opinion
Women’ and ‘rights’ seem to be antonyms as far as our religious parties are concerned. Traditionally, religious parties have opposed all legislation aimed at providing safeguard to women. Therefore, no one was surprised at the reaction of these religious leaders at the passage of the historic Women’s Protection Bill by the Punjab Assembly. While Maulana Fazlur Rehman treated the matter with sarcastic contempt, professing his sympathies with the ‘poor’ husbands, Jamaat-e-Islami’s parliamentary leader in the Punjab Assembly, Dr Syed Waseem Akhtar, demanded of the Governor Punjab, Rafique Rajwana, to not sign the Bill. He wants the Bill to be sent to the so-called Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), so it can be effectively throttled. To no one’s surprise, Maulana Sherani, head honcho of the CII has also termed the Bill against Sharia and Pakistan’s Constitution. Does this mean protecting women rights is un-Islamic?
A sane person would assume that all men having daughters and sisters would support legislation that can protect women rights (the key word being ‘sane’ here). It would be safe to assume that either the hawkish religious leaders are not blessed with daughters or sisters, or, they have no regard for such lowly creatures. Why would they oppose such bills, otherwise? Especially, when Islam is all for kindness to women and protecting them from male violence.
The state that the body language of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F) leader, Maulana Fazlur-Rehman, was disappointing would be an understatement. He said that he sypmathised with the husbands in the province of Punjab. Does he have this elevated feeling only for males, or is he totally oblivious to how ‘poor’ husbands have been treating their wives? He unfeelingly remarks, “If a woman gets treated badly, she should go to her family or tribal elders and if she doesn’t get justice then she can go to the courts, because this is our ‘culture’.”
The keyword here being ‘culture’ - it’s not religion or law that needs to be upheld - only culture.
What is culture? What makes it so important that people conveniently and willingly overlook religious and legal guidelines to uphold culture?
Oxford Dictionaries define culture as ‘the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society’. So, if the men have this tradition of torturing women, religious leaders like the maulanas mentioned above want women to seek mediation of elders when their husbands beat them up senseless and bloody.
And what do parents of these tortured souls do? They counsel their daughters and sisters to practice ‘sabr’ (patience). The next option, which is taking the matter to tribal elders, is not even an option! Mostly women don’t do that because that is not something they are allowed to do. It would be akin to bringing dishonour to the family, right? Culture, you see, must be upheld. What if a woman is beaten up, treated badly or tortured regularly by her hubby and his family members?
Women condemned of siyakari (honour killing) are half buried in Balochistan. Ferocious dogs are let loose upon them. The matter makes it to the Senate, of course, but no action against the guilty party is initiated because the senator from that particular province roars everyone down and claims it is a cultural issue.
There we have it in a nutshell. Culture.
The inhuman killing of a 17-year-old girl Tasleem in Khairpur district would turn the stomach of any decent human being. Gulsher Solangi, her unlucky father, was forced to watch hungry dogs, tear her daughter from limb to limb. The government of Sindh did nothing. Why? The all ubiquitous culture, right!
Isn’t it a fact that there was a tribal culture at the time of our Holy Prophet (pbuh)? The Prophet’s struggle was to reform this culture. So the assertion ‘this is our culture’ would remind anyone of the initial arguments of the people of Makkah, who accepted that all our Holy Prophet preached was divine and right, but defied the Prophet because what he taught them was against their cultural norms.
Had those people not changed their mindset, the culture of burying infant girls alive would have continued, but they saw light, and went against the edicts of their tribal culture.
Why is our ‘enlightened clergy’ so dead set against anything that even hints at protecting women rights is anybody’s guess. But, when it comes from politicians cum maulanas it leaves a real bad taste in the mouth. Maulana Fazlur Rehman has vowed to take to streets to get the Bill revoked. The statements from the CII have also termed the Bill against the constitution of Pakistan. They claim that Article 6 of Constitution should be invoked against the Punjab Assembly. You may be wondering what the said article implies.
Here goes: High treason. (1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.
(2) Any person aiding or abetting or collaborating the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.
(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.
(3) Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.
So, the people who have tried to offer protection to women who are constantly abused physically and mentally by the male members of their families should face charges of High Treason, whereas the molesters of women go scot-free.
Why, ah, culture, of course!
According to Maulana Fazlur Rehman, “Women Control Bill will cause divisions within families and the rate of divorce will increase.” The argument presented by Maulana Fazlur Rehman about the said law is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.
Is mistreating women the only way to prevent divorce, or to keep the family system intact? Why are men not held responsible for preventing divorce? Holding them accountable for the way they treat their women can only strengthen the family system.
Does it mean that the only way to curb the divorce rate is to overlook violence against women and let men treat them like dirt in a marriage? What does it say for our, well, the all pervading ‘culture’?
It’s time the maulanas should clarify why they think the Bill is against our Constitution and Sharia. They just claim it is unIslamic and expect everyone to take their words for it, or accept their interpretation of it. They have not, so far, issued any statement about the clauses in contravention to Sharia or the Constitution. If there is no punishment mentioned in the Quran about wife beaters, is there any injunction to the government of the time to not do so?
The religious parties feel this urge of restraining women instead of educating men. Is this the culture the renowned religious aalim wants sustained?
Wife beating culture... Inflicting violence upon women culture?
