Khouri, N. (2007). Human Rights and Islam: Lessons from Amina Lawal and Mukhtar Mai. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 8(93), 93-109.
Khouri explains three accounts/ interpretative frameworks that are used to draw relationships between human rights and Islamic law. There are named as Clash of Civilizations, Global Legal Pluralism, and Transnational Legal Process. The following mind map briefly outlines the important components associated with each:
She also analyzes two case studies – Amina Lawal and Mukhtar Mai- and interprets both of them in light of the three frameworks that she provides in this article. I will only be summarizing Mukhtar Mai’s case since it happened in Pakistan and it is directly related to my topic. The other case is that of a Nigerian woman, but since the penal code in Nigeria is different, I will not go into its detail.
In 2002, Mai was ganged raped on orders of her panchayat (village council) in retribution for alleged zina committed by her younger brother. Khouri explains this case in view of the three frameworks.
1. Clash of Civilization
International media adopted this interpretative framework to state that Mai’s human rights had been violated as a result of Sharia law. However, this framework ignores the fact that the village council did not have any legal authority to impose Sharia. Local tribunals are not part of the federal state law or the penal code. The clash is between traditional tribal law and official state law, not human rights and Islamic law.
2. Global Legal Pluralism
Because global legal pluralism recognizes human rights and Islamic law as separate and interacting entities, it takes local political structures into account. This framework explains that while the village council did not have legal authority, it was the village imam who spoke against the sexual violence. It also considers the class differences of perpetrator and victim. Mai’s perpetrators were from Mastoi tribe and because most members of the village council were from that tribe, they issued such a horrific act of violence against Mai, who was from the socially low Gujar tribe.
3. Transnational Legal Process
This interpretative framework emphasizes the concept of norm internalization. In Mai’s case, government condemned rape, compensated her and provided her legal costs. This could be partly attributed to international pressure which emphasizes human rights norms.
Each interpretative framework provides a unique analysis, but because the global legal pluralism accepts alternative models, it is neutral and more tolerant. Of course, the relationship between human rights and Islamic law is more complex than it is portrayed in these frameworks.
