31, lost her husband in a car accident five years ago. She says she has considered entering into a muta'a contract with a man, but the stigma attached has kept her from doing so.

"All my friends who have done this have told me they got married in this way just to meet their sexual desires," Ahmed says, "but later on they started to love that man, and he does not accept to get married permanently. ... Most of the men, at the end of the contract, they feel contempt towards the woman."

Contracts for pleasure marriage strongly favor men.

Married women can't enter a muta'a, although a married man can. Men can void the contract at any time; women don't have that option unless it's negotiated at the outset. The couple agrees not to have children. A woman who unintentionally gets pregnant can have an abortion but must then pay a fine to a cleric.

Women's rights activists are concerned. Salama Al-Khafaji, a Shiite lawmaker who supports the concept of sharia law but advocates for women's rights, calls the re-emergence of muta'a an "unhealthy phenomenon."

With the right intentions, she says, muta'a can serve the noble purpose of helping divorced and widowed women. But too many men are using temporary marriages to exploit women for sex, she says. Her solution is to reinforce the importance of permanent marriages with work programs for newlywed couples and education campaigns.

"A woman who practices muta'a does not usually feel comfortable about it," Al-Khafaji says. "People these days are creating excuses to practice these acts."

Al-Mousawi, the Shiite cleric, says the practice of pleasure marriages is open to abuse and misinterpretation. He says he is particularly troubled by kiss-and-tell men. "After they've finished with the woman, they've told their friends about her beauty and given a description of her body, which is something absolutely unacceptable in Islam," he says.

Al-Zaidi, the Sadr City lawyer, says his motivations are spiritual. In 2002, he says he persuaded a Sunni widow to enter into a one-year muta'a with him, even though at first she refused.

To him, pleasure marriages are legitimate in God's eyes. They bring responsibility and formality to what would otherwise be squalid and sinful, he says. "There is a noble goal in this kind of marriage," says Al-Zaidi, still married to his first wife and has five children. "It's to eradicate moral corruption."

In the past, some muta'a contracts have been struck when permanent, legal marriages were not possible.

Ayad Muhammed Ali fell in love eight years ago with a woman who walked into his Baghdad tailor shop. She was a widow with two young sons whose husband, a member of an underground group outlawed by Saddam, had been executed by Saddam's men. The woman also was richer than Ali, so her family would never have consented to a legal marriage.

The lovers agreed to a yearlong muta'a in 1993 and have renewed their contract every year since, he says. In the decade after their muta'a, the couple never dared meet in the open. In April 2003, the month U.S. forces swept into the capital, they began meeting in public places for the first time, he says.

"I was always so afraid someone would find out and I'd go to prison," says Ali, 29. "Now, I'm not afraid. My only fear is her family."

Contributing: Mona Mahmoud

 

[trilobyte]

And about 52% of Americans want a Christian based government in America

 

[Phoenix]

I don't have a problem with this... Islam as a religion in it's purest form is great... it's just that when it gets abused.. like any religion....

But people on GAF told me that religion in all its forms was evil and should be banned.

 

[Azih]

Alright why do Arab Shia people get to have all the fun?

 

[Bigfonzie]

Well thats one in the eye for freedom...


I know this might sound bad and all but fuck em, lets just get out so they can have a civil war and sort themselves out abit, they are already fighting eachother with us there and if they want democracy , let them fight for it because its NO ones responsibility but YOUrs to protect your freedoms.

I didnt agree with this war at all.



and to ppl who say we fucked up the country so we have responsibilty to help it fix itself, i say screw it, LIFES NOT FAIR! u want ur country fixed do it yourself.


ps. plz take my comments with a pinch of salt.

 

[DarienA]

fonzie... I have no idea what you just said.... country's can be free and not have democracy as their form of government...

 

[Pimpwerx]

All governments in the world should be secular IMO, regardless of what the populace thinks. Unless the country is called Jesus/Allah/Yahweh-land, religion should stay away from politice...PERIOD. PEACE.

 

[DarienA]

All governments in the world should be secular IMO, regardless of what the populace thinks. Unless the country is called Jesus/Allah/Yahweh-land, religion should stay away from politice...PERIOD. PEACE.

Yes because it's been proven that all secular govt's > any religious based gov't.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Yes because it's been proven that all secular govt's > any religious based gov't.

Yes, yes it has. Open a history book.

Hint: No, the soviet union wasn't secular.

 

[Loki]

Yes, yes it has. Open a history book.

Hint: No, the soviet union wasn't secular.

Well then what was it? Because it certainly wasn't religious.


Not that I disagree with your premise-- even as a religious person, it is eminently clear to me (as it should be to any sensible person) that it is healthier for a society to have a separation of church and state. Theocracies-- or theocracies by proxy, as in medieval and Renaissance Europe-- don't exactly have a sterling record.

 

[DarienA]

Well then what was it? Because it certainly wasn't religious.


Not that I disagree with your premise-- even as a religious person, it is eminently clear to me (as it should be to any sensible person) that it is healthier for a society to have a separation of church and state. Theocracies-- or theocriacies by proxy, as in medieval and Renaissance Europe-- don't exactly have a sterling record.

The problem is that secular gov'ts throughout history have at times treated their people just as badly... I simply don't think you can write off a religious based gov't like that.

 

[ge-man]

I can't blame them for their opinion. Shit, I don't even want our current style of government right now (it's no longer a democracy IMO).

 

[ge-man]

The problem is that secular gov'ts throughout history have at times treated their people just as badly... I simply don't think you can write off a religious based gov't like that.

Exactly. Religion can be a tool, but so can ideology and philosophy. You have to have the right people as your officals/rulers ect. because the power hungry will use anything to fuck you over.

 

[scorcho]

But people on GAF told me that religion in all its forms was evil and should be banned.

to paraphrase Joseph Campbell, religion works best when viewed as a metaphor. the problem arises when it's taken as a literal.

 

[Loki]

The problem is that secular gov'ts throughout history have at times treated their people just as badly... I simply don't think you can write off a religious based gov't like that.

I'm of the mind that we should learn from history. As I said, I'm a religious person, and I wouldn't mind at all if everyone else was also. What I'd take issue with is if they couldn't see the wisdom in leaving religion out of the affairs of the state. That's just how I see it.


If something happens 1273 times, do you have to wait until the 1274th time to say, "hey, this is a shitty idea" based on the historical precedent? History has revealed to us certain truths, among them:


1) Communism blows wherever it is implemented.

2) Stratification of wealth and lack of opportunity leads to trouble.

3) Religion should have no place in government, at least formally ("formally", since I'd take no issue with a leader being religious, and even having his ideals informed by his religion. However, he must work within the confines of the political system in place, not attempt to circumvent it)


Should we not learn from history? Why try to constantly reinvent the wheel, hoping for the best when we have no good reason to? We should strive to be true to the very best we know, not heedlessly rush into what would merely become the latest in a long line of failed social experiments.

Exactly. Religion can be a tool, but so can ideology and philosophy. You have to have the right people as your officals/rulers ect. because the power hungry will use anything to fuck you over.

I've never claimed otherwise. See my examples above. However, this doesn't change the fact that it isn't very wise to mix religion and politics, and that fact is borne out by history.

 

[DarienA]

Well democracy sure has been successful... oh wait the separate of church in state in the US... is pretty f'n flimsy....

 

[Loki]

Well democracy sure has been successful... oh wait the separate of church in state in the US... is pretty f'n flimsy....

Democracy, particularly the concept of a democratic republic, has been by far the most successful system of government we've seen. Though it has its flaws, it is certainly the lesser of many evils. What you here allude to is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand, so I'm not sure what you'd like me to say. Yes, those in power have always sought to flout the law in one way or another in order to further their ends, and yes, it is more prevalent now than at most points in our history. That does nothing to weaken the case for democracy, nor to bolster the case for theocracy imo; if anything, it merely makes the case for vigilance.

 

[Hitokage]

Whether or not religion can be used as a tool or even the discussion of religion's merits are both completely irrelevant, DarienA. When you have a religion be officially endorsed and enforced by a political state, you do not have religious freedom as all citizens are then required to answer to the state before their own diety on matters of faith, whatever they hold it to be. People frequently fail to understand that governments shouldn't be neutral so that agnostics and athiests hold equal status, but so ALL faiths do, including the majority faith. After all, a privledge enjoyed only by the ruling class is not a freedom, only a temporary allowance.

Of course, not caring about that is always an option.

 

[Pellham]

Yes because it's been proven that all secular govt's > any religious based gov't.

What does this matter?

The fact is, if Iraq goes back to being an islamic government, with sharia as the law, eventually women will lose all their freedoms, be forced to wear burqas, not be given an education, be treated like slaves, etc.

75%, eh, I have a feeling that women aren't being allowed to chip their opinion in on this.

And how can it possibly be 75%? I thought kurds and secular sunnis made up far more than 25%...

Well democracy sure has been successful... oh wait the separate of church in state in the US... is pretty f'n flimsy....

:lol if you'd rather live in a non-democratic, sharia-run country, go move to Saudi Arabia and tell us how much better it is than the US or whatever country you're currently living in.

 

[DaMan121]

Well then what was it? Because it certainly wasn't religious.

Well it was a dictatorship, disguised as communist... I would even accept calling it an atheist state, even though there is no atheist dogma. But it definetly wasnt secular, as the state has no business in religion, the Soviet Union most definetly did... because it banned it.

Well democracy sure has been successful... oh wait the separate of church in state in the US... is pretty f'n flimsy....

Democracy existed long long before the US constitution was written, and most democratic countries dont have your problem re religious medling. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Boogie]

Open a history book.

Hint: No, the soviet union wasn't secular.

History Major Boogie (TM) says: You're an idiot.

 

[Boogie]

Democracy existed long long before the US constitution was written,

Not in the modern era it didn't.

 

[GSG Flash]

I don't have a problem with this... Islam as a religion in it's purest form is great... it's just that when it gets abused.. like any religion....

Yes, it what I try tell everybody. Plus the only people that are abusing it are the Wahabis (another "sect" of Islam) and Wahabi influenced Sunni's. I don't consider Wahabi's muslims, they are animals. They have killed more people than any other religion/group/sect whatever and i'd say 95% of the people they killed are Shia muslims. Oh and for the record, I'm a shia muslim and no I'm not a radical muslim or anything, peace is first on my list and war/fighting/killing isn't even on my list.

 

[DaMan121]

Not in the modern era it didn't.

Are you serious? You think the writters of the constitution made that shit up? Where did you think that got all those concept from?

 

[Hitokage]

The Soviet Union was a special case in that they tried to replace existing religions with the state. You could consider it secular in that traditional religion was banned, but that's about it.

Are you serious? You think the writters of the constitution made that shit up? Where did you think that got all those concept from?

As yet unimplemented ideals and philosophy from the Enlightment and more direct readings of classical literature.

 

[Boogie]

Are you serious? You think the writters of the constitution made that shit up? Where did you think that got all those concept from?

French philosophes, such as Montesquieu. But just because they thought up such ideas doesn't mean they put them into practice anywhere before the USA.

edit: nuts, beaten by Hitokage.

 

[GSG Flash]

and this is why my fine feathered friends

Hahaha That article makes Muta seem like it's men picking up prostitutes without commiting a sin. Just to clear things up, the thing a guy gives to the woman doesn't have to be moeny, it can also be a gift. And I guess you can perform Muta just for sex, but it is recommended that you do not because the real purpose of Muta is for the other person to get to know you better.

 

[Azih]

:lol don't take this the wrong way guys, but you peeps have no idea what that part of the world is like. (well almost all of you).

 

[Pimpwerx]

DarienA: You know I'm almost theophobic these days, but for a change, my post in this thread wasn't one of those. Hito and Loki expressed my opinion much better than I could have. I believe strongly in seperation of church and state for a very good reason. And I don't care what religion it is, I think they should stay seperate. Dogma has no place whatsoever in politics. I think it's very bad business, and yes...I believe it's a VERY slippery slope. PEACE.

 

[GSG Flash]

I agree with the people that say religion should stay out of politics. But it's kind of impossible to keep religion out (it even affects the politics of North American countries), mainly because the laws of a country reflect the people living there and if the majority of the people living in a country are of one religion, then the laws will mostly be in regards to that religion.

 

[Loki]

Well, at least one good thing has come out of this topic:


We've finally found a use for Boogie's history degree.

 

[Boogie]

Well, at least one good thing has come out of this topic:


We've finally found a use for Boogie's history degree.

What, posting on GAF? I was hoping for something a little more useful, Loki.

 

[Loki]

What, posting on GAF? I was hoping for something a little more useful, Loki.

We can compensate you. But only in pickled fish and cured meats.

 

[Boogie]

We can compensate you. But only in pickled fish and cured meats.

Deal.

 

[DarienA]

Interesting thread... interesting opinions... none of them change my mind.. but interesting takes nontheless... omg and nobody called anybody names or yelled at anybody... wait... that's not right... must restart thread and start hurling insults... Hito..suck you and your opinion... yeah.. that's it...

 

[Loki]

Deal.

You're way too easy to manipulate. The cured meats only cost me $2.99 at Costco. Boogie = pwned. MWAHAHAHA!

 

[Boogie]

Interesting thread... interesting opinions... none of them change my mind.. but interesting takes nontheless... omg and nobody called anybody names or yelled at anybody... wait... that's not right... must restart thread and start hurling insults... Hito..suck you and your opinion... yeah.. that's it...

Well, to be precise, I did call DaMan an idiot for the "Soviet Union was not secular" comment.........

 

[Socreges]

Interesting thread... interesting opinions... none of them change my mind.. but interesting takes nontheless... omg and nobody called anybody names or yelled at anybody... wait... that's not right... must restart thread and start hurling insults... Hito..suck you and your opinion... yeah.. that's it...

Well, no one is too invested in their opinion. So, no sensitivity, no stubbornness, etc

And Boogie only lost his composure because of the rare and excitable opportunity to flex his major. Of course, not such a feat when you consider that the Soviet Union was in place during all of our lifetimes and its nature is well-known. What next, Boogie? Care to tell us who fought in the Gulf War?

 

[DaMan121]

Well, to be precise, I did call DaMan an idiot for the "Soviet Union was not secular" comment.........

I missed it.

Another thing, obviously religious indoctrination effects a person's thoughts and opinions, so when they go into office, church state seperation becomes, rather muddy, e.g gay marriage, abortion etc. What I have an objection to is, dumping sound logical arguments, and pointing the the bible,koran, or whatever, and using THAT as argument., especially when you are ignoring ALOT of whats in that book anyway, cough 10 Commandments cough.

 

[Boogie]

Well, no one is too invested in their opinion. So, no sensitivity, no stubbornness, etc

And Boogie only lost his composure because of the rare and excitable opportunity to flex his major. Of course, not such a feat when you consider that the Soviet Union was in place during all of our lifetimes and its nature is well-known. What next, Boogie? Care to tell us who fought in the Gulf War?

The Mongol Horde and Napoleonic France!

No, wait.....

Prussia and the Ottoman Empire!

....It'll come to me, don't help me, dammit.........

 

[fse]

Allah Snackbar

 

[Mandark]

Alright why do Arab Shia people get to have all the fun?

Because Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has given the green light on oral sex?


Serious reply to the thread later. Or not.

 

[FightyF]

Should we not learn from history? Why try to constantly reinvent the wheel, hoping for the best when we have no good reason to? We should strive to be true to the very best we know, not heedlessly rush into what would merely become the latest in a long line of failed social experiments.

I agree, but Islamic governments have done well in the past. They didn't last long, but hey, democracy is pretty new too, and at the rate things are going, the democracy of tomorrow won't be the same as the democracy we grew up with.

The only attempt at an Islamic government in recent years was the Taliban in Afghanistan, but that was started by kids (literally) and they already had a militant mindset from the get-go. Their intolerance of even Shia Muslims is well documented (contrast that to their tolerance of other Abrahamic beliefs).

I think it was Malaysia, that recently solved pollution and environmental damage issues using Islam. They simply taught fisherman Islamic etiquette regarding how to treat the environment, to solve waste and pollution issues.

I see a contrast between the two situations. One is "This is how you must do things, we will force you to comply", and the other is "this is how we SHOULD do things, it will benefit us all, we aren't going to punish you for not complying, but take this into consideration".

I don't know if the real issue is whether religion should define laws. It's an issue, but I think the more important issue is whether or not there are enough checks and balances in a theocratic government that would allow flexibility and interpretation of those laws.

The word "Sharia" means something like "flowing", and is heavily based on interpretation. With one autonomous leader, or likeminded leaders, that interpretation will remain the same without much debate. I think that's the most important issue.

 

[DJ_Tet]

And about 52% of Americans want a Christian based government in America

Yeah, uh no. I'd LOVE to see where you got that stat.

I'm pretty sure more than 52% of America is Christian, and your statement otherwise is pure garbage. I don't remember having to proclaim myself a Christian for voting for Bush.

The Smoking/Fat/Religious fucks of America are gonna open YOUR eyes. If they aren't open already.

We're tired of being picked on.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

The only attempt at an Islamic government in recent years was the Taliban in Afghanistan, but that was started by kids (literally) and they already had a militant mindset from the get-go. Their intolerance of even Shia Muslims is well documented (contrast that to their tolerance of other Abrahamic beliefs).

Well, except that Iran government is a Theocratic Republic, and Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy which is administered under Islamic Law.

 

[ge-man]

I've never claimed otherwise. See my examples above. However, this doesn't change the fact that it isn't very wise to mix religion and politics, and that fact is borne out by history.

Well, I'm not saying I endorse it over secualr government (fundamentalism has pushed me far away from religion and spirtuality in the last few years). However, I don't think a theocracy autmatically equals bad news either. All I know is that the US has no place to say anything about the importance of democracy when there are real questions about whether or not we still live under one ourselves. We shouldn't be shocked if some Iraqis aren't terribly excited about our attempts to "export" government.

 

[Azih]

Because Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has given the green light on oral sex?


Serious reply to the thread later. Or not.

But he didn't allow swallowing

 

[Loki]

I was going to say in my original post that "I know FightforFreeform will be around soon to extol the virtues of medieval Islamic regimes", and sure enough, there he is.


Needless to say, religious regimes don't necessarily have to be "bad"-- it's just that history has shown us that they nearly always are. And I feel that if a people are trying to start a new society, and trying to implement a new form of government, they should go with what the odds favor, so to speak. Far less chance of trouble that way. And I'd say the same exact thing if it was a Christian theocracy being agitated for.

However, I don't think a theocracy autmatically equals bad news either.

See the above paragraph. Certain historical truths are axiomatic, and one of those is that religion and government are like oil and water. I simply feel that it's foolish to disregard clear historical precedent when it can be avoided.