07 March 2012

Muslim Organization Also Pursuing Religious Exemption to Birth Control Requirement

A Muslic cleric who leads an Islamic organization in Akron, Ohio has filed a request for an exemption for Islamic organizations from the requirement for employers' insurance to cover birth control due to religious objections to the mandate.

Mullah Shaleed al-Malnik, who leads the Greater Akron Islamic Foundation of Akron, OH, emboldened by the support for the Roman Catholic religion to forgo requirements to cover birth control for employees, says that while in the Islamic faith, birth control is not expressly forbidden, it is frowned upon.  By covering birth control, the Foundation feels it would be in conflict with the prophet Mohammed's directive to 'marry and procreate.'

"It is our desire to practice our religion in the way we best see fit," Mullah al-Malnik stated.  "We are actually planning to offer birth control coverage, but only to married women, and only with a note from their husbands. By seeking an audience with Congress, we want to ensure we are holding to the letter of the law." 

Harold R. Jacobs, a professor of comparative religions at Emory University, shared that "the Muslim faith does mandate that birth control decisions should be a decision by both partners.  If a Muslim woman wanted to [take] birth control pills, for example, it would be in keeping with the teachings of Mohammed that her husband should have equal input on that decision."

Ohio state representative Rachel Cummings (D) disagreed.  "Women's reproductive rights need to be protected.  It is simply not a reflection of modern times that any organization in the United States should require a husband's permission for a woman to make her own health decisions."

A staffer for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, confirms that their office had received the request for a hearing from Mullah al-Malnik and were working to schedule some time on the docket.  The staffer asked to remain anonymous because he did not have permission to share details of the hearing.