Former Pakistani Prime-Minister Nawaz Sharif swoops back after seven years of exile for his dramatic comeback today- with Pakistani media abuzz on the impact of his return.

Would he be exiled, executed or arrested? What would the impact of his comeback be in the wake of a year of disasters for the General Dictator Pervez Musharraf from sacked Chief justices, militant mosque massacres and secret deals with former Prime-Minister Benazir Bhutto?

The interesting piece in this political love triangle is of course the feudal fair-skinned princess Benazir Bhutto.

The case of Benazir is interesting . The first-ever democratically elected female leader (89-90, 93-96) of a modern Muslim-majority state her story is a lesson for those who jump too gleefully at the sight of a woman- any woman in circles of political power.

Certainly in feminist terms, having women in political office as decision-makers and power-players is lauded as good for women everywhere. The idea being with women in power, the interests of women would surely not be ignored.

Simone de Beauvoir once said that her agitation meant nothing if all it would achieve was that one day a woman could be “President of Hoover”.

Although we really wanted to believe in Benazir, and even cheered for her despite the accumulation of a flimsy dupatta and rapidly lightening ghostly pallor, the signs that the Hoover I mean Pakistani leadership would not be genuinely affected with her at the helm became all too apparent.

We watched as the beautiful daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, whose highest previous post had been as President of the genteel Oxford Debating society, battled to keep her reigns on power, making compromises to appease the military and the Islamists, failing to repeal the infamous Hudood laws which allow a woman to be jailed for rape and letting her husband loot millions in government funds.

The wishful thinking which assumes that female leaders are somehow gentler, nicer, more reform and altruistic minded is not only misguided but positively dangerous.

The fact that women are not immune from the compromises, power games and maneuverings of politics is not a new discovery but it certainly is a cautionary tale for those of us who see some kind of holy-grail solution in the election of female Presidents and Prime-Ministers as the cure-all for the social and economic disparity women face.

Whilst politics may be a dirty business, it is necessary. We may sigh as our Oxford stars disappoint us but this should not preclude us supporting women from seeking and wielding power. It should however inoculate us against an uncritical and idealistic fervour with which we support female candidates.

As we eagerly await the outcome of this Pakistani love triangle, waiting for the lies and betrayals, holding our breath as somebody emerges broken-hearted and possibly shot, the Pakistani people, emerge again losers as the familiar vultures convulse the nation with their sickly greed.

Hussein’s review got me thinking about two important issues- men speaking on behalf of women, and the meaninglessness of the labels of death we throw around.

Men speaking for women
The reason why I resist critiques is because it is so rare to find pro-female Muslim male commentators in the media that when they do appear you can all but restrain yourself to make a mad dash and hug them.

Certainly it is only through these mainstream voices of power and authority- heavyweights such as Tariq Ramadan, Khaled Abou El Fadl and to a lesser extent authoritative figures such as Waleed Aly that change is going to occur.

This however should not preclude a critique of their argument and their positioning in making that argument. The fact that it is the muslim male dissident voices that are listened to and commanded respect, those who have the pristine credentials from Al-Azhar and Ivy League schools says precisely a lot about the male privilege and power status quo they are embedded in.

Whilst male feminist voices should not be precluded from speaking of course (their counterparts certainly aren’t) a sensitive understanding is needed of how the exercise of their power and the very vocalization of it robs those of whom they are speaking on behalf of (if even positively) of agency- which is precisely the problem we are complaining of.

It is only with deep self-reflexivity and humility that those in power can help those without.

East/West/Secular/Religious (or labels of death)

This continuous attempt to represent muslim and “western” feminists essentially at odds with each other seems to play into convenient hands. It seems convenient to project this mirage of an overblown hostility or incompatibility to make the claims of secular feminists completely irrelevant to issues of gender reform in muslim societies and insist a reform can only be made in purely islamic terms or paradigms.

To assert that all secular feminist voices in muslim contexts are alien to the concerns of women within these contexts merely re-affirms the stereotype of the out-of touch, pro-colonial shrill western puppet whose ideas are to be rejected out of hand because she does not fit a stereotype of piety

What if you are like famous feminist dissidents- Pakistani lawyer and activist Asma Jehangir or former Iranian judge and Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, professed muslims, but who accept ‘western’ concepts of human rights and feminism- and are being essentially being politically pragmatic by arguing within the islamic paradigm to formulate gender reform in their societies?

Whilst these women might have been influenced by the “western” ideas of their colonisers this did not make them ‘traitors’. In the complex and contradictory relationship between colonizers and colonized- this training was often used against the colonial powers.

This stereotyping also ignores the fact that often the lines between secular and religious, western and eastern are easily blurred in our globalised society. How is “western” defined- by geography or your ideas? Precisely what are western ideas or “western feminism” which we repeatedly hear is incompatible with any kind of Islamic outlook? We realise that identities and philosophies are not so neatly bound but spill over from centuries of cross-civilisational dialogue (and conflict).

With the emergence of new categories of post-feminist, post-modern categories which understand the individual as a space for many concurrent identities- whether gender, racial, religious or even personality-wise these kind of neat demarcations no longer make sense.

The Hijab is our modern day celebrity- consistently analysed, its status has been blown out of proportion in a tabloid frenzy of insinuations and associations.

Depending on who you speak to- Hijab is a metaphor, a threat, a chastity belt, a symbol of the apocalypse/clash of civilizations, a fashion statement, a protest, a revolt, oppressive, liberating, frightening- all in turns and sometimes at the same time.

(Hijab is now in detox wearing dark sunglasess and will not be releasing any statements.)

So I couldn’t help but linking to this extract from the Australian from Waleed Aly’s book which seems to get it exactly right.

Whether its to demonise or ‘save’ everyone from conservative commentators, Muslim preachers and western feminists have been guilty of objectifying the Famous Hijab/i for all she’s worth.

It is one of the saddest facts of contemporary Islamic discourse that Muslim women are so often reduced to the same symbolic function that they are in the Western conversation. Here, too, they are not people. They are appropriated, usually by men, as symbols of Islamic identity, purity and resistance to Western cultural hegemony. And, just as in the West, the hijab has become the central, obsessive fixation of the discourse.

But the Hijab is the elusive postmodern rosebud- the meanings ascribed to her revealing only the commentator’s own fears and anxieties.

On one level, it seems the political fixation with Muslim female dress remains alive and well. But on another it has little to do with a dress code. The Muslim woman, in her varying degrees of cover, has become merely a symbol; a battleground for a much broader polemic. She is not a person with interests, aspirations, struggles and feelings. She is a concept.

In truth, the sexualisation of the hijab is more male than divine. It is a product of its male appropriation in a struggle for identity. Muslim thinkers who promote such apologia have far more in common with hijab-fixated Western commentators than either cares to realise or admit. Both take a simple piece of cloth, and transform it into a cultural struggle.

Whilst some may cynically argue that Waleed Aly joins the chorus of male commentary on the never-ending spin that is the academic exercise of “understanding the hijab”- his commentary “on the commentary” is nuanced precisely because it is critical on several levels and avoids the muslim “apologia” which invariably involves some sort of nauseating analogy to “pearls.” (muslim insiders will get that one).

Such, lamentably, is the prevailing nature of contemporary Muslim apologetics. It invariably expresses an inherently male perspective, one that assumes women must dress to accommodate the frailties of men…

…while it is often claimed and is sometimes true that the oppression faced by Muslim women is a product of culture, not religion, it must frankly be acknowledged that a considerable portion of this misogyny is perpetrated in Islam’s name. The battle of Islamic ideas is therefore central. (my bold)…

… the intellectual battle – call it a gender jihad, if you must – is indispensable for change. But it is a battle that must be won in the West as much as the East. Only when Muslim women are treated as human beings whose views matter and who are valued in their own right will we have cause for optimism. As long as they remain symbols, and as long as those symbols are invoked by opposing sides in obnoxious rhetorical wars of culture, they will continue to be little more than a battlefield. Relentlessly discussed, never consulted, invariably exploited. “

Crucial to this was “a new perspective that… will read the sacred texts with fresh eyes (including those of female scholars).”

Enter 1- Dr. Amina Wadud the American Muslim scholar and controversial author of “Quran and Woman: Rereading the sacred text from a woman’s perspective. ”

Her book is revolutionary precisely because it’s not revolutionary. She is no wishy washy “progressive” but a true scholar and woman of faith.

I liked her combination of Arabic and Islamic scholarship and understanding of western postulates of thinking- which gives her a deep and critical self-awareness of her positioning.

Her analysis of jurisprudence is combined by an eye that understands its position as a fragile reader and can deconstruct the relationship between text, reading and reader as perpetually in flux.

She is not intimidated by the status quo which presents itself as “neutral” but rightly sees it laden with it’s own biases and constructions which it erroneously marks as “true” and definitive.

Below is a reworking of an earlier paper which presents a review of her work and deconstructs the implications of feminist interpretations of Quranic legal scholarship for law and justice.

“Quran and Woman: Rereading the sacred text from a woman’s perspective.”

This review will aim to examine the intersection of feminist narratives within the context of the study of Islamic theology and in particular in the field of Quranic studies. The Quran is the holy book within the Islamic faith and a source of inspiration for millions of believers. It is not only a source of spiritual guidance but also increasingly a text that is used for social and legal understandings. Therefore the way in which Quranic knowledge is disseminated and interpreted- is a highly contested arena with significant implications for law and justice.

One may ask why spend so much time of contesting centuries old religious texts and arguments? What purpose does it serve in the modern era within a secular framework? Firstly even from a purely utilitarian point of view- Quranic precedents form the backdrop of the legal systems of over 52 nation states in the world today. Its very existence as source of knowledge which has significant implications for society makes it a field of study worthy of investigation. Secondly from the position of women within the Islamic framework, Quranic studies is more than an obscure intellectual exercise but becomes a task of huge gravity- a way of engaging and understanding their position within one of the most deeply personal aspects of human existence- religion- from a pro-faith perspective.

Quran and Woman is by its own admission, the first ever attempt to make “female inclusive reading of the Quran” within the post modern framework. This review will not examine the book’s theological arguments- but the implications of Dr. Wadud’s contribution within the field of study of Islamic law based on her status as not only as woman within what is known as the ummah or Islamic community of believers, but also as a black woman and an American Muslim convert.

This adds to the function of deconstruction as bringing with it- a chorus of different voices outside the traditional canon. As Dr. Wadud notes, the very task of attempting such an undertaking is a revolution in thought: “I was quite naïve about how significant it would be pursue a female inclusive reading of the Quran. I was also unaware of how to develop such a reading ”. This task, as Dr. Wadud notes, of exclusively examining the notion of woman in the Qu’ran “turned out to be nearly unprecedented throughout fourteen centuries of Islamic thought ”

An analysis of the impact of Dr. Wadud’s work would not be complete without an analysis of her situational position as a black American Muslim woman. This is due to the focus on power within deconstruction arguments on justice, and opening up of the traditionally disenfranchised voice. This airing of voices outside of the “canon” has in fact been lauded as an exemplary feature of deconstruction. Dr. Wadud’s position as an African American, but who has succeeded in using arguments of Islam’s egalitarian element to infiltrate its knowledge hierarchies and become an authoritative reader of text is particular significant in the deconstruction argument. Dr. Wadud herself is not unaware of the irony of their position, stating her objective in her work that seeks to “contributes and seeks to expand an intellectual legacy that is more than fourteen hundred years old…Qur’an and Women contributes its own voice to global pluralist discourse ”

Ironically it is Dr. Wadud’s position as an “outside insider” that allows her to make her most radical propositions, however this has not met without some resistance, as she notes: “As an African American who was embraced by Islam over a quarter of a century ago…I was unprepared for the schisms that have arisen between me and members of the Muslim community. ” This experience reaffirms the alignment of deconstruction with the marginalized. The ability of one woman to undertake the role of questioning the dominant narratives that have read and interpreted the voice of the Quran and women for centuries – a black American Muslim convert in the west who by her own admission is a “believer” and within the knowledge bases of Islamic framework- is revolutionary.

The upward mobility of such women like Dr. Wadud, and her positioning with the Islamic faith system makes her a powerful player for change. As Dr. Wadud notes:

“The two names most consistently hurled at me are “Western” and “feminist”. “Western” could mean that I can only be who I am: a daughter of the West, born and raised American of African descent. It is reduced however to mean anti-Islam. “Feminist” is used in a similar reductionist manner. No reference is ever made to the definition of feminism as the radical notion that women are human beings. ”

Dr. Wadud’s “radical notion that women are human beings” and her focus on hermeneutic and interpretative methodologies mirror aspects of feminist legal methods. As Dr. Wadud notes: “As a woman, of African origin, and an American convert to Islam I was not supposed to seek beyond what others had handed down to me. I am not chastised as a heretic …but I do find that disagreement with status quo is treated as though it were disagreement with Islam. Dr. Wadud work’s can thus be seen as contributing to the field of feminist research methods that work to “uncover aspects of society, especially ideologies, that maintain the status quo by restricting or limiting different groups’ access to the means of gaining knowledge .”

In this way feminist research methods contribute to the post-modern deconstruction discourse by seeking to question the “meta-theoretical questions about the possible nature and status of theorizing itself. ” In this way Dr. Wadud argues that her contribution to the scholarship of Qur’an studies can be seen as part of the larger project of “post modernist critique when the very foundations of knowledge are challenged to move beyond certain value laden tendencies”, and such a method can be used as part of a larger discourse by feminists who have constructed a valuable critique “to build the notion of the normative human form from the experiences and perspectives of the male person. ”

Dr. Wadud recognizes the impact of her work, within the context that inspired it: “although Qur’an and women assumes the basis of knowledge to be the one established in the Qur’an, it contributes to the post colonial, post modern field of lslamic studies by its focus on gender as a category of thought- not just a subject for discourse”

Furthermore Dr. Wadud’s work exhibits the characteristics of feminist legal methods by highlighting questions which traditional legal methods ignore, namely, asking the woman question, feminist practical reasoning and consciousness-raising.

Her main thesis in the preface raises the point: “Are the women the same as men; different or distinct from; alike and unequal to; or unlike and equal to? Each of these questions rests on a single rhetorical flaw- that women must be measured against men- that inadvertently reinforces the erroneous notion that men are the standard bearers, which, by extension means that only men are fully human. ”

Dr. Wadud’s assertion highlights feminist legal methods focus on the idea that it is not women that have been ignored by the law, but rather that their position in the law has been framed by a male “refractive lens” that observes and quantifies them, rather than through women’s experiences and definitions .

As Dr. Wadud states the act of reading, is one of writing. When women’s reading voice is muted and women’s destinies are written by those other than themselves, the natural consequence of this will be a negation.

In this way, Dr. Wadud argues an exercise in the “female exclusive reading” of the Qu’ran becomes necessary as a balancing counterpoint to the “the underlying presumptions that the male person is the normative human being ” which restricts women from full consideration in the constructions of ethical- spiritual and social-political postulates in Islamic thought. ”

It is this assumption of male neutrality, that unfairly pits feminist legal methods as the external “other”, the separate, different and unnatural. However such readings becomes necessary, as Dr. Wadud notes “because women were nearly completely excluded from the foundational discourse …they are often relegated to the role of subject without agency. ” This can have huge implications for real-world politics, considering the justification of Islamic legal precedents in the modern world.

In this context, the inclusion of female-friendly eye within readings of Qur’anic legal theory can be seen as more important than ever. As Dr. Wadud notes: “The more research I did into the Qu’ran unfettered be centuries of historical and androcentric reading and Arabo-Islamic cultural predilections, the more affirmed I was that in Islam a female person was intended to be primordially cosmologically, eschatologically, spiritually and morally a full human being.”

Although many would criticize her task as a complete post-modern experiment- reading what wants to be read, this ignores the fact that as Dr. Wadud notes, the way in which text has been viewed has been predominantly articulated on the basis of “male experiences and through the male psyche. ” In this way “visions that respond to the male-center of being would have been considered in greatest detail, over and above any differences, inherent or contrived, in the female center of experience. ”

In this way a “female inclusive reading” becomes even more necessary to the extent to which women are seen as distinct from men and combat their circumpscription as a subject of discourse, comment, critique and definition.

Usually I ignore these messages- angered that my email could be abused in this way. Occasionally I make a polite request that they refrain from using my email in this way. Sometimes in my more angry and creative moments it provides an opportunity to exchange with very interesting mindsets.

Recently this occurred with a series of emails declaiming Harry Potter as “unislamic.” I publish these exchanges here because it gives an indication of the kind of mentalities that progressively minded muslims are up against when they are raising concerns about women’s rights, human rights and reform.

This is a mindset that sees things in black and white, that believes all form of entertainment, music, art and film- regardless of being aware of its content- is “haram” and imposes itself on others using various doomsday tricks to silence the opposition.

Whether it’s rants against “joos”, “infidels” or crazy conspiracies- every muslim worth her salt has heard the most outrageous of every kind of prejudice. Can you blame the media when it is provided with such a delicious range of ammunition?

This is why however minor- if you are confronted with anti-semitism, misogyny or racism- say something. These kind of ideas need to dealt with internally- with vigorous dissent. Whether its through satire, articles or an email response- take up the challenge to make a stand.

The only thing I regretted was telling the fellow to run-off to Saudi Arabia if he didn’t agree with me. It was the equal of him threatening I will be “outside the folds of Islam” and “displeasing Allah” for disagreeing.

Voltaire’s “I may not agree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death you’re right to say it” clicked in again. Then you laugh at the irony of all your hard work with civil rights and anti-discrimination may come down to defending people like this who basically think you’re devil’s spawn.

• EMAIL 1- “Questions Muslims should be asking.”

Harry Potter – Questions Muslims should be asking

Is not Harry Potter indicative of a larger deterioration of the moral fabric in man? Why does entertainment and fun draw millions of people and why does worship and spirituality lead to boredom?

Do the Harry Potter books not glorify magic and sorcery? Is the evil of sorcery and magic not being sugar-coated? Why are the non-magical people in the books despised and portrayed as boring and narrow-minded?

Does the Quran and Sunnah not regard the practicing of sorcery as kufr?

Does not Harry and his classmates cast spells, learn to tell the future, communicate with ghosts, study astrology and crystal gazing? Will you as a Muslim parent allow your child to engage in such actions?

Is it acceptable to fight “evil magic” with “good magic”, as Harry does? Are not both evil?

Don’t the main characters in the story unapologetically lie, steal, bully, break rules and disrespect their elders, like the professors at Hogwarts? Does this not teach children that unruly behaviour is acceptable?

Has not mankind sunk to the lowest ebb when baseless fantasy controls society, considering that the release of every new edition is anxiously awaited by millions of children (and even adults!)?

Can such extreme devotion and fanaticism to a book glorifying the occult be justified?

Are not young minds impressionable? Would it not be a better world if reading material for the young mind promotes morally sound content?

Should we turn a blind eye to the content of the Harry Potter books and allow them to continue controling our childen, our homes and our pockets?

• Email 2-My response.

Actually i must proclaim an adverse opinion.

This kind of thinly veiled moralising boasts of the worst kind of self-righteousness.

It is also a dangerous mentality which occurs in very fundamentalist type mindsets- which no doubt never have even read the book which they are condemning as “anti-islamic”.

Harry Potter is a work of FICTION. Literature improves the mind, and allows the flowering of the self and the spirit through the power of the imagination. It allows us to see different worlds and different points of view- that might challenge our narrow world view and perhaps even confront us.

This is why literature and art is always banned and censored by fascist regimes- because it is subversive.

This mentality which pretends it is “islamic” to be anti- book and dresses its intellectual mediocrity in religious garb is disappointing and really is a great reason why the Islamic world is so backward today- because it is afraid of books- of light, imagination and knowledge.

Anyone who condemns this book obviously falls to see it as a modern morality parable – it advocates the power of kindness, of love, of family and the power of the orphan child to triumph over power, darkness and greed which corrupts.

It is intensely old-fashioned and allows children and adults to enjoy a thriller which is also has very good moral message.

The magic in the book- is the magic of the imagination to create a different world.

It encourages children to become literate who have never read before. When so many of our people are illiterate this is only a good thing.

The book also reflects the author’s own christian beliefs and as a poor single woman who shot to stardom when this book sold millions- its fame should not be declaimed but celebrated as a triumph of the spirit.

If the people who wrote these kind of messages spent more time protesting against corruption of corporations or imperialist wars instead of spending time condemning a mere book the world would be a better place.

(and muslims would not have such a bad name as book-burners and fatwa orderers.)

To free speech!

• Email 3- X’s response
  Assalamu Alaikom
  I am truly happy for you that you are a fan of Harry Potter and that it means so much to you in your life. However, the fact remains that Magic is and will always be forbidden in Islam.
  Nowhere was it mentioned that FICTION was forbidden in Islam. I for one am a big fan of fantasy books and movies and have grown up on them and even exposed my 2 year old to them. The benefits which you mentioned are undeniable and I find the imagination of the producers/authors fascinating. So all the blah blah blah of fiction that you mentioned is something I agree with also.
  But not magic.
  You speak of modern morality parable? What about all those accused of witchery in the good old times in England burned at the stick? Poor souls, they just missed out on this one. Who knows, if they lived today, they would be singing ‘we could be heroes’ and made millions of dollars. Had they waited a few centuries they could have been as popular!
  You have to be careful, if you had said this passionate and flowery talk during that time, you would have been called a heretic and accused of witchery yourself!
  Another fact: Islam’c perspective on what is and what is not acceptable does not change, even if Hollywood updates it’s graphics and marketing.
  Creativity is good, but not in magic. Imagination is powerful but it ought to be used for more beneficial purposes.
  While others deduce their priniciples from movies and are comfortable maintaining them through fiction and imagination. I prefer to have something which is more concrete and so real it will literally hit me in the face on the Day of Judgment.
  It is very important that Muslims know the severity of Magic. How can we even contemplate tolerating something which Allah and His Messenger detest so much? This is a crime that will take you out of the fold of Islam and displease Allah! Would we rather agree with a FICTIONAL character and ‘feel’ with him and his little friends rather than feeling for the Messenger and what he thinks of us?
  This is absurd.
  I apologize for all those not interested in this debate who are still getting these emails.

• Email 4- My response

The concern and prohibition on magic is shared by most religious groups. This is not what i am disputing. I am disputing the mindset which sees fit to decide and impose thier views on others without seeing the world in subtletly. Without seeing the causes and consequences that flow logically from their viewpoint.

If you will be logically consistent with your viewpoint- then perhaps you would not use television (depiction of women), cartoons (depiction of the human form), working in a western society (dar-al-harb), working with women (haram).

THE QUESTION IS- What is the reason for the prohibition? would the said thing lead to the threatened danger? we know cartoons do not lead you to idolatry- to worship mickey mouse. Magic may be prohibited but has the book led to an increase in practise of “magic”?

JK Rowling has been quoted as saying “I believe in God not magic.”

“I absolutely did not start writing these books to encourage any child into witchcraft. I’m laughing slightly because to me, the idea is absurd. I have met thousands of children and not even one time has a child come up to me and said, “Ms Rowling, I’m so glad I’ve read these books because now I want to be a witch”

No. The book does not encourage magic. it does not advocate its use. Muslim scholars have themselves argued the benefit of the encouraging reading far outweigh the books “dangers.”

If you dislike it and object to it on religious grounds.that is your right in a free society. you have no right to impose that on others and condemn them to “doomsday” because they disagree with you. It’s called DEMOCRACY. If you feel your islamic beliefs are incompatible with your environment then perhaps you could live in a society which is more compatible with your beliefs. Perhaps Saudi arabia which treats bengali migrant workers appallingly and only outlawed slavery in the 1962 (but you don’t see muslims writing email protests about that.)

I only wish these arguments become defunct one day and we can start talking about the things that really matter in the world. Islam is a religion of great spirituality and mysticism- to denigrate it by being so petty is a disservice.

Salaams and remove my email from these lists kindly.

In our second interview I talk to Elli Nur Hayati, the director of Rifka Annisa in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Rifka Annisa is one of largest domestic violence crisis and counselling centres in Yogyakarta. It also conducts advocacy and training for social and economic development.

We conduct our interview in the beautiful Rifka Annisa centre. The centre has rooms interloped with bamboo walkways across shallow pools of water. Green luscious vines adorn the walls and beyond the open court there is a kitchen, an emergency housing room, counselling rooms and information posters and slogans on every wall.

Elli tells me that given the depressing nature of some of the work it is important the centre is a place of beauty and repose. The intersection of the outdoors, the sunlight and nature gives a feeling of warmth and peace.

In her office we talk about her work, feminism, Islam, Indonesia and the realities “on the ground.”

It was fascinating talking to this energetic and ambitious woman who combined social activism with a profound faith, international travel with studying a Phd, and running a centre with a husband and two children.

As always I enquire about the universal issue of our times- how did she manage the work-family balance? What did her husband think? Did he support her?

She smiles, “Of course, When he married me- he knew what kind of woman I was.”

We also talk about “that verse” and the real-life implications of abstract religious and social norms which unchallenged can become justification for abuse.

Most interestingly we talk about the importance of accepting the diverse mosaic that is modern feminism.

At international conferences Elli’s headscarf is greeted with disdain by western feminists and her status as a “muslim feminist” treated as an oxymoron.

However as Elli notes, without solidarity with women working in the grassroots to deal with local problems in the local context with the mutual goal of improving human rights- this kind of bickering over “types of feminism”- whether it’s radical, muslim, marxist or postmodern seems petty.

As the “oppressed muslim woman” cliche is used to justify everything from imperialist invasions, “clash of civilization” thesis’ and racist agendas- creating links between women’s movements in western and “developing countries” particularly muslim-majority states in a spirit of respect and dialogue becomes more crucial than ever.

Interview hosted by Zshare. Click here to download.

From Egypt’s Grand Mufti to the ideologues of Hezbollah and the lofty towers of Cambridge and Georgetown- the blog special succeeded in representing the diversity of Islamic opinion, life and practice around the world.The variety of responses on the “muslim woman” question was very interesting.

The usual apologetics of Islam representing a “complementary” yet not equal role for the sexes was predictably yawn-inspiring.

However the interesting piece came from Tariq Ramadan. He seemed clued in to the problematics of the whole “woman question” being a source of study, dissection and debate by those qualified to pontificate on it- usually men- as itself questionable.

The “Muslim Woman” he argues is not some abstract figure whose “role and function” (for centuries meted out by male scholars, and now whose salvation the benevolent western media has taken up) is to be decided in a dispassionate way outside of the forces of politics, culture and society.

For centuries, Muslim scholars have talked about women in terms of their roles (daughter, wife, mother, sister) and the respective rights and responsibilities related to their family or social functions. It is high time to change our perspective and start talking about “women” as “women”, their being, not their roles or functions. This should be considered their first right: the right to be and to be autonomous ontologically, religiously, socially and economically. (my bold)

As women’s rights are re-framed not in relation to men, society or the family but as fundamental “human rights” then nothing short of a total revolution is necessary.

Approached from that angle, the perspectives of the whole debate changes and it becomes necessary to be quite critical as to the long Islamic legal tradition dealing with the woman issue. We are in dire need of a constructive critical reassessment of the Islamic discourse and understanding on women.

It is from here that the work can begin to ensure a life free from discrimination that the “complementary but equal” (Bantu speak for “back of the bus”) engenders:

To speak about Islam promoting “complementarity” between men and women as opposed to the West’s call for total “equality” is not only misleading but it is wrong. There is room for a deep reassessment of this issue from within the Islamic scriptural texts themselves and this is what, Muslim men and women, together should work on/for in the name of their religion to resist all discriminatory practices and views promoted by narrow literalist or cultural understanding. It is imperative for Muslim women to be more autonomous, to have equal access to knowledge as men (especially in religious matters), to receive equal pay for the same work and competence, to share social status and political power in their societies and to set the scene for the much needed debate around the role of men in the Islamic societies and communities.

Crucial to this is challenging the ways in which male authority figures- the lawmakers, interpreters and religious leaders have retained a vice-grip on authority and knowledge.

A new perspective that focuses on the woman as a psychological and spiritual being will read the sacred texts with fresh eyes (including those of female scholars) and liberates the Muslim women from within by challenging narrow religious interpretations and oppressive cultural practices and is propelled by faithfulness to Islam’s global message.

Sistas- i think we might have ourselves our Muslim John Stuart Mill.

(Some of you may object to the use of a male authority figure to support a Muslim feminist “revolution” however I think it is subversive thinkers from the heart of the establishment that are going to give credibility to the women’s rights movement within the Islamic paradigm. This legitimisation is necessary for popular support and to avert the consistent accusation of Muslim women’s rights advocates as ‘brainwashed victims of western feminism’.)

From Egypt’s Grand Mufti to the ideologues of Hezbollah and the lofty towers of Cambridge and Georgetown- the blog special succeeded in representing the diversity of Islamic opinion, life and practice around the world.The variety of responses on the “muslim woman” question was very interesting.

The usual apologetics of Islam representing a “complementary” yet not equal role for the sexes was predictably yawn-inspiring.

However the interesting piece came from Tariq Ramadan. He seemed clued in to the problematics of the whole “woman question” being a source of study, dissection and debate by those qualified to pontificate on it- usually men- as itself questionable.

The “Muslim Woman” he argues is not some abstract figure whose “role and function” (for centuries meted out by male scholars, and now whose salvation the benevolent western media has taken up) is to be decided in a dispassionate way outside of the forces of politics, culture and society.

For centuries, Muslim scholars have talked about women in terms of their roles (daughter, wife, mother, sister) and the respective rights and responsibilities related to their family or social functions. It is high time to change our perspective and start talking about “women” as “women”, their being, not their roles or functions. This should be considered their first right: the right to be and to be autonomous ontologically, religiously, socially and economically. (my bold)

As women’s rights are re-framed not in relation to men, society or the family but as fundamental “human rights” then nothing short of a total revolution is necessary.

Approached from that angle, the perspectives of the whole debate changes and it becomes necessary to be quite critical as to the long Islamic legal tradition dealing with the woman issue. We are in dire need of a constructive critical reassessment of the Islamic discourse and understanding on women.

It is from here that the work can begin to ensure a life free from discrimination that the “complementary but equal” (Bantu speak for “back of the bus”) engenders:

To speak about Islam promoting “complementarity” between men and women as opposed to the West’s call for total “equality” is not only misleading but it is wrong. There is room for a deep reassessment of this issue from within the Islamic scriptural texts themselves and this is what, Muslim men and women, together should work on/for in the name of their religion to resist all discriminatory practices and views promoted by narrow literalist or cultural understanding. It is imperative for Muslim women to be more autonomous, to have equal access to knowledge as men (especially in religious matters), to receive equal pay for the same work and competence, to share social status and political power in their societies and to set the scene for the much needed debate around the role of men in the Islamic societies and communities.

Crucial to this is challenging the ways in which male authority figures- the lawmakers, interpreters and religious leaders have retained a vice-grip on authority and knowledge.

A new perspective that focuses on the woman as a psychological and spiritual being will read the sacred texts with fresh eyes (including those of female scholars) and liberates the Muslim women from within by challenging narrow religious interpretations and oppressive cultural practices and is propelled by faithfulness to Islam’s global message.

Sistas- i think we might have ourselves our Muslim John Stuart Mill.

(Some of you may object to the use of a male authority figure to support a Muslim feminist “revolution” however I think it is subversive thinkers from the heart of the establishment that are going to give credibility to the women’s rights movement within the Islamic paradigm. This legitimisation is necessary for popular support and to avert the consistent accusation of Muslim women’s rights advocates as ‘brainwashed victims of western feminism’.)

Nuzhat’s Story

Nuzhat Mukhtar* sits on the lounge of her Sydney flat gesturing for me to eat. Her twenty- one year old son Junaid walks to the kitchen and brings out a smorgasboard of dishes- Turkish pizza, profiteroles with cream, cherry topped cake, three bottles of soft drink, as well as plates and glasses.

She won’t talk until I eat at least one gargantuan slice of Turkish pizza.

Her son sits beside her supportively his somber face creased with worry.

Nuzhat was eighteen years old when she came to Australia as a new bride from Pakistan in 1982. Within three months she knew there was something drastically wrong with the marriage.

“The place I came from was a medium type of family and here where I come was very strict. At home there was no TV, no radio, no bed, no nothing. I was not even allowed to go on the balcony without covering myself completely. Everything was changed for me so much…. But I tried,” recalls Nuzhat.

The fact that she was unable to communicate or seek help from anyone in her new country was particularly difficult.

“In couple of months it was so bad that I was really badly homesick. And I was losing weight heaps, within 3 months time I was thirty- seven kilos. I could not say anything to anybody . Hardly anybody here was Pakistani and could speak my same language,” says Nuzhat.

This reality for women stuck between two different cultural systems is not uncommon. Many women cope with the abuse in silence, reluctant to seek help or advice. The situation is heightened when religious considerations come into play, changing the dynamics of marriage and divorce proceedings.

Whilst the Jewish community have succeeded in formally recognizing aspects of Jewish religious law for couples within Australia through the “Beth Din” courts, the Islamic community continue to be plagued with problems in regards to marriage and divorce disputes.

If Nuzhat had known from the beginning of her marriage, the rights available to her through a government recognized Islamic law advisory body, it would have saved her a lifetime of humiliation and struggle attempting to wrest a divorce from pseudo sheikhs who were in fact, social friends of her husband and involved in the “jamaat” – the local Islamic evangelist network.

“I got so badly abused by that. They made me feel like a completely naked woman standing on the street,” she says of her mediation experience.

“There was an imam and my brother in law and some other people. And there was so many other people. My uncle. I couldn’t see their eyes because of the way the were talking about those things- inside what happened in our bedroom or outside what happened. Every single thing my ex was talking about like it was a joke. I was completely a joke. That time I felt like I most definitely didn’t want a divorce,” says Nuzhat.

Nuzhat says that her attempts to seek a divorce from the community “sheikhs” were continuously rejected on the basis that she had no grounds for divorce.

“They thought I was a woman who wanted a car, a money, a house and for those things I could do anything… How else can you make a person more ashamed? You can’t make a person feel lower,” says Nuzhat.

This was despite the fact that in Islamic law either party may initiate a divorce, but while a woman must usually go to an Islamic court, a husband can divorce his wife by pronouncing the talaq (which literally means to snap off or separate).

Scholars and jurisdictions differ as to the formalities before an irrevocable divorce occurs, and whether a period of time must elapse before each pronouncement of talaq. The general consensus is that the divorce may be withdrawn after two pronouncements of talaq, but after the third pronouncement it becomes irrevocable.

There are differences of opinion on the right of a Muslim cleric, as opposed to a sharia court to grant a divorce. Thus the absence of a religious sharia court in Australia to deal with wife-initiated divorces- known as khula, mean that Muslim women are largely dependant on the mercy of their husband to gain a divorce. This is particularly traumatic with women who seek to remarry or want children through subsequent marriages regarded as legitimate.In some circumstance a vindictive husband may use his power to abuse his position for negotiation purposes.

Nuzhat’s quest to seek a divorce from her husband was repeatedly denied, despite the fact that her husband had contracted another marriage in 1992, after a period of separation, and had two other children with this woman.

“He refused. But for that again I got very, very badly abused… emotionally and sometimes physically I was really abused. I could not cook. I could not clean my house. I felt like I was doing everything wrong. I am a wrong person. I can’t never do anything right,” says Nuzhat.

Still, the “authorities” were still not accomadating to Nuzhat’s situation.

“When the sheikh comes they talked about- I didn’t do this and I didn’t do that. But he is a man and he is allowed to have four wives. And he should spend one night here and one night there,” says Nuzhat.

The emotional toll of being linked to a man whom she was estranged from and who was in fact “married” to another woman was particularly confronting for Nuzhat.

“I used to remember that night I couldn’t sleep on the bed. I put disinfectant in front of me I was going to drink it. I went and looked at my three boys and they were sleeping. Can you imagine when you know your husband is sleeping with someone else? After that I never slept in that bed,” says Nuzhat.

Nuzhat formally divorced from her husband in 2003 under Australian civil law, but it was the culmination of a long struggle of exhausting all other methods of seeking a divorce.

The Sheikh

Lakemba-based Sheikh Khalil Chami deals with many cases not unlike Nuzhat’s where Muslim men take advantage of the lack of regulation to deprive women of their rights under both Islamic and Australian law.

Chami argues that if the Australian government does not step in to regulate this laissez- faire state of affairs it will give renegade sheiks who are often unqualified and inept, opportunity to continue to profiteer from human misery, often applying misguided or incorrect interpretations of scripture to satisfy the patriarchal culture of their community.

Sheikh Chami who immigrated to Australia from Lebanon in 1964 has been shaped by his own experience of family breakdown which makes him particularly sympathetic to the concerns of women in marriage disputes.

Shiekh Chami’s whose parents divorced when he was seven, remembers how life was altered for him as a result of a family court verdict in favour of his mother.

“If you think about the flower, if you cut it from its branch will it stay forever? No it will lose its energy. Similarly it’s the same if you take a child from its mother or destroy her emotionally,” says Shiekh Chami.

Sheikh Chami, who has been dealing with marriage disputes for over forty years argues that the Quranic ideals of justice, fairness and equity, are often ignored by parties seeking advantage. In addition language barriers, lack of access or knowledge of their rights leaves women, particularly from migrant communities, especially vulnerable.

“Not all human beings have the same problems. Not all laws can solve the same problems. If we give variety to the people, especially if they believe in it (the decision) it will be better for the government and for society,” says Shiekh Chami.

Sheikh Chami is particularly concerned with the amount of cases he receives from women, particularly from the Lebanese community, who are dealing with husbands who are unofficially contracting second or third marriages, without the consent or guide of any formal body.

Polygamy has traditionally been a red flag upon which the essential incompatibility of the Australian secular law system and Islamic family law system arise. Islamic law while it does not encourage or recommend polygamy, does permit it under strict guidelines.

A regulatory database of approved clerics who are qualified to perform valid marriage ceremonies would be one solution to solve this problem.

“If all the marriage celebrants researched the couples they married. 90% of these problems would not occur,” says Shiekh Chami.

“Sometimes a woman will go to the Australian family court. She will come to me with this paper. She has given him a divorce and he has remarried. We will write letter after letter to him, and then we would consider this wife divorced,” says Shiekh Chami.

Muslims in Australia may undergo two different ceremonies to contract a lawful marriage in the eyes of the Australian legal system and also their own cultural community. The Muslim marriage ceremony is called the nikah (literally the union of the two sexes).

The fact that Australian Muslims hail from a variety of nationalities and denominations- making regulation notoriously difficult, is a concern Sheikh Chami recognizes.

However he argues, it is even more imperative reason to create a community consensus on what is acceptable behaviour, and a standardized body from which people of Muslim background can use for guidance when it comes to conflicts.

“If we have input form a variety of sects- Alevi, Sunni, Shi’ite it will be less of a problem and encourage unity,” says Chami.

Zarina’s Story

Zarina Rahman*, Fijian-Australian woman from Sydney also remembers the difficulties encountered by the absence of a formal body to solemnize her divorce under religious law.

Zarina who divorced her husband of twenty-two years in 1998 remembers how she was caught in effective limbo. She was unable to remarry until she went to a shiekh in Pakistan in 2003, who granted her a ‘khula’ or wife-initiated divorce on the basis of separation for five years.

Although property and custody disputes had already been settled, the formalisation of her divorce under Islamic law was particularly important to Zarina, who as a practicing Muslim would be reluctant to remarry until her divorce was fully recognised.

“It was very important to me, without the sheikh I would never get remarried. And if I did want to get re-married in that time I would not be able to get married Islamically even if I did find the right person,” says Zarina.

Zarina admits that attempting to find a sheikh to solemnize her divorce in Sydney was a draining experience in “sheikh-shopping,” often resulting in conflicting and contradictory advice.

“It was a hassle. A big hassle. The sheikh we talked to, Shiekh Yahya didn’t even know English. If there was someone who was qualified in Australian and Islamic law who could give me advice it would save women a lot of heartache and money and time,” says Zarina.

Now that her five-year hiatus on re-marrying is over, Zarina is optimistic about the future.

“I feel free. Whatever happens in the future inshallah it will be for the best,” she says.

Sabiha’s Story

However for women still stuck within unhappy marriages, the difficulties involved in seeking divorce- navigating through religious customary law which is haphazardly applied and the formal Australian civil law system- which often has little understanding of their cultural issues leaves them reluctant to exercise their rights.

Mother of four Sabiha Qureshi* , currently separated from her husband, is similarly disillusioned with her experience dealing with the Australian legal system, which had little empathy and understanding of her situation.

An example of this was in negotiations for child-parenting arrangements by the Family Court, in which her husband was able to claim the children not only for Muslim religious holidays, but Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas, despite the fact neither celebrated it.

When she sought an AVO against her husband for domestic violence last October, the fact that her husband used religious justification for his abhorrent behaviour in court was particularly galling for Sabiha.

“He would say he could do such and such under Islam and I thought that is not Islam! That is just his way of manipulating (religion) to suit him,” says Sabiha.

It is Sabiha’s hope that she can train as a social worker and promote greater awareness of problems within migrant communities, leading to a change in the culture of social welfare services to better understand the concerns of the communities it seeks to help.

“I remember when I was seeking help and I would have really preferred it to speak to a woman. Also many women from immigrant families, they are very shy to speak out to someone. They don’t know what’s available and from where,” says Sabiha.

The Academic

Jamila Hussain, the Secretary of the Muslims Women’s National Network and UTS Islamic Law lecturer argues that common perceptions of Islamic family law as inherently patriarchal and incompatible with Australian secular law reflect a stereotypical and simplistic understanding of Islamic religious law, ignoring the complexity and diversity of contemporary Islamic law in different contexts.

“Most people have the idea of a Iran-like theocratic law. But if you look at family law systems around the world you have a wide variety of interpretation. This includes Malaysia where there are even female sharia judges. The idea that legal systems cannot be flexible and learn and adopt ideas from other systems is very insular, and ignores the fact that we live in a multicultural society,” says Hussain.

The Bureacracy

However proposals for an Islamic law tribunal to work with the Family Court by Muslim leaders in April 2005, was met by censure by the Howard Government.

“The law in this country is secular. There’s a clear separation between religion and the law and Australia’s laws apply equally to all citizens, regardless of their religion.” declared Citizenship Minister Peter McGauran vehemently.

Whilst politicians and academics continue to debate the viability of such schemes, ordinary people caught within the bureaucracy continue to suffer.

*Names have changed to protect the interviewee’s identity.