This week, the UK Chancellor George Osborne was accused by many mothers groups and journalists of insulting and stigmatizing stay-at-home mothers when he announced government plans to give child-care vouchers worth £1200 per child to families with two working parents, while failing to offer any financial support to mothers who chose not to work in order to raise their children. In announcing the plans which are aimed at encouraging women back into the workplace, he stated, "This government is on the side of people who want to work hard and get on in life", suggesting that mothers who decide to take care of their children full-time are somehow failures who work less hard and have no drive to ‘get on in life', and whose role clearly does not have as much value to society as the working woman. He also described the role of ‘stay-at-home mother' as a "lifestyle choice", insinuating that it held a secondary status compared to employment that should be viewed as the ideal path in life for women.

It is clear that the capitalist philosophy and system is the driving force behind such statements and policies from politicians and governments who have moulded their benefits and tax policies in a manner to push mothers to re-enter the workforce as soon as possible after giving birth rather than supporting them in their vital role of nurturing and bringing up their children to become upright individuals contributing positively to society. This regressive ideology that sanctifies wealth creation over all other goals in life has created an environment where a mother is often viewed as a burden to a company or economy rather than an invaluable asset to society and wellbeing of the future generation. However, the feminist mantra based upon the flawed Western concept of gender equality - that the status of women is elevated through earning their own income rather than full-time motherhood, and by becoming financially independent from their fathers or husbands also shares blame in devaluing and stigmatizing motherhood within many secular societies. Over the years, feminists have promoted the idea that a woman's financial dependence upon a man was not compatible with respect; that it made her subservient or lower in status to her husband and that only through employment could she become his equal; and that financial dependence deprived her of financial security due to the risk of being abandoned at the whim of her male guardian or as a result of his death. The working woman became the model of the modern, liberated woman and the epitome of success.

However, it was a mantra that proved to be an illusion. Firstly, it did not deliver the status that was promised, rather it devalued that which made the woman unique to the man - motherhood - by placing it of less importance in contribution to society than earning an income. Furthermore, it made women subservient to the economy - expecting and even forcing them to work for financial survival rather than simply having the right to employment. Secondly, it did not deliver the respect and rights that were promised, rather it diminished the status of mothers even in the workplace, leaving them exposed to the whims, prejudice, and at the mercy of their employers. In 2007, a UK government review found that mothers face more discrimination than any other group in the workplace. And finally, becoming an independent income earner did not ensure financial security. Rather gender equality in roles and responsibilities provided men and the state the moral and legal justification to absolve themselves of maintaining women, leaving many single mothers with the heavy burden and great worry of trying to secure a job and fend for themselves and their children alone.

Feminists have often attacked Islam for its social rules that define the woman as the homemaker and the man as the breadwinner, accusing this financial dependence of the Muslim woman upon her male guardian as undermining her status and financial security. However, Islam does not view the role of a mother as inferior to a wage-earner, rather it elevates motherhood to a position of high esteem. Moreover, to be bestowed the right to be provided for always is not  source of humiliation but an act of mercy that lifts from women permanently the burden of fending for themselves and their children. It secures for them that which is viewed as a luxury within secular states - the ability to commit their time and efforts to full-time motherhood and the effective upbringing of her children without being forced to compromise their parental role due to work. Undoubtedly there are Muslim women today who have been left financially insecure as a result of divorce or the death of their male provider. However, it is not Islamic law that is at fault here but the absence of the Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate" system that if present would hold the man to account for any failings in financially supporting his family or itself is obliged to provide for those women who have no male relative to support them, guaranteeing women financial security always. All this does not mean that a woman cannot seek employment in Islam for Allah (swt) gives her this right. It simply means that she is not a slave to the economy nor to her husband but a slave to her Rabb who defines for her a role that cherishes her uniqueness as a woman and establishes tranquillity in her life.

Dr. Nazreen Nawaz

Member of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir