Pandering for votes seems to be an inevitable part of politics. However, Hamid Karzai, the current President of Afghanistan up for reelection this coming fall, has crossed the line from political ingenuity to violating human rights.

Last month, Karzai signed a Shi’ite Personal Status Law, which the United Nations Development Fund for Women has interpreted as legalizing marital rape. Moreover, the law — which has yet to be publicly released — includes a provision that requires a woman to gain permission from her husband to work outside the home or to go to school. Thus, this law, approved by Karzai and both houses of Parliament, significantly endangers the gains Afghan women have made since the Taliban were ousted in 2001.

The law applies to Shi’a Muslims — the valuable swing vote minority block who make up an estimated 20 percent of Afghanistan’s 30 million people. Critics say that in signing the law devised by Shi’ite clerics, Karzai hopes to gain support from the powerful Shi’a ulema who will prompt voter support from the ethnic Hazaras — the Shi’a Muslim minority that generally disapproves of Karzai.

Fundamentally, though, Karzai has failed to recognize the potential expansion of this law and the long-term consequences for Afghanistan’s greater political stability. Though the legislation technically applies to Shi’ite women only, it is not unlikely that a similar law could arise to apply to Sunni Muslim women as well. Furthermore, Afghanistan is notoriously unstable and has been fighting an ongoing battle against Islamist extremists. With Taliban insurgents gaining ground in rural Pakistan along the Afghan border, Karzai cannot afford to push Afghanistan towards this slippery slope for mere political gain.

Yet, the core controversy seems to be more about interpreting the law than the reasons for its passing. In defense of the law, the Shi’ite cleric Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni who spearheaded the legislation insists it does not sanction marital rape, but only permits men to deny food to their wives if they refuse sex. Yet, Article 132 requires a women to “obey her husband’s sexual demands,” neglecting consent all together. Thus in effect, women are legally required to sexually please their husbands. Though theoretically, Afghan women could refuse sex and support themselves, the employment and education restrictions the law includes largely prevents economic self-sufficiency from being a reality, particularly in rural Afghanistan where many Shi’a live.

Furthermore, an additional provision makes it illegal for a women to refuse to “make herself up” or “dress up” at her husband’s request. This dehumanizing stipulation seeks to create a conception of women as conveyors of sexuality, but not sexual beings themselves. In blatantly defining men and women’s roles as providers of food and sex respectively, the law reinforces the notion of women as asexual beings — a false manifestation that contributes to women’s oppression worldwide. Additionally, Article 132 states that a man has the right to have sex with his wife “at least once every four nights.” If Islam regards women as the chief conveyors of honor and purity — having equated impurity with sexuality — mandating sex and specifying how frequently and in what ways couples should have sex is a blatant contradiction to the Quran from which Islamic law is derived. Therefore, it is not Islam that oppresses women, but rather, particular aspects of Islamic law that have been falsely cited as justified in the name of God.

However, it is important to recognize the differences between various sects of Islam. The Shi’a school of thought — from which this legislation stems — is reinforced by a hierarchical clergy system that the majority orthodox Sunni sect rejects. This strict, clerical structure gives supreme authority to Shi’a Imams and clerics whose legitimacy permits them to develop laws, deem them “Islamic” and implement them with little opposition. Mohseni is representative of this exclusive class of Shi’a scholars. Therefore, the Personal Status Law is not a reflection of Islam, but of the Shi’a clergy.

In addition to infringing on women’s rights, supporters of the law have violated Afghan women’s constitutional right to demonstration. Women protesting the Shi’a Law in Kabul this month were spat on and stoned by men shouting, “Get out of here, you whores!” So apparently chastity is equivalent to promiscuity? Seems like a bizarre conclusion to me, but Mohseni disagrees. In a recent interview, Mohseni told Reuters: “Why should a man and woman get married if there is no need for a sexual relationship? Then they are like brother and sister.” Supporters of the law say that mandating marital sex reduces men’s temptation to engage in extramarital relations, thereby protecting women’s honor. However, this extremely weak claim is ultimately a way of circumventing the real conflict between human sexuality and morality.

Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding this law reveal the paradoxical nature of the Afghan constitution. The 2004 constitution guarantees equal rights for men and women, yet defers to Islamic law in areas that don’t have specific provisions. Moreover, despite the equality, liberty and human dignity clauses the constitution includes, the constitution also states that no law can contradict Islamic law. For this reason, human and women’s rights legislation is significantly weakened and can easily be nullified by superior Islamic law. It is along these lines that Karzai justifies permitting the Shi’a Muslims to have their own, distinct Personal Status Law.

Though Karzai denies that this law marks a return towards Taliban-style rule, the international community largely disagrees. In response to significant criticism, Karzai called for the Ministry of Justice to review the provisions of chief concern, but has yet to make a strong statement suggesting that he will repeal the legislation. Therefore, it is imperative that President Obama send a powerful message to Karzai, who is in great need of US support in the upcoming election. The Personal Status Law is not only contradictory to the Afghan constitution, but opposes some of the main goals stated in the US mission to Afghanistan — to pursue human rights and help liberate women from religious oppression.

Yet what kind of action Obama should take remains unclear. At this point, he has only casually approached this issue, publicly referring to the law as “abhorrent,” but has yet to take a stronger stance. Moreover, the law comes at a time when Obama is seeking NATO support to plan for more resources in Afghan’s war against terrorism. Exerting influence in Afghanistan’s personal affairs could be perceived as presumptuous and could even worsen the situation for Afghan women if not done correctly. However, tricky diplomatic waters is not an excuse for silence. Obama must send a clear message to both Karzai and the Afghan people that the US has not given up on democracy and human rights in Afghanistan. It is in the interest of US national security that we stand by the courageous Afghan women who have risked their lives fighting for their personal and national dignity.