Row over Kanthapuram directive limiting women’s public participation grows as Samastha defends ‘right to preach’

A growing controversy over remarks made by Islamic scholar Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliar regarding the role of women in public life has intensified, with the rival Samastha faction backing his right to interpret religious doctrine. The dispute centers around a directive issued by Kanthapuram, general secretary of the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, which sought to limit women's participation in public events such as Milad celebrations marking the 1,501st birth anniversary of Prophet Muhammad. This directive sparked immediate backlash from political figures and civil society groups, while the opposing Samastha faction has defended Kanthapuram's stance as part of his religious authority. The controversy began with a circular jointly issued by Kanthapuram and the organization’s president, E. Sulaiman Musliar, outlining guidelines for Milad celebrations. As these events expanded from mosques and madrasas into public spaces and clubs, the circular emphasized adherence to Islamic norms, including restrictions on women’s involvement. Kanthapuram later defended this position during a gathering in Kochi, arguing that allowing women onto public platforms could lead to "chaos." Criticism of Kanthapuram’s remarks quickly emerged from prominent political figures, including CPI(M) leaders P.K. Sreemathy, K.K. Shailaja, A.K. Balan, and Paloli Mohammed Kutty, as well as some Congress representatives. Mohammed Kutty stated that religious leaders should focus on advising men rather than dictating gender roles to women. Meanwhile, V.D. Satheesan, the Chief Minister of Kerala, entered the fray after days of mounting pressure, rejecting Kanthapuram’s interpretation of Islam and asserting that Kerala’s tradition of social progress would not tolerate restrictions on women’s public engagement. Satheesan’s response was met with mixed reactions. Progressive groups welcomed his stance, while segments of the traditional Sunni community expressed anger. The Kanthapuram faction reportedly pressed Satheesan to retract his comments and issue an apology. Several leaders, including Syed Ibrahim Khaleel Bukhari and Perode Abdurahman Saqafi, met with Satheesan on September 2, 2026, urging him to adopt a more measured approach. According to insiders, Satheesan assured them of a tempered response moving forward. Within the CPI(M), there appears to be no unified stance. T.K. Hamza, a senior leader, refrained from taking sides, stating that religious scholars have historically guided followers on personal conduct. However, he warned against using religion for political gain. Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan has remained silent on the issue thus far. The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has adopted a cautious position, with its president, Syed Sadikali Shihab Thangal, defending Kanthapuram’s remarks, suggesting they stemmed from concerns about women’s safety. IUML State Secretary Abdurahman Randathani echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that Kanthapuram was acting as a religious scholar rather than opposing social progress. K.T. Jaleel, a former Higher Education Minister and CPI(M) leader, also defended Kanthapuram’s right to speak freely, noting that the cleric was addressing his followers. However, Jaleel used the opportunity to criticize the IUML, accusing it of aligning too closely with conservative views on religious matters. Meanwhile, Syed Mohammed Jifri Muthukoya Thangal, head of the rival Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama based in Chelari, weighed in on the controversy. Speaking on September 2, 2026, he argued that religious scholars should not be disparaged for interpreting religious teachings. Though he did not explicitly mention Kanthapuram or the Chief Minister, his comments underscored the broader implications of the dispute, namely, the tension between religious authority and secular governance. The conflict has evolved beyond Kanthapuram’s initial remarks, raising questions about the boundaries of religious influence in public life and the role of political leaders in shaping societal norms. As the debate continues, the voices of both supporters and critics remain divided, reflecting deeper ideological divides within the state’s Muslim community.