Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood Denounce U.N. Document Calling For Protection Of Women As Contrary To Islamic Principles

150px-muslim_woman_in_yemenEgypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian diplomats denounced the United Nation’s document calling for the protection of women as contrary to Islamic principles and Egypt is demanding that the resolution include an exception for countries that view the provisions are contrary to their values. The Egyptians called the document “deceitful” and the ruin of traditional families.


The document addresses sexual violence and rights of women to control their sexuality as well as sexual and reproductive health and rights. That does not sit well with the Muslim Brotherhood which has called for greater Sharia law and Islamic values in government.

The Muslim Brotherhood objected to the document’s support of homosexuality as well as treating children as equal when born in and outside wedlock.

Libya has also objected on Islamic grounds.

Some delegates walked out during the speech of Pakinam el-Sharqawi, an aide to President Mohammed Morsi, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and rose to speak against women’s rights. She insisted that Egypt’s new constitution (which has been denounced around the world as stripping away rights of women and religious minorities) is fully protective of women’s rights. She insisted however that such values had to be balanced with “the cultural and social particularities of countries and peoples.” Those “particularities” involve the beating and killing of women for immoral acts.

Source: ABC

33 thoughts on “Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood Denounce U.N. Document Calling For Protection Of Women As Contrary To Islamic Principles

  1. [music]
    Well its one, two, three … what are we fightin for/
    Don’t ask me I dont give a damn…
    Next stop is Viet Naaam!
    And its five, six, seven, Open up the Pearly Gates..
    Ain’t no time to wonder why,
    Whoppee we’re all gonna die!

    -Country Joe and The Fish

    Obama: Get the chuck out of Afghanistan.

  2. Raff,

    I o not think once you are in he hood of the UN you can withdraw that easy….I’m serious….

  3. “Contrary to islamic principles”?

    That would require islam to have principles, which it doesn’t. That cult is neither a basis for rules, for ethics, nor explanation for natural phenomenon.

    The same can also be said of any religion you care to name.

  4. What was the UN thinking when it came up with this “protection of women” in the Muslim world. The document makes no sense, as it is contrary to Islamic law and infringes on Islamic religious freedom. What is the next thing the UN is going to propose? Outlaw Islamic Honor Killings?

    What is this world coming to? Not much, if the multitudes of Islamo-panderers in the US and on this website are any indication.

  5. I am not an Islamo-panderer. Why do they call the capital of that one Stan pirate territory Islamabad? They could have called it IslamaGood. So they are clear on their intentions and let us know from the get-go.

  6. There must be something in the sand over there.

    These women bear these baby boys, raise them, ?? and what?? teach them that women are 2nd class.
    Dear son, to be a good muslim male you must treat your mother, sister, wife and daughters like chattel !!?? ….. I don’t get it.

  7. Ralph,

    They were thinking that human rights trump oppressive religious dogma. Freedom of exercise is not unlimited. Not allowing human sacrifices is contrary to the religion freedom of the worshipers of Tlaloc, but while you can worship that Meso-American rain deity if you wish, if you kill someone to “please him”? You will be arrested for murder. What an Christian example? “Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.” — Leviticus 19:19. Yet there are men and women in wool blend suits all over the planet who are free from the dogma of Christianity because it is their right to worship and live free from the edicts of religions that may and often do want to oppress them.

  8. I’m recycling this post of mine from two days ago. Meh.

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6788/a_church_group__a_lawsuit__and_a_culture_of_abuse/

    This above link is to a long article about a church and its’ accused abuses. I found this excerpt to be powerful, overwhelming, and perceptive.
    I highlight the first sentence below.

    “The larger context for corporal punishment is the belief that Christians must cultivate a lifelong attitude of submission to God-given authority”

    Lifelong Attitude of Submission

    The larger context for corporal punishment is the belief that Christians must cultivate a lifelong attitude of submission to God-given authority. Parents are one such authority; male leadership over women in the family, church, and society is another.

    Both women and children are taught that submission is part of a divine plan that should be embraced joyfully, and that even submitting to abusive men is noble and Christ-like. CLC pastor Joshua Harris quotes 1 Peter on this score, praising slaves who obeyed the masters who beat them as following Jesus’ example. Harris interprets this to mean that all Christians are called to submit, even when “suffering” under “unjust” leadership. Therefore wives are called to resist the “sinful” impulse to “fight back” against or even criticize husbands who misuse their “authority.”

    These teachings are not unique to SGM. Evangelical leader John Piper—a friend to SGM—has taught that women must maintain attitudes of submission even toward abusive husbands. Wives may, he says, have to,“endure… being smacked one night” if abuse is “simply hurting [them]” and “not requiring [them] to sin” in some way like “group sex.”

    It’s such a romanticization of saintly submission in the face of violence that Harris’ exceedingly brief disclaimer that “this isn’t a call [for wives] to be on the receiving end of abuse and violence” (like Piper’s recent clarification of his remarks) comes across as hollow.

    If children are taught that assault is divinely sanctioned, and that their bodies belong to adults, girls in particular are trained to see their bodies as male property, starting with their fathers. These lessons come from the top. C.J. Mahaney and his wife Carolyn, herself a popular writer on “biblical femininity,” teach that every piece of clothing girls and married women purchase should be inspected for “modesty” by fathers. And Mahaney encourages his followers to confront girls and women in their congregations whose clothing they find immodest.

    Girls grow up under the sexualizing gaze of men who are free to comment on the sexual response female bodies “provoke” in them. This early training in feminine responsibility for the sexual response of men makes it difficult to recognize and name abuse, and causes further trauma with the implication that being a victim of sexual violence makes a woman “impure.”

    Too often Males big brain ain’t really their big brain.

  9. raff/AY,

    Withdrawing from the UN is not covered by the charter, but like any association, a signatory is technically free to abstain from participation or withdraw as a matter of fact based on material change in circumstances. The legal principle is rebus sic stantibus (“things standing thus”) and while it isn’t codified in the UN Charter, the principle is referred to in Articles 61 and 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties albeit not “by name” and narrowly construed. The change in circumstances must be material like a coup in the member state or some material breach of the covenant like, say, the UN invading Ohio. Only two nations have ever tried to pull out of the UN: Syria and Indonesia. But the facts around those incidents were interpreted by the UN as temporary “cessation of cooperation” rather than a true withdrawals due to the circumstances and the rapid return to participation by both states. The reason for this is to stop deter member states from political blackmail, however, the reality is any state can actually walk away any time their leadership likes. Considering the totality of circumstances though, that could have repercussions.

  10. I am starting to get worried about our own Brotherhood, the one which we call the Religious Right. Oh, and let’s not forget the Catholic Brotherhood and the Ultra Orthodox Jewish Brotherhood. If they could get away with it, they’d stand with that Egyptian woman denouncing the Violence Against Women protections. And yes, I am somewhat exaggerating. I’m so endlessly tired of ‘men who make it their life’s goal to dominate women’. I put quotes around the words because that those are exactly the ones my mother’s psychiatrist said my father belonged to after she was trying to get some meds for her nerves after years and years of abuse.

  11. NO thing allows greater oppression and persecution then stating you are doing it under the guise of religion. Religious beliefs are just that, beliefs. They deserve no more respect or allegiance then any other belief. Just because a supposed deity in the sky says something, doesn’t mean we should take it seriously, especially if on its’ face it is an absurd position. Just like Christianity at one time, Islam persecutes women. The difference is that Christianity underwent an Enlightenment period. When will Islam’s time?

Comments are closed.