I HAVE had the opportunity of listening to the president of Pakistan speak at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The first time I heard him, he rightly condemned “obscurantists” in Pakistan, who were giving Islam a bad name. It was at this time that he coined the phrase of “enlightened moderation”.

This phrase reminded me of the time that the World Bank had set up a committee to codify innovations, I remember wondering to myself at that time if innovation can be regulated then would its spirit of originality remain intact, would inventors, thinkers, researchers be able to exist in such an environment?

Carrying the same analogy forward if enlightenment could be moderated, that is, if enlightenment could be limited, controlled or restricted so that it remains moderate, how could it become a mechanism of freeing society from ignorance, prejudice or superstition?

Taken literally, the Enlightenment was an 18th-century intellectual movement in Western Europe that emphasised reason and science in philosophy, in the study of human culture and the natural world. How does this thinking relate to Islam? During Islam’s era of enlightenment, several religious movements were derived from similar principles. In particular, the Mutazili theology originated in the 8th century in Basra, Iraq, and was based on the concept which sought to ground the Islamic creedal system in reason.

Though Mutazilis relied on logic and different aspects of Greek philosophy, the truths of Islam were their starting point and ultimate reference. By the end of the ninth century, Mutazilis, who can be seen as rationalists were vehemently criticised by the traditionalists, however, the dichotomy between the two was not so stark, since both groups relied on balancing reason with divine revelation.

The above overview tells us that Islam can coexist with reason, with logic and with enlightenment. However, the problem arises when one tries to moderate and control it.

The current question that confronts the Islamic world and Pakistan in particular, given the recent debate on the Hudood bill, is whether Islam and women’s rights can co-exist. As a Muslim woman, I find this entire debate to be farcical. In fact, the current deliberation is predicated on the wrong footing. The ongoing furore on the Hudood Bill is based on the incorrect and feeble notion that the Zina and Hadd laws will make our society equitable and safe. It also surprises me to think that we consider these laws inviolate, when there are many examples in Islamic history that have shown this to the contrary.

It may also be important to understand the distinction between Shariah and din. The term shariah means “the way to a watering-place”, from which human beings can derive the element vital to their life and is used in the Quran to denote a system of law necessary for a community’s social and spiritual welfare. Din includes not only the laws relating to the religion, but also the basic, unchanging spiritual truths preached by all of God’s apostles and the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH); such divine truths are of course inviolable and determine the basis of all revealed religions.

In other words the shariah or laws that are derived from religion or deen can vary in accordance with the requirements and needs of the time and of each community’s socioeconomic and cultural development, i.e. Islam propagates unity in diversity.

For example, during the time of Hazrat Umar (RA)’s caliphate, the Hadd punishments were discontinued when there was a famine in Arabia. What this tells us is that the punishment of cutting off hands in case of stealing can only be applicable if a society is able to provide every individual, man and woman, the minimum of material well-being and security without which there can be no human dignity or no real freedom or progress.

In a state which is unable to provide complete social security to all its members, the temptation to take from the privileged few through other means often becomes irresistible. In such a situation, theft cannot and should not be punished as severely as it should be punished in a state in which social security is a reality in the full sense of the word. Pakistan’s record on all these fronts has been abysmal and in such a case, applying the rules of Hadd are perhaps too severe and currently unjustified. It is only when each and every citizen in our country has met their basic needs that we have the social obligation to apply the Hadd punishments fully.

The same concept applies to the issue of women’s rights. A lot has already been said and written about the importance that Islam has accorded to women. However, I want to mention three particular instances in Islamic history, where women influenced its course. It is a well documented fact that the Prophet (pbuh) upon receiving the first revelation, returned back to his home in a state of inner turmoil. He shared with his wife, Hazrat Khadija his own inner doubts and fears. She assured him that given his veracity and his truthfulness, there could be no doubt that he had received divine revelation and that indeed he was the Chosen One, the Messenger of Allah.

Given this fact, how can we doubt women’s credence and their ability to provide evidence in terms of the material and physical world, when the first person to witness and acknowledge the Prophet’s divine message was a woman?

The second juncture, where doubts could have been raised about the Prophet’s mission, was at the time of Hudaibiya, when the treaty had been signed and several of the Companions were unable to understand its real import and were questioning the Prophet in their minds. The Prophet turned to his wife, Umm Salama, at this critical juncture and sought her advice. She understood the significance of the moment and advised him that he should immediately begin the sacrifice of the animals, and the rest of the Companions would have to follow his example, and understand that the Prophet’s decision was final.

The Prophet did exactly what his wife had advised, and that saved the moment for the Muslim ummah, and kept the spirit of Islam intact. If the Prophet consulted women in such matters of import, how incongruous is it for us to debate today whether women can hold public office or whether they can lead congregations in prayer?

The third instance is the role that Hazrat Zainab, the grand daughter of the Prophet played after the events at Karbala. Despite the many deprivations she faced during the long and arduous journey to the 10th day of Muharram, and the privations and humiliations that were forced upon her and the remaining members of her family, she held her own and managed to confront Yazid in the very splendour and might of his court. It was a woman’s voice that raised the banner of right against might, it was a woman’s eloquence that held sway and brought out the true message of Karbala and Islam to resist tyranny and untruth even when faced with extreme dangers.

If Hazrat Zainab had not related the events of Karbala and highlighted its message, the sacrifice of Imam Hussain would have been lost forever and the message of Islam would have been corrupted beyond recognition. In such straitened circumstances, to demonstrate the courage and faith to openly confront despotism, iniquity and tyranny, is something even a man would think twice about. Then who are we to debate whether Islam accords women equal status or not, when history has demonstrated not once, not twice but many times how critical women have been to Islamic thought, Islamic norms and Islamic society?

I am reminded here of George Orwell, who while serving as a sub-divisional police officer in Burma, was confronted by the choice of whether to kill or not to kill an elephant who had gone amok in the locality. Upon confronting the elephant, who after its period of mad rage had calmed down and was peaceably munching on bunches of grass in the paddy fields, Orwell had no desire to kill it. However, with hundreds of local Burmese pressing upon him, he decided to go ahead and kill it. To justify the killing he says, “Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed if its owner fails to control it.”

Such too is the unfortunate plight of the Hudood Bill, which in its application has indiscriminately hurt society. It appears the state has lost all control over it, otherwise why would hundreds of women be languishing in jail, to be released through a merciful ordinance promulgated by the president over and above the opinion of our conservative parliament? Since our current public representatives wish to keep discrimination, injustice, tyranny, prejudice and chauvinism alive rather than building an equitable and fair society, which would reflect the true mores of Islam, they had better be reminded of Orwell’s statement.

We protest whenever people like Thomas Friedman or other representatives of the western media infer that an American life lost in Iraq is far more valuable than the death of an Iraqi. By why don’t we question when a woman’s life is interred in a Pakistani jail for no fault of her own? There is no doubt that Karbala continues today, manifested in terms of the thousands of women who have suffered due to the discriminatory, inhumane and badly drafted Hudood Ordinance and the subsequent misinterpretation of the message of Islam, compounded by the meek judges who go by public opinion rather than the spirit of Shariah.

Perhaps it is time the voices of women hold sway again to change the tide.