Jonas Svensson
Lund University
This presentation is an attempt to discuss some implications that theories on globalisation might have on my own analysis of interpretations of Islam in support of women's human rights as expressed in international human rights documents. I will concentrate on the twin process of universalisation and relativisation. Furthernmore, I will present two ideal-typical positions in the contemporary ideological discourse on Islam and women's human rights. Both can be seen as attempts of 'islamisation' of these rights. Both positions contain features that can be interpreted as both results of and responses to the process of globalisation.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights undoubtedly has global pretentions. It claims ideologically to transcend local particulars. It is meant to apply to all human individuals around the globe, as members of a common 'humanity'. A process whereby the world is increasingly becoming 'one single place', in economic, social, political and cultural terms, would seem to favour these ideas . We can note that many people around the world today endorse the values underlying human rights, and engage in human rights activism, sensing the issue to be of global importance. Human Rights NGOs work across borders, utilizing the new information technology. Alliances and networks are formed across old cultural, national and social boundaries. The concept of Human Rights is also, at least rethorically, a factor in international big politics, and in international trade. States that violate human rights, at least civil and political rights, can expect international criticism, unless of course they have large oil resources or large consumer markets.
In another respect, globalisation can also be seen as undermining the very concept of universal human rights. Like other 'truths' these rights are revealed as relative and constructed and not absolute and eternal. Globalisation highlights the fact that they are a result of a fairly local, predominantly European experience, a globalisation of a Western particularity. States, groups and individuals around the globe have criticised the demand for respect for human rights as just another form of cultural imperialism from the part of 'the West'.
It is stated in the UDHR and in Human Rights conventions that discrimination on the basis of sex is a violation of human rights. This could be seen as a fairly clear statement that rules out the possibility to speak about specific 'women's human rights'. However, feminist critique of the concept of Human Rights and of Human Rights legislation has highlighted some problems. One of these is the liberal, and patriarchal distinction between public and private that historically has been inherent in the formulation of Human Rights. UDHR and the conventions deal with state responsibilities in relation to groups and individuals acting in public space. Most of the oppression experienced by women worldwide, however, takes place in the private sphere. The distinction between public and private serves to uphold power structures that favours men and disfavours women. Futhermore, there are issues specific to women, for example reproductive rights, that has to be considered in a discussion on human rights.
The Women's Decade 1975 - 1985, declared by the UN, the women's convention of 1979, the conferences in Kairo 1994 and in Beijing 1995 are examples of attempts from the part of the international community to discuss and come to terms with these problems. Both tendencies mentioned above concerning Human Rights and globalisation have been present in this process. International, regional and local NGOs have taken active part in discussions, and there has been lots of cooperation worldwide in what has been seen as an issue of common, global, interest. On the other hand, critique of 'the West' for patronizing women of the Third World and for setting the agenda for 'the woman question' globally, has been voiced. Like in the larger feminist debate the discussions on sameness and difference have been heated. One of the principal areas for discussion has been the question of Muslim women's human rights, and the the role of religion in this respect. The problem is often presented as primarily an ideological one, a conflict between a local tradition, Islam, and the global demands for Human Rights. The situation is however, I would claim, more complicated.
Two ideal-typical tendencies are usually set up in the discussion on religious responses to globalisation in general. On the one hand is the 'fundamentalist' religious claim to legitimacy for the local tradition over and above the global, and on the other hand there is the 'liberal' religious endorsement of the global, resulting in a ecumenical, flexible and tolerant approach. These two tendencies, the 'fundamentalist' and the 'liberal' can with little problem be used to structure parts of the contemporary Islamic discourse on Women's rights into two ways of islamisation of women's human rights.
On the 'fundamentalist' side we have an opposition to the idea of equality between the sexes without distinction, as running counter to the sharifia. Islam provides women with rights, but these are in some aspects different from the rights of men. Especially the notion of gender-equality before the law, is seen to clash with an objectified view of religion as not only belief, but also as eternal law. This kind of argument is widely used in defence for Muslim state's reservations to the 'Women's convention' of 1979. You find it in diverse pamflets, books, articles, speaches etc discussing 'Women's rights in Islam', and also in so called 'Islamic alternatives' to Human Rights documents. Common to most of these discussions is the construction of an 'Islamic' view on gender-equality (or in some cases equity) with distinctions. This construction is forwarded as more real, more just, and more natural than global versions of gender equality without distinction. It is a construction made in opposition to the globally spread ideal of equality, but at the same time it is influenced by what it is opposing. Various lists of women's Islamic Rights tend to be moulded apologetically more or less upon the basic idea of men's and women's equal rights, but with qualifications in certain areas. The scope of these qualifications vary. Far from being a total rejection it is an attempt to appropriation of parts of the global ideal as 'Islamic'. This is done by claiming women's rights as instituted already 1400 years ago in the Qur'an or by the Prophet. Appropriation with qualification is one form of what I have chosen to term the islamisation of women's human rights.
In a personal correspondence with a representative of the organisation I was informed that:
[T]he point of the manual is to convey and transmit principles of universal human rights - found in various international documents - in ways in which grassroots women can understand and/or utilize. The manual uses familiar indigenous cultural/religious material to convey these human rights principles.Local tradition is thus presented as instrumentally useful in promoting the idea of global Human Rights. In the manual the main premises for the reinterpretation of this local tradition, or rather Islam, is elaborated, and these are most interesting from the viewpoint of globalisation.
The central premise is of course that 'universal human rights are consonant with the spirit of Islam'. This is set against the common idea of an ideological conflict between the two. The Qur[[radical]][[apple]]n is presented as the 'word of God', but at the same time it is claimed that this word is mystical and understood in full only by Muhammad. All other understandings are limited by the socio-historical context of the interpreter. Sharifia, elaborated through fiqh, is nothing but man-made law, bound by time and space reflecting historical, social and cultural patriarchal particularities. Furthermore, sharifia is possible to reformulate continuously:
The interpreters of the Qur'an and the sunna have been able to offer different interpretations during different epochs precisely because the original 'word' is infinite in depth and scope and, hence, applicable to innumerable circumstances and able to define evolving conditions infinitely. [1]In relation to women's human rights it is stated that 'the moral impulse of the 'Word', i.e., Its eternal thrust, is toward equality for all' and that 'all instances of inequality are time- and space-dependent.' This forms the basis for the authors' claim that Islam demands the achievement of gender equality, and affirmative action from the political system to this end.
While the claim of the Sisterhood is Global institute is that local religous tradition is to be utilised in favour of women's human rights, the views on Islam presented here are rather controversial from the viewpoint of traditional Islam. Islam becomes spiritual, progressive, egalitarian, multifaced and possible to reformulate continously according to contemporary circumstances, but nontheless normative.
It is interesting to compare the premises presented in this manual with what globalisation theorist Peter Beyer has identified as core values in globalisation. These values have their origin in a Western context of modernity, but due to globalisation they have spread around the world. Among these values are equality, progress, openess to change, and belief in enlightment for all. It would seem that what is termed as local tradition in the manual from SIGI, is global values presented in the form of a reinterpreted and reformulated Islam.
Globalisation theories usually hold that in the face of globalisation of culture and of ideas local traditions are transformed in response to the global. The two forms of 'Islamisation' of women's human rights can be analysed in this context. The instrumental utilization of what is percieved as local tradition by the SIGI has as its goal the acceptance of women's human rights, the localisation of the global. It is a response to the relativising effect of globalisation upon the idea of Universal Human Rights, and the rethorical use of this relativisation. In the process, a local tradition is constructed in order to fit the needs.
Though claiming that nothing has actually changed in the understanding of Islam, the 'fundamentalist' version of the islamisation of women's human rights is also a result and a response to globalisation. The local tradition is also in this case constructed in relation to the global. While rejecting the global idea of equality without distinctions as incompatible with Islam, parts of the discourse on gender equality and women's rights are appropriated as 'Islamic', and already inherent in the local tradition
While in the case of SIGI the attempt is to legitimise the global while utilizing a constructed local tradition, the 'fundamentalist' position utilizes a selection of global values, and the global language of women's rights, to legitimise Islam, not only to non-Muslims, but also to Muslims who like other inhabitants of earth are affected by the globalisation that relativises local 'truths'.
The contemporary discussion on women's human rights and Islam is not limited to Muslims. Whether or not Islam supports women's human rights seems no longer to be a question to be solved only by an internal dialogue. The support from human rights activists, and from parts of the UN system, for the instrumental use of Islam to forward human rights has been noted. SIGI for example is not a 'Muslim' organisation, but for pragmatic reasons supports a certain understanding of Islam. Non-muslim journalists and human rights activists, accepting a 'liberal' interpretation of Islam, have for example criticized the Taliban in Afghanistan not only for violating women's human rights, but for acting against the spirit of Islam as well. Likewise, the 'fundamentalist' rejection of certain parts of Women's Human Right with reference to the demands of sharifia has in some cases been accepted by non-Muslims as valid. There is a global choice of sides going on here. This is another aspect of globalisation of the question of Islam and women's human rights that might in itself be interesting to investigate further.
© The author and Nordic Society for Middle Eastern Studies. Archived 29.3.99