Creation - Takhleeq

Women’s Freedom

This column is not an attack on women, religion, or any country. It invites the reader to look at how society, law, and state systems shape women’s freedom in different ways.

By Shahid Shakil

Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia are three countries that, within their constitutional and social structures, recognise Islam as a central reference. Yet when it comes to women’s freedom and rights, one reality becomes clear: despite sharing the same religious foundation, the legal application, social attitudes and state priorities in these countries are quite different from one another.

This difference determines the position of women, their autonomy and the nature of their practical freedom within these societies.

In Pakistan, women constitutionally have equal rights. Rights such as education, employment, inheritance and political participation are clearly stated in law. However, the problem is not the absence of law, but the implementation of law and the attitudes of society.

Traditions, tribal values, the feudal system and cultural interpretations of religion have often restricted the position of women. Honour killings, forced marriages, deprivation of inheritance and domestic violence are evidence that, in many cases, women are made subject not to Islam, but to customs and social traditions. In this way, a deep gap exists between state law and the reality on the ground.

Turkey presents a different example. Despite its Islamic identity, the state system remained based on secular foundations for a long period. Women have relatively wider freedom in education, employment, politics and social life. Despite the return of religious values in recent years, women’s rights are still seen as a responsibility of the state, not merely as a family or social matter.

In Turkey, a woman is recognised as an independent citizen whose identity is not limited only to the home or family. The law appears to stand in favour of women, and society, overall, accepts this legal protection.

Malaysia appears as a balanced Islamic model. Islam is the state religion, but its interpretation has been brought into harmony with a modern state structure. Women are playing a visible role in education, business, government institutions and the private sector.

In Malaysia, women have not been given a completely Western form of freedom, nor have they been tied down by traditional restrictions. Instead, an effort has been made to create a practical balance.

The comparison of these three countries makes one fact clear: Islam as a religion is not an obstacle to women’s freedom. The real difference is created by state thinking, legal enforcement and social awareness.

In Pakistan, women often find themselves trapped between family, community and social pressure. In many situations, the state appears to be a silent spectator, especially in matters such as domestic violence, harassment and inheritance.

In Turkey, women have civil rights at the state level. Under the secular legal framework, a woman’s identity is recognised as that of an individual. Action against domestic violence and harassment is relatively more effective, although challenges at the social level still exist.

In Malaysia, along with an Islamic identity, institutional order is strong. Women play a safe and active role both in the state and in society. Despite the presence of religious laws, women’s participation in education, employment and business is broad, because the state system is functioning.

In Pakistan, religion often becomes mixed with cultural tradition. As a result, restrictions are placed on women in the name of religion, even though these restrictions are often unwritten social rules. Religious interpretation is commonly used in favour of male control.

In Turkey, religion is largely understood as a personal matter. Whether a woman wears the hijab or not, the state protects her civil freedom. This allows a woman to choose her own path between religion and modernity.

In Malaysia, a balance has been created between religion and development. Despite an Islamic identity, women are visible in universities, offices, courts and businesses. Here, religion does not function as a barrier, but exists in harmony with order.

In Pakistan, the number of educated women is increasing, but the lack of safe transport, workplace harassment, pressure to leave employment after marriage and the responsibilities of childcare often waste women’s abilities.

In Turkey, women’s participation in the labour force is higher. Women professionals are common in both the public and private sectors. Daycare, labour laws and complaint systems help women continue working.

In Malaysia, women are doctors, engineers, professors, bankers and business leaders. State facilities and social acceptance give women a productive role, which also benefits the economy.

In Pakistan, a woman is often seen as the honour of the family. Her personal boundaries, wishes and decisions become secondary. The fear of disgrace keeps her silent.

In Turkey, a woman is more often seen as an individual. Social pressure exists, but the state narrative appears to stand with women’s autonomy.

In Malaysia, women receive respect and are also recognised as active citizens. A balance can be seen between family values and individual freedom.

In Pakistan, despite digital laws, implementation remains weak. Women fear social disgrace more than anything else, and this fear becomes a weapon in the hands of blackmailers.

In Turkey and Malaysia, the institutional response against digital crimes is faster and clearer. When a legal path is practically available for the affected person, the power of blackmail is reduced.

The difference in the condition of women in Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia is linked less to religion and more to the system. Where the state enforces the law, provides opportunities and recognises women as individuals, women move forward, even when a religious identity is present.

Women in Pakistan are not inferior. They are living within a weak system.

Religion itself is not the problem. The real question is whether the state applies religion with justice, or leaves it at the mercy of tradition.