Verbatim | The Most Dangerous Agreement Ever

“This is one of the most dangerous agreements that affects the rights of citizens as well as the nation’s identity and values…This agreement, as well as similar American and Zionist efforts, seeks to steer people away from religion…Scholars, rulers and citizens must confront such efforts, which are aimed at destroying the Muslim family.”Ibrahim Zeid Kilani, top legal scholar of the Islamic Action Front party, in a statement to the AFP on the the Jordanian government’s endorsement of a United Nations convention eliminating discrimination against women. Monday, August 6, 2007


  • My deep and sincer thanks for Dr Kilani as he shows the real face of the Islamists in Jordan away from the camouflage they try to design while calling for “democratic elections”.

  • Totally absurd! Ibrahim Zeid Kilani does know very well that eliminating discrimination against women would destroy his own Islamic view of his own Islamic family!

    Wake up!

  • Can someone please give me a better explanation of this article?! Cuz didn’t understand much since there aren’t any details.

  • We have seen in the past Jordan signed a collectives of Agreement, Protocols and treaties.
    And one of them the Ban on torture ,what happened to that, did we adhere to protocols and agreement to ban torture ,the answer is no ,right now we have Jordanian civilians being tortured while we critizing the Islamist for their stupid comments .

  • Mind you while I’m an agnostic born in a muslim family, I saw a debate about this agreement setup on tv. They brought in a sheikh, a feminist, someone representing a religous women organization, and some politician, and others.

    Anyway one of the main points the sheikh and the religous women’s group objected to in the agreement is that it states a girls’r right to her own body, with the further subtext that she has the right to have sex as she choses with whomever she chooses (even as a teenager). Now this level of liberalism is not something Arab societies regardless of religion are ready for. Keep in mind that signing this whole agreement has no legal ramafications, but is just a matter of principle.

  • Scratch that, I read the real agreement, there’s no such clause.

    Serves me right for beleiving something said on a TV show.

    The only part of the agreement I disagreed with was the part justifying reverse discrimination (eg. women winning elections with less votes, or given a job they aren’t the most qualified for, or being admitted to a university eventhough others have beter academic qualifications; all based on quotas).

    Basically it justifies this by saying these are temporary measures to be enacted until true equality can be established, but really they just perpetuate the idea of women as victims that need an extra helping hand.

    The key to liberating women is obviously economic independance. The other major factor would normally be political power (through voting), but that only applies in a true democracy. The right to vote isn’t a big deal here.

Your Two Piasters: