August 4, 2009

My Thoughts on CEDAW

A little late to the party, I suppose. I honestly didn't think the discussion would keep going till now, but people can't seem to give it a rest. And by people I mostly mean organizations pertaining to the Islamic Brotherhood.

Firstly, let me state something very clearly, I KNOW that Jordan is an Islamic country. I know that the personal status law which applies to people of all religions living in the country follows the Islamic law. I do know that.

What seems to bother the Brotherhood and more recently the Council of Ifta' are articles 15 and 16, which in a nutshell, guarantee women the freedom to travel and reside freely, as well as equal rights in marriage, occupation, etc. I will not go into discussion as to why would Islam disagree with the previous notions, because in the end it is a personal opinion. But this i will say: Jordan is not Saudi Arabia. We don't apply Islamic teachings to every part of our lives. We don't force women to wear headscarves, we don't force people into mosques at prayer time and we won't chop your hand off for stealing. The Jordanian constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and by that I don't just mean the right for non-Muslims to practice their rites of worship, but also the right for Muslims to choose whether to apply the teachings of Islam to their lives or not.

And that is why I don't think CEDAW should pose a problem. If certain women don't believe it is their right to travel freely, then by all means, don't. No one is forcing you to. What CEDAW does is guarantee this right for people who don't agree with that. What it does is provide women with the choice. I find nothing wrong with that, and if truly there is no compulsion in religion, then this shouldn't even be an issue.

Go ahead now, proceed to chopping my head off in the comment section xD


kinzi said...

Farah, you reminded me that I had a CEDAW post in mind too, so maybe it is time.

Saed said...

Stupid brotherhoods.....

I agree it's not Saudi Arabia.

I believe they should have a choice, if a woman wants to get beat and shot for leaving the house, then by all means, be that way. But there are other women who value freedom, and deserve it.

Unknown said...

Great post Farah!

I agree with everything you have said, and I love the way you have said it!

Keep up the great work!

Abu Fluffy said...

Article 16 is very problematic. It could be read to either prohibit polygyny or allow polyandry. It would also mean a woman is not due dowry and that men are not responsible for supporting them. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on, but basically, Article 16 does abolish Islamic civil law, which is pretty much all that's left of legal Islam in Jordan.

bambam said...

what fluffy (awesome name btw) is saying is true, and while that would be something more rational for the IAF to say - what does it stand for ... inevitable, no... assholes .. something like that.
Reality is slightly different since you can still have a religious marriage if you so wish and have a religious inheritance but if either of the parties protest to the clause they have the ability to go back to civil law to decide between them.
So it pushes religion where it belong between a person and his god. how does this model abolish anything ? sounds to me they just want to oppress those who want to opt out of Islamic inspired laws.

Farah said...

@bambam @Abu Fluffy

Lifting the reservations without modifying the civil law is pointless, because as you said, they contradict each other.

Anonymous said...

Hey Farah I love your blog.

I call myself anon, I'm just wondering WHY THE HELL AREN'T YOU BLOGGING ANYMORE DAMMIT!!!!1111ONEONE!!1

PS This is Saed >.>

Farah said...

hahaahaha I totally knew it was you without the P.S. at the end. A post coming up, I swear. Bad blogger, I know :(

kinzi said...

Farah, ya binit, WAYNIK??

No flash in the panblogging allowed. :)

Farah said...

Kinz, I'm back I'm back! haha I just need a push every once in a while!

saja muzaini said...

this is the first time i read ur blog honestly..
i liked what you wrote and i do agree with you.. but something bothered me when u mintioned saudi arabia..
yes they do force the islamic law and force everyone to obey it.. nut the definetly don't cut heads for stealing..I understand that u wanted to exaggerate.. but it is just not appropriate to reflect the Islamic law this way.. sorry !

Farah said...

Hi Saja! Welcome to the blog.

I think you misread, what I wrote was chopping the hand off, not the head, and that's not just an exaggerated statement, there have been several cases where such a penalty was implemented (

saja muzaini said...

Oh ops… I misread it.. I know that they apply this law.. they do follow all the Islamic should not be applied for pickpocketing thou.. in Islam, there is a minimum limit to execute this punishment .. I lived in Saudi Arabia for a long time and I saw how they force everybody to follow the Islamic beliefs.. they take it to the extreme their way is not successful –sometimes harmful- but I do respect what they are aiming for..
Im sorry I know this is not your subject.. it’s just an addition I wanted to add! :S

Farah said...

Not at all, thanks for your comment :)