Weird Afghan law

Islam isn't a monolothic religion, in fact it is less so than Christianity which has defined heirachies for at least some churches (i.e. Catholics and Anglicans). This is how you get mostly secular Turkey next door to the jihad exporting Iran.

One of the contributing factors towards the radicalisation of muslim youth seems to me to be the way that any man can declare himself a religious authority and so few of the disaffected youth seem to know enough about Islam to call him out on his BS.
 
Madalch said:
Clearly, Afghani fundamentalists everyone in the history of the world before the 20th century consider marriage to be a form of prostitution- the wife shags the husband in return for being provided for.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That. :(
 
Lonewulf said:
I bet that it will cause just as much outrage as the previous law.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but apparently it didn't outrage Karzai as much as the previous law. Or perhaps losing votes is the only thing that outrages him.
 
gtc said:
Islam isn't a monolothic religion, in fact it is less so than Christianity which has defined heirachies for at least some churches (i.e. Catholics and Anglicans). This is how you get mostly secular Turkey next door to the jihad exporting Iran.

One of the contributing factors towards the radicalisation of muslim youth seems to me to be the way that any man can declare himself a religious authority and so few of the disaffected youth seem to know enough about Islam to call him out on his BS.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but then some Christians have just started their own church in order to do the same. I think the empowerment of women through education and employment is the key to preventing social and institutional acceptance of these kinds of abuse. As well as changing people’s perceptions, it means women don’t have to put up with the abuse simply because they lack the power to support themselves.
 
Whiplash said:
I admit, I don't know. I was generalizing a bit. But not without merit, considering the news we get all the time of things like this topic.. Or earlier today when I was waiting at the Doc's office, they had CNN on, and a report about horrific violence against homosexuals in Iran. And other tales of people getting hands cut off, genital mutilation. Etc, etc.

I'm sure there are many more civilized Muslims. I should not have painted with a wide brush. I apologize.
Click to expand...

That report was probably about Iraq not Iran (not that such things haven't been reported as happening in Iran) and it of course makes no difference to the barbarism of the acts.
 
Madalch said:
Clearly, Afghani fundamentalists consider marriage to be a form of prostitution- the wife shags the husband in return for being provided for.
Click to expand...

Hasn't that pretty much been the definition of marriage for the last few centuries in most countries? :(

Just as an aside it is less than 20 years ago that being married was a defence against raping your wife in the UK and indeed back in the late 90s only a minority of countries recognised that a husband could rape his wife. Thankfully that position has been reversed and now it is the majority of countries that recognise a husband can rape his wife. But legally it is still a very recent development even in the "developed" countries.

That's the reason why this type of law doesn't (unfortunately) surprise me, Afghanistan was and is a very primitive state. And I mean primitive simply in the sense that its legislative, legal system and the basic infrastructure of its state has not developed for many, many years. It is only just one step up from a feudal system.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Just as an aside it is less than 20 years that being married was a defence against raping your wife in the UK and indeed back in the late 90s only a minority of countries recognised that a husband could rape his wife. Thankfully that position has been reversed and now it is the majority of countries that recognise a husband can rape his wife. But legally it is still a very recent development even in the "developed" countries.
.
Click to expand...

Now I don't have any links for this, but I remember it being that it was still illegal under sexual abuse or assault&battery aspects of law, it just wasn't able to be prosecuted as rape.
 
Lonewulf,

I know we have been able to find a separate of peace on this issue so I'm sorry for taking issue and I promise to work toward understanding. Also I note that in my threads you were very willing to hear me out and to be accomidating even if you made some very good arguments on behalf of your view and I very much appreciate that.

Lonewulf said:
This is mostly my problem with the overall generalization about Islam. It's not Islam that's the problem, it's those that reject a secular, pluralistic society, and further those that embrace tenets of faith that are harmful to other human beings... and not all Muslims do this, nor are they alone on this point.
Click to expand...
And to be sure those tennants are codified in the Hadith.

I've respect for you Lonewulf and I accept your point to a degree. The only problem I have with this view is that it gives the impression that Islam plays no part. This just isn't true. Clearly it plays a part.

Yes, there are Islamic societies that are secular and pluralistic but that doesn't obviate the fact that the Koran and Hadith provide a codified justification for what they do.

It's arguable that those who embrace what you and I see as harmful tenents are the righteous (correct) ones. They ARE in fact following the Hadith. Perhaps what's just as important is that Islam is rising as a political theory. One that seeks theocratic rule. I'm not sure it's in our best interest to see Islamic theocratic rule as something that has nothing to do with Islam.

You can say it's the people and not the ideology/theology but then you can never critisize any ideology or theology. Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism, perhaps the problem wasn't the ideology but just the culture.

Further, I don't know how you separate the theology from culture. You have this theology that has such a significant impact in society and you are saying that we must not consider that. You've got the Hadith and Sharia and you are telling us to ignore that.

I don't get that. I don't see how exceptions obviate the problems associated with many Islamic nations whose leaders use the religion as warrant for their acts.

I'm saying that if theology is so uneven or if it is so easily and effectively exploited then perhaps we as humans would be better off without it or we speak up loudly and often against the abuses and the warrant for those abuses. Perhaps we could bring about a reformation.

BTW: Ayaan Hirsi Ali - The Caged Virgin on Point of Inquiry makes the case that Islam is the big stumbling block in many Islamic nations.

Thanks.
 
Darat said:
That's the reason why this type of law doesn't (unfortunately) surprise me, Afghanistan was and is a very primitive state. And I mean primitive simply in the sense that its legislative, legal system and the basic infrastructure of its state has not developed for many, many years. It is only just one step up from a feudal system.
Click to expand...
Is there any reason to suppose that it will ever evolve? How do theocratic nations like Afghanastan and Somalia advance?

AIU, some, all or most Scandinavian nations advanced fairly quickly once they adopted secular liberal democracy. Assuming that secular liberal democracies are better at producing air and equitible conditions for citizens wouldn't it be a good idea for Islamic natiosn to move in that direction?
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Lonewulf,

I know we have been able to find a separate of peace on this issue so I'm sorry for taking issue and I promise to work toward understanding. Also I note that in my threads you were very willing to hear me out and to be accomidating even if you made some very good arguments on behalf of your view and I very much appreciate that.
Click to expand...

Okay.

And to be sure those tennants are codified in the Hadith.

I've respect for you Lonewulf and I accept your point to a degree. The only problem I have with this view is that it gives the impression that Islam plays no part. This just isn't true. Clearly it plays a part.
Click to expand...
No more so than the Catholic church played a part in the Crusades, or the Dark Ages.

Yes, there are Islamic societies that are secular and pluralistic but that doesn't obviate the fact that the Koran and Hadith provide a codified justification for what they do.

It's arguable that those who embrace what you and I see as harmful tenents are the righteous (correct) ones. They ARE in fact following the Hadith. Perhaps what's just as important is that Islam is rising as a political theory. One that seeks theocratic rule. I'm not sure it's in our best interest to see Islamic theocratic rule as something that has nothing to do with Islam.
Click to expand...

And I see this as little different than how the Catholic church was like back in the day.

You can say it's the people and not the ideology/theology but then you can never critisize any ideology or theology. Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism, perhaps the problem wasn't the ideology but just the culture.

Further, I don't know how you separate the theology from culture. You have this theology that has such a significant impact in society and you are saying that we must not consider that. You've got the Hadith and Sharia and you are telling us to ignore that.

I don't get that. I don't see how exceptions obviate the problems associated with many Islamic nations whose leaders use the religion as warrant for their acts.

I'm saying that if theology is so uneven or if it is so easily and effectively exploited then perhaps we as humans would be better off without it or we speak up loudly and often against the abuses and the warrant for those abuses. Perhaps we could bring about a reformation.

BTW: Ayaan Hirsi Ali - The Caged Virgin on Point of Inquiry makes the case that Islam is the big stumbling block in many Islamic nations.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how do you justify Turkey and Tunisia? And do you recognize the Nizari branch of Islam?
 
Last edited:
Guybrush Threepwood said:
I don't mean this to be a snarky Larsenesque 'evidence' post. but I am surprised by that, do you have a link showing which countries do and don't recognise it.
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia article seems to be well sourced and supports my recollection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape

...snip...
As the concept of human rights has developed, the belief of a marital right to sexual intercourse has become less widely held. In December 1993, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women [3]. This establishes marital rape as a human rights violation. This is not fully recognized by all UN member states. In 1997, UNICEF reported that just 17 states criminalized marital rape.[2] In 2003, UNIFEM reported that more than 50 states did so.[3] In 2006, the UN Secretary General found "Marital rape may be prosecuted in at least 104 States. Of these, 32 have made marital rape a specific criminal offence, while the remaining 74 [sic] do not exempt marital rape from general rape provisions. Four States criminalize marital rape only when the spouses are judicially separated."[3]


...snip...
Click to expand...
 
RandFan said:
Is there any reason to suppose that it will ever evolve? ...snip...
Click to expand...

Since such "evolution" appears to happen (and is happening) in pretty much every country I think you have that back to front i.e. is there any reason to suppose it will not "evolve"?
 
Lonewulf said:
...snip...

And I see this as little different than how the Catholic church was like back in the day.


...snip...
Click to expand...

And not so much "back in the day" you really don't need to go back in time to see the immense influence the RCC had on the political and legal systems of countries, recent examples that come to mind are Spain and Ireland.

I think what a lot of people seem to forget is that in most countries (from Albania to the UK) what we consider "right and proper" is actually a result of very recent changes.

Couple of personal examples: my grandmother did not have the right to vote until she was in her late twenties. In my lifetime, in my country, any expression of my sexuality has gone from being punishable (and such sentences were still handed out when I was born) by long jail sentences to (almost) being protected from discrimination in law. These are very, very recent changes when considered in an historic context.

We should hardly be surprised that the country is, to our eyes, a primitive country in terms of government (small g). since Afghanistan has pretty much been the butt of other national powers for at least the last hundred years. One of the results has been the encouragement of society based on a feudal system (warlords).

Would it be better for it to be a "democratic society" - well I think it would be however I recognise that it will take a long, long time for it to get to be anything I would recognise as a "democratic society".
 
I was just reading an article about a part of Afghanistan and it think hints at why extremist groups such as the Taliban can and do rise to power in a country as fragmented as Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8205881.stm

...snip....

Local leaders from eastern Bamiyan recently converged on the governor's office for the first meeting, or jirga, on security. The turbaned bearded men, who lined a long table in rows two or three deep, even had a reluctant good word about security during Taliban rule.

One representative, Haji Forootan, angrily shook his finger at the room with a stern warning:

"Ninety-five per cent of us blame the Taliban regime. But believe me, if anyone was travelling from Bamiyan to Kabul back then, no one would have bothered them. Because the Taliban would have chopped off their hands!"


...snip...
Click to expand...

And unfortunately you don't need to go to the fourth poorest country in the world to see the same attitudes. I've read very similar things about areas in my own country, couple of examples: the recent historical myth of London gangsters and the sickening "Well they were criminals but your granny could walk home safe at night." Another would be in places in NI were for too long some people would turn to the likes of the IRA for their local "justice".
 
If this law were merely a relic -- you know, originally established in 1453 and never officially repealed -- that would have been one thing. Many countries have weird laws of this sort which, as long as they're not applied, are not a big deal. But to actually SUGGEST it as a NEW law? Holy crap.
 
Madalch said:
Clearly, Afghani fundamentalists consider marriage to be a form of prostitution- the wife shags the husband in return for being provided for.
Click to expand...

Just shows, if any more proof was needed, that the Taliban are a backwards group that's stuck mentally in the 7'th century.

Those of us in more civilized countries have learned that you get what you pay for. And if anyone is doing it for a few slices of bread, you're probably not getting that great a service. Plus, that all sounds to me a bit like slavery, and we all learned that slaves do a half-arsed job compared to paid workers ;)

So forget coercion, take a trip to the nearest brothel, and enjoy quality service by a paid and motivated professional. Or better yet, have a drive across the border to Holland, and you can also get stoned on your way in, out, or both ;)

(Sorry, the voices in my head just can't stay serious;))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom