Kerala Grand Mufti’s Remarks on Women Spark Outrage: Why the ‘Confine Women to Their Homes’ Argument Is Reggaressive and Patriarchal.
Kerala Grand Mufti’s Remarks on Women Trigger Controversy: Patriarchy, Freedom, Equality and the Debate Over Women in Public Life
Kerala Grand Mufti Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar’s remarks on women staying at home have triggered a wider debate on patriarchy, religious interpretation, equality, freedom and women’s right to participate in public life.
Kerala’s Debate Over Women Has Become a Larger Debate About Equality
Kerala is widely regarded as one of India’s most socially progressive states, with a long history of achievements in education, literacy, healthcare, social reform and women’s participation in public life.
Against that backdrop, recent remarks by prominent Sunni Islamic scholar and Grand Mufti Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad, also known as Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar, have triggered a major public controversy.
Speaking at the Hubbul Rasool conference in Kochi, Kanthapuram reportedly argued that women should remain within their homes and should not enter the public sphere. He also compared women with valuable gold ornaments that, in his analogy, should be kept safely inside a box. He linked the practice of purdah with protecting women and said that bringing women into public platforms could result in “great destruction.”
The remarks have generated criticism from politicians, women’s leaders and others across Kerala and beyond. The controversy has also exposed a deeper question:
Can women truly be considered respected and equal members of society if their freedom to participate in public life is restricted in the name of protection?
That is the central issue that deserves serious discussion.
What Exactly Did the Grand Mufti Say?
The controversy did not originate from a general discussion about modesty, family life or religious practice.
The controversy arose because the remarks were reported as advocating a fundamental restriction on women’s participation in public life.
Kanthapuram argued that women should remain confined to their homes and should not enter the public sphere. He cited religious justification for this position and used the analogy of gold jewellery being kept safely inside a box.
He subsequently defended the position, maintaining that his intention was not to diminish women but to protect their dignity and honour. Reports also indicate that he stood by the broader position concerning women’s presence in public spaces and defended the religious basis for his interpretation.
That distinction is important.
An argument can be presented as “protection” while still producing restriction.
And that is precisely why the statement has generated such intense criticism.
Why Many People Consider the Statement Regressive
Calling the remarks regressive does not require attacking a religion or its followers.
The criticism is directed at the principle of restricting an entire gender’s participation in society.
Modern democratic societies generally recognise women as individuals with their own rights, choices, ambitions, responsibilities and agency.
Women are not possessions.
Women are not objects whose value depends on being hidden from society.
Women are citizens.
They are students, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, scientists, teachers, lawyers, administrators, journalists, artists, elected representatives, athletes, workers, researchers, mothers, daughters and community leaders.
Their right to participate in public life cannot logically depend upon whether society considers them sufficiently “protected”.
Protection and Freedom Are Not the Same Thing
One of the most important questions raised by this controversy is the difference between protection and control.
A society can legitimately discuss:
- women’s safety;
- sexual harassment;
- violence against women;
- safe public transport;
- workplace security;
- online abuse;
- stalking;
- exploitation;
- discrimination.
But the solution to danger cannot simply be:
“Keep women inside.”
If a road is unsafe, the answer should be to make the road safer.
If workplaces are unsafe, workplaces should be made safer.
If public transport is unsafe, public transport should be improved.
If women face harassment, perpetrators should be held accountable.
Restricting women because some men may behave badly effectively transfers the burden of male misconduct to women.
That is one of the fundamental reasons such arguments are criticised as patriarchal.
The Patriarchal Logic Behind “Women Must Be Protected”
Patriarchy is not merely the presence of men in positions of authority.
It is a broader social system in which power, decision-making and social expectations are structured in ways that place women in subordinate or restricted roles.
A particularly subtle form of patriarchy is benevolent patriarchy.
It does not necessarily say:
“Women are inferior.”
Instead, it can say:
“Women are precious, therefore they must be protected.”
At first glance, the language sounds respectful.
But the crucial question is:
Who gets to decide what women are allowed to do?
If women cannot decide where they go, what they study, whether they work, whether they participate in politics, whether they speak publicly or whether they engage with wider society, then the language of “protection” can become a mechanism of control.
This is why the gold analogy has attracted criticism.
Gold is an object.
A woman is a human being.
Gold can be owned, stored and protected by its owner.
A woman possesses her own agency.
That difference is fundamental.
Women Are Not Property
The comparison of women with gold ornaments has therefore been especially controversial.
The intention behind the analogy may have been to emphasise value and protection.
But analogies also communicate assumptions.
When women are compared with jewellery that must be stored in a box, the implicit message can be interpreted as treating women as valuable objects whose worth is preserved through isolation.
That is incompatible with the modern understanding of human dignity.
A woman’s dignity does not increase because she is invisible.
A woman’s dignity does not decrease because she works outside the home.
A woman’s dignity does not depend on whether she stands on a public stage.
And a woman’s honour cannot be measured by how effectively society restricts her movement.
The Public Sphere Belongs to Women Too
Democracy itself depends upon participation.
Public life includes:
- elections;
- local government;
- legislatures;
- education;
- business;
- professions;
- civil society;
- journalism;
- science;
- arts and culture;
- social movements;
- community organisations.
Women cannot be equal citizens if they are systematically discouraged from participating in these spaces.
Kerala itself provides countless examples of women making extraordinary contributions to public life.
Women have played major roles in the state’s political movements, education system, healthcare sector, administration, literature, cinema, journalism, entrepreneurship and social development.
To tell women collectively that they belong primarily inside their homes is therefore not merely a statement about personal morality.
It is a statement about citizenship.
Kerala’s Progressive Social History Makes the Debate Particularly Significant
The controversy has a special resonance in Kerala because the state has historically celebrated education and social development.
Kerala’s progress was not achieved by keeping sections of society away from public life.
It was achieved through education, social reform and wider participation.
The idea that women should withdraw from public life therefore appears fundamentally at odds with the trajectory of modern Kerala.
Congress leader and Opposition figure V.D. Satheesan has strongly criticised the position, saying such thinking has no place in a progressive and developing Kerala and arguing that women should participate in the mainstream across sectors.
Senior CPI(M) leader P.K. Sreemathy Teacher has also criticised the remarks.
Kerala Labour Minister Bindu Krishna rejected the remarks as unacceptable and argued that women should remain free to move and participate in society.
Criticism Has Crossed Political Boundaries
One striking feature of the controversy is that criticism has not been confined to a single political ideology.
Reports have recorded criticism from figures belonging to different political backgrounds.
Shiv Sena spokesperson Shaina NC questioned the idea that women should be excluded from public platforms and described such thinking as regressive. Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy also rejected the argument and stressed women’s independence. Congress MP Imran Masood questioned the interpretation being placed on Islam and referred to examples of prominent women in Islamic history.
Within Kerala’s political discourse, the controversy has also produced differences among parties and leaders who otherwise occupy very different political positions.
That makes the debate larger than a routine political disagreement.
It is fundamentally about how a democratic society defines women’s freedom.
There Is Also a Debate Within Muslim Political and Religious Circles
A responsible discussion should acknowledge that the reaction has not been completely one-sided.
Some Muslim political and religious figures have defended or contextualised Kanthapuram’s remarks.
For example, reports indicate that Indian Union Muslim League leaders have described the comments as a form of scholarly or religious expression, while other leaders have suggested that the emphasis was on women’s safety rather than on diminishing women’s status.
Other political figures, including CPI(M) leader P. Jayarajan, have questioned such positions and argued for women’s freedom and participation.
This internal disagreement is important.
It demonstrates that Muslims themselves are not a monolithic community with one single opinion about women’s role in society.
Nor should criticism of a particular cleric or interpretation be converted into criticism of an entire religion or community.
That distinction is essential for a mature public debate.
Muslim Women Are Also Speaking Back
Perhaps the most important dimension of the controversy is the response from Muslim women themselves.
The debate is not simply about what men in religious or political institutions think women should do.
Women have their own voices.
Reports have highlighted pushback from Muslim women who questioned the idea that they should be confined to their homes.
That response deserves particular attention.
If a discussion concerns women’s freedom, women cannot be treated merely as subjects of the debate.
They must be participants in the debate.
Religious Freedom Does Not End the Conversation
India’s constitutional framework protects freedom of religion.
Religious scholars are entitled to express religious opinions.
Communities are entitled to debate questions of faith.
But freedom of expression does not mean that every religious interpretation becomes immune from criticism.
A religious leader can express an opinion.
Citizens can disagree with it.
Women can challenge it.
Politicians can criticise it.
Academics can analyse it.
Artists can satirise it.
Civil society can debate it.
That is how a democratic society works.
The appropriate response to a controversial religious opinion is therefore not censorship merely because it is religious.
It is open, lawful and reasoned debate.
The Bigger Question: Who Defines a Woman’s Freedom?
This controversy ultimately forces society to confront a difficult question.
Should a woman’s freedom be defined by:
- her father?
- her husband?
- a religious scholar?
- a political leader?
- her community?
- social convention?
Or should the woman herself have the primary say in the decisions affecting her life?
A mature society should choose the last option.
A woman may freely choose to devote herself to her family.
Another woman may choose a career.
Another may choose both.
Another may choose religious dress.
Another may choose differently.
The essential principle is choice.
Freedom does not mean forcing women to work outside the home.
Nor does it mean forcing women to remain inside it.
Freedom means women should have the agency to make legitimate choices about their own lives.
The Difference Between Religion and Patriarchy Must Be Understood
One of the dangers of controversies such as this is that they can quickly become communal.
That would be unfortunate.
Criticising a conservative interpretation of religion is not the same as attacking religion.
Similarly, defending women’s rights should not be presented as an attack on Muslims.
India’s religious diversity is a strength.
The real question is whether religious interpretations—of any faith—should be open to discussion when they affect people’s rights and participation in society.
The same standard should apply across religions and communities.
If a custom or interpretation restricts women, it should be possible to question it.
If a religious tradition empowers women, that should also be recognised.
Equality should not depend on which religion is being discussed.
A Warning Against Selective Outrage
There is another important lesson in the Kerala controversy.
Public outrage should not be selective.
If people condemn restrictions on women when they originate in one community but remain silent when similar restrictions emerge elsewhere, the principle of equality becomes compromised.
Likewise, those who defend women’s freedom should defend it consistently.
Women deserve freedom irrespective of:
- religion;
- caste;
- language;
- region;
- political affiliation;
- social background.
A genuinely progressive society cannot apply one standard to one community and another standard to another.
What About Women Who Choose Traditional Roles?
It is equally important not to replace one form of paternalism with another.
Women should not be told:
“You must stay at home.”
But they should also not be told:
“You must work outside the home to be liberated.”
Both are forms of imposing a prescribed role.
A woman who chooses to be a homemaker deserves respect.
A woman who chooses to become a CEO deserves respect.
A woman who chooses to become a religious scholar deserves respect.
A woman who chooses politics, medicine, teaching, science, cinema, business or social work deserves respect.
The principle is simple:
Choice without coercion.
Artists, Writers and Cultural Voices Have an Important Role
Artists and cultural figures occupy a unique position in such controversies.
Art can question social conventions.
Literature can challenge patriarchy.
Cinema can expose discrimination.
Theatre can provoke uncomfortable conversations.
Satire can reveal contradictions.
Journalism can scrutinise powerful institutions.
Cultural voices should therefore be able to participate in the discussion without turning the issue into communal hostility.
The strongest cultural response to regressive thinking is often not hatred but critical examination.
What Should the Debate Actually Be About?
Instead of turning this controversy into another religious-versus-secular confrontation, Kerala can use it to ask much more constructive questions:
1. Can women participate equally in public life?
Yes.
2. Can religious communities discuss modesty and religious practice?
Yes.
3. Can religious leaders express conservative opinions?
Yes, within the law.
4. Can women disagree with those opinions?
Absolutely.
5. Can society criticise religious interpretations?
Yes.
6. Should women be collectively restricted because society considers them vulnerable?
That is precisely the proposition that deserves rejection.
7. Can safety and freedom coexist?
They must.
The answer to women’s vulnerability should be stronger institutions—not smaller freedoms.
Kerala Must Not Confuse Tradition With Progress
Tradition deserves respect, but tradition cannot automatically become an argument against equality.
Every society evolves.
Practices that were once considered normal can later be recognised as discriminatory.
Social reform happens precisely because people ask uncomfortable questions.
Kerala’s own history demonstrates that social progress requires challenging established assumptions.
The test of a tradition should not simply be:
“Has this always been done?”
A better question is:
“Does this respect the dignity, equality and freedom of every individual today?”
The Real Meaning of Women’s Dignity
Women’s dignity should not be defined by isolation.
It should be defined by equality.
A dignified woman is not one who is hidden from society.
She is one who can enter society without fear.
She can study.
She can work.
She can speak.
She can vote.
She can lead.
She can create.
She can worship.
She can question.
She can disagree.
She can raise a family.
She can choose not to.
She can participate in public life.
And she can make decisions about her own future.
That is dignity.
A Debate Kerala Should Have — But With Maturity
The controversy surrounding Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar’s remarks is unlikely to disappear simply through political statements.
It has touched something deeper: the continuing conflict between traditional authority and individual autonomy.
The debate should therefore move beyond personalities.
It should not become an excuse for Islamophobia.
It should not become an excuse for attacking Muslims.
It should not become an excuse for attacking religious freedom.
But neither should religious authority be used as a shield against legitimate criticism.
The central principle should remain universal:
Women are equal citizens.
They should have the freedom to decide their own participation in public life.
They should be protected from violence and harassment—not protected by being denied freedom.
And when a powerful authority figure argues that an entire gender should retreat from public life, society has every right to ask:
Is this really protection—or is it patriarchy expressed in the language of protection?
That is the question Kerala is now debating.
And it is a debate worth having.
Conclusion: Respect Women by Trusting Women
The most progressive response to the controversy is neither religious hostility nor political opportunism.
It is a simple commitment to equality.
Trust women.
Trust them to make choices.
Trust them to participate.
Trust them to work.
Trust them to lead.
Trust them to decide how they dress.
Trust them to enter public life.
Trust them to balance family and career according to their circumstances.
And when women choose a traditional life, respect that choice too.
The objective should not be to replace one social prescription with another.
The objective should be to ensure that no institution, community, ideology or individual can claim ownership over a woman’s choices simply because she is a woman.
Kerala’s real progress will not be measured by how effectively women can be “protected” from society.
It will be measured by whether women can participate in society freely, safely and equally.
Editorial Note
This article critically examines the reported remarks of a prominent religious scholar and the public debate surrounding them. It does not represent criticism of Islam or Muslims as a community. Religious traditions contain diverse interpretations, and individuals within the Muslim community have themselves expressed differing views on the controversy. The focus of this article is the broader question of women’s autonomy, equality, public participation and the social consequences of gender-based restrictions.
More Featured Articles
The Ultimate Guide to Collateral-Free Business Finance: Scaling Beyond Physical Assets.
SIDBI – Powering India’s MSME Growth: Funding, Schemes & Business Support.
SME IPO in India 2025: Complete Guide for Investors & Growing Businesses
Empowering Startups & Businesses with StartupStreets.com
CFO Services for Startups: Why Virtual CFOs are Becoming a Game-Changer in India
