We have been looking at the final document of the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in September 1994 which was subject to much controversy in its draft form. We explained that since the document acknowledged that its implementation was subject to the sovereign rights of each state and that such implementation must not be in conflict with the religious, moral and social values prevailing in any society, then its recommendations could not contravene Islamic teachings. Last week, we discussed the recommendations concerned with a woman’s rights to inheritance, explaining that they can be operated within Islamic teachings. Today, we will look at other areas tackled in the conference final document.
Article 4.11 speaks about men’s responsibility in the provision of family and child care. To object to this recommendation is contrary to the authentic traditions which confirm that taking care of others is required of all to whom religious duties apply. The Prophet is quoted as saying: “All of you are shepherds and every shepherd is accountable for his flock. A community leader is a shepherd and he is accountable for his community. A man is a shepherd of his household and is accountable for those under his care. A woman is a shepherd in her husband’s home and is accountable for her charge.” (Related by Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, Abu Dawood, Al-Tirmithi and others).
Objections to such recommendations requiring men to share in providing family care are contrary to what is confirmed in authentic traditions mentioning that the Prophet used to “mend his shoes, patch up his robes and attend to his family’s needs.” This last part means that the Prophet used to help in domestic duties.
For men to share in such duties, particularly in children’s upbringing, is a duty stated by Islam. Hence, there can be no reason for the objections raised to this and similar provisions. On the contrary, such provisions should be supported by Muslims. Moreover, Chapters 21-24 mention many Hadith texts confirming the rights of the child and the father’s duty to look after his children and take good care of them.
One area which invited very strong criticism before the start of the conference was abortion and its treatment in the draft document. Such strong opposition yielded good results. Collaboration between the delegations of Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia on the one hand, and the Vatican delegation, representatives of the World Health Organization and a number of Catholic organizations on the other produced drastic amendments to the original text. Article 7.4 of the final documents reads: “Governments should take suitable measures to help women to avoid resorting to abortion, which must in no case be encouraged as a method of birth control. In all cases, medical treatment and counseling should be provided to women in cases of abortion.”
Needless to say, this text does not contravene religious values or Islamic rules concerned with the protection of offspring, or the safety of the woman or the fetus. Hence, the final session did not see any objection or reservation raised against this text.
However, the final document of the population conference was not totally free of what is objectionable from the Islamic point of view. Fairness requires that we state the positive points included in the document, which we have done. However, we are also duty bound to refer to what is unacceptable in its text and recommendations.
In doing so, we are not trying to impose our values and traditions, let alone our faith, on others. On the contrary, we declare our opposition to all attempts of cultural hegemony made by a particular group of states. We reiterate with Dr. Hussein Gezairy, the World Health Organization’s Regional Director for the Eastern Mediterranean, his criticism of “the insistence of a handful of industrial countries, trying to impose their values that are contrary to the beliefs and practices of billions of people. In so doing, they try to expose the rest of mankind to the social ills which they themselves have been suffering, such as the lack of security, affection and mercy in marriage, decline of the family institution, rise in suicide rates, stress and crime increase, and the undermining of the nest that ensures a healthy upbringing for the young generation instead of exposing them to the evils of violence, drugs and sex.”
Perhaps the other most important point of objection in the final document of the conference is its repeated references (in Chapter 7, for examples) to “spouses and individuals.” The Egyptian delegation insisted, particularly in the final session, on deleting “and individuals” wherever it occurred in conjunction with “spouses.” Several countries supported the Egyptian stand, such as Algeria, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Jordan, Malaysia, and Syria. These demands notwithstanding, the phrase was retained alongside references to spouses or to the family.
In dealing with this document and the amendments it requires to be introduced in the laws of Arab and Muslim countries, this was clearly summed up by the Egyptian minister of foreign affairs who declared in the final session: “All questions outlined in the program of action concerning reproductive health and rights are related only to proper relations between spouses united in marriage within the context of the family, the basic unit of human society.” Similarly, the chief delegate of Ghana declared: “All recommendations will only be implemented within the framework of the moral values prevailing in each state.”
These views have been expressed most beautifully by Dr. Gezairy of the World Health Organization in his address to the Regional Committee Session held the following month in Bahrain when he said: “A family means a husband and wife united by a legitimate bond, enjoying an atmosphere of security, affection and mercy, and looking after many males and females of their parents and offspring, living in a home where women are the full sisters of men — and where the woman is a shepherd providing health and psychological care and sound upbringing of her family members.”
Next week, God willing, we will look at the treatment of early marriage in this document.