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 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, 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 realities 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.

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, every religion has some aspects of its core beliefs and tenets that are so fundamental that without them 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.

the term [fundamental] 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 exist 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 religion1.

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 people’s minds 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 1980s, the term used to designate such beliefs amongst Muslims was Islamist. 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 understood2.

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 attitudes3.

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, maybe 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 goal, as seen by such partisans, is to do so, then the real problem is not with the said faith but with 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 such4.

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 described as “reform” movements5. 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 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 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 eroded6.

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 stood 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 does the central emphasis of such focus of Islam have to 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 times7. God calls human beings ashraf al-makhluqat, 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 cannot be contemplated by basic Islamic postulates, nor can inequality be genuinely progressive.

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 Qur’an itself. Reference to such citations will hopefully stress the high significance that Islam places on this matter.

Throughout its history, 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 focus on the larger matter pertaining to the subject of human rights of these categories of the human race.

This discussion proceeds in the background of 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 their cultural and religious practices and beliefs, Muslims have come under severe criticism in the popular Western press and governments. As such, the “clash” that he spoke of has arisen, realistically speaking, from the imperceptible to the 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 was strengthened by late Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of this trend in his address to a multi-congregational audience in Assisi on January 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 the 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. In this context, in a Hegelian sense of historical perspective, recent political events towards a “secularized” Islamic World have to be seen8. Different phrases to denote this emphasis are employed by powers and forces that be, in order 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 is 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 of being under siege from those who are believed to be aggressing somewhere against the Muslims in the vicinity9.

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 Islam’s 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 that confront doctrinal Islam are as much the result of its religious opponents as of its ardent political supporters. Many crucial issues have thus been confounded by its 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, has often used it as an elastic cloak for political power and expediencies. (The Islamic Republic 4)

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 relationships” (Abdalati, 113–114). The Qur’anic 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 that were present at the advent of Islam. “These Qur’anic reforms, as well as customary practice, constitute the substance of classical family law” in Muslim philosophy (Esposito 13).

The basic perception of marriage, which is considered to be the foundation of family life, is in the nature of “the strongest bond” (Abdalati 114) that exists in human relations. The fourth surah of the Qur’an, An-Nisaa’, allows marriage of choice but forbids the husband from inheriting the wife’s property against her will (Ali 184, 190). According to the Qur’an, 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 Qur’an allows the rights of women not only in the context of marriage (Al-Baqarah 2:228), but in protection from slander (An-Nur 24:4-5, 23), maintenance (Al-Baqarah 2:241), and care of children (Al-Baqarah 2:233). 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 offspring, 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, but in return the parents must exert their best moral influence on them

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 Qur’an 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 seventh century culture in which Islam began its infancy, it rebuked the idol worshipers of Arabia who ascribed daughters to God but wanted only to have male heirs and reacted accordingly in their prevalent social practices. The Qur’an says:

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” (Smith 92). 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, she thereby was also deemed to relinquish all property rights therein. As a wife, a woman became totally subject to her husband and his tribe. In this background came the Qur’anic injunctions regarding a woman’s right to be respected—particularly as a mother—, her property rights, and her right to be considered an integral party of the family unit (Esposito 14).

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” (Parwez 342). Leading Qur’anic mandates concerning these aspects of God’s commandments stressing the complementary roles of both sexes to each other can be gleaned from the following verses:

And again, a famous verse says:

Perhaps equally well-known is the following commandment:

Islamic teachings lay the greatest stress on the position of parents, especially of mothers. Indeed, the Qur’an gives a lofty position of respect to one’s ancestry and places the status of mothers only second to God (Badawi 29). The Qur’an expressly mandates:

Further, the Qur’an says:

In another specific commandment God says:

The mandate to cater for and look after aged parents is directly attended to in the Qur’an. It is said:

The underlying message in such commandments derives its ethical foundations from the concept, inter alia, of ihsan (benevolence). This concept, which figures in diverse forms in Islamic teachings, in the words of an author, “denotes what is right, good, and beautiful” (Ati 205). 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” and applies with full emphasis to the parent-child relationship (Ati 205).

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 goodwill that is expected to be displayed towards the rest of the people in a community, ex hypothesi, increases manifold towards 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. (Ati 205)

Economic responsibility in the family is placed primarily on the husband. Further domestic duties are to be shared proportionately. 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—

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 to 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 shelter does not entitle him to impose upon her any disagreeable arrangement of residence. (Ati 149–150)

These observations are derived from the Qur’an, from which the following well-known verse may be cited with advantage:

In a family, the wife’s right to be financially maintained is established by Qur’anic 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, 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.” (Ati 148)

The Qur’an mandates that young children be properly looked after and nurtured (Al-Baqarah 2:233). It is further stated in the same injunction that the children be raised by mutual consultation between the parents. These directions form a part of the general guidelines provided in the Qur’an 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 sacred duty. There is a call to the believers that those who truly believe in God are asked to be kind and forthcoming in their assistance to those who are in need or disadvantaged or handicapped. Indeed, these injunctions go as far as to impose hospitality and to provide help to the elderly kin, those who are indigent, or even those who are traveling11.

An allied concept to provide for those in need in the family, including women and children, is that of zakah. It is a basic obligation of a Muslim to participate in social responsibilities by donating a small part of his or her savings to those in need. This “purifies” the person giving such assistance. While the donor thanks God for His blessings, the zakah is deigned to help others in distress and needing help. The Qur’an says:

In another notable injunction, the Qur’an candidly asserts:

The above brief analysis reveals the emphatic focus that the Qur’an places on the concepts of mercy, 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 position15. It is self-evident that while addressing matters relating to affection for one’s family and the allied expectation of assistance required of a Muslim community, the ingredient of `adl, or justice, plays a uniquely esoteric and ethical role.

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 Qur’anic 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—

1. Women’s education

2. Women’s access to public life

3. Behavioral restrictions relating to dress, participation in family, and personal interaction amongst their peers

It will be seen that the basic focus of all these three issues relates 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 that 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 effect on societal practices. This was always historically true. But with the advent of the 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 fundamentalists’ philosophy, irrespective of its depth or commitment to such convictions, believes that the bringing of women into the domain of the public or educated spectrum should not be openly allowed or at least it should be 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 a 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, the 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 are certainly connected to and emanating from cultural prejudices and local customary practices. In these circumstances, while no doubt the fundamentalist elements of society have a more visible role to play in the enforcement of or compliance with such unwelcome rules of conduct devised for women by 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 Pakistani society.

The aim of all conservative elements in such environments is to ensure that the traditional male domination of 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 anywhere else in the world16. 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 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 level of human rights regime for women is not free from difficulties and problems. In these troubled times, those bent upon granting 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 times.

How they can do so is not easy to envisage. Only a little more than a decade ago, the United States utilized the mammoth zeal of Muslim jihadist elements to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Now the jihadists are branded as terrorists or at least extremists. How women’s 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 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 latter 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.

References

Abdalati, H. Islam in Focus. Plainfield, Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1975.

Ali, A.Y. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. Beltsville, Maryland: Amana Publications, 1995.

Ali, Syed Ameer. The Spirit of Islam. Karachi: Pakistan Publishing House, 1976.

Ati, H.A. The Family Structure in Islam. Plainsfield, Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1977.

Badawi J. Gender Equality in Islam: Basic Principles. Plainsfield, Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1995.

Esposito, J.L. Women in Muslim Family Law. Syracuse University Press, 1982.

Hasan, Farooq. The Islamic Republic. Aziz Publishers, 1984.

Parwez, G. Islam, A Challenge to Religion. Lahore, 1968.

Smith, R.W. Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia. Boston: Beacon Press, 1903.

1-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.

2-The reason for this change is based on an 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.

3- It is outside the limited purview of this essentially “speaking work” to examine this point in depth.

4-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 would be useful to adopt the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which defines this particular concept as “Maintenance, in opposition to modernism of traditional orthodox beliefs.”

5-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.

6-The year 2004 was observed as the Year of the Family, during which a number of important international conferences were held, noting that 2004 marked 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 November 30, 2004, the Doha Declaration was issued, followed by the UNGA Resolution of December 6, 2004. In none of them, however, were the difficulties faced by women in Islamic countries even mentioned.

7-Islamic jurisprudential doctrines of ijtihad are of basic functional value in doing so.

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

9-For this phenomenon in current Iran, see generally Enemies of Ayatollahs, M. Mohaddassin, 2004. See further Islamic Fundamentalism & Question of Women, M. Rajavi, 2004.

10- See also Ali, A.Y. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, 1995, p. 651.

11- Al-Baqarah 2:177, 180, 215, 263, 273; An–Nisaa’ 4:8, 25, 36, 92; Al-Ma’idah 5:89; Al-Anfal 8:41; At-Tawbah 9:60; Ar-Rum 30:38; Al-Ahzab 33:6; Al–Mujadilah 58:4; Al-Ma`un 107:1-3.

12- See, for instance, Al-Baqarah 2:186, 286; see further Aal `Imran 3:145, 150; An-Nisaa’ 4:26, 28; Qaf 50:16.

13- See, for instance, Al-An`am 6:160; Al-Qasas 28:84.

14- See also Ali, A.Y. The Holy Qur`an, pp. 70-71.

15- The other notable concept, in this context, is that of ihsan discussed earlier.

16- See this author’s op. ed. piece “Stared into Silence,” The Nation (Lahore), 24 June, 2005, stressing the agony of the gang rape inflicted on a rustic woman, called Muktharan Mai, by a town jury of elders in Pakistan, and then attempted callously to be “hidden” from the world by the government.

** DPhil.; BA Juris, MA, MLitt, (Oxon), DCL (Columbia), DIA (Harvard), Of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister at Law, UK; Attorney at Law, US; Senior Advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan; David M. Kennedy Visiting Scholar and Professor of International Studies, Kennedy Center; Professor and Visiting Fellow, Law School Human Rights Program and Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. He is currently the UN Special Ambassador for Family, the President of the American Institute of South Asian Strategic Studies, Boston. He delivered the highly prestigious King Faisal Memorial Lecture for 2002 in Saudi Arabia. In 2003 he was awarded the International Professor of Human Rights Awards by Saudi Arabia from a galaxy of international experts. In 2004 he became the first Pakistani scholar to be appointed a distinguished Visiting Professor by JNU in Delhi, and gave Memorial Lectures at the Benaras Hindu University and at famed Ambadkar Center in Auranagbad on Constitutional evolution in South Asia.