What’s good for the goose…

Out of my head

As most Pakistanis are aware by now the bearded members of the Council of Islamic Ideology (the only female councillor Dr Sameeha Raheel Qazi conveniently decided to be absent from all the discussions and debate) were so threatened by the perfectly sensible and recently passed Punjab Protection of Women Against Violence Act 2016 that they rejected a similar KP bill as being ‘un-Islamic.’ Not only that but they also came out with their own set of proposals on how women should be treated and guidelines for how they should conduct their lives (for their own protection, of course).

Women appear to be the council’s favourite subject – perhaps obsession is a better word – as most of its ‘advice’ seems to be centred around them, almost to the point of excluding all other matters. In a country beset with a huge number of terrible problems, surely the esteemed council members can put their sharp minds and keen intellect towards solving such thorny issues as health, poverty, hunger, child molestation, ethnic and sectarian killings, terrorism, and suicide bombing. But, no, they’re stuck in same old rut. Their latest pronouncements concerning our wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and all Pakistanis of the female variety (second-class citizens, of course, worth only half the blood money and whose word only carries half the value of a man’s in the eyes of these council members) are fairly detailed and cover a number of bases.

First of all, a husband is allowed to ‘lightly beat’ his wife if she refuses any of his commands, including refusing to have sex. I tell you, there’s money to be made here if somebody can come up with an Islamic app which accurately measures the allowable level of force to be applied. However, the council proposal does not specify what happens if he refuses her advances. What then? After all, ‘mardana kamzori’ seems to be quite rampant in the country if we go by the amount of advertising that we have for curing the ailment.

Not dressing as per a husband’s wishes is also subject to corporal punishment. Again, the council does not clarify what the wife is supposed to do if he wants her to dress up in, say, bondage gear. What takes precedence – the ‘majazi khuda’s’ desires or the supposedly Islamic injunctions regarding appropriate clothing?

But the proposals don’t just stop here. Clearly, the bearded councillors have invested a huge amount of time and really considered all the finer points of the subject. ‘Light beating’ can also commence if a wife doesn’t shower after intercourse (do the same hygiene levels apply to men?) or if she dares talk to strangers. What happens, I wonder, to these strange men who have the temerity to talk to women not related to them – who punishes them? After all, it takes two to tango. I await the council’s edification on the matter. Polite striking is also called for if women just speak a bit too loudly. Exactly what decibel level is considered halal hasn’t yet been clarified. I’m sure we’ll be enlightened soon by the council but you just know that app developers are rubbing their hands in anticipation.

I wonder if Hafiz Hamdullah of the JUI-F tended to strike Marvi Sirmed on Nadia Mirza’s talk show because she was too loud or merely because she dared to have a voice or because she was talking to a stranger (himself). Which kind of begs the question – why do these religious scholars who agree with the CII consider it okay to contribute to the corruption of women by interacting with them on talk shows that have female anchors and female panellists, all (the horror!) without hijab?

Co-education is also a big no-no after primary school unless hijab is strictly enforced and women are not allowed to work in ‘vulgar’ advertisements. I assume there is no such restriction on men since vulgar ads are not banned – only the participation of women in them. The degrees of allowable decency are breathlessly awaited from the council. Female nurses are also not allowed to tend to male patients (doesn’t say anything about male nurses attending female patients one way or another).

The need to control women is so great that the CII has gone to the extent of specifying the length of time – two years – a mother must breastfeed her child. If breastfeeding continues for two years plus one day, is the mother doomed to burn in hellfire for all eternity, I wonder?

As a sop to women the council has magnanimously declared that they are ‘allowed’ to own property, participate in politics, and become judges (will two female judges be needed where only one male judge is sufficient?) But as the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) put it, “These provisions have already, and correctly, been pointed out as unnecessary, because they are covered by criminal law and constitutionally acknowledged human rights provisions for decades. The women in Pakistan should thank their stars that they did not have to look towards the CII for getting these rights. There are other provisions in the draft that are no less preposterous.” The HRCP’s precise takedown of the CII’s proposals deserves to be read in full.

Rather than be cowed down in any way by the CII’s supposed religious clout, our legislators need to be reminded (if reminding be necessary) that the council is purely an advisory body. Our assemblies are in no way compelled to accept in any form its proposed bill or any of its other retrogressive ideas. Our MNAs and MPAs did not stand up and be counted when Salmaan Taseer was assassinated. It is time they stand tall now.

The writer is a freelance columnist.

Email: Kmumtaz1@hotmail.com

Twitter: @KhusroMumtaz