Bangladesh: Muslim Leader Likens ‘Working Women’ to Prostitutes

Bangladesh is once again embroiled in a fierce national debate after Muslim leader Shafiqur Rahman, the chief of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, compared women working outside the home to “prostitution” in a social media post that was later deleted. The remarks, made as the country heads toward national elections, have triggered outrage across political parties and civil society, while also exposing how Bangladesh has been drifting toward an increasingly absolutist application of Islam in recent years, with religious zeal finding a renewed and expanding following across various sections of the population.

In the now-deleted post on X, Rahman wrote: “On the question of women, Jamaat’s position is neither confused nor apologetic — it is principled. We do not think women should come into leadership. In Jamaat, it is impossible. Allah did not permit this. We believe that when women are pushed out of the home in the name of modernity, they are exposed to exploitation, moral decay, and insecurity. It’s nothing but another form of prostitution.”

The post also framed women’s presence in public spaces and workplaces as evidence of moral decline rather than social progress. Jamaat later claimed the post was deleted due to “misinterpretation,” and suggested the account may have been compromised, an explanation that people dismissed as unconvincing, given the party’s long-held ideological positions.

In 2026, such a statement struck many as not only offensive, but dangerously regressive. Equating women’s economic participation with prostitution strips working women of dignity and agency, reducing their contributions to a moral caricature. Bangladesh’s economy is heavily dependent on women, from garment workers and teachers to doctors, entrepreneurs, and public servants. To frame their labor as immoral is to delegitimize their existence and reinforce standards that confine women to domestic spaces and treat their autonomy as a social threat. The controversy has brought new attention the nearly universally recognized phenomenon that misogyny is not incidental, but structural within Islam. Jamaat’s position is suggestive of women’s independence being viewed as disorder, wherein control over women’s mobility is central to social regulation in regions where Islamic principles are dominant, as Rahman lays bare how deeply gender inequality is embedded in Islamic ideology.

Rather than distancing itself from the remarks, Jamaat’s women’s wing moved to defend the party line. Nurunnisa Siddika, the Secretary of Jamaat-e-Islami’s Central Women’s Division, publicly doubled down on the position that women should not hold top leadership roles. Speaking to reporters after meetings at the Election Commission, Siddika said women leading the party were “against the Qur’an,” and asserted that men are divinely ordained as guardians and decision-makers. The fact that they have not nominated any female candidates in the upcoming elections therefore surprises no one.

She argued that Bangladesh’s history of having two female prime ministers had not solved women’s problems, asking rhetorically whether violence against women had decreased under female leadership. Her comments reinforced the perception that Jamaat’s gender ideology is held institutionally, and is not exclusively the view of one leader.

The controversy has developed against a dark backdrop of a documented rise in violence against women in the past couple of years, as adherence to Sharia has experienced a revival in the country following Hasina’s removal.

Human rights organizations reported hundreds of rape cases in the past year alone, including a disturbing number including minors and gang assaults. Several victims died after sexual violence, while others reportedly took their own lives following rape. While these figures reflect only reported cases, many more are believed to go unreported due to fear, stigma, or a lack of trust in authorities.

Alongside sexual violence, there has been a surge in moral policing and mob intimidation. Women have been harassed, threatened, or assaulted for not wearing the hijab or for appearing in public spaces deemed “inappropriate.” Videos and eyewitness accounts have circulated online showing groups confronting women over clothing, while students on university campuses have spoken of increased pressure to conform to Islamic dress codes. Women’s sporting events and cultural programs have also faced threats from Islamic groups demanding their cancellation.

These developments clearly stem from the growing influence of Islam in the political landscape. With state institutions weakened and political authority contested, Islamic groups have found space to assert social control, often targeting women as the most visible symbols of change. Understanding that misogynistic rhetoric at the top translates into actual violence on the streets, the Jamaat chief’s remarks, and the women’s wing’s defense of them, have come to symbolize more than a single offensive post. They signal a greater shift towards Islam and Sharia, with women’s freedoms being increasingly questioned and violence normalized under the guise of morality.

As Bangladesh inches toward elections, it is for the world to see whether women will continue to belong in Bangladesh’s public life at all. If current trends continue unchecked, Bangladesh risks sliding toward a social order where women’s autonomy is systematically eroded through classic Afghanistan-style restrictions.