Skip to main content

I'm not against CEDAW but CEDAW is against me

Please allow me to repeat myself here, I'm not against CEDAW but CEDAW is against me.

Each and every country, nation, religion and even community on this planet has the right to make their own choices based on their own ideology and/or belief. Some people do believe that we human beings descended from monkies, some other people believe that the world's savior lost his way in a tunnel but he will find his way one day and save us, some other people yet believe that going out of the norm and having a sexual affiliation with the same gender is just normal, some others believe in exorcism and getting possessed. In this world, there is an endless list of beliefs that I consider weird because it doesn't meet my standards and at the same time many people might find my beliefs weird, such as believing in a book named The Holy Quran that was sent to an illiterate shepherd in the middle of Arabian desert.

For a compiled short list of weird religious practices check out listverse.com or make a use of the great search engine Google.

Having a different belief, ideology or even an opinion is very normal and we should accept the fact that no one will ever be able to get the humanity to agree on the same thing.

Now, it's one thing to oppose a convention like CEDAW and another thing to have the convention oppose your belief. If you identify yourself as a Muslim then there are some protocols to follow and some protocols that you cannot break or you will be opposing what you have decided to follow. Think of joining a religion as joining a big firm that has its own protocols that you have to follow. Some firms make it mandatory to wear their uniform, others have some dress code that you cannot break or you will be fired. Joining a religion is like getting a job at a big fancy corporation that has many protocols to be followed.

If you had the chance to make the choice and actually study religions and then decide which one you wanted to follow then you would choose the one that convinced you. If you are not convinced maybe you should rethink it because if you are convinced then there are some protocols to be followed and that cannot be customized to fit your personal needs but you have to customize your life based on it.
Speaking of corporations, I was once denied from changing the light bulb from a yellow one into white one because according to the firm protocol it does affect the office design even though it wasn't healthy at all to spend hours of programming under that dim yellow light. It was against my personal preferences by all means but I had to accept it and customize my preferences based on firm look & feel preferences because I needed the job and I was forced to keep the dim yellow light. I even had an argument about it with the scholar of the dim yellow light protocol aka my manager but there was no way around it.

I believe in Allah-made laws and man-made ones as long as the man made protocols don't oppose Allah-made protocols and fortunately our constitution does not oppose the wider protocol especially what Islam has directly forbidden.


CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) is a very interesting convention which should solve all the standing issues regarding the discrimination against women where it exists and with our protocols (Sharia Law). We do have equality in terms of justice - both man and women in Islam have rights and duties and if we switch it to the western gender equality system women will have more duties and less rights, but that's theoretically speaking basically because we are not applying it as it should be and thus we do have a discrimination.

Indeed we need to work on this issue and it should be given a high priority especially when we have the theoretical solution ready so basically we just need to enforce it and then everyone should be happy but applying all of CEDAW articles isn't the solution at all.

Thankfully folks at the U.N understand that some countries would have some reservations based on national law, tradition, religion or culture as long as it's not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

For example, Australia doesn't accept the application of the convention because it would require alteration of Defense Force policy which exclude women from combat duties while Austria for example had a reservation on the provision of article
11
because they do have laws to protect working women and working women at night that apparently conflict that provision.

Canada decided to withdraw the declaration to article
11 (1) (d)
of the Convention, made upon ratification.

So far we have three western white countries with reservations based on their jurisdiction system as accepting CEDAW as whole will require alteration or they believe that taking it as whole might not help in protecting working women or they just can't make it happen.


Some other countries like Israel had a reservation based on their jurisdiction and religious believes


Reservations:
1. The State of Israel hereby expresses its reservation with regard to article 7 (b) of the Convention concerning the appointment of women to serve as judges of religious courts where this is prohibited by the laws of any of the religious communities in Israel . Otherwise, the said article is fully implemented in Israel , in view of the fact that women take a prominent part in all aspect of public life.

2. The State of Israel hereby expresses its reservation with regard to article 16 of the Convention, to the extent that the laws on personal status which are binding on the various religious communities in Israel do not conform with the provisions of that article.



Another interesting reservations were made by the Singapore government
In the context of Singapore 's multi-racial and multi-religious society and the need to respect the freedom of minorities to practise their religious and personal laws, the Republic of Singapore reserves the right not to apply the provisions of articles 2 and 16 where compliance with these provisions would be contrary to their religious or personal laws.


They do respect your religion and your freedom to practice it so I wonder why we are not being consulted whether we agree on lifting the reservations or not? Doesn't it affect our lives directly? Even if it doesn't oppose our religious protocols it still affect our lives directly, lets say Muslims are a minority in Jordan, they deserve to have their religious protocols considered, they could have done it in the singaporean way and the flexibility is already given by the folks at the U.N!


I do understand and believe that if you build a family with a certain ideology, believe or personal family law nothing would stop you from applying it but this would open the door to making what you build very fragile because then you would be breaking the authority's law.


In real life the solution lies in enforcing whatever a country fancies to stop discrimination against women not by signing a convention nor by adopting a theory without enforcing it.

More on this in the blogospher
http://www.360east.com/?p=1135
http://kinziblogs.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/ahmad-humeid-on-cedaw-bravo/
http://cedaw.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/jordan-values-and-laws/
http://emilyinamman.blogspot.com/2009/05/cedaw-battle-in-jordan-help-us-vote.html
http://jordanreformwatch.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/your-jordanian-conspiracy-doses/
http://www.jordanwatch.net/arabic/archive/2009/4/860418.html
http://ammannet.net/look/article.tpl?IdLanguage=18&IdPublication=3&NrArticle=28746&NrIssue=5&NrSection=1



Comments

  1. There are three reservations to the CEDAW Convention.

    1) That a woman have the right to purchase property without the approval of a male family member,

    2) That woman can travel freely without the permission of a male family member, and

    3) That a woman can pass her Jordanian citizenship on to her children in the event that she is married to a non-Jordanian.

    HOW are any of those reservations in conflict with Islam?

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are things which can be called Universal human rights which should be granted whether relegions agree or not. Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anne,
    I don't know what's your source to the listed three reservations on U.N website you can read the official reservation made by the government of Jordan.
    Some are based on political reasons some on religious one.

    There is no conflict between Islam and the points you listed (still interested in knowing your source) with exception to traveling freely without the permission of a male family member, now this one does conflict with the protocol of Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mohanned,
    Thank you for mentioning this. Actually the universal declaration of Human rights protects one right to practice religion and such convention conflict with this right. (Check article 18 of UDHR) and for about how it may conflict with local laws and international laws check the French reservation.


    One last thing, I'm blogging this because I need to practice my right as a human in practicing the religion I picked without legal interference by local or international legislations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jad,

    I've gotten a lot of the information from the blogs you referenced (I've been following this carefully), and also from The Jordan Times: http://jordantimes.com/?news=16215

    I'm going to need you to simplify something for me though. Why does a woman traveling freely conflict with Islam? (This is the reservation that angers me the most.)

    Another point that a friend mentioned to me about all of this uproar about CEDAW: even though there are official reservations, they are not typically practiced... or at least not by everyone. It's not as though the restriction of women's travel is being policed in Jordan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anne,
    I didn't reference to blogs but I included a list of those who discussed the topic and I do not take anything written in the blogospher for granted and maybe you shouldn't do that too. This is why I referenced to the official text of CEDAW and countries reservation.

    As for your question of Why does a women traveling freely conflict with Islam?
    It does if freely is interpreted as in even with breaking the protocols that she decided to follow as a Muslim and it does not if she can combine between both, the religious protocols of women traveling and CEDAW and then all of us will be as happy as it can get.

    Islam requires permission & Muhram Mahram for a women to travel and if she have that then she can travel freely within the protocols that she decided to follow.

    I'm not an expert in Islam at all but Islam QA has a specialized category for The Woman's Traveling which should answer all concerns regarding this matter.

    As I mentioned before, the solution never lies in the theoretical protocols (Islamic teaching) nor signing an international convention but in a social understanding and agreement of what is right and what is wrong, you cannot stop honor killing with the signature ink of CEDAW but with educating people.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am no expert in international laws, but what I know is that no one will come knocking on your door checking if you beat the sh!t out of your wife unless she complains to authorities. Same thing goes for other aspects such as inheritence, if a woman decides that she wants only half of what her brother gets then that is up to her(and her relegious belief), no one will come and tell her: You must have as much as him, thus it is an issue of personal choice, a choice that you make as an individual.

    The issue is simple: You can't and shouldn't force people to practice what you or others believe is "right", the CEDAW makes sure that women have a choice, whether they make use of the laws affected by the convention is a matter of choice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jad:
    Thanks for this post, I am with you i am not against CEDAW but i am against any part in it that goes against my religion which is Islam. Islam has protected women rights since it's beginning but the problem is with our own people who stick their wrong beliefs with islam

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jad,

    Thank you for the information. And to be clear, I don't take information the the blogosphere for granted, but many times what I find out here leads me to look further into issues.

    I wanted to make one more comment. Where you say: "One last thing, I’m blogging this because I need to practice my right as a human in practicing the religion I picked without legal interference by local or international legislations."

    Here's the thing: The lifting of reservations against CEDAW isn't going to force you to practice your religion differently, or obstruct you from practicing as you choose. I assume that if you are married, you have married a woman who practices religion in the same way that you do... and if you have yet to marry, you would choose a wife who holds the same beliefs as you do. The simple lifting of reservations isn't going to infringe on you in any way whatsoever.

    But what it will do, as Mohannad so eloquently stated, is give other women a choice.

    Plain and simple, and in a nutshell... get the government out of religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anne,
    You have to understand that islam takes an approach that is collective in nature, thus in many cases individual freedoms are given up for the greater good. In the case of travel I would assume that at the time when such measures were introduced it was based on the fact that travel 1400 years ago was extremly dangerous, thus a woman needed protection. Taking it a step further I would assume that by limiting womens' free travel the "legislator" is attempting to protect the society. Whether those measures are suitable for our times is another issue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anne,
    Unfortunately it will open the door in many cases, Assume a family of two inheriting a million JD, it will be very appealing to her to ask for equal share although the religious protocols doesn't give her an equal share when it comes to inheritance, now please tell me that this will never make a conflict or the whole issue very fragile when it comes to taking 250,000 or 500,000.

    Anyway, I agree that there is a limit of CEDAW effects especially if you pick the right partner or build the right family but it does give them the legal tool to oppose the religious protocols whenever they feel like it, so it's a wining card when you don't want to go with the protocols and of course such person might use the wining cards within the religious protocols too, however that was a very extreme scenario but it should be taken into consideration.

    Maybe couples should declare that they wish to have a religious contract or a civil one and then they will be bound with their own choice but still this might introduce another problem which is jumping from a contract protocol into another pragmatically because one might be secular now but religious later or religious now and secular later.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I totally agree with you man, it's about the social and mentality problem rather than the scripts itself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mohanned,
    There is a civil and religious punishment if you beat your wife, we do have it. Read some law books for your own sake.

    The problem isn't in what we have but in what we are applying and in how fast we apply it but not in the current civil or Sharia law but still if you can enlighten me by explaining why on earth we will apply CEDAW efficiently but not our current civil and sharia laws then I will definitely vote for CEDAW. I want a solution that works not just a set of laws without applying it or making it a life-long procedure to get your rights.

    Back to your example if I may, Indeed nobody will force her to take an equal share but she can say I want a civil settlement if she decided to go for it and that would not be fair to her brother, right?

    Again Mohanned, you cannot force people to adapt your beliefs just let them practice whatever they want, give them the choice and that's what I'm calling for, my basic human right to practice my religious protocols, may I?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The last two paragraphs don't make sense at all, you are contradicting yourself in a blunt way. Plus, what is not fair to the brother? Having as much as his sister? Seriously?

    The issue at hand is simple: Some men are not willing to give up power, they are dictators just like the regime they live under. Relegion in this case can be viewed as an enabler for injustice, men will use relegious arguments to support their "higher" status which was "granted" by God.In this time and age it is shameful that many educated men are still viewing women as beings that need to be cared for, beings that can't decide on their own..It is as if they are a different creature!

    Is it fair to the brother?!! Come on man!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mohanned,
    You are trying to imply that but I assure you I will beat you here :p [ in a friendly manner ]
    If you decided to go with the Islamic protocols when it comes to inheritance then it is your right to get more than your sister and if your sister decided to oppose that and go civil then that's the clash of civilization simplified between you and your sister.
    You want your fair share according to what you decided to follow, which is more than her share and she wants to be equal according to her civil stand.

    I agree with you but actually I would say most men are not willing to give up power etc... but that also because we are not applying what we have and it's not like what we have sucks unless you believe so.

    Women should be more powerful and should be in her right place instead of being used and I believe we failed to use the help of women in the last hundred year if I may make that claim and maybe because of that failure we live in a very under developed societies.

    I think we are on the same page when it comes to describing the current situation although I would use stronger expressions than yours; and we only differ in our vision to the possible solution but yet we both should agree that regardless of the solution, it should be applied not just registered and left to bookshelves dust.

    ReplyDelete
  16. its late and I am sleepy, this may not be the best time to write a comment about this.

    So, all I will say is that you are doing a great job. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jad,

    Where you say: "but it does give them the legal tool to oppose the religious protocols whenever they feel like it"

    Here's where I think I am having the problem. Religion is a personal choice. It is something that requires faith, it is in your heart and soul. Whether a person follows religious protocol or not is between that person and God; each person will have to answer to God for how they lived their life, and what protocols they followed or not.

    Example: I am sitting at the office right now, looking out my window (in Shmeisani). I see some women walking down the road. There are two women who are completely covered (even there faces). On the other side of the street are some young girls wearing tight jeans, heavy makeup, and not even hijab.

    These women are making their own choices, although hijab IS religious protocol (although not necessarily the face covering).

    Once you start talking about religious protocol as a legality, you are on a slippery slope. By that argument, the government should tighten down on everything, like KSA for example.

    So how is that line drawn?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you for the information, Mohanned! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jad,

    Also to respond to the inheritance issue...

    I'm not sure how inheritance laws work elsewhere, but I don't see this as a big deal. Removing the reservations from CEDAW won't mean the demise of Sharia law being applied to family issues such as this. Jordan is already very diverse in their managing of family issues, as they have Ecclesiastical Courts as well.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jad, thanks for posting this. I didn't realize that the provisions for travel and moving were based in Islam. That really does change things.

    It would seem that, as you said, they are provisions from another era. I don't think they are necessary for today. Living upstairs from a mother-in-law can be the kiss of death in a marriage, I would want the right to ask to move. If a husband was beating me or my kids, I would want the freedom to seperate until he changed.

    But I also believe one cannot pick and choose laws they like from their faith and ignore the others, it is a whole package.

    I applied it to myself in the US: if the Freedom of Choice Act passes in the US, it would require medical personnel to perform abortions, whether they had moral and religious laws against it. Government would trump faith at a very personal level, causing the believer to sin against God in order to obey government.

    Has there been discussion in Jordan of adopting a provision such as Singapore did? But, the issue I am most concerned about, citizenship rights, would also most likely be 'provided for' as well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jad, good points there too. As far as inheritance, I have single girlfriends who turn their whole paycheck over to their fathers, which then goes to pay for toys and education for their brothers. Two friends' father's have refused to allow them to marry in order to keep the cash flow going. These women deserve an equal inheritance.

    "Women should be more powerful and should be in her right place instead of being used and I believe we failed to use the help of women in the last hundred year if I may make that claim and maybe because of that failure we live in a very under developed societies."

    I completely agree with this. BUT, I don't like the Western model of women who use power to emasculate men and claim superiority. The Bible says we are equal in value, different in function. I love the role I have in my marriage and church family, I am empowered when I am given freedom to fulfill my God-given role, and so is my husband.

    Women have been blessed by God with a greater portion of His mercy and compassion, His highest characteristics. When men do not give women a role in leading in that strength, they shut off God's infusion of mercy and compassion into politics, education, economy and practice of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  22. [...] that Good or Bad? By kinziblogs Ahmad writes today that CEDAW has been approved. After Jad’s post and Um Omar’s comment on my last post, I realized that two of those articles go against [...]

    ReplyDelete
  23. Allah yazeek al khair for being one of few young Muslim men who are standing up for the religion on their blogs. If there are more, I would like to find them, but I have mostly been really disappointed in the Jordanian and Arab blogosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jad,
    I think that you mentioned nothing exact about how CEDAW contradicts Islam, this was the least I expected when I started reading your post.
    anyway, Islam was a leader in giving the woman her rights, but what we should understand from that is that Islam didnt say that you can not give her more rights! this is the point where I see many Muslims fail to understand. Islam gave the little push that we should continue, the west now have realized this issue without having Islam, because they have enough ethics and brains. this doesn't mean that Islam is against these issues only because it didn't mention them earlier. Islam gave a push and we have to continue. Its a long road of getting civilized, fair and more human, and the Muslim countries are really far behind the world in this road. so we can act now, or keep saying that it contradicts Islam without mentioning how..

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here is what i don't understand... do we apply sharia law fully ? are the hudoods applied in our law ? the answer is no.
    So that means we are applying civil law inspired by religious law.
    Do we practice the travel restrictions on women that are dictated in islam ? No.
    What we practice is the domestic freedom of mobility. Like you said that's is the only conflict with this lifting.
    So whats the purpose of lifting this reservation ? to me at least, it seems one benefit to this is that a women is able to leave the household when abused and not fear being dragged back into that household by law.
    Another question is, when does a person cease to be a muslim ? is that even an option ? what about his right to practice what he believes ? ever thought about that ? currently he has no right

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anne,
    Yeah, Jordan is very diverse but again think of a family scenario that have parties decided to go with Sharia court and another parties decided to go with the Civil court in case of conflict!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anne,
    As MD noted in his comment, I didn't explain how CEDAW contradicts Islam which was that s/he expected with such title but to be frank I did that intentionally for two reasons, the first is that I don't want people to repeat whatever I say and take my blog post for granted especially when (the second reason) I'm not an expert in this field but there are things that very obvious and not even debatable at least within the Sunni Muslims circle. I really wanted to open the discussion hoping the religion expert saviour (Not the one who lost his way in the tunnel) will come and give some expert's answers but apparently we don't have such person in the blogospher; So I decided to list the official reservations and hopefully their legal explanations and then explain with my words how that would contradicts Islamic protocols with reference to trusted websites. So please stay tuned but it might take sometime to get all of the required references and information.

    Part of understanding the media and the blogospher is the psychology of it and you don't know me in person and that helps you to make some very wrong assumptions which is fine but I'm not that long bearded guy with AK 47 but a guy who walk around the town in his shorts (you know, the one that's compatible with the protocols :P).

    I never talked about religious protocols as legality unless it was directly meant to be like that such as the inheritance equality, marriage contract equality in western terminology, right to travel and move without Mahram and permission.

    So basically my line is, there are red lines that was mentioned directly that I take them as legality, some other issues are so flexible so you do have plenty of free will within the large umbrella and there are the debatable issues.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mohanned,
    Even if I assume that your unreferenced assumption that Islam did it because it was dangerous, are you telling me we live in a safer world these days?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sari,
    Join us later when you are awake ;)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anne,
    He did not provide any information but an assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Um Omar,
    Thank you for visiting, I hope I'm doing the right thing here.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Kinzi,
    They are indeed from another era but that doesn't mean the era we live is better by any means and if your assumption that they are not necessary for today is true then that question should be thrown to scholars not bloggers nor intellectuals because only them can give us an answer. Think of scholars as a doctor, find the best and consult him but don't make your own medication under the term of lets be creative it's the 20th century.

    As far as I know there has been no discussion about it at all, all we heard in the news that the government decided to lift the reservations.

    btw, I pro citizenship rights but that's a political debate, maybe we should save it for some other day.

    ReplyDelete
  33. MD,
    I totally agree with you with all of what you said with one exceptions to the result of your statement Islam didn't say that you can not give her more rights, which I conditionally agree with it under the term of not taking a religious rights from her male partner, brother, father.

    Islam is not against any possible civil development but some of what the west consider universal isn't universal.

    I had my reasons not to go further and explain how but I promise you there will be a detailed blog post about that :-)

    ReplyDelete
  34. BamBam,
    I don't know whom you are referring to when you say We and how you are giving yourself the right to ask very general questions and answer them yourself.

    Anyway, Hope I will be able to answer your questions in my next post.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Kinzi,
    This is wrong and we shouldn't accept it, why you don't help her to report her father? if it's literally as you say it then it's abuse.

    Thank you for quoting from The Bible, maybe we should cross post about Women, Man rights in both religions quoting from The Holy Quran and The Bible.

    That verse really sum it all, this is how things should be.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jad,

    What an awesome beginning of dialog. One challenge I see very forcefully here (and I think BamBam kind of hit on this) is that the laws are applied to everyone in Jordan. They do not apply only to practising Muslims. In Jordan, you have a core of people who practice very failthfully, a large percentage who do not at all (as far as I can see), and a minority of other faiths. The women of those faiths, who have NOT in fact chosen Islam) have to live with the rights and limitations granted by your faith. Herein lies the quandry. I firmly believe that I should be able to write a will a distribute my wealth as Isee fit (as a parent). In the US, I have done so. Jordan's laws make me feel that all assets should be kept abroad simply so that my children can inherit equally. I do not expect that my son will take care of his sisters, thus each should get an equal chance...

    The same issue is true of free movement. If you, in fact, made the law apply only to practicing Muslims, I'd have no issue. But, as it stands, El 3atal could go and formally request a stop on my and Beans' passports. I live here in the knowledge and faith that I have picked the right person who shares my beliefs to tie my yoke to. Unfortunately, many women think they have married someone who does based upon his world view and actions elsewhere and finds another person altogether when they get here. She should have free movement because she did not buy into the religious beliefs that brought this about. I'm all for it for those who have chosen those beliefs. It's really more those of us who are falling into the "must abide as cultural Muslims" that are at issue for me. If I'm not Muslim then why must I subscribe? For that reason, I'm glad to see the reservations lifted.

    I know that those women who inspire me with their lives dedicated to Islam will never have an issue with these provisions. They have made a life-decision and live it daily. I see what Islam SHOULD be in them. However, that is not the majority that I see. At any rate, I'm so glad you began the conversation and hope that it will continue as a form of considering who were are as a society and what our actual vaues are...

    ReplyDelete
  37. So please enlighten us on why women shouldn't travel freely? And is relegion considered a reference in the scientific term? Most of the behaviors we try to "defend" in islam are based on assumptions. The prophet married Aisha becasue.....fill in the blanks, we pray five times because......We fast because.....etc....

    Also, you said:"Women should be more powerful and should be in her right place instead.."
    Who decided her "right" place? Even the language you use is degrading to women. Men still assume that they are better equipped to make decision because they don't have a period! Men still think that their choices are better, relegions enable them to do so. Muslim scholars say that IF CEDAW ARTICLES were implmented the society will go down..based on what? Assumptions..All arguments are based on assumptions..

    ReplyDelete
  38. “...but this would open the door to making what you build very fragile “
    You are absolutely right. And that is something to celebrate, not lament.
    Computer software is fragile, isn’t it? Sometimes it breaks down completely. But after every attack the next version is stronger, better, more powerful.
    Yes CEDAW will make us more fragile, but that is good. Because fragility makes us realise our strength, and build on it. Fragility makes us realise our weakness, and address it. Fragility makes us better, more convinced, more understanding people. And it makes societies more just.
    So what if your sister gets as much money as you? We are talking about money, a human created materialistic thing.
    But ur sister, unlike ur inheritance, is human.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dear Jad,

    I appreciate your candidness concerning the topic. It is blatantly clear though that women's status in Jordan is oppressive (in contradiction with Shari'a law). Please see below Jordan's reservations to the Declaration:

    (source: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm)

    Jordan does not consider itself bound by the following provisions:

    1. Article 9, paragraph 2;
    States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children.

    2. Article 15, paragraph 4 (a wife's residence is with her husband);
    States Parties shall accord to women, in civil matters, a legal capacity identical to that of men and the same opportunities to exercise that capacity. In particular, they shall give women equal rights to conclude contracts and to administer property and shall treat them equally in all stages of procedure in courts and tribunals.


    3. Article 16, paragraph (1) (c), relating to the rights arising upon the dissolution of marriage with regard to maintenance and compensation;
    States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:
    (a) The same right to enter into marriage;
    (b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent;
    (c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution;


    4. Article 16, paragraph (1) (d) and (g).
    (d) The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;
    (e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights;
    (f) The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;
    (g) The same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation;

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jad, I came here from someone else's blog, I don't remember. Maybe it was Kinzi. I saved this page so I could ruminate on this CEDAW thing for a while. I am disappointed in this conversation, and it brings up all the frustrations I had living in Jordan as a woman who holds a Jordanian passport.

    First of all, Jordan does not require me to get permission of a male relative to travel, did you not know this? They scrapped that. I have never once been asked where is my letter of permission by the border authorities, by the airport authorities, by the police, anyone. I traveled in and out of Jordan on a Jordanian passport by myself many times. Never once was I asked where my mahrem is.

    Your response to all of the real abuses suffered by Jordanian women now is "There is a law! Tell her father" and things like that. We know there is a law, but Jad, be honest - it does NOT stop fathers and brothers from abusing their PRIVILEGE and authority over the woman in Arabic Muslim society. Forget the law, we all know people who are having the tar beat out of them by their male relatives and no one does anything abou tit. If she goes to the police, she is tarnishing the family name.

    Some of the laws in Jordan force all people - Muslim of any type, Christian, non religious - to live by Islamic law. How is that fair? Because you and some others have "chosen" or inherited Islam as your religion, how is it fair to force a Christian family to follow Shari'ah inheritance? Why should a Christian girl only get half of what her brother does? She doesn't follow Islam. Perhaps, and I know this is something, other people think that our Islamic way isn't fair.

    I want my equal citizenship rights. After all, I pay taxes too! There is nothing about CEDAW that will force Muslims to not practice Islam. It's frustrating to me - extremely - to see the fear that the IAP's rabble rousing does. Every time someone tries to improve the life for Jordanian women, here comes the Ikhwan, claiming this and that is against al Islam. Rather, CEDAW recognizes us as equals in citizenship. Maybe after this, we can pass laws to punish honor killers and then after that, we can open up gun ownership to women (gosh, I wonder why Jordanian men don't want us to be able to legally own guns?).

    Also, just some nasiha b/c I heard you were curious - don't bother with "hay al ajanib" for your religious guidance. I hear that Sh. Nuh Salman gives fiqh in Shmeisani on Sundays, I think in the Syrian masjid by the gardens, al Fayha. That is probably a better thing for you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi, discriminative posts there :-) hold responsible's exchange for the compelling word

    ReplyDelete
  42. Umm Zaid,
    Jordan doesn't require it but a male guardian can ban you from traveling, did you know that? so instead of asking for travel permission they made it free unless a male guardian decided to make a borders ban order.


    I can adapt your tune and answer all of your concerns but my opinion is changing about the whole case as I'm reading more and more and hearing opinion from plenty of people outside the blogging realm but honestly you are taking it too personal; anyway I will skip that.


    We need to work on passing a law that punishes honor killers regardless if we agrees on CEDAW or not and if it's my call I would make execution in public to make it more of a red line, not accepting some of the CEDAW articles doesn't mean accepting honor killing.


    I didn't get what do you mean by "hay al ajanib" and I tried to contact you by email but you decided to use a fake one.


    One last thing, if I wasn't seriously busy you wouldn't be commenting on this post but on the another one (which is in the making now) about it, I guess I have a different opinion after talking to some experts outside the blogging realm.

    ReplyDelete
  43. [...] Prophet and the Prostitute By kinziblogs Blogger Jad asked me some time ago to write about Jesus Christ and women. I’ve been reading with that in mind ever [...]

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

اهم التطورات العلمية في العام ٢٠١٩

10 things Dorothée Loorbach learned after losing a lot of money

Dorothée isn't just sharing her life changing experience with work and money, and sharing the following tips which won't make much sense without listening to the tips in her own words Money is important Money equals time Money equals value What people say doesn't matter What people say matters most when people is you! It's really simple - spend less, earn more, invest wisely and value yourself. It's not that easy Being broke sucks Stay Broke - be present in your own life Money isn't important https://youtu.be/_8l2egORXGA

Rules of war (in a nutshell)

https://youtu.be/HwpzzAefx9M Since the beginning, humans have resorted to violence as a way to settle disagreements. Yet through the ages, people from around the world have tried to limit the brutality of war. It was this humanitarian spirit that led to the First Geneva Convention of 1864, and to the birth of modern International Humanitarian Law. Setting the basic limits on how wars can be fought, these universal laws of war protect those not fighting, as well as those no longer able to. To do this, a distinction must always be made between who or what may be attacked, and who or what must be spared and protected.