Women in Islam: Distinction Between Religious & Fundamentalist Approaches?

Professor Dr. Farooq Hassan [1]
Special UN Ambassador for Family

Synopsis of a Paper presented at the Paris International Conference on Women (Conference internationale des femmes a Paris) on Women, Islam & Equality ( Les femmes, l’ Islam, l’egalite ) held by Women, Auvers sur Oise, Paris

Paris, France, 27 August 2005

I am very privileged to address this learned and distinguished gathering of outstanding contemporary scholars of Islam and trans-national culture and historiography. Such intellectual leadership of acknowledged theoreticians and activists of these fields would greatly assist the enormously delicate subject of Women in Islam as evident and perceived in the troubled contemporary prevalent time.

In this analysis, the doctrinal and place of women as found in the basic sources of Islam in contra-distinction to such an evaluation from “fundamentalist” perspectives will be examined. The “delicacy”, to which I refer to, arises not because of a priori intricacy of the theme or content of this topic. It is also not connected with any specific inherent predilection about such a consequence being inevitable while analyzing Islam. It emanates in the context of the current highly charged political, strategic and social upheavals that are in evidence since the beginning of the present millennium in countries where we have large Muslim populations.

To understand this subject with objectivity, it is necessary to draw a balance between doctrinal purity on the one hand and the felt “necessities” of time on the other. Thus pragmatism is necessarily relevant in this inquiry. Any other manner of approach based upon purely academic niceties devoid of the realties that clearly confront us would not result in a meaningful awareness of this subject. It is further to be noted that any inquiry regarding how the so called “fundamentalists” view Islam’s perceptions about women, without examining the totality of the surrounding phenomenon, which is essentially political and cultural in nature, would be incomplete, perhaps giving rise to even misleading conclusions. As such, I sincerely felicitate the organizers of this truly significant meeting as they manifestly have the vision to find answers to such contentious inquiries at the present time.

Preliminary perspectives

Before examining the relevant issues relating to this matter, let me articulate, broadly of course, my a fortiori understanding of this subject. As I see it, any religion has some aspects of its core beliefs and tenets which are so fundamental that without which no particular faith can even claim to exist. In this sense, could one say that all faiths are fundamentalist in character? By reducing such fundamental beliefs to an irreducible minimum, the answer would be in the affirmative. In this sense, the term is used with purely theological connotations in mind and not with any political, social or psychological nuances in our purview.

However, let me at the outset make a point of vital significance. From a theological viewpoint, all Muslims must believe in five essential or “fundamental” tenets of Islam. As such, do all Muslims qualify for the description of “fundamentalists”? From a doctrinal theological viewpoint the answer would seem to be in the affirmative. Although there do exit different major sects, even branches in Islam, the distinction inter se is not based on a diverse understanding of their beliefs in the core texts or basic scriptures of the Islamic faith. The differences are essentially descriptive of the peripheral or incidental rituals or beliefs of their adherents qua non basic postulates of their approaches to religion. [2]

It should be borne in mind, therefore, that, while using the term “fundamentalist”, what is really aimed to be stressed is the “extremist” connotations in some peoples mind about some specific conceptions that some Muslim groups have in terms of the socio-economical, political or cultural biases that are contrary to the norms and practices of the civil society even amongst the Muslims. It is not really a doctrinal theological delineation that is being emphasized when such a term is used.

In other words, historically, the usage of this term, while signifying rigidity in a pejorative sense, is essentially descriptive of a political or a societal attitude rather than a theological one. Until around the 1980’s, the term used to designate such beliefs amongst Muslims was “Islamists”. Then the term “fundamentalist” gained currency and was accepted as such until very recently by mostly the Western press and governments. In the wake of the two recent wars, in Afghanistan and then Iraq, the phraseology seems to have changed. Now the preferred term is “extremist”. Be that as it may, I have no problem with any of these terms so long as the concept being advanced is clearly understood. [3]

But diverse problems begin to arise when such concepts and terms get mixed and mingled in the complexities of contemporary international politics and the resultant attitudes of those who feel that they have to “defend” their faiths in such situations. Cultural prejudices which are evidently heavily visible in many Islamic societies also compound the emergent problems.

Indeed, sometimes it is not easy to decipher whether the prejudices against women in Islamic societies, properly so-called, are the result of “religious” misunderstandings or just cultural heritage of a locality or straightforward political machinations of the proponents of such attitudes. [4]

I personally feel that fundamentalism in this sense is essentially an attitude adopted by only some of the followers of a religion, mostly out of a sense of insecurity or a feeling that “the” religion, as they see it, is in danger of losing its identity; sometimes it is just an overt course of conduct for adopting a harsh, may be even violent, attitude towards some other group or groups of the people of the same faith; it could also be directed against outsiders and foreign entities for the same motivation. It can equally emanate as a tool or modality of raw power struggle nationally or internationally. No religion is fundamentalist in the sense per se since none aims to be vindictive or destructive of those who just do not share the particular beliefs; if, however, its avowed goals, as seen by such partisans is to do so, then the real problem is not with the said faith but that group which so believes; as such, generally it is only a group of followers of a religion who are fundamentalists and not the religion as such. [5]

Viewed as such, “fundamentalism” is not a monopoly of adherents of Islam; there are fundamentalist Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and even Buddhists. Sometimes so-called fundamentalist movements, particularly in Christianity, have served the purpose of cleansing social practices by going back to the original teachings but such movements are more properly to be described as 'reform' movements. [6] What is objectionable in this sense in 'fundamentalism' is the unstated assumption that its adherents alone know the true meaning of their religion; they go sometimes as far as to resort to violence against all and sundry who disagree with them. Such behavior is then. regrettably, justified by asserting it as permissible by religious dogmas. As often is the case, the religion which these fundamentalists profess to be protecting usually forbids such violence or single mindedness of interpretation or thought.

With these preliminary comments about the ethos of the ensuing analysis, let me advert initially to the place and content of women within the confines of Islamic doctrinal postulates. After traversing these norms, we shall see the “fundamentalist” versions of such issues to reveal the manner through which the puritanical message of the faith is being gradually eroded. [7]

In parenthesis, I may note that I am acutely conscious of the inherent moral dangers of my approaching this topic as such. It could be argued that such an approach is itself predicated by an apologists’ mindset. While the superficial, even apparent, weight of such semantics is certainly historically visible, let me say that I articulate such a prognosis on the basis of my own belief about these basically perspective issues on the foundation of my own experience and religious convictions.

I am sure that Islam, like other great religious philosophies of the human heritage, has to have in its fold a nucleus that is entirely reconcilable with equal treatment of men and women and in harmony with progressive evolution. I believe that having withstood the vicissitudes of time and of history for fifteen hundred years, Islam’s central positioning of the human race has to have primacy in all of its teachings. Not only thematically the central emphasis of such focus of Islam must keep abreast of different cultures and times, it has to be broad enough to accommodate in its fold the indispensability of meeting the needs of all times. [8] God calls human beings as “Ashraf ul Mukhlukat”, or “the greatest of all his creations”. A fortiori, this concept covers both men and women. It also envisages changes in societal behavior which are natural and inevitable as history moves on. It should follow that inequality between men and women can not be contemplated by basic Islamic postulates or that it can not be genuinely progressive.

Understanding Islam’s doctrinal messages

Islam places, as elaborated hereinafter, the highest significance in life to family (as an institution), towards its different members, in particular women and children. The duty of “care” and “responsibility” is directly vested in those who have the ability to provide help to others in the family that need such aid. The message of Islam is contained in the word of God, the Holy Quran itself. Reference to such citations will hopefully stress the high significance that Islam places on this matter.

Throughout its history, the Islamic faith has been both deeply cherished and misunderstood for its emphasis on enveloping the entirety of a person’s life with its normative structure of rules of conduct and precepts. Amongst the major norms of such expected behavior are those that are devised to apply to the institution of the family and women. Simultaneously, the jurisprudence and moral philosophy of the faith also acutely focuses on the larger matter pertaining to the subject of human rights of these categories of the human race.

This discussion proceeds in the background [context] of the acute crisis, of international proportions, regarding the message and place of contemporary Islam. Whether or not one agrees with the thesis advocated initially in modern times by Samuel Huntington, it cannot be ignored that, from political avocations to the cultural, religious practices and beliefs of Muslims have come under severe criticism in the popular Western press and governments. As such, the “clash” that he spoke of has arisen [evolved], realistically speaking, from being imperceptible to being highly visible.

In my view, Huntington was regrettably realistic in projecting a thesis of Clash of Civilizations in the 21st Century. However, such clashes are fundamentally of “political" dimension and have little by way of application in the private or ordinary lives of Muslims. This conviction has been strengthened by late Pope John Paul’s recent affirmation of this trend in his recent address to a multi-congregational audience in Assisi on 1/22/2002 when he said, particularly to the Muslims, that he feared what he saw was an ongoing, even increasing, crescendo of clashes, involving the Western civilizations and that of the Islamic peoples. As such, ab initio, while the Huntington variety of clash is entirely of political connotations, it has begun to engulf larger populations of Muslims in the totality of their lives. When such metamorphosis begins, the finer distinctions of political and social tend to disappear.

In face of such an onslaught, many Islamic leaders have plainly become afraid and few have openly defended anything that Muslims believe in or do. It is indeed “fashionable” to appear to be “modernistic” in outlook in all that affects the statecraft of such nations. It is in this context, in a Hegelian sense of historical perspective, that recent political events towards a “secularized” Islamic World have to be seen. [9] Different phrases to denote this emphasis are employed by powers and forces that may be to exhibit such a policy. However, I am certain that “secular” in this context is not the equivalent of “liberal”. The former has a political expediency angle underlying its avocation or adoption. The latter is an index of a thought process of policy and attitudes.

When this process of being placed to “defend” one’s faith is initiated, so-called hard liners become ascendant. Amongst the major objectives they advocate for, societal resurgence includes one of treating women differently than is expected by good and decent Muslim societies. According to some strategic thinking, this behavior is deemed “desirable” by such hard liners since it provides them with a psychological sense of relief considering they are convinced they are under siege from the those who are believed to be aggressing somewhere against the Muslims in the vicinity [10].

Humanitarian postulates and dogmas of Islam, as of other great faiths, are heavily grounded on principles of high morality. Any dilution in their ethos would be a devastating blow to the religious practices of its millions of adherents. Fundamentalists may have, thus, reasonable political grounds for doing what they are in the process of undertaking. However, to do so in the name of Islam is both unjustified and regrettable.

Before concluding this introductory preface of this presentation, it may be mentioned that the theological controversies which confronts doctrinal Islam are as much the result of its religious opponents as it is of its ardent political supporters. Many crucial issues have thus been confounded by Islam's own clergy, or what goes generally undisputed by such labels. If I may, most respectfully, quote from one of my own legal works on this subject:

“History has dealt an irony, in that Islam has often been controlled by priests though the faith rejects the institution of organized priesthood. By the term “priest” I do not include the great saints, mystics, traditionalists’ thinkers and other men of piety and learning who form a distinct class. For centuries the ill educated mullahs have periodically monopolized the pulpit. With one hand, the mullah has woven into Islam a crazy network of fantasy and fanaticism. With the other hand, [he] has often used it as an elastic cloak for political power and expediencies.” [11]

Basic Islamic conceptions regarding Family & Women

In the context of Islamic family obligations, a family is defined as “a human social group whose members are bound together by the bond of blood ties and or marital relationship” [12]. The Quranic injunctions created the basic framework of such obligations. The major thrust of such injunctions was to ameliorate the position of women and to grant to daughters rights and privileges ignored by the ancient customs which were present at the advent of Islam. “These Quranic reforms, as well as customary practice, constitute the substance of classical family law” in Muslim philosophy. [13]

The basic perception of marriage, which is considered to be the foundation of family life, is in the nature of “the strongest bond” [14] that exists in human relations. Surah 4: An-Nisa allows marriage of choice but forbids husband from inheriting the wife’s property against her will. [15] According to Quran, men and women have equitable and proportionate rights and responsibilities in a family. In order to preserve the survival of the family unit and to ensure the viability of the institution, it has been provided that the weaker elements in this unit have higher levels of protection. As such, the Quran allows the rights of women not only in the context of marriage [16], but also in protection from slander [17], maintenance [18], and care of children [19]. The cumulative quintessence of these diverse injunctions regarding the family as a social unit signifies that laws of Divine origin are in place to ensure the integrity of this unit.

In this scheme of the preservation of the family as a unit in a society described briefly above, the Islamic message seems to be to:

1. Make marriage based on free consent.

2. Preserve the economic viability of the wife.

3. Make the off spring, with great emphasis on the females of this union, an integral part of this unit in which they not only owe various duties of loyalty and respect to their parents, in return the parents must exert their best moral influence on them.

(1) Position of Women

While focusing on the institution of the family, two central themes need to be recognized. First, the extraordinary “secure” position and status Islamic thought gives to females in the family. While addressing the topic of females in a family, the Quran has several direct commandments. First, female infanticide, extensively practiced in non-advanced societies throughout history, has been severely condemned. Not only did it prohibit this evil cultural heritage of that 7th Century culture in which Islam began its infancy, it rebuked the idol worshippers of Arabia who ascribed daughters to God but wanted they to have only male heirs and reacted accordingly in their prevalent social practices. The Quran says:

And they assign daughters
For Allah! Glory be to Him!
And for themselves (sons- The
Issue they desire!) When news
Is brought to them, of (the birth
Of) a female (child), his face Darkens,
And is filled with inward grief!
With shame does he hide himself
From his people because of bad
News he has had!
Shall he retain it on (sufferance and)
Contempt, or bury it in dust? Ah! What an
Evil (choice) they decide on? [20]

Islam’s initial contribution of immense historical significance lay in recognizing the status of women as equals of men. Women’s inferior position in pre-Islamic Arabian culture was reflected in them being considered as chattels. According to a leading author, “marriage closely resembled a sale through which a woman became the property of her husband.” [21] Having no importance, in either initiation or termination of marriage, she was supposed to follow her husband’s tribe and essentially bear children. Since she legally was supposed to have left her tribe, thereby she was also deemed to have relinquish all property rights therein. As a wife, a woman became totally subject to her husband and his tribe. In this background came the Quranic inunctions regarding women‘s right to be respected, particularly as a mother, property rights, and to be considered an integral party of the family unit. [22]

According to Islamic injunctions, the aim and “purpose of marriage is to create and live in an atmosphere of love, harmony and companionship to fulfill the higher purposes of life.” [23] Leading Quranic mandates concerning these aspects of God’s commandments, stressing the complimentary roles of both the sexes to each other, can be gleaned from the from following verses:

They (women) are your garments
And ye (men) are their garments [24]

And again a famous verse says:

The Believers, men
And women are protectors
One of another. [25]

Perhaps equally well known is the following commandment:

And among His (God’s) Signs
Is this, that He created
For you mates among
Yourselves, that ye may
Dwell in tranquility with them,
And He has put Love
And mercy between your (hearts):
Verily in this are signs
For those who reflect. [26]

(2) Position of Parents.

Islamic teachings lay the greatest stress on the position of parents, especially of mothers. Indeed, the Quran gives a lofty position of respect to one’s ancestry and places the status of mother’s only second to God. [27] The Quran expressly mandates:

Reverence God, through Whom
Ye demand your mutual (rights),
And (reverence) the wombs
(That bore you): for God
Ever watches over you. [28]

Further the Quran says:

And We have enjoined on man
(To be good) to his parents
In travail upon travail
Did his mother bear him,
And in years twain
Was his weaning: (hear)
The command, “ Show gratitude
To me and to thy parents’
To Me is (Thy final) Goal. [29]

In another specific commandment God says:

We have enjoined on man
Kindness to his parents:
In pain did his mother
Bear him, and in pain
Did she give him birth. In
The carrying of the (child)
To his weaning is
(A period of) thirty months. [30]

A mandate to cater for and look after aged parents is directly attended to in the Quran. It is said:

Thy Lord had decreed
That ye worship none but Him,
And that ye be kind
To parents. When one or both of them attain
Old age in life,
Say not to them a word
Of contempt, nor repel them,
But address them
In terms of honor. [31]

The underlying message in such commandments derives its ethical foundations from the concept, inter alia, of “ihsan”. This concept, which figures in diverse forms in Islamic teachings, in the words of an author, “denotes what is right, good, and beautiful.” [32] In further analysis, it has been articulated by writers that through this Divine mandate we are commanded to do "among other things, kindness, compassion, charity, reverence, conscientiousness, and sound performance”. This applies with full emphasis to the parent and child relationship. [33]

It is further clear that this basic manifestation of “ihsan” has specific reference to the inter se relations between family members. In other words, such good will that is expected to be displayed towards the rest of the people in a community, ex hypothesi, increases manifold toward one’s own kith and kin. One author remarks:

It is the Muslim’s religious duty as well as virtue to show “ihsan” to his parents, be they Muslims like himself or otherwise. Concrete behavioral manifestations of this Divine Ordinance of “ihsan” to the parents include active empathy or ‘role taking’, compassionate gratitude, patience, prayer for them even after their demise, honoring their commitments on their behalf when they can no longer do so, sincere counsel, and veneration. An integral part of the children’s absolute religious duty is to provide for their parents in case of need and help them to be as comfortable as possible. [34]

(3) Economic Responsibilities for Family & Women

Economic responsibility in the family is placed primarily on the husband. Further domestic duties are proportionately to be “shared”. However, it is the duty of the man to support his entire family within the level of his abilities in the social structure of the society. One author maintains it:

The wife’s maintenance entails her incontestable right to lodging, clothing, food, and general care. The wife’s lodge must be adequate so as to ensure her privacy, comfort, and independence. This is interpreted by three major Schools of Law to mean that the lodging quarter must befit the means and lifestyle of both mates. However, it is the wife’s home in her capacity as wife; she has exclusive right to it. None of her husband’s relatives, dependents, or any other person may live with her in the same lodge unless she voluntarily agrees o it. The main concern here seems to be the welfare of the wife and the stability of the marriage. The husband’s responsibility for the wife’s has shelter does not entitle him to impose upon her any disagreeable arrangement of residence. [35]

These observations are derived from the Quran from which the following well-known verse may be cited with advantage:

Lodge them where you are lodging, according to your means, and do not press
Them, so as to straiten their circumstances.
Let the man of plenty expend out of his plenty. As for whose provision is
Stinted for him, let him expend of what God has given him. God changes no one
Beyond his means. After difficulty, God will soon grant relief.[36]

In a family, the wife’s right to be financially maintained is established by Quranic injunctions and by unanimous consent amongst jurists of all its principal legal Schools of Law. This right is vested regardless of whether the wife is a Muslim or not, rich or poor. There is also the mention in Islamic thought that this provision of maintenance is not based on some commercial formulations but on the basis of affection, love, affection and compassion that should exist between the husband and wife. According to one writer, “The essence of marriage is compassion, of which she is entitled to receive as much as she gives. The husband too, is instructed to be a source of compassion and security for his mate, to initiate and reciprocate in kind, not only to receive.” [37]

(4) Position of Children and the weak in a Family.

The Quran mandates that young children be properly look after and nurtured. [38] It is further stated in the same injunction that the children be raised by the mutual consultation between the parents. These directions form a part of the general guidelines provided in the Quran dealing with responsibility of family members towards one another and of the responsibility of those who are in a position to help to do so with a sense of a scared duty. There is a call to the believers that those who truly believe in Him are asked to be kind and forth coming in their assistance to those in need, or are disprivileged, or are handicapped. Indeed these injunctions go as far as to impose hospitality and to providing help to the elderly kin, those who are indigent, or even for a while for those who are traveling. [39]

An allied concept to provide for those in need in the family, including women and children, is that of “Zakat”. It is a basic obligation of a Muslim to participate in social responsibilities by donating a small part of their savings to those in need. This “purifies” the person giving such assistance. While thanking God for His blessings, it is deigned to help others in distress and needing help. The Quran says:

Spend out of (the bounties)
We have provided for you,
Before the day comes
When no bargaining
(Will avail), nor friendship
Nor intercession. [40]

In order to cause encouragement in assistance of others, God says that he will multiply the rewards to the generous in the hereafter. Indeed, in one passage in the Quran, it is described as a “loan to God”: -

Who is he
That will loan to God
A beautiful loan, which God
Will multiply unto his credit
And multiply many times?
It is that God giveth (you)
Want or plenty,
And to Him shall be
Your return. [41]

One of the foremost authors on Islamic learning points out, therefore, that: “ No religion prior to Islam had consecrated charity, the support of the widow, the orphan, and the helpless poor, by enrolling among the positive enactments of the system.” [42]

(5) Doctrinal basis of “care” Rights

It may be instructive to view the doctrinal basis of the “care” rights in the philosophy generated by the Quran. As I see it, two predominant themes permeate this subject.

First, the basis of all the desirable human actions emanate in the concept of kindness, especially to women. In Arabic, the corresponding word for God’s ever present kindness is designated by the word “Rahim” or “Rahman”. This word appears many times in the Quran and indicates one of the titles for God by reference to him as “the Kind One” or “the One Who gives kindness”. Indeed, this word is oft repeated in Muslim prayers and is perhaps the most beloved of God’s descriptions in the human vocabulary. Linguistically, it comes from the root word “Rahm” meaning the “womb”. It underscores the theme of God’s care and love for all His creatures as a “Mother”. This is important for it also shows the status eventually bestowed upon the institution of motherhood in a Family.

The loving and compassionate attitude of “care” reflected in this description of the Almighty is amply reflected in the Quran. [43] The Quran further indicates that He is pleased with those who are kind and helpful to those in need and distress. He further says that He will reward “good deeds” of this category in a special way. [44] Islamic Law actually, in the positive science of its rules, demarcates two kinds of rights. The first category is that of “Rights of God” called “Haqauq Allah”. The second category is known as “ Rights of God’s creatures”. This is known as “Huqaq al ibad”. The Quran and Islamic Law are explicit in diverse ways that, unless a person fulfills both kinds of rights in his life, his totality of duties remains unsatisfied. Indeed, in terms of spirituality, it is also maintained that obedience to God is not really complete unless help is rendered to one’s family, then to kith and kin, then to ones other distant relatives needing assistance and finally to neighbors and even strangers that come to visit a person of means. [45] It is said in the Quran:

Sees thou one
Who denies Judgment
(To come)?
Then such is the (man)
Who repulses the orphan
(With harshness),
The feeding of the indigent.
So woe to the worshippers
Who are neglectful of their Prayer
Of their Prayer
Those who (want but)
To be seen (of men),
But refuse (to supply)
(Even) neighborly needs. [46]

The Second basis of these rights is the Islamic conceptions of Justice. It will be see that the Quran, while addressing the matters of human relationships, laid the greatest stress on justice - again particularly its application to women deserves notice.

Whether it is a question of the rights of the members of family, or those of the people in a State, the Quran mandates in various forms the highest adherence to Justice, called “adl”. While there may be a number of ways to look at this phenomenon, I think the basic message of the Quran is that merit and the quality of one’s claims and demands or expectations are to be evaluated on the basis of justice and righteousness. Righteousness itself consists of three elements: Just action (“’amal”)
Adl
Accordingly, for human action to be acceptable in a worldly context, it must nevertheless accord high priorities to these notions enumerated above for it to be considered worthwhile in a religious or spiritual connotation. Its most eloquent expose’ comes in the following Quranic pronouncement:

It is not righteousness
That you turn your faces
Towards East or west;
But it is righteousness,
To believe in God
And the Last Day,
And the Angles,
And the Book
And the Messengers;
To spend your substance,
Out of love for Him
For your kin
For Orphans,
For the needy
For the wayfarer
For those who ask,
And for the ransom of slaves
To be steadfast in prayer,
And practice regular charity;
To fulfill the contracts
Which you have made;
And to be firm and patient,
In pain (or suffering)
And adversity,
And throughout
All periods of panic
Such are the people
Of truth, the God-fearing. [47}

In another notable injunction, the Quran candidly asserts:

The most honored of you
In the sight of Allah
Is (he who is) the most
Righteous of you. [48]

One other memorable passage about Justice may be mentioned before leaving this point. The Quran says:

O ye who believe!
Standout firmly
For justice, as witnesses
To Allah, even as against
Yourselves…………
Follow not the lusts
(Of your hearts), lest ye
Swerve, and if ye
Distort (justice) or decline
To do justice, verily
Allah is well acquainted
With all that ye do. [49]

The above brief analysis reveals the emphatic focus that the Quran places on the concept of “kindness” and “justice”. There are other allied concepts as well that tend to generate the ethos of Islamic dynamics towards creating a “caring” society with the family occupying the pivotal position. [50] It is self evident that while addressing matters relating to affection for one’s family, and allied expectation of assistance required of a Muslim community, the ingredient of “Adl”, or justice, plays a uniquely esoteric and ethical role.

Fundamentalist emphasis

In an environment of changing or even “decaying” public mores or traditions, moral and ethical Islamic doctrines can still install more progressive, yet conservative, perspectives in such important matters as those involving the development of family rights and values revolving around fundamental human rights of women. With respect to the divergence of views on issues relating to women between established Islamic values in contradistinction to fundamentalist perspectives, it is now necessary to advert to the latter.

The protagonists of the fundamentalist orientation cannot, of course, dispute the availability of the Quranic messages already cited; nevertheless at the societal and cultural levels they do have a divergent emphasis on certain “public” aspects of the role and functions of women. In my evaluation of this divergence, one can straightway succinctly focus on three fields in which the fundamentalist approaches may be particularly noticed. These three fields relate to:

Women’s education.
Women’s access to public life.
Behavioral restrictions relating to dress, participation in family and personal inter-action amongst their peers.

It will seen that the basic focus of all these three issues relate to an effort by the fundamentalist thinking to regulate the development and movements of women in the particular society in which they live. The level of attaining these limitations would depend upon the quantum of societal awareness that already exists in that society. It is axiomatic that in more advanced and progressive environments the quantum of restrictions is both less and more subtle.

In societies, however, wherein the entireties of people are essentially Muslims, such as Pakistan or Iran, these limitations can be more ostensible and pronounced. Such pronounced and visible denial of ordinary human liberties for women is manifestly more so in rural areas of such countries, or areas which are far flung from main urban centers. In such places, and in a number of Islamic societies in Africa, the attitudes of the fundamentalists have a decisive affect on societal practices. This was always historically true. But with the advent of political developments of the last few years across the world, in which Muslims find themselves the targets of various misfortunes, the fundamentalist activists have become understandably more goal oriented in their policies towards women.

In the implementation of such attitudes, the fundamentalist’s philosophy, irrespective of its depth or commitment to such convictions, believes that the bringing of women on to the domain of public or educated spectrum should not be openly allowed or at least discouraged. These attitudes have been greatly hardened by what has gone on in terms of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The resultant position being that there is clearly, from the perspectives of liberal or democratic ideals, a less than satisfactory status for the women of many such areas of the world.

I may add that local customs and culture have also to be reckoned in such societies. In some areas, this kind of state of affairs regarding women is prevalent as matter of history. Religion has nothing directly to do with it. At best, it may be attributed a “secondary” role in establishing to provide this kind of a negative milieu. Women, regardless of religion, have to comply with cultural “regulations” in their daily lives as that is how the people generally live in those localities.

For instance, in Pakistan, denial of some basic human rights of Women, as enunciated by Islam or in the accepted human rights’ texts of the international community, such as violence or honor killings, have little to do with prevalent religion (which is clearly Islam) but certainly are connected to and emanating from cultural prejudices and local customary practices. In these circumstances, while no doubt the fundamentalist elements of the society have a more visible role to play in the enforcement or compliance with such unwelcome rules of conduct devised for women by the society, it is not invariable that this is so. Ordinary people may also be the vehicle for the use of discouraging societal compulsions. The worst and most notorious cases of this kind, which were internationally condemned, were not enforced by fundamentalists but by ordinary, even, “progressive” or “modern” elements of the Pakistani society.

Conclusions

The aim of all conservatives’ elements in such environments is to ensure that the traditional male domination of the society is maintained, as that is how they have been living there for centuries. I believe that this is true of most Islamic societies, as much as for people of other faiths in similar circumstances. But, as we are only concentrating on the former, it is necessary to point out that, as such, traits of such conservative and traditional thinking have to be modified and moderated to achieve democratic levels of acceptability.

Regrettably, women in many Islamic societies are manifestly given secondary status. Even in states such as Pakistan, wherein there is much demagoguery about “enlightened moderation of Islam”, there are more cases of gang rapes and honor killings than any where else in the world [51]. Generally, the women have little by way of actual security and the issues that confront them in daily lives are seldom, if ever, given the importance they deserve. Polygamy, poverty, and absence of equality, in matters such as divorce and child custody, are legal matters still awaiting a proper redress in many an Islamic environment.

The primary foundation of achieving such a healthy metamorphosis is through education. I advocate that all concerned institutions and governments must attempt to improve this aspect of the lives of the peoples of such areas by making the fruits of education reach all sections of the society.

Only an educated society is capable of becoming aware of the evils of controlling women by societal or state controls. But, whether the governments are capable of doing this, is another matter. As such, the path ahead for achieving a [just] level of human rights regime for women is not free from difficulties and problems. In these troubled times, those bent upon providing women their just and rightful place have quite a struggle ahead. Not only must they work for alleviating the societal ills pointed out above, they have to devise methods by which governments’ policies are genuinely egalitarian and not dictated by the political exigencies of these difficult time.

How they can do so is not easy to envisage. Only a little more than a decade ago the US utilized the mammoth zeal of Muslim jihadist elements to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Now they (the jihadists) are branded as terrorists or at least extremists. How women rights’ elements can control such policies of a superpower is very difficult to envisage. Religion was used there for political purposes. Now we are told that it is very wrong to do so, as human “liberty” is a higher norm so that we can we have “democracy”.

The foreseeable challenges thus emanate from a desire to have religion serve patently irreligious goals and from illogically admonishing the liberal facets of contemporary thinking about human rights and perceivable trends. Indeed, all religions that have survived through man’s history over several hundreds of years stress essentially a message to be progressive, tolerant and to avoid rigidity. The broader aim of every society that aims to be genuinely attentive to all within its fold has to be “liberal’, in the sense Rawls has canvassed, not in an empty sense in which contemporary politicians, some of tremendous international weight, have been stressing of late. The later classes of people have transformed even some of the most innocuous and rhetorical sounding dogmas of liberalism and morals into one of the most ferocious political transformations of society ever witnessed in human history.

Numbered end notes:

[1] D.Phil.; B A Juris, MA. M.Litt, (Oxon), DCL (Columbia), DIA (Harvard), Of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister at Law, UK, Attorney at Law, US, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan; Affiliate & Visiting Professor of International Affairs, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Special UN Ambassador for Family for the World Family Alliance, Advisor to four Prime Ministers of Pakistan on Law & Foreign Affairs; Delegate to the UN, NY, & to the Human Rights Commission on Human Rights & to the Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, Leader of Pakistan’s Delegation to the International Criminal Court Prep Coms., NY & Delegate to UN GA Sessions. Also, inter alia, on the Faculty of Law, Human Rights Program, Harvard University, Faculty of Political Science, Tufts University, the Secretary General, American Asian Institute of Strategic Studies, Boston. International Legal Counsel before transnational Tribunals & US Congress. David M Kennedy Scholar of International Studies, Kennedy Center, BYU 2003-4, distinguished Visiting Professor, JNU, Delhi, Memorial Lecturer at Benaras Hindu University, Mumbai University &Ambadkar Center, Aurangabad, 2004-5 ;President, Pakistan Family Forum, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee, Pakistan Bar Association at Lahore, 2003/4. Given the King Faisal Award 2002 & 2003 International Professor of Human Rights Award, Saudi Arabia.

[2] The term “fundamentalist” does have an accepted meaning in Christian theology where some denominations, such as the Baptists are considered as such for their formal belief in their Written Scriptures; other Christian denominations or evangelistic movements may not have a similar understanding of such perspectives.

[3] The reason for this change is based on awareness that in the war on terror, it became difficult to describe all such actions as emanating from “religious fundamentalists” since such actions were erupting in far flung corners of the world wherein high religious adherence was not really visible. Hence to be more non-theological and more political in emphasis, the nomenclature was altered almost non-obtrusively.

[4] It is outside the limited purview of this essentially “speaking work” to examine this point in depth.

[5] Hence I use the term “fundamentalism” in this script in its “popular” sense as evident in the usage today by press and governments of diverse countries. It does not purport to be lexicographical or semantically philosophical in content. However, it useful to adopt the Concise Oxford Dictionary that defines this particular concept as: “Maintenance, in opposition to modernism of traditional orthodox beliefs.”

[6] The history of Christianity provides many significant illustrations of this matter. For an excellent contemporary analysis see The Christian Question in American Politics, Justin E. Smith, 2004, University of Concordia, Montreal, Canada.

[7] The year 2004 was observed as the Decade of the year of Family during which a number of important international conferences were held. Noting that 2004 marks the 10th Anniversary of the United Nations’ 1994 International Year of the Family and that the Doha International Conference for the Family was welcomed by UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/58/15 (December 15, 2003). On 30 November 2004 the Doha Declaration was issued followed by the UNGA Resolution of 6 December, 2004. In none of them, however, the difficulties faced by women in Islamic countries were even mentioned.

[8] Islamic jurisprudential doctrines of “Ijtehad” are of basic functional value in doing so.

[9] General Musharraf has been using the term “enlightened moderation” to be followed by the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”.

[10] For this phenomenon in current Iran see generally Enemies of Ayatollahs, M. Mohaddassin, 2004. see further Islamic Fundamentalism & Question of Women, M. Rajavi, 2004

[11] See The Islamic Republic, Farooq Hassan, 1984, Aziz Publishers, p 4

[12] Abdalati, H., Islam in Focus, American Trust Publications, Plainfield, Indiana, 1975, pp113-114.

[13] Espositio J.L. Women in Muslim Family Law, Syracuse University Press, 1982, p13

[14] Islam in Focus, ibid. p 114.

[15] Ali, A.Y. The meaning of the Holy Quran, Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, 1995, pp 184,190.

[16] E.g. see Surah 2: Al Baqarah, 228

[17] E.g. see Surah 24: Al- Nur: 4-5,23

[18] E.g. see Surah 2: Al-Baqarah, 241

[19] See, ibid, 233

20 See Surah16: An Nisa: 57-59; See also Ali A.Y. The Meaning of the Holy Quran, Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, 1995, p 651.

[21] See Smith, R.W.., Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Beacon Press, Boston, 1903, p 92

[22] Women in Family Law, Ibid. p 14.

[23] Parwez, G., Islam, A Challenge to Religion, Lahore, 1968, p 342

[24] Surah 2: Al- Bakarah: 187

[25] Surah 9: At Tawbah: 71

[26] Surah 30: Ar Rum: 21

[27] See generally, Badawi J. Gender Equality in Islam: Basic Principles, American Trust Publications. Plainsfield, Indiana, 1995. p 29.

[28] Surah 4: Am- Nisa: 1

[29] Surah Luqman 31:14

[30] Surah 46: Al-Ahqaf:15

[31] Surah 17: Bani Isra’ il: 23 [32] Ati, H.A. The Family Structure in Islam, American Trust Publications, Plainsfield, Indiana, 1977, 205.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid., p 205

[35] Ibid., p 149-150

[36] Surah 65: At-Talaq: 5, 6

[37] The Family Structure in Islam, op cit. p 148

[38] Surah 2: Al Baqarah :233

[39] Surah: Surah 2 : Al: Baqarah: 177, 180,215,263,273.; Surah: 4: Al Nisa: 8,25,36,92; Suruah 5: Al Ma’iadah: 89; Surah 8: Al Anfal:41; Surah 9: At- Tuabah: 60:; Surah 30: Ar-Rum:38; Surah 33: Al-Ahzab:6, Surah 58: al Mujadilah: 4; Surah 107: Al Ma’un 1-3

[40] Surah 2: Al Baqarah: 254;

[41] Surah 2 : Al Baqarah: 245

[42] Ali, Syed Ameer, The Spirit of Islam, Pakistan Publishing House, Karachi, 1976, p 169.

[43] See , for instance, Surah 2: Al Baqarah: 186, 286; See further Surah 3 Al Amran: 145, 150,; Surah 4 : Al Nisa: 26, 28, Surah 50: Qaf: 16

[44] See, for instance, Surah 6: L An’am:160,; Surah 28: A- Qasas: 84

[45] See Surah 107Al: Ma’un.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Surah 2: 177, See also Ali, A.Y. The Holy Quran, pp 70-71

[48] Surah 49: Al Hujurat: 13

[49] Surah 4 , An Nisa: 136.

[50] The other notable concept, in this context, is that of “ihsan” discussed earlier.

[51] See this author’s Op. ed. piece Stared into Silence, The Nation, 24 June 05 stressing the agony of the gang rape inflicted on a rustic women Muktharan Mai by a town jury of elders in Pakistan and then attempted callously to be “hidden” from the world by the Government.

Posted by Jock Gill at September 14, 2005 11:31 PM | TrackBack