Volume 15, Issue 1 -

Departing from a critical norm research perspective, the paper first sketches the need to unveil the Eurocentric and secular bias of International Relations (IR) as a discipline in general and its constructivist norm research program in particular. With regard to human rights norms, and religious freedom in particular, the dominant liberal-secular international human rights law understanding of religious freedom marginalizes religious, and especially, Islamic grounds and understandings of this truly global norm. Indeed, it demonstrates both, the dominant ideational perspective of religious freedom as a Western human right grounded by Western-canonical thinkers, and the limits of accommodating religion and religious voices in IR. In contrast, and against the background of a post-secular IR, the paper seeks to unveil alternative and marginalized bodies of Islamic knowledge for the sake of a more comprehensive picture to be painted by IR. By reconstructing reformist Islamic thought and Islamic ideational perspectives and conceptualizations of religious freedom, the paper seeks to let these voices speak for themselves as truly genuine Islamic contributions to IR. The overall aim is threefold: to theoretically connect critical norm research and post-secular approaches with reformist Islamic thought by conceptualizing ijtihad as religious norm contestation; to unveil the double marginalized character of critical Muslim voices in IR; and finally to paint a broader and more comprehensive picture of Islam and IR by revealing an alternative Islamic genealogy of universal religious freedom.

The inability of traditional Shi’a jurisprudents to respond to the challenges in the field of human rights and the rights of religious minorities, which is rooted in the denial of human dignity and the emphasis on religious dignity, has led to the emergence of a new discourse among contemporary Shi’a jurisprudents in Iran in recent years. This group of jurists known as reformist jurists seeks to re-evaluate the jurisprudential laws, re-interpret the Shari’a and find a way out of the religion to reduce the existing conflict with the universal human rights standards. The opinions of this group of jurists, albeit criticized by the traditional scholars, have been welcomed by young clerics. To understand the main aspects of this jurisprudential dispute, two main questions have been considered by the researchers: What are the main principles of human rights in the thoughts of traditionalist and reformist jurists in Iran? And how differently have the reformist jurists conceptualized the subject of human rights? To answer these questions, the impact of traditional jurisprudents on the formulation of the current constitution of Iran is studied and the main differences between the views of traditional and modern jurists are evaluated.

Protecting women and children is one of the core values of the Islamic legal tradition. In Muslim countries religious, constitutional, and legal frameworks obligate the state to take special measures to provide protection to women and children within families and in society. However, despite such provisions, post-divorce maintenance rights are not granted to women in Pakistan and Iran. Family law enacted in Pakistan and Iran still differs in form and substance from what has been mentioned in the primary sources of Islamic law and from the previous articulations of early Islamic law scholars. Moreover, patriarchal notions of male authority are still sustained through law and judicial interpretations when it comes to the question of giving post-divorce maintenance to women. As a result in the absence of a welfare system divorced women are left in a vulnerable situation. Although in Iran, some financial compensation under the concept of Ujrat ul Misl (compensation for household chores) is given to divorced women, but it remains unclear whether the right to Mata’at-ul-Talaq (post-divorce maintenance) has been recognised under the family law. In Pakistan the law does not include any provision for giving women Ujrat ul Misl and Mata’at- ul -Talaq. Moreover in the absence of a welfare system, divorced Muslim women in both countries are left in a vulnerable situation. This article engages with plural normative sources and contemporary notions of human rights to make the case for family law reform and for awarding post-divorce maintenance rights to Muslim women in Pakistan and Iran.

The primary aim of this article is to illustrate the dichotomy of Jordan as a progressive country, perhaps best exemplified through the engagement of the royal family in human rights matters, versus the traditional approach, sanctioning the discriminatory laws concerning women. This paper further attempts to demonstrate that Jordan is balancing between the conservative tribal interests, by pertaining to the Arab and Islamic tradition on the one hand, and the need for democratisation and further human rights development on the other. It is important to note, that discriminatory laws concerning women are not the only examples illustrating this peculiar mechanism, however, they constitute the most vivid one. The author further submits that many authors, as well as international bodies such as CEDAW and the Human Rights Committee, fail to understand the dynamics and complexity of the human rights situation in Jordan. Hence, these authors and authorities’ recommendations are often misguided, as they focus mostly on amending the discriminatory legislation. This article briefly discusses cultural relativism aspects and suggests that actual progress can be achieved by developing a unique language of human rights related to the Arab culture, for instance through the newly established Jordanian Constitutional Court.

In the absence of a codified Family Law, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has traditionally applied the Hanbali school of Islamic Law in its family courts. However, the court’s handling of children’s custody cases has been criticised as being too rigid and narrow in interpreting the principles of Islamic Law. To overcome some of the problems faced in children’s custody cases, the Saudi authorities have recently made a number of Directions and Decisions for the family courts to follow. Through looking at these measures and some relevant court judgements, this Article aims to shed some light on the effect of these changes in emphasising the human rights of children in family law cases.