IUML Defends Cleric's Remarks on Women as Scholarly; CPI(M) Leaders Split in Response

IUML Defends Cleric's Remarks as Scholarly; CPI(M) Divided

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has justified controversial remarks on women made by senior Sunni cleric Kanthapuram P. Aboobacker Musliyar, describing them as a "scholarly expression," while leaders of the opposition Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] have offered contrasting reactions.

IUML state president Panakkad Sadiq Ali Shihab Thangal, responding to questions from reporters, said he had nothing more to say on the matter beyond it being a scholarly expression. "It was a scholarly expression. Beyond that, I have nothing more to say on the matter. They are scholars. I am not going to comment on that," he said.

Asked whether women should live as suggested by Musliyar, Thangal said he believed the cleric was concerned about the safety of women. "What he intended to say, I believe, was that women are being hunted in the present situation. He may have made the remark with that concern in mind. There should be some restraint in such matters," he said. He added that the cleric may have been speaking for the safety and protection of women, and that people could have different opinions on social issues.

The controversy began after Musliyar's remarks at an Islamic conference in Kochi on Sunday. He said bringing women onto public platforms would lead to "great destruction" and that Islam prescribed purdah to prevent this. "It is precisely recognising that bringing women onto public platforms in this manner causes great destruction that Islam mandated purdah for women. The Holy Quran states that women should live confined within their homes and must not make public appearances," he had said.

CPI(M) Leader Criticises Remarks

Senior CPI(M) leader P. Jayarajan criticised the view that women should be kept away from public life. While defending the right to religious belief, Jayarajan said such views could be debated and criticised in a democratic society when they seek to prescribe how women should live and participate in public life. He said protecting women's freedom, equality and participation in public life was a fundamental duty of a democratic society.

Jayarajan also defended the All India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA) for criticising Musliyar, saying the organisation had opposed attempts to marginalise women irrespective of religious community.

Another CPI(M) Voice Defends Cleric

In a contrasting stance, T. Jaleel, a former Higher Education Minister and CPI(M) leader, defended Musliyar in a social media post, linking the remarks to the public conduct and positions of woman leaders of the IUML and its women students platform Haritha.

Jaleel said Musliyar's statement came amid a debate among Muslims, particularly Sunnis, over the conduct of IUML's woman leaders, the activities of Haritha and the silence of the League leadership on the issue. He claimed that the public behaviour and positions of some IUML woman leaders were being discussed within the Muslim community as being inconsistent with prevailing Islamic beliefs, and that Musliyar's statement was a caution issued against this backdrop.

According to Jaleel, the IUML leadership's decision not to publicly engage with the controversy was significant. He named IUML State president Syed Sadikali Shihab Thangal, national general secretary K. Kunhalikutty, MP Abdussamad Samadani, and MP V. Abdul Wahab among those who carefully stayed out of the debate.

Jaleel said Musliyar's remarks were a reference to the need for IUML leaders to apply the Islamic position on women within the Vanitha League and Haritha as well. He argued that Musliyar, as a religious scholar, was entitled to express views based on religious teachings, and that others were equally free to disagree.

He compared the controversy with the debate over women's entry into Sabarimala, saying differing views on religious and social issues should be allowed in a democratic society. Jaleel said Musliyar had neither demanded that everyone accept his views nor called for the boycott of those who disagreed, and therefore there was no justification for attacking the veteran scholar.