Why do Muslim women need to work out if they’re always covered up in what looks like oversized garbage bags? ‘Nadoona Extreme’ is billed as the first ever workout DVD for Muslim women.
RFERL The video features a woman named Zainab Ismail, the ‘Hijabi Drill Sergeant,’ with a unique story: she’s Puerto Rican, a former national body building champion, and a fitness trainer with 20 years of experience. She’s also a fairly recent convert to Islam. In the video, Ismail wears athletic pants, a long-sleeved tunic, and a hijab as she performs simple but demanding moves like squats and lunges to a thumping soundtrack.
Because the video is being marketed to Muslim women, Ismail’s workout outfit was the subject of some discussion. We wanted to have Zainab comply to the religious attire of having her body covered, but at the same time not make her look like a bag.
A new law requiring Muslim women to remove a burqa or niqab (full-face covering headbag) to prove their identity to West Australian police has been passed by the state’s parliament. (Why not just ban burqas and niqabs anywhere in public? They frighten small children and are offensive to normal people)
WA Today(h/t Colin W)The legislation was drafted in response to public outcry about the case of niqab-wearing mother-of-seven Carnita Matthews, who had a conviction of knowingly making a false statement quashed.
Ms Matthews was originally given a six-month jail sentence after being found guilty of falsely accusing a senior constable of forcibly trying to remove her niqab when she was pulled over while driving in Woodbine in Sydney’s southwest in June 2010.
She was later acquitted on appeal after the prosecution could not prove she was the woman who signed the statement while wearing the garment. WA acting Police Minister John Day said the legislation, which was passed on Thursday, had been amended after consultation with the Muslim and Sikh communities.
“Initially, the legislation stated police would be able to require someone to remove their headwear for the purposes of identification,” Mr Day said. ”However, following consultation with the Muslim and Sikh communities, the government agreed to change the word headwear to face covering.”
He said the change had removed all of the concerns of the communities, while police had advised it was acceptable.”So I am confident a satisfactory compromise has been reached,” he said.
The new law also makes it easier for police to take DNA from suspects, with the definition of “identifying particular” expanded to permit the taking of dental impressions, hair samples and other body tissues.
It also provides a process for applying to a magistrate for a warrant when samples are needed from juvenile suspects who have not been charged when there is no responsible person, or they cannot be found, or it is impracticable to make requests to them.
As a result, two Somali Muslim students have withdrawn from the nursing school and are planning a discrimination lawsuit.
Praha iDNES(h/t Susan K) Two Muslim girls left nursing school in Prague, because they were not allowed to wear a head bag. According to Czech Television, this the first time Muslim students have left school because of this rule.
Case soon ended up with the ombudsman and the lawyers are considering an anti-discrimination lawsuit.(OH! Does CAIR have an office in Prague, too?)
“The director called me and said, ‘If you want to be in school, do not wear a head bag.’ “I said that it is against my religion, I am a Muslim,” said one of the girls.
Director of the School of Nursing in Prague says the school is not at fault. Schools are free to enforce their own rules about student attire. The school, which has has a large number of foreign students from four continents has had similar problems with Muslims before, when they opposed compulsory gym class and other compulsory activities.
Some people are just so hideous they do the rest of us a favor by covering themselves. Australian Muslimah Cheri Bernice Joan Mays, who chose the Islamic name Ayisha after Muhammad’s child bride, has started pretending it is Halloween everyday.
Your Daily Muslim The Muslimah now wears the niqab (ninja costume) on a daily basis to hide her grotesque appearance, and frequently posts images and messages from both jihadis and anti-western clerics. Mays is a divorced mother of two, and is raising both of her offspring to value their religion over being able to integrate into society at large. Let’s see how far off the deep end this young Muslim has gone.
Mays supports the following hate preachers: anti-Western, homophobic mufti Ismail Menk, violently homophobic sheikhKhalid Yasin, recently-arrested anti-Semite Yousef al-Khattab, and terror-enabling imam Abu Taubah, among plenty of others. Instead of being a “moderate” Muslim and pretending to care about the laws of the west, Mays is fairly open about her extremist leanings.
Between postings of her crappy gothic lyrics reminiscent of Evanescence gone Islamic, Mays shares messages on all sorts of subjects Muslims love, including jihad in Syria and forbidding women from showing their faces on Facebook. Sorry, but I’m not gonna add a pair of eyes. Seeing that in my newsfeed would just be creepy.
Introducing YDM TV! Here’s a video from Mays’ Facebook, titled “How you eat and drink in niqab lol.” The use of the “lol” shows that Mays is aware of the absurdity and impracticality of the garment, but still chooses to wear it to please her imaginary friend despite its unwieldy nature. Of course, what she eats is halal – slaughtered according to Islamic standards of utmost cruelty.
A man in Sheikhupura district of Pakistan forced his wife to drink acid after she gave birth to a baby girl. Even worse, according to reports, family members of the man assisted him in this heinous act.
SIOTW God blessed Nawazish, a resident of Jandyala Road, with a daughter but he got so upset over the birth of a daughter that he decided to punish his wife. He did not even bother to look at the newborn girl and decided. He brought a bottle of acid and made his wife drink it with the help of his family members. The neighbours took the woman to hospital where her condition is stated to be critical.
Acid seems to be the weapon of choice against women in Pakistan. There are more than 100 of these kinds of attacks every year, and those are just the ones that get reported.
A poll for Channel 4 News showed that more than half of the public believe women should not be allowed to wear the niqab in public – with 55% (ONLY 55?) backing an outright bansimilar to the one in France.An even greater proportion, 81%, say they support a ban on wearing the niqab in certain public places, such as schools, courts or hospitals.
Channel 4 British people are broadly opposed to the niqab – the full-face veil which shows only the wearer’s eyes – being worn in any public place, exclusive research for Channel 4 News reveals.
An exclusive ComRes poll for Channel 4 News showed that more than half of the public believe women should not be allowed to wear the niqab in public – with 55 per cent backing an outright ban similar to the one in France. An even greater proportion, 81 per cent, say they support a ban on wearing the niqab in certain public places, such as schools, courts or hospitals.
Having been stripped of the chance to turn Egypt into an Islamic state, the Muslim Brotherhood is stepping up its slow march to sharia in Turkey, by lifting the ban on headbags for women in civil service. As part of a package of ‘reforms’ by the government, this allegedly is meant to improve ‘democracy.’
And how long before this ‘democratic’ reform morphs into a requirement for all women?
al-Jazeera (h/t Maurice) Tuesday’s measure was hailed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose wife wears a headscarf, as a “step toward normalisation” and came into effect after it was published in the official gazette. ”We have now abolished an archaic provision which was against the spirit of the republic. It’s a step toward normalization,” Erdogan said in a parliamentary speech to his ruling party lawmakers.
“A dark time eventually comes to an end,” he said. “Headscarf-wearing women are full members of the republic, as well as those who do not wear it.”
The ban, whose roots date back almost 90 years to the early days of the Turkish Republic, has kept many women from joining the public work force. Critics accuse Erdogan of lifting the ban to force his Islamic values on the majority Muslim but staunchly secular nation.
When plans to remove the ban were first announced last week, the main opposition party labelled it “a serious blow to the secular republic” created by modern Turkey’s founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923.
Are they willfully misleading? Or are Canadian Muslims who are fighting against federal funding to investigate honor violence in the Muslim community simply naïve victims of the same propaganda used routinely to explain away the religio-culturally-based murders of Muslim women?
IPT Every year, according to United Nations reports, 5,000 women worldwide are killed for reasons of “honor” that relate to matters of modesty and obeyance, though most experts maintain the numbers are far higher. And the number of victims of honor violence, which can involve beatings, acid attacks, or locking a woman in her home, is literally incalculable.
In the United Kingdom alone, more than 3,000 such honor crimes occurred just in 2010, according to a study by the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organization (IKWRO). The vast majority of those crimes, the organization states, were committed by Muslims, though Sikhs and Hindus have also been known to commit honor-related crimes.
In Canada, the decision to earmark funds to combat honor violence began in 2007, after a series of honor crimes over the previous two years resulted in the deaths of two women and one man. Soon after the program was announced, on Dec. 10, 2007, the father and brother of 16-year-old Toronto native Aqsa Parvez, strangled herto death. The reason: she had refused to wear the hijab, or scarf.
Yet recently, some groups have begun speaking out against the idea of specifying these crimes as “honor killings” and providing targeted programs to address them, even as two subsequent events underscore just how urgently such funds and programs are needed.
The first of these was the 2012 conviction of Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Yahya, and their son Hamed in the murder of Mohammad and Tooba’s three teenage daughters and of Rona Amir Mohammad, Mohammad Shafia’s other wife in a polygamous arrangement – a case that received worldwide attention.
That conviction confirmed the findings of a University of Sherbrooke study released earlier that year showing an exponential increase in the number of honor killings in Canada. Only three known victims were killed between 1954 and 1983. Since 1999, 12 women have died in honor killings.
All of the murders, the study reported, took place within immigrant families. (It is worth noting that the increase may or may not reflect either the growing numbers of Muslim immigrants to Canada over the years, or a better understanding of honor crimes among law enforcement and other agencies.)
Yet according to a recent report from Women’s e-News, many Canadian Muslim women now are speaking out against the government’s new focus on these crimes, arguing that honor violence is no different from any other form of domestic abuse.
Opponents of the idea call the projects “racist,” and claim they put an unwarranted and biased focus on Muslim families. “When women of color are killed, we ask these larger questions around their culture. We ask what’s wrong with their entire people – their culture, their religion – instead of a particular person,” Itrath Syed, who is pursuing a Ph.D. in “Islamophobia” in Vancouver, for instance, told Women’s e-News.
What is so tragic about this remark is not just the half-dozen or so ways in which it is patently untrue, but that it seeks to nullify the horror that is honor violence, to deny the profound distinctions between honor crimes and other forms of domestic violence and femicide.
What Syed really was referring to was religion, not race. Or rather, the implication that domestic abuse in Muslim families is related to Islam, and that Muslim families are therefore treated differently than everybody else. It’s a common accusation, and an ongoing question: are honor crimes culturally-based, or founded in interpretations of the Koran?
It’s a bit of both, according to Carla Rus, a psychiatrist in the Netherlands who specializes in working with victims of both domestic abuse and honor violence. “Honor violence involves a kind of ideology, which you don’t find in domestic violence,” she points out. “In [Islamic] cultures, where church and state are not separated, it’s difficult to distinguish whether honor violence comes through cultural or religious motives – culture and religion are inseparable in those cases.”
Moreover, not all domestic violence occurring in Muslim families (some of whom are white) is automatically categorized as an honor crime. But call a crime what it is. When Mohammad Safia curses his daughters for “dishonoring” and “betraying Islam;” when Iraqi-American Aita Altameemi’s mother burns and beats her for engaging in “non-Islamic behavior” – and the family says they “are proud of it” – there is no reason not to take them at their word.
Understanding how dramatically honor violence differs from other domestic abuse is, however, critical – a point that the recent Canadian funding aims to address, as do similar efforts in the UK and the Netherlands. As Phyllis Chesler, author of the landmark study, “Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings,” has noted, ”Westerners rarely kill their young daughters, nor do Western families of origin conspire or collaborate in such murders.”
Similarly, domestic abuse in Western families does not involve brothers murdering their sisters, as happens in cases of honor killings. To the contrary, siblings most often protect one another.
Moreover, while domestic violence may relate to a man’s sense of self-respect, reputation, or “honor” among his peers, it does not – despite what some Muslims argue – reflect his sense of religious honor or his sense, as patriarch, of responsibility for his family’s perceived insults to his god.
Yet it is precisely this mindset which incites much honor-based violence and murder – and not only on the part of the father or husband. Frequently, religious devotion and patriarchy places pressure on other family members – siblings, aunts, uncles, spouses or even mothers of a victim –to commit the act, often under threat.
That fact underscores two other critical points that opponents to Canada’s focus on honor killings apparently do not wish others to see – or perhaps are too culturally blinded to see: Ordinary domestic violence is nearly always spontaneous, while honor violence (and especially honor murder) is almost always calculated, often planned out over time through numerous family meetings.
And the horrific reality is that, these women simply have nowhere to run: no mothers who will shelter them from the husbands they are trying to escape, no sisters or brothers to protect them from their fathers – no one. (Indeed, the sisters and brothers are often recruited to assure a girl hiding from her family to come home, that all is forgiven. But this assertion is almost always a ruse; once she returns, the child is usually killed within days.)
It is, in other words, a long-term family affair, and one that, unlike the problems of domestic violence, can be changed. Which is precisely why funding for, and attention to, understanding and preventing honor violence is so very critical, not only in Canada, but everywhere in the West. It is why women – and especially Muslim women – should be welcoming it, even demanding more.
And yet, countless Canadian (and other) Muslim activists and apologists remain far more devoted to shaping public vision of their culture – even if it means disguising the truth – than to protecting the lives of their Muslim sisters. In some cases, they may go so far as to contend that the very notion of “honor killings” is a “Western propagated myth,” reports Darpan.
Indeed, one Muslim women’s advocate, Rubaiyat Karim, told Women’s e-News that, “Immigration policy can be very inclusionary and preach the language of multi-culturalism. But if we really want to talk about multiculturalism, we need to address the Orientalist mentality of government.”
She’s wrong. What we really need to address is the refusal of some Muslim families to advance beyond medieval and barbaric religio-cultural practices – and to stop excusing them when they don’t. Not to do so is to abandon thousands of women, not just in Canada or the United States, not just in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but in every country, every city, every town across the world. We cannot let that happen.
After discovering a photo of his wife kissing a horse posted on popular social networks, the Saudi man divorced her.
Emirates The unnamed woman said she had published her own photograph while kissing the horse in the Gulf Kingdom, adding that she does not regret what she has done. “After he saw the picture showing his wife kissing a horse at a farm near Riyadh, the man divorced her,” Sada newspaper said.
“The wife said she is not sorry for what she did and was not upset by splitting from a man who cannot distinguish between humans and animals. She said she is very proud about that picture as it expresses her love for Arabian horses.”
Phyllis Chesler, 72, is a feminist scholar and a professor emerita of psychology and women’s studies at City University of New York. In her 14th book, “An American Bride in Kabul” (Palgrave Macmillan) out early next month, she shares for the first time the story of the five months she spent, as a young bride, held prisoner in a Afghan household.
NY Post It is 1959. I am only 18 when my prince — a dark, older, handsome, westernized foreigner who had traveled abroad from his native home in Afghanistan — bedazzles me. We meet at Bard College, where he is studying economics and politics and I am studying literature on scholarship.
Phyllis Chesler in 1959
Naive and in love, I married a man from Kabul — only to discover the horrible life of a fundamentalist Muslim wife. is the son of one of the founders of the modern banking system in Afghanistan. He wears designers sunglasses and bespoke suits and when he visits New York City, he stays at the Plaza.
He is also Muslim. I am Jewish, raised in an Orthodox home in Borough Park, Brooklyn, the daughter of Polish immigrants. My dad worked door-to-door selling soda and seltzer.
But none of this matters. We don’t talk about religion. Instead, we stay up all night discussing film, opera and theater. We are bohemians. We date for two years. Then, when I express my desire to travel, he asks me to marry him.
“There is no other way for us to travel together in the Muslim world,” he says. Like a complete heartsick fool, I agree.
My parents are outraged and hysterical. They warn me that no good will come of this union. Little did I know then how right they would be. We marry in a civil ceremony in Poughkeepsie with no family present.
For our honeymoon, we travel around Europe with a plan to stop off in Kabul to meet his family. I did not know that this would be our final destination.
Chesler and Abdul-Kareem
When we land, 30 relatives await our arrival. Among them, not one but three mothers-in-law. I am too shocked to speak, too shocked to question what these three women might mean for my future.
I learn that my real mother-in-law, Abdul-Kareem’s biological mother, is only my father-in-law’s first wife. Her name is Bebugul. There are bear hugs and kisses all around. The family is warm and inviting — I try to forget about my husband’s glaring omission.
But before the caravan of black Mercedes-Benzes can leave, an airport official demands that I turn over my American passport. I refuse.
Everyone stops. Both the official and my husband assure me that this is a mere formality. It will soon be returned to me, so I reluctantly relinquish it.
I will never see my passport again.
That means — I would soon learn — that I would not be able to leave Afghanistan at will. I am now subject to the laws and custom of Afghanistan, and as a Afghan woman, that means hardly any rights at all.
My husband’s father owns a compound comprised of numerous two-story European-style houses where the various families sleep with patios, expensive Afghan wool carpeting, indoor gardens, and verandas.
I am only 20, and I am now a member of this household, which consists of one patriarch, three wives, 21 children (who range in age from infancy to their 30s), two grandchildren, at least one son-in-law, one daughter-in-law and an unknown number of servants and relatives.
This is my new home. My prison. My harem.
Our arrival is celebrated with a feast of unending and delicious dishes. Because of my foreign stomach, the foods — kebabs, rice dishes, yogurts, nuts — are baked with Crisco instead of ghee, an evil-smelling, rancid, clarified butter that is loved by locals but wreaks havoc on a non-native’s stomach. The smell of ghee alone can make you throw up if you’re unused to it.
Abdul-Kareem comes alive during the celebration. He speaks Dari (even though I cannot) and leaves me with the other women.
I am unprepared for my first-ever Muslim prayer service. Suddenly, all the men drop to the floor on all fours, prostrating themselves. I had never seen Abdul-Kareem pray before.
When I awake the next morning, my husband is gone. I am completely alone. And I will spend every morning and afternoon that follows alone with my mother-in-law and female relatives.
As the excitement over our arrival wears off, so does my special treatment. The household meals are now only made with ghee. I can’t eat any of it. Secretly I stow away canned goods that I indulge on in the brief moments that I’m left alone.
Two weeks into my confinement and I have only left the compound twice — both times with a calvary of people guarding and watching. I am bored, so bored.
One day, I decide to sunbathe on the private terrace that adjoins my bedroom. I don a pink bikini covered in purple polka dots. Then I hear a loud commotion that sounds like men yelling at each other. “What are you doing? You have managed to upset all of Kabul,” my husband says.
He explains that a group of workmen a quarter-mile away caught sight of a “naked woman” and could not concentrate on work. A delegation had descended upon our house to demand that all women, especially I, be properly dressed.
I start laughing.
“Please, please just come in and put something on,” he says. “Rumors spread here quickly. By tonight, they’ll be telling their friends we are running a brothel.” I do as I’m told.
Later I write in my diary: “I have no freedom at all. No opportunity to meet anyone or go anywhere. His family watches me suspiciously. Am I getting paranoid?” In fact, I have reason to be paranoid.
I discover that mother-in-law has instructed the servants to stop boiling my drinking water. Because the sewage system consists of open irrigation ditches that are used as public bathrooms and for drinking water, I contract dysentery.
Perhaps she thinks I am already “Afghan enough” to withstand any and all germs. Perhaps she wants me dead.
She then begins her conversion campaign. She gives me prayer rugs and prayer beads and urges me to convert to Islam.
If I don’t, I think, will she continue her campaign to sicken and kill me?
The next day she barges into my room with a servant and confiscates my precious hoard of canned goods. “Our food isn’t good enough for her — she eats from cans,” she says.
I am her captive, her prisoner; she, my jailer, might treat me more decently if I find ways to please her. This is difficult for me to write about but I did it. I repeat the words: “There is one God, Allah, and Mohammed was his prophet.”
I am now a Muslim — at least in my mother-in-law’s eyes — but that still isn’t enough for her. When she is angry at me, she spits at me. She calls me “Yahud” or “Jew.” When I complain to my husband, he dismisses me as being dramatic.
I must escape.
Looking both ways, I walk out feeling like a criminal. I board a bus and notice that all the other women are at the back of the bus wearing burqas. I am horrified, slightly hysterical.
Meanwhile, all eyes are on me. I am without even a head scarf or a coat. In this country, a naked face is almost the same as fully bared breasts. I am lost and dizzy with fear. My husband is informed of my escape, and he finds me and brings me home.
But the desire to flee still nags at me.
“I have been here for three months and have been allowed out only five or six times,” I write in my diary. “Is this imprisonment meant to tame me, break me, teach me to accept my fate as an Afghan woman? I want to go home.”
Abdul-Kareem is fed up with my unhappiness. “He has begun to hit me,” I write. “Had I known something like this could ever happen, had I known that we would have to live with his mother and brothers, I would never have come here.”
I attempt a second escape to the American embassy. But once I arrive, I’m escorted away. Without a US passport, I no longer have any rights as an American.
I try twice more to escape — one with a return to the American embassy and another with the help of a friendly German expat. But before I can set any plans in action, I fall deathly ill.
My temperature climbs to 105 degrees, but I receive no sympathy from my family. After days of struggling — and falling into a coma—a local doctor is called. He diagnoses me with hepatitis, explaining there’s nothing more he can do.
This is my lowest point. I fear that if I die here I will be buried in a Muslim cemetery, forever forgotten. I continue to fight for my survival and beg to see an American doctor. My family agrees, but only if I am closely guarded.
The doctor, however, manages to get me alone for a brief moment and tells me that I must return to the States for treatment. Then he orders a nurse to give me fluids. The next thing I remember is someone tugging at my IV line.
It’s my mother-in-law. I call out and am rescued by a sister-in-law, who sits with me through the night. I tell my husband about his mother’s attempt on my life. He dismisses it.
But he now realizes that if I survive this disease, I will leave him. So he contrives a way to make me stay.
That night, a he climbs into my bed when I am feverish and sick and forces himself on me. I’m too weak to fight back. He is trying to impregnate me because if I am carrying his child, I will not be allowed to leave. Slowly, I recover. But I have missed two periods.
I have to get out and it has to be now. I have only one card left to play: the royal card. I must appeal to my father-in-law, who alone has the power to return to me to my home. I send word through a servant that I would like to see him.
He arrives and almost immediately says: “I think it will be best if you leave with our approval on an Afghan passport, which I have obtained for you. You have been granted a six-month visa for reasons of health.”
He must have decided that he did not want a sick — or dead — American daughter-in-law who was trying to flee on his hands. Perhaps he never wanted a Jewish American daughter-in-law at all.
He already has the passport in hand: #17384. I have it still.
I feel saved; I feel graced. My husband grows incensed and begins to hit me and call me names. But I stand my ground. Even when I board the first plane out, he still believes that as a dutiful wife I will one day return to him.
When the plane takes off, I am filled with more fierce joy than my body can contain. And when I finally land on American soil, I literally kiss the ground.
I suffer a painful miscarriage shortly after my return. My body made that decision for me. I rush past any anguish, return to college, find a job and apply to graduate school. Two years after returning, I get my marriage to Abdul-Kareem annulled.
I’ve never told this story in detail before, but felt that I must now. Because I hear some westerners preach the tortured cultural relativism that excuses the mistreatment of women in the name of Islam. Because I see the burqa on the streets of Paris and New York and feel that Afghanistan has followed me back to America.
I call myself a feminist — but not just any feminist. My kind of feminism was forged in the fires of Afghanistan. There I received an education — an expensive, almost deadly one — but a valuable one, too.
I understand firsthand how deep-seated the hatred of women is in that culture. I see how endemic indigenous barbarism and cruelty is and unlike many other intellectuals and feminists, I don’t try to romanticize or rationalize it.
I got out, and I will never return.
Adapted with permission from “An American Bride in Kabul” (Palgrave MacMillan) by Phyllis Chesler, out Oct. 1. The name of her husband and his family have been changed.
National Park Service produces three videos praising Islam’s contributions to women’s rights.
IJ Review (h/t Martin) Apparently, the National Park Service has a ton of money lying around and thought that maybe producing some pro-Islam videos might further their mission to provide national parks to Americans. Seems legit. So they hired a media person to visit the AnNur Islamic School in Schenectady, NY and got the real truth about Islam. Which may surprise you.
From the first part of the 3 videos at the 4:45 mark:
People think that Islam oppresses women and there’s no equality, but they’re wrong – there’s equity… 7th century A.D. Islam gave women the right to be involved in politics, the right to earn and keep her own money. Islam gave women the right to work outside of the home, Islam gave women the right to own property, Islam gave women the right to divorce, Islam gave women the right to choose who she marries. Islam gave women a whole bunch of rights that Western women acquired later in the 19th and 20th centuries and we’ve had these rights since the 7th century A.D. and it’s just not acknowledged worldwide.
It’s fantastic that the National Park Service is out there using taxpayer dollars to correct the false record against Muslims, such as the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood’s scathing backlash against the UN’s Declaration on Women’s Rights., where they said “the UN’s call to end violence against women would lead to disintegration of Muslim society.”
The Brotherhood slated the declaration in an online statement – calling it a decadent and destructive document that undermined Islamic ethics by calling for women to work, travel and use contraception without their husbands’ permission.
In a 10-point memorandum, the Muslim Brotherhood also criticised the declaration for granting women sexual freedom, allowing Muslim women to marry non-Muslims, granting equal rights to homosexual people, and allowing wives full legal rights to take their husbands to court for marital rape.
“This declaration, if ratified, would lead to complete disintegration of society, and would certainly be the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries, eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies,” the brotherhood ‘s statement claimed.