The legal status of Muslim women is a complex and contentious topic that has engaged the state, women, and ʿulamaʾ in a dynamic debate. In pursuit of gender justice, reformist ʿulamaʾ and female activists are advocating policy reform through religious activism. This project investigates to what capacity Iranian women and reformist ʿulamaʾ are bridging the gap between Islamic jurisprudence and gender justice in the realm of Islamic Family Law (IFL). This study also explores the role women and ʿulamaʾ played in the progression and regression of women’s rights in IFL since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. This research contends reformist ʿulamaʾ and female activists have contributed to creating social, anthropological, and religious knowledge that engendered reformation of IFL in Shiʿi Iran. Since the Iranian Revolution, reformist ʿulamaʾ and female activists have recognized that the only reform that can be effective needs to be rooted in Islamic jurisprudential approaches. In Iran, female activists and the ʿulamaʾ have resorted to various strands of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) in an effort to interpret religious doctrines. There are currently two predominant types of jurisprudential traditions in practice that affect women’s legal status in the realm of IFL. The first type, which I refer to as “traditional jurisprudence” (fiqh-e taqlīdī), continues to advocate conventional precepts and enjoys majority support from traditionalist ʿulamaʾ. The second type of jurisprudential tradition, or the “renaissance” approach (fiqh-e tajdīdī), is traditional in nature but attempts to revive the legal pluralism of the tradition and is represented here by the work of reformist ʿulamaʾ and female activists. Through interviews and textual analysis, I highlight several factors that distinguish the reformists’ approach to gender equality from their traditional and secular counterparts. In the works of reformers who adhere to the fiqh-e tajdīdī tradition, there exists a major hermeneutical shift in Shiʿi legal theory that has a direct impact on women’s legal standing. This drive for reform, as well as the promise of greater adoption of the egalitarian principles of Islam, is at the center of this religious activism. Despite the belief that the state’s transformation following the Iranian Revolution led to regressive measures in women’s legal status, reformists have managed to improve the status of women in IFL over the years. The pressure and power that women, ʿulamaʾ, and the state exert on each other has caused Iran’s IFL to be more flexible compared to the family law systems of other Islamic states.

There she was, sitting in court. Veil across her face. Demure. The judge pronounced the sentence and she sighed deeply. The bailiffs came over to remove the veil as the judge mandated. Turning aside as they did so, she could be seen to weep. Thus the Correctional Tribunal of Oran dealt with Mohammed Ould el Hadj in 1867, a “new case” unlike anything that the shocked tribunal had seen before: “neither man nor woman,” a person born male who acted and dressed like an Arab woman. Picked up on the newly-important charge of vagabondage, Mohammed Ould el Hadj pleaded to be judged in the court as a woman. Saying he knew no work “proper to a man” – he claimed to have been raised his whole life as a woman – el Hadj challenged the gendered binaries of colonial society. Responding to the challenge, the President of the Tribunal asserted a biological reality of gender: “but you are a man, Mohammed.” Working through the record of this case, along with documents relating to the overall juridical process in Algeria, this paper will examine questions of colonial sociability, gender, and jurisprudence through a reconstruction of this extraordinary moment. How did the Tribunal come to a judgment in this new kind of case? What role did imperial justice have in the policing of dress and gender in Algeria? How did the “modern” practices of policing and public hygiene affect in the charge of vagabondage that landed el Hadj in prison for two months? Throughout we will see that Mohammed Ould el Hadj presented a new challenge to discourses of modern governance and scientific management that structured the sovereignty of French Algeria.

There are 52 countries (17 non-Muslim, 35 Muslim majority) in the world that formally recognize and apply Muslim Family Laws (MFLs) within their legal systems. Four of these countries (with 5+ mi. pop.) are consistently classified as “full” democracies by Freedom House and Polity IV. These are Israel, India, Greece, and Ghana. In this respect, the proposed paper will discuss what challenges these 4 non-Muslim majority nations encountered while implementing MFLs within a democratic framework, how they went about responding to these challenges and (un)successfully rendering these laws compatible with constitutional obligations, and, what lessons (if any) Muslim nations could learn from their experiences. The paper will first introduce the Index of Rights-based Accommodation of Muslim Family Laws (IRAMFAL), which measures the extent to which all 52 MFL-applying countries have integrated certain rule of law and substantive rights standards into their MFL systems. Higher the IRAMFAL score the more compatible MFLs with liberal democratic norms and institutions. Comparing Israeli, Indian, Greek and Ghanaian governments’ performances as well as those of other Muslim and non-Muslim majority countries, the paper then tries to explain the reasons why some countries have been more successful in rendering their MFLs compatible with democratic norms and procedures. In this respect, based on extensive field research in four countries as well as in-depth interviews with 267 experts, judges, activists etc. the paper tests a number of alternative hypothesis, and shows that a) Performances of democratic nations were not superior to those of non-democratic regimes; b) In Muslim majority nations, the ability of governments to reform MFLs strongly correlates with the legislative capacity of the state and the number of women representatives in the parliament; c) In non-Muslim majority nations, reform of MFLs is often a byproduct of reforms targeting the family laws of the majority community; d) In non-Muslim majority nations, the government’s ability to reform MFLs correlates with the colonial patterns of accommodation/integration of Muslim laws; and lastly e) In both Muslim and non-Muslim majority nations, “secularly grounded” top-down reforms were less effective than “Islamically grounded” bottom-up reforms in improving human and women’s rights on the ground.

Based on 18 months of ethnographic field research in terrorism courtrooms in New York City and Washington DC, this paper will demonstrate how terrorism suspects utilize the secular legal space of the sentencing hearing in order to invoke Islam in ways that challenge not only the court's interpretation of their 'crime', but also in order to inform and educate the court and it's public audience about Islam. Terrorism suspects use the space of the sentencing hearing in order to both directly invoke the Quran, hadith, and Islamic legal concepts, as well as to reflect upon the historic dominance of Islam, comment upon the contemporary challenges facing Muslims around the world, and speak to and about the ethical failures and obligations of the Muslim ummah. In the process, the discourse of terrorism suspects also poses explicit and implicit challenges to secular law; particularly it's configuration of the domain of 'the religious' as necessarily distinct and oppositional category to the domains of 'the political,' 'the ethical,' and 'the public.' The space of the sentencing hearing is of crucial importance in this paper insofar it compellingly demonstrates the limits and extents of recognition that can be attained through secular courts. In theory, the sentencing hearing is an event and space in which liberal ideals are exercised and reaffirmed; the accused is endowed with the freedom of speech, given the opportunity to present the "natives point of view". And yet, this 'freedom' is extended under particularly confining circumstances: following conviction. This paper therefore argues that while the sentencing hearing provides terrorism suspects with an opportunity to invoke Islam, to present rhetoric and explanations that the trial - neither in theory nor in practice - is built to accommodate, the conditions that enable this accommodation speak directly to the ways in which secular law defines, delimits and calibrates how the actions and imperatives of terrorism suspects - and through them, ideas about Islam - are ultimately understood and granted recognition before the law, as well as in the court of public opinion.

National level reforms to the Personal Status Code (PSC) in Morocco in 2004 included changes to the process of divorce, such as prohibiting the practice repudiation and requiring the presence of a judge to process divorce cases and oversee the division of marital assets. Legislative changes intended to raise women’s status in Moroccan society and responded to demands posed by women’s organizations on national and local levels. Now more than a decade past the original reforms, the question remains as to how the new PSC has affected women’s status in different regions of the country, particularly for rural women with low rates of literacy and formal education. Studies have revealed a lack of implementation measures to ensure the application of the PSC in many circumstances. Based on research in the Agadir region of Morocco in 2015, this paper discusses women’s recent experiences of divorce and assesses the extent to which women undergoing divorce proceedings are aware of current family laws and seek to claim legal rights under the PSC. It also examines the role of local NGOs in promoting awareness of women's rights and providing forms of legal advocacy for women.