From here at the hysterical, irrational Islamophobe corner of the Corner, I pass along this cheery AP report from the sharia “democracy” we are building in Afghanistan, governed by a constitution that the State Department helped write:
Afghan president pardons imprisoned rape victim
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday pardoned an Afghan woman serving a 12-year prison sentence for having sex out of wedlock after she was raped by a relative.
Karzai’s office said in a statement that the woman and her attacker have agreed to marry. That would reverse an earlier decision by the 19-year-old woman, who had previously refused a judge’s offer of freedom if she agreed to marry the rapist.
Her plight was highlighted in a documentary that the European Union blocked because it feared the women featured in the film would be in danger if it were shown.
More than 5,000 people recently signed a petition urging Karzai to release the woman. She had the man’s child while in prison and raised her daughter behind bars, which is common among women imprisoned in Afghanistan. [ACM - A woman doesn't have to be in a prison to be "imprisoned in Afghanistan."]
… The woman told The Associated Press in an interview last month that she had hoped that attention generated by the EU film might help her get released. With the film blocked, she said that she was losing hope and considering marrying her rapist as a way out. She said her attacker was pressuring her to stop giving interviews.
About half of the 300 to 400 women jailed in Afghanistan are imprisoned for so-called “moral crimes” such as sex outside marriage, or running away from their husbands, according to reports by the United Nations and research organizations. Fleeing husbands isn’t considered a crime in Afghanistan.
The EU welcomed the woman’s release.
[Thanks to Andy Bostom.]
Islamic democracy can be defined as “one person, one vote, one time.”
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSharia may be coming to an American court near you sometime soon.
Here's a sampling of the horse manure the useful idiots at the American Bar Association are shoveling to the legal community:
Dispelling the Sharia Threat Myth:
Implications of Banning Courts from Referencing Religious, Foreign, or International Law
Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFormat: Live Webinar and Teleconference
Duration: 90 minutes
DO OVER: Islamist democracy can be defined as "one person, one vote, one time."
I was quoting an Israeli friend and in their neighborhood Islamist and Islamic are far more interchangeable than here in the West where radical Islam is not the predominant stream of Muslims.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIslam is itself radical, unless of course "radical" now means something other than radical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWatching the Islamic parties run the table in Egypt’s elections not only shows the folly of blindly supporting the Arab Spring, but also reveals a deeper misunderstanding about the value of free elections. Surely it can’t be the case that democratic procedures are per se so valuable that they necessarily outweigh the harm that can result from some electoral outcomes. Free and fair elections are only one aspect of democracy, as properly understood, which also includes a broad array of other political and social features, such as rule of law, social tolerance, legal equality among citizens, a consensus on non-violent resolution of political disputes, widespread acceptance of the state’s legitimacy, and many other features of society, which, with very few exceptions, really don’t exist outside of the Western civilization. The likelihood that Egypt will achieve these things any time soon -- whether or not they hold elections -- is virtually nil.
If the last decade has taught us anything, it is that Middle Eastern Muslim countries are unfit -- totally and irredeemably unfit -- for true democratic self rule.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is ridiculous that we expect to march in there and change cultural practices that have probably been going on for tens of generations. I feel very bad for the women of Afghanistan and that they don't have the same rights as women in Western countries, but THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WENT TO AFGHANISTAN TO FIGHT FOR!
I do not know how anyone can think we can be successful going into Afghanistan and practicing what is essentially cultural imperialism. It is a losing game and a constant propaganda victory and recruiting tool for our enemy.
We need to concentrate on killing Taliban and strengthening the government of Afghanistan, not making sure their laws and practices are on par with ours.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, we didn't go to Afghanistan to strengthen their government either. We went to get Osama Bin Laden and clean out the al Qaeda rat's nest. The Taliban was a side show.
Osama is gone. We need to go as well.
No more American blood or treasure for that barbaric backwater of a he&&hole.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan someone please explain to me why it's OK to marry your cousin in Afghanistan to get OUT of jail, and when you try that over here they put you IN jail?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot in Arkansas.
Just kidding (couldn't resist)!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was going to say Shelbyville.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDepending on the US state, you are free to marry a second- or even first cousin. Go to any decent legal website on the topic - you might be surprised by who you may and may not legally marry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat am I supposed to conclude based on this story? That Afghanis are savages? That we should pull our troops out so that they rot in the religious and cultural sewage of their own making?
Fine by me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot that this would mean much to the "hysterical, irrational Islamophobes" at National Review, but the Afghan constitution is emphatically not based on Sharia. This was a massive sticking point at the constitutional convention in 2003 and almost led to its failure. (For the best account of this, read "Descent into Chaos" by Ahmed Rashid.)
Details aside, what would the good Mr. McCarthy do with the Afghan government? Any form of governance accepted by the people would have to incorporate Islam in some way; would he deny them this by means of force? (Please refer to the Soviet Union for how well this worked.) Would he prefer that we just abandon any attempt to stabilize and develop the nation, and release it back to the warlords? (Please refer to Donald Rumsfeld 2001 - 2006 for how well this worked.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou do know that he's going to kill her?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait for it.
Where are my feminists on this issue? Bogged down in the hypocrisy of cultural relativism, I assume.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course it is compatible, as long as they are separated by 2000 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the constitution Hillary Clinton's State Department helped to write and she's the one politician many agree could defeat all other contenders in the Democratic and Republican parties if she were to run for President. It's frightening that so many Americans think well of this woman. She's no less liberal and no less determined to transform America into a taxpayer-funded, big-government entitlement state than Barack Obama, so what is it that commends her to be President of the United States? Hopefully, not the same "first" mentality that compelled voters to elect Barack Obama as the first African American President because electing Clinton as the first woman President of the United States would be no less disastrous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't want to deny you the opportunity to rant about how liberals are destroying the world, but the Afghan constitution was written in 2003 and ratified in 2004, under the Bush state department and largely with the guidance of then-Ambassador Khalizaid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis isn't just sharia law...this is Biblical law. The Bible commands that rapists marry their victims. Conservatives would have us believe that they have no choice but to abuse and discriminate against gay people, because the Bible tells them so. But then not only do they blithely ignore more unsavory parts of the Bible, they actually go apoplectic if another country or culture dares to follow Biblical laws!
Do you want us to live under Biblical law or not, conservatives? And if THIS part of the Bible can be dismissed and even condemned, why do you persist in abusing gay folks and their children and families?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally, I'm not familiar with that? What verses in the Bible say that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse