---

---
Christian Science Monitor
Afghan Parliament debates chaperones for women

By Scott Baldauf, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Wed Feb 15,
3:00 AM ET

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN - When Afghan parliamentarians went to London earlier
this month to participate in a major donor's conference, it was a milestone
of
sorts, with a presidency and Parliament working side by side to solve the
nation's problems.
But for Al-Hajj Abdul Jabbar Shalgarai, a conservative legislator, the trip
was distinctly un-Islamic. He saw the participation of two Afghan women
parliamentarians
- who traveled without their husbands - as a breach of the law.

So while President Hamid Karzai and his delegation were securing promises of
aid, Mr. Shalgarai told his fellow parliamentarians that they were all
obliged
to follow the Islamic sharia law, which forbids women - including women
parliamentarians - from taking long journeys without being accompanied by a
male
member of the family.

"This country is the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan,
and the Constitution says that nothing can be done in Afghanistan that is
against sharia law," says Shalgarai, recalling his statements in Parliament.
"I
don't want to pass a new law into the Constitution; we already have a law,
and it is in sharia."

It was a debate that was bound to happen in Afghanistan sooner or later, a
clash of two different visions of Islamic society, one traditional, the
other
modern. But for female parliamentarians hoping to improve the lot of women
in this conservative Islamic country, the return of sharia rules - even if
they
are not specifically stated in the Constitution - is a troubling sign
indeed. After all, it was this very same sharia principle that the
conservative Taliban
regime used to prevent women from going to school, to market, and to work.

"This is not just for women in Parliament, this will create a big problem
for all women of Afghanistan," says Safiya Sadiqi, a female parliamentarian
from
the Pashtun-dominated Nangrahar Province.

"We have international donors who emphasize funding on women's development.
They won't be happy to see this backward trend," says Sadiqi, who attended
the
London conference after being nominated by Parliament to go. "It means
probably that soon women can't go to school alone, can't go to market alone,
can't
work alone."

perones needed
Under sharia, the notion of mahram-e sharaii, or male chaperones, allows for
women to travel for more than three days if they are accompanied with a male
relative. Because mahram-e sharaii has not been introduced as a bill, it is
impossible to know just how much parliamentarian support it has. But with an
estimated 50 percent of the lower house claiming past experience as fighters
in the anti-Soviet jihad, and current affiliation with Islamist parties,
it's
clear that conservative interpretations of Islamic life have a strong
political hold.

"As Muslims, we have a strong book, the Holy Koran, and we believe in the
Koran, we don't believe in the Constitution," says Haji Ahmed Fareid, a
religious
scholar and parliamentarian. "We have given women the right to educate
themselves, to take part in government, to participate in political life.
But there
are special rules."

Haji Fareid says that Westerners pay so much attention to women's rights in
Islamic nations, but rarely give Islam credit for the rights it gives to
women,
such as the guarantee from husbands that they will provide clothes, food,
and shelter for their wives, as well as the right of inheritance.

"In some countries, the women work outside the house, and then come home and
they have to cook, and wash clothes, and look after the children too," he
says.
"In Western cultures, women are equal to a pack of chewing gum. You can see
their images on a box of soap or a bottle of shampoo. That makes women just
a part of business."

Similarly, Shalgarai says the rule of mahram-e sharaii is actually intended
as a protection of women.

"If a woman is on a three-day journey, far from home, and she falls sick,
who will look after her?" asks Shalgarai. "If someone else's woman is
sitting
in the same row of seats as you, well, human beings have different drives,
including sexual drives. Sometimes these cannot be controlled. This is to
save
the dignity of women."

Selective application of the rules?
Yet women parliamentarians say that such stringent interpretations of the
Koran are not appropriate for a modern Afghanistan.

"Islam is a social religion, it is good, and broad, and it covers everything
in our lives," says Sahera Sharif, a female Parliamentarian from Khost. "But
unfortunately, when there are rules that affect men and women equally, the
men in our society only address these rules toward women."

Zeefunun Safi, another parliamentarian, agrees. "If my husband accepts me,
and lets me travel and be a member of parliament, then who are you not to
accept
me?"

Yet she acknowledges that some women parliamentarians may end up supporting
mahram-e sharaii, if it ever is introduced as a bill. "There are lots of
women
in Parliament against this, but they have to support it, because people will
say, 'You are not our representative, get out of Parliament.' "
Kilde:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060215/wl_csm/oentourage_1
---

Ovenstående er interessant af flere grunde.
For det første er det måske et fingerpeg om, i hvilken retning Irak går hen.
Iraks forfatning indeholder en klausul om, at ingen lov kan kan stride mod
islam.
For det andet viser det endnu en gang, at shariah lovgivning med alle dens
fortræffeligheder nyder udbredt støtte blandt muslimer, og hvorfor selv
demokratisk valgte politikere vil være tvunget til at følge med strømmen.
For det tredje undergraver det den nykonservative teori om, at demokrati og
menneskerettigheder på sigt kan sikres af en islamisk stat.