Local NGO Hope For Women has released a book on women’s rights in Islam in an effort to counter what it has described as a growth in “conservative Islamic teachings or religious justifications, that use Islam as a tool to intimidate and repress women”.
The book, titled “Women’s Rights Through an Islamic Lens”, has been compiled by Hope For Women with support from renowned local Islamic scholar Dr Ibrahim Zakariyya Moosa.
Minivan News was told during the launch that the publication attempts to challenge a perceived emergence of more religious conservative viewpoints in Maldivian society regarding the role of women and gender equality.
Issues addressed by the book include polygamy, a husband’s right to beat his wife, inheritance and the right to divorce.
Hope For Women’s co-founder, former Gender Minister Aneesa Ahmed, expressed particular concern over the growth of conservative views that she argued were limiting the role of women in society to domestic spheres and portraying them as being inferior to men.
She recalled hearing an Islamic scholar preaching on television that women become a “property” of their husbands following marriage, and said such preaching has to be stopped.
“This kind of conservative views that belittle a person is a major obstacle to building harmonious relationships on which a strong family and society is built on,” Aneesa noted.
“Many of the problems existing in our society roots back to inferior roles women and girls have within their households,” she observed. “I hope these publications will clarify the rights and status of women in Islam and create more awareness within our society.”
The NGO has also translated three publications from the international organisation ‘Sisters of Islam’ – including “Are Muslim men allowed to beat their wives?”, “Are women and men equal before Allah?” and “Musawah Framework for Action”.
Musawah is described as a holistic framework created by a group of 12 Muslim activists and scholars from 11 countries on “promoting concepts of justice and equality in Islam, and the Muslim family in particular,” according to its website.
Hope for Women said it had “become incumbent upon all civil society actors to speak out and stand up against the widespread prejudices that encourage women to be relegated to a marginalised existence and sometimes subjected to extraordinary acts of violence.”
Speaking at the launching ceremony of the project yesterday (July 30), newly appointed Gender Minister Dr Aamaal Ali observed that “outdated ways of thinking are being preached today as the Islamic way, and this has resulted in a backlash against women’s role in society”
“My students tell me they hear a certain sermon when they get into a taxi. They face discrimination at some gatherings from other women and outside forces are influencing their family life. Some girls also tell me their husbands are pressuring them for a second marriage,” explained Dr Amaal, who has served as a teacher and principal at the all-girls Ameeniya School in Male’.
“Sometimes when I think, I wonder if women are seen as disposable, to throw away once they become old. Because women are today often being treated as disposable beings,” she added.
The minister noted that if young women in the country informed themselves about religion with education, as well as providing themselves with empowerment and economic emancipation, it would help reduce many of the problems they faced such as domestic violence.
(0)Dislikes
(0)Related Posts
Religion and nationalism key themes on National Day
Parliament to review constitutional amendment regarding religion
Comment: Maldivian history a mockery of past and present
“Women only” Islamic fashion show to be held in Male’
Rising religious fundamentalism, conservative thinking impacting women: Department of National Planning
Government calls for immediate Tourism GST increase to 15 percent
Gender minister Dr. Aamal Ali and former minister Aneesa Ahmed are hypocrites.
They speak of issues convenient to them, they ignore the institutionalised bias against women by the government they serve lest they lose their high positions in society. The bigger concern is not becoming a pariah. Aishath Velizinee is one woman who speaks her mind, for which she has paid dearly. Velizinee was ridiculed and harrassed even stabbed, but I don't remember Aneesa or Aamal offering much support.
High profile cases such as Velizinee, the teenage rape victim sentenced to be flogged, CSC Chairman Fahmy keeping his job after sexual harassment of a subordinate, MP Mariya Didi beaten and molested by police thugs ..... the list goes on. Elitist women in high positions do more harm than good by condoning such incidents with their silence because ordinary women look up to them.
Well, well, well. Now that the kuffar are pressuring these slave-owning belles they have to do something shouldn't they? Something to satisfy those pesky Dhivehistani liberals and the annoying infidels at the UN. Throw them a bone to chew on, you know.
So, a pamphlet on not beating women? And to treat them as humans and not property? I fell off my chair laughing. This is the 21st century right? What next? FGM is ouchie? Taliban are big bad meanies? LOL. Cut the crap and just tell the peasants that what they've been following for the past 800 years was a lie. Why can't the elite come out with the truth instead of everytime defending this misogynistic death cult? Because they need the sheep mentality to control the peasants. They're still supplying the opium to the masses - just in a different pipe.
Why Islam is appealing to ignorant people is now seems obvious, a true Muslim never reads the critics of Islam. They only read and listen to Islamic scholar who make false claim that Quran is a scientific book, they claim the scientific Quran is a proof that it is divine as the prophet of Islam would not have known those things unless he was inspired by divinity. But it never occurred to them that no scientist ever used Quran as scientific reference book. It is always when there is new discovery; the Muslims attach that to Quran that Mohammed knew these things 1400 years ago and it is there in the Quran. The divinity of Quran is unshakable in the mind of ordinary Maldivian. If you talk about freedom to women it hits in the heart of Maldivian because Quran does not give equal rights to women that a man has. Women should cover them from head to toe, they are not equal in inheritance, and they should always be under the strict men’s observation because they are weak and can easily be a prey to men’s lust.
People lose their sanity when they hear such feminist rhetoric because you are challenging the words of Allah. You are subjected to all kind of abuse even you risk your life if you ever sounded anti Islamic. If you have such sentiment and you’re a Maldivian, you have no respect and you are downgraded to an animal. You are cursed and filthy, Allah has sealed all your cognitive power.
It is funny that these people even don’t know that even Quran challenges to look at Quran critically to see if it’s true or not. If you look at Quran with critical mind I wonder why you can’t find some of its reasoning as absurd and unacceptable for 21st century. If you are vocal in public for women freedom and anti Sharia punishment, you are risking your life and you will be damned to lesser life form
Good job!
Aneesa and Aamal possibly think that they are doing what they can under difficult circumstances. And this work needs to be done. However, I cannot help agreeing with peasant- this is not enough. It is easy to be gracious and liberal while preserving their elevated positions within a group of people who work against the interest of not just women but the ordinary men and women.
I prefer the intellectual honesty of people like Velezeene who speaks out regardless. Aneesa and Aamal need to examine their own motivation and see if they really want what is best for the nation, or perpetuate the system.
Good job Hope for Women. Agree this is not enough but this is an important action towards the right direction. Changing mindsets require much more. One NGO alone cannot undertake this task. Each and everyone of us need to do our parts.
Thank you Aneesa & HOPE FOR WOMEN & also Amaal.
This is a good start. A counter argument or view is much needed... to the BS spread by most so called "Islamic" scholars.
My prayers & support 🙂
Good job Hope for Women! And good for you Aamaal for speaking up against those who seek to oppress women in the name of Islam!
Amaal has opened a can of worms. The Mullahs beards must be trembling at 50Hz. You see, the scholars have always told us that Hell is full of women.
"Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half."
Al-Qur’an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 11, translated by Yusuf Ali
(Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
Al-Qur'an, Surah al-Maeda, Ayah 5, translated by Yusuf Ali
What more evidence does Amaal or anyone else need? The holy book is there straight in front of you and is explicit about a woman's worth. Whilst men are given the green light to marry outside Islam, no such permission is given to women.
Allah knows best.
A counter argument? There is no counter argument! Islam is VERY clear about its stance on women. Read the quran and the hadith. Women are not equal to men and are considered inferior. Women are forced to cover up and threatened with hellfire. A man can marry upto 4 women like they were livestock, with your good prophet marrying 11 wives, many captives of war and raids. Amaal and Aneesa can scrape the edge of this issue and pretend Islam is the solution for a problem caused by Islam, but very few women would believe them. I recall a comment in haveeru where one person said that amaal and aneesa couldn't even get 40 people for the launch, whereas mullahs get hundreds or even a thousand women for their sermons, where they remind women on how inferior and stupid they are.
The liberals in dhivehistan are such a joke.
“Women’s Rights Through an Islamic Lens,” was disappointing at best, and shocking at worst. The paper is ostensibly designed to refute some of the prejudices against women that are issued from Salafi/Wahabi pulpits in the Maldives. But the author does not disagree with the Salafi misogynists in the latter’s basic premise that Islam establishes gender hierarchy.
In support of this Qutbian premise, the author cites verse 2:228 in claiming that a husband has authority over his wife-- and that this authority is God-given. He claims that this authority exists because it is the husband who bears the primary responsibility for the family. But he does not ponder whether such a right could exist in family arrangements where a wife is an equal partner rather than a helpless dependent-- or indeed whether a family arrangement could exist in situations outside what existed in Medina in the 7th century.
The author does try to present the “authority” of man over wife as merely a formality that does not jeopardize gender equality. But he then gives more substance to this “formal” authority by justifying that husbands do actually have a “right” to “strike” the wife. He struggles with an interpretation of verse 4:34, to claim that the verb “beat” in the Arabic text has many meanings, but does not reject the notion that men have a “right” to physically “discipline” their wives. He even says that a husband must avoid the face and sensitive parts of the body. I find his readiness to concede that a husband is actually allowed to touch his wife in anger quite alarming. Perhaps one should not be so shocked to see that the author does not deem it appropriate to recall, in his discussion of verse 3:34, that verse 2:228 establishes clear reciprocity in the rights and duties between husband and wife. So how is it that a wife has no reciprocal rights in relation to verse 4:34? But more alarming was the fact that the author does not reject the misogynist idea that a husband can touch his wife in anger. The rejection of violent behaviour must be categoric, as the claim that some rights are unilateral (rather than reciprocal).
The main thesis of the book is that men and woman are equal in their human-ness or humanity. It was never clear what he meant by that. Was he claiming that women are not sub-human? That is surely a relief. But is he claiming that that as human beings, in terms of human nature, men and women are equal? Not very clear. But his discussion of why it is wrong to claim that a woman cannot be a head of a government clearly betrays the author’s belief that men and women are not equal even in their human nature. He claims, as does Yusuf Al Qaradawi, that in modern states, where the power of rulers is no longer absolute, but subject to checks and balances, women could become head of government or head of state. Queen Sheba apparently does not come under censure in scriptures because she governed in a “democratic” manner. Not only does the author imply that men have a unique right to be dictators and absolute rulers, but explicitly states that a woman cannot be the head of the Muslim Ummah. On what grounds either claim is justified is not made clear.
In sum, the book is disappointing. It still tells our women that they can be physically disciplined by their husbands and that the husbands have a God-given right to discipline them. It fails to give meaning to the notion of reciprocity and equality clearly stated in verse 2:228. The biggest disappointment is the failure of the author to recognise that many verses of the Holy Quran addressed a particular type of society that existed in Medina and Mecca in the 7th century; and therefore the failure of the author to distinguish between what is normative and what is descriptive in the Holy Quran. It is clear that the Holy Quran was addressing a very male-dominant society. It is also clear that such male dominance is neither a permanent feature nor the ideal. Is that not why there is full equality of men and women before God?
The author’s claim that men and women were equal in their humanity essentially has no practical meaning. He does not mean he regarded men and women to be equal in human dignity-- if that were the case, why argue the case for a “right” of a husband to strike his wife in any physical manner? He also does not mean legal equality-- if that were the case, then why claim that only a man can be the head of the Ummah or even a dictator? By conceding that Islam provides for gender hierarchy as a normative value, he in fact reinforces the hand of those misogynists who simply cannot accept that men and women have equality in rights.
One of the most powerful arguments to reject gender hierarchy is evident in the manner prescribed in the Holy Quran to resolves the ultimate dispute between husband and wife--that of disputed paternity of a child born in wedlock. The testimony of the husband and the wife is given equal weight. It is clear that before God men get no favours or privileges over women. It is society that has developed prejudices against women and favours for men; and it is the same society, dominated by males, who interpret scriptures and develop mechanisms to ensure that men enjoy privileges that they would deny women.
There is no hope for women in the Maldives if those who would defend the rights of women also believe that it is God rather than medieval Arab society that created the gender hierarchy that has been given normative status in classical Islamic sharia. There is clearly a need to distinguish between what is descriptive and what is normative; and I would refer the readers of Minivan to the works of Asma Barlas, Shirin Ebadi, Amina Wadud, Fatima Mernissi or Khaled Abou Fadl.
There is always hope,... the question is, do women in the Maldives want this as its quite comfy and normal how they live now?
I have sometimes the impression that there are ok where they are right now...maybe cause too lazy, maybe too scarred, maybe cause they have other things to do...meeting up with friends or something.
Pony, it's because they are brain dead sheep. 'If the mullah said it, then it must be true' When 4 year old kids are forced to wear the veil, you know something is wrong with dhivehistanis.
If you advocate adherence to the Qur’an and Sunnah as we have it, then you only have to prevent men from raping women who are allready married if these women are not the war booty of a pagan tribe.
When the Muslims raped their pagan slaves, they asked Prophet whether they should withdraw before they ejaculated, as they were frightened of impregenating the Women as it may have caused legal issues.
To my surprise, Prophet did not reply, WHAT the HELL! You should not be raping Women in the first place! His reply was, Don’t worry, It is up to ALLAH whether a child is born or not.
The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)
“O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)
“We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter” (Sahih Muslim 3371)
I am not oppossing Islam. I am opposing the mainstream literalist understanding. When people tell me they follow Sunnah literally, and most Maldivians think they do, I feel too embarrassed for their ignorance to argue with them.
If you advocate adherence to the Qur’an and Sunnah as we have it, then you only have to prevent men from raping women who are allready married if these women are not the war booty of a pagan tribe.
When the Muslims raped their pagan slaves, they asked Prophet whether they should withdraw before they ejaculated, as they were frightened of impregenating the Women as it may have caused legal issues.
To my surprise, Prophet did not reply, WHAT the HELL! You should not be raping Women in the first place! His reply was, Don’t worry, It is up to ALLAH whether a child is born or not.
The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)
“O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)
“We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter” (Sahih Muslim 3371)
I am not oppossing Islam only if Islam is understood as submission to the ONE TRUE GOD.
DO WHAT EVER YOU CAN DO AGAINST ISLAM. BUT AT THE SAME TIME KNOW THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE ASKED ON ALL THESE! ANEESA, AAMAAL AND EVERYONE