Deoband fatwa: It’s illegal for women to work, support family


Darul Uloom Deoband, the self-appointed guardian for Indian Muslims, in a Talibanesque fatwa that reeked of tribal patriarchy, has decreed that it is "haram" and illegal according to the Sharia for a family to accept a woman’s earnings. Clerics at the largest Sunni Muslim seminary after Cairo’s Al-Azhar said the decree flowed from the fact that the Sharia prohibited proximity of men and women in the workplace.

"It is unlawful (under the Sharia law) for Muslim women to work in the government or private sector where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without a veil," said the fatwa issued by a bench of three clerics. The decree was issued over the weekend, but became public late on Monday, seminary sources said.

At a time when there is a rising clamour for job quotas for Muslims in India and a yearning for progress in the community that sees itself as neglected, the fatwa, although unlikely to be heeded, is clearly detrimental.

Even the most conservative Islamic countries, which restrict activities of women, including preventing them from driving, do not bar women from working. At the peak of its power, the Taliban only barred women in professions like medicine from treating men and vice versa. But there was a never a blanket ban on working, although the mullahs made it amply clear that they would like to see the women confined to homes.

The fatwa, however, drew flak among other clerics.

"Men and women in Sharia are entitled to equal rights. If men follow the Sharia, there is no reason why women can’t work with them," said Rasheed, the Naib Imam of Lucknow’s main Eidgah Mosque in Aishbagh.

Mufti Maulana Khalid Rasheed of Darul Ifta Firangi Meheli — another radical Islamic body which also issues fatwas — criticized the Deoband fatwa as a retrograde restriction on Muslim women.

The fatwa was in response to a question whether Muslim women can take up government or private jobs and whether their salary should be termed as `halal’ (permissible under the Sharia) or `haram’ (forbidden).

Well-known Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad, however, justified the fatwa. "Women in Islam are not supposed to go out and earn a living. It’s the responsibility of the males in the family," he said. "If a woman has to go for a job, she must make sure that the Sharia restrictions are not compromised," he added, citing the example of Iran, where Muslim women work in offices but have separate seating areas, away from their male counterparts.

In Lucknow, a city with strong secular and progressive traditions, where Muslim families train their daughters to be doctors, engineers and executives, there was a sense of shocked disbelief even in conservative quarters that such a decree could come from those who consider themselves to be advocates of the community.

"I am also a working woman and also ensure that my Sharia is not compromised," said Rukhsana, a lecturer at a girl’s college in Lucknow and a member of the executive committee of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). "It’s not necessary that one would have to go against the Sharia when going to work."

"Name one Islamic country which does not have a national airline and does not hire airhostesses? If I know correctly, even the Saudi Airlines has hostesses and they don’t wear a veil," said Shabeena Parveen, a computer professional in the city.

Source: The times of India

What is reform to a slave?

(HH here: This one is interesting. It is from a Gulf source and seems to be aimed at Muslims though it is in English. Notice how faintly the author “damns” the anti woman fatwas. She is clearly a radically feminist writer by local standards but see how uncommitted and equivocal she is. Anything more would be seen as the words of a radical. Actually, this gal complains here about weird rulings yet had defended the hijab. Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome?)

There’s often more than one way to look at a fatwa
Hissa al Dhaheri

Last Updated: May 14. 2009 11:03PM UAE / May 14. 2009 7:03PM GMT An apple on a tree could fall, hit your head and inspire you to formulate a universal theory of gravitation. Or an apple on a tree could fall, hit your head and tempt you to take a forbidden bite.

In both cases the apple is a fruit, but it can lead to a variety of different outcomes. In the former case the apple is a source of inspiration. In the latter the apple is a source of disobedience.

(HH: This is the kind of language you have to adopt when straight forward criticism is seen as blasphemy)

In much the same way, fatwas can have wildly different results. A fatwa, a religious edict, could have the same effect as Sir Isaac Newton’s apple and lead to a revelation, or it could be like Adam and Eve’s apple and lead them astray.

This is especially relevant when it comes to fatwas related to the fitna of women’s issues. Fitna is a source of chaos and sedition, and in Arabic women are always referred to as fitna. Fatwas concerning women’s issues could be “empowering”, or a source of “controversy”. Last week, three fatwas concerning women’s issues were announced.

(HH: notice how she totally accepts that some man has the right to pronounce this Fatwa concerning women at all!!)

On Wednesday, the UAE General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments released a fatwa in conjunction with (or in celebration of) a treaty of understanding with the Egyptian fatwa centre. The fatwa gave women the right to education, marriage and medical treatment even if the father/husband/male guardian disapproves.

(HH: This Fatwa actually means nothing. Unless there is a corresponding law in place with enforcement who is to make the father/guardian LET the women do anything? Say that a woman does marry without her father’s approval. There are ample Fatwas supporting his killing her as a rebellious female. Unless having the “right” suddenly transforms a woman into Sigourney Weaver I do not see it having much affect on her actual life.)

In Kuwait, a member of the Salafi movement came up with a fatwa declaring that it is a sin to vote for female parliamentary candidates. Then, on Sunday, a Saudi judge at a family violence seminar came up with a fatwa that gave a husband the right to slap his wife for over spending.

So fatwas could be considered empowering, or they could stir up fitna and controversy. To understand their effects on society, one must only look at the apple, tumbling down, hitting your head or staying nestled in the branches of the tree.

The Emirati fatwa, unlike Newton’s apple, did not fall from the tree to hit Newton’s head and inspire a revelation, nor did it tumble down and stir up a controversy. In the UAE the number of women in higher education outnumbers the men. Women are visible in all sectors of society; we already have women ministers, members of parliament, doctors, pilots, etc. The relevance of this fatwa could be nil, or it could be empowering for re-emphasising an existing truth (one apple on the tree is better than ten rotting on the ground).

(HH: What is this truth she imagines have been affirmed? Just because at this time this country allows it’s women some rights to education and participation in politics does not mean they have a RIGHT to it. Again Show me the government intervening in a man trying to force his daughter to not go to school. Then let me see that daughter NOT ostracized or even beaten and killed for her rebellion if she goes anyway. THEN I will feel that this Fatwa is “re-emphasising” anything positive.)

The relevance of fatwas comes from their timeliness. It seems there is a time lag between the proclamation of a fatwa and the needs of society. The need for the first fatwa was probably 100 years ago, if indeed there ever was a need. Education, equality and equity are a given: why do we need to prove that again with a six-page document (and yet more information is available by checking fatwa No 4610 on the Awqaf website, as suggested at the end of the document).

(HH: what world does this women live in that these are a given for women outside of the West. And only recently there!!!)

In the case of the Kuwait and Saudi fatwas, they were timely: they were both developed as mechanisms to deal with current issues and situations. The political competition in Kuwait is the justification for the fatwa against voting for women candidates, while the credit crunch is the excuse for permitting a man to slap his wife.

(HH: WOW, I mean..WOW! She said it! Talk about Stockholm Syndrome! She is unhappy that the negative Fatwas came quickly upon society’s NEEDING them but the “positive ones” only come slowly!!!! It is a sin to vote for a woman because there are already too many candidates. And she does not like it but has no argument against it!! A man can slap his wife if she overspends because credit is very tight and it is more serious…she does not LIKE IT yad yada yada…)

This is interesting: a fatwa that raises the status of women is already out of date, while two that lower women’s status are timely. An apple on a tree falls, tempts, or in very rare cases reveals. An apple on a tree can never climb up, but only fall down.

Why does a fatwa that “empowers” women tend to be long, while any fatwa that pushes women’s situation downwards is short and concise: “It’s a sin to vote for women” in one case, and “Slap your wife” in the other.

(HH: Here we go again, her complaint is not the domination of men, it is that they are not “fair” about it!!!!!!)

Because of the apple, Newton discovered gravity and Adam and Eve fell out of Heaven. We always blame Eve for Adam’s misfortunes, just as many muftis blame women for much fitna. But isn’t it strange that in these cases it’s men who are tempting women to take a bite out of these apples, trying to persuade them that these are revelatory. What next: a fatwa declaring that women are actually human?

(HH: If by Human you mean no different than men in the eyes of God, don’t hold your breath.)

The UAE fatwa probably won’t make a difference to my life, but maybe it will strike some chords with others. I am sure many apples have fallen from many trees and hit many heads, but it was only when one struck Newton’s head that the theory of gravitation resulted. These fatwas might be seen as a revelation for many: what else would explain the popularity of Islamic fatwa programmes on TV, radios and Islamic websites?

I don’t like apples: but that doesn’t change the fact that an apple is a sweet and tasty fruit.

(HH: And if you doubted here we have her confirmation. Apples (Fatwas) are “sweet and tasty” to the soul even if we do not like them. So while she has some mild criticism she wants all to be sure that she will accept whatever the next Fatwa decrees.)

Hissa al Dhaheri is a sociologist and researcher in cultural studies, and holds an MA in Gulf Studies