Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (252658)	9/25/2005 1:37:23 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572194

Huh? Women had equal rights under SH, Equal to whom? If no ordinary person can prosecute Uday or any upper Bathist henchman for a crime against them, what "rights" did they have? I'll answer that rhetorical question - none. I doubt that under Saddam a non-Bathist could do much of anything to a Bathist that abused him somehow. Its nearly impossible to have any "individual rights" with a non-representative government. Citizens are basically slaves to the ruling class in a non-representative government society. If you live in a society where a certain class is above you and you have no recourse against them for abuses they may commit against you, you have zero "rights", per se. Except perhaps the right to remain silent. they won't under the new constitution. Limited inheritance, no more western dress, the husbands right to beat his wife... all these things are the new Iraq. No more western dress? Why not? It's only in "insane Saudi" that pants are deemed "unIslamic". There is nothing in the Koran that says wearing pants is "unislamic". Do you think they are going to ban bathing suits in Iraq? I'm no expert, but I don't think the husband has a "right to beat his wife" in the Koran. Where are you getting these ideas from? Certainly not from Islamic Malaysia, Indonesia or Syria. I think it is Islamic Tunisia where the veil is illegal. To be Islamic a country doesn't have to be like Saudi Arabia. Most Muslims in the Middle East think the Saudi legal restrictions are nuts, same as the rest of us. You are dreaming, not looking at what is actually happening. You're the one making the crazy claims. Under the new Iraqi constitution, the "legislature" can't pass any laws that contradict Shari'a law... which is whatever the Mullahs say it is. I think you're making stuff up here. As I understand it Islam will be the (or 'a', don't know which wording they settled on) basis for law. However, there is no "mullah" group that vetoes laws. Which "mullah" (or "mullahs") are you referring to? If you aren't aware, the definition of what is and is not "sharia compliant" varies tremendously, even within countries. You shouldn't assume the "based on Islam" clause necessitates any of the things you listed. It is, as most things are, up to a lot of interpretation. More importantly, I don't think your idea of a group of mullahs with the veto power has anything to do with the Iraqi constitution. The likely outcome will be that the legislature will pass whatever laws they want, and since they are all Muslims they will say these are based on Islam. Some fanatics may say certain laws are unIslamic, and they will be told to shut up by the legislature.