(2:35 min)

Katerina Dalacoura: Since 11 September, the perception that has tended to predominate is that Islam is a threat to the West. This is a very simple and fundamental idea, which has unfortunately gained a lot of credence in the year since 11 September.

On a more sophisticated level, I would say that there is a perception among those who are in the know, that Islam not only needs, but also can be reformed. That is a very important distinction. It is not a misguided idea because Islam, like all religions, is not static. It has never remained the same through time or across different locations. Its manifestations have varied immensely. This is something that demonstrates not just that Islam can be reformed, but that it is reformed and reforming. It is changing all the time.

ther crucial distinction. It is important to remember that Islamic government is something that does not necessarily exist in Muslim societies. There are secular societies in which the majority of people believe in Islam. Turkey is an example of this. There are various degrees of separation between religion and politics, and it is only in some cases that there is Islamic government. It is interesting to note that the Islamic governments that do exist--Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan (until recently at least)--each had different ideas about what Islam and politics should be.

Fathom: What kind of reform do you think commentators are talking about--political or social?

(1:13 min)

Dalacoura: Political and social reform should be taken together. Those who talk about the need for reform in Islam refer to both. There is a logical connection between the questioning of hierarchies, openness to different ideas and general tolerance. This approach is relevant to reform in relationships both at the political level, between government and citizen, and at the family level, between various members of a family. I think the two types of reform are very closely linked and are seen as such by those who want reform to take place.

Fathom: Do you think it is useful to talk about reform within Islam, or is this line of thought a reflection of Western preconceptions? Are there traditions of reform within Islam itself? Are there historical examples of this?

(4:36 min)

Dalacoura: There are many Muslims who advocate reform within Islam. At the same time there is a very strong tradition or belief within Islam that the time of Mohammed represented the ideal time, and that Muslims should attempt to return to that time and emulate the Prophet in their lives.

A third important point is that when referring to reform within Islam, as in any religion, we have to specify what kind of reform it is we are talking about. Reform might mean the emergence of fundamentalist, violent, more hard-line interpretations of Islam. It is a very flexible religion and the reason why it is so open to interpretation is because there is no agreed religious hierarchy, as exists in Catholicism. There is nobody to lay down the law and say: 'This is what our religion says' or 'This is what we should be doing.' Therefore Islam can and has been reformed in a multiplicity of ways through its history.

I cannot begin to give you examples because every period of Islam would yield a different description. Islam through time and space has been a very varied phenomenon. It has never been and could never be static. Even those who want to return to Mohammed's time (and these are the people who are defined as fundamentalists) don't necessarily imply that they want to return to seventh century AD. It could be a symbolic return, on the level of emulating the virtues or goodness of the Prophet. So, Islam takes a multiplicity of forms and it can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Although there are those within Islam who call for its reform, this can go either way. Reform can be good for liberal politics or it can be negative. In each case we have to understand which way it is going, and that will depend on the specific circumstances. The call for reform is not something that has arisen from outside Islam. It is very often a call that is heard within Muslim societies, but it does not always entail a move towards liberal politics. We always have to question what kind of reform is being proposed in a given situation.

Fathom: What has been the position of women in Islamic history? Are there examples of women leaders or women who have been revered ? Has there been a change in the status of women in Islam over the last century? Is it fair to say that the position has worsened?

(3:20 min)

Dalacoura: Islamic history is replete with examples of important women. There were a number of women close to the Prophet who were deemed to be very important. I think it is fair to say that the situation of women in Islam has not been uniformly unfavourable. The problem has arisen in the modern/contemporary situation.

It is legitimate to ask whether there has been a change in the status of women in Islam over the last century and whether women are worse off now than before. However, I don't think this is the case. The problem in the twentieth century is the discrepancy that has arisen between Muslim societies and other societies. It is not the case that Muslim women are now worse off than they used to be, but when you compare their lot to women in other parts of the world, they are worse off. They are in a more unequal position. To put it simplistically, their situation has improved compared to what it used to be in the past, but in relative terms it has not improved so dramatically. This is often seen as representative of the difficult relationship between Islam and modernity generally. The situation of women symbolises the sensitivity of this relationship. The argument often goes that Islam was a dynamic, vibrant religion, which gave rise to a dynamic and vibrant society, but that in the modern period this dynamism has been lost and the situation of women is symbolic of that.

Fathom: Have states in the Arab world--for example, Egypt and Tunisia--respected international legislation on human rights as the concept and enforcement of human rights has become more global?

(3:01 min)

Dalacoura: Egypt and Tunisia are representative of 'moderate' regimes, as they are called in the Arab world. By way of parenthesis, these are not necessarily liberal regimes. Generally, Arab regimes are very mixed. Tunisia and Egypt tend not to be truly liberal, but they are certainly not the worst in comparison to repressive societies such as Syria or Iraq. What is interesting for our purposes is that Arab states usually violate human rights in practice, but not in principle. Most of them have signed up to the international human rights instruments, and they agree in principle that human rights as defined by international law should be respected, but it is in the practice that they violate these rights for a variety of reasons. They violate their own constitutions and laws. This is a very important point and connected, in my mind, to the key idea: that Islam can be reconciled with international human rights standards. There is no unbridgeable gap between the two. It is interesting that it is rarely the case that governments claim they do not want to abide by these principles because these principles are unacceptable in Islamic terms. The Iranian government used to make that claim, and the Saudi government still makes it, arguing that international human rights are Western human rights and not applicable to Saudi Arabia, but the great majority of the Arab world takes these international standards to be valid.

Fathom: How do countries like Iraq figure in this?

(0:48 min)

Dalacoura: The Iraqi regime is not a religious regime. Iraq, like Syria, is based on the principles of Ba'athism. In other words, Arab nationalism is the founding principle of these regimes. It is interesting that these are two of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East, but in fact they are not Islamic regimes. There is a very strong religious element in the society, which of course plays a role in politics. However, I don't think in all honesty one can say that Iraq or Syria are oppressive regimes because they are religious. On the contrary.

Fathom: Do you think that there is a sense within some Middle Eastern states that social and political reform might be necessary?

(1:54 min)

Dalacoura: There is, and I think it arises from a sense of the Arab world being in stagnation or a feeling of impotence that many in the region have. It is a feeling that is connected with the political and, more particularly, the economic realities of the region. If you look at the unemployment figures, you will see that the great majority of the younger generation in the Middle East have no work. They have no opportunity, not just to earn money, but to feel that they can contribute something positive to society and the world. That feeling of stagnation and impotence takes a variety of forms. It used to be expressed in socialist terms. Now it is expressed in terms of Islamism. More fundamentally, it expresses a frustration with society and government as they are. I think there is a sense that it is politics and the economy that need tackling, not religion.

Fathom: For some time Iran has been viewed with some optimism because of Khatami, a president with moderate reformist tendencies. Has this been affected by 11 September?

(3:33 min)

Dalacoura: Khatami represents the younger generation that I have just spoken about. It is mostly women and the younger people of Iran who want change in the Islamic Republic. These are the people who voted for Khatami. He was elected president in 1997, and re-elected in 2001. I believe that, despite the obstacles that conservatives or hard-liners put in the path of reform in Iran, it will eventually predominate because there is simply no going back for the Iranian Revolution.

But 11 September, sadly, has had a negative effect on that, even though in the first few months of the crisis there was hope that it would lead to closer relations between the US and Iran. There was an expression of warmth on the part of many Iranians in response to the tragedy and many positive voices in Washington. In the end, the hard-line view in Washington against Iran predominated and we had President Bush referring to Iran as being part of an 'axis of evil'. Unfortunately, the kind of language that is very common in Iran about the US, but that people were hoping would dissipate as reform progressed, was strengthened. The predominance of hard-line policies on the part of Washington will have a negative effect within Iran and damage the prospect of reform. It won't damage it inordinately because the prospects for reform will be determined more by domestic factors than anything else. However, events as they have developed have not helped the reformist trend.

What struck me about Iran when I went there is that it is a very sophisticated society. You get a sense of a place that has a long history and quite an educated population. It is interesting to see how the reformist movement has tapped into that and, of course, it is a shame if the rest of the world misses out on this.

Fathom: Do you think human rights violations are monitored closely enough in Middle Eastern states? Is there a sense in which this may conflict with aspects of Islamic political and social theology? And do you think liberalism is possible within Islam and Islamic states?

(2:34 min)

Dalacoura: They are certainly monitored by international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Even though there is an awareness that democratic institutions are lacking and that this is widely shared in Muslim societies in the Middle East, civil society organisations are not very powerful. They tend to be quite weak and undeveloped. This means that domestically, knowledge of violations or awareness that these violations are occurring but that they are wrong is not actually very developed. It is difficult to generalise, but I would say that there is a long way to go in the creation of this culture of awareness and criticism of the existing situation along human rights lines.

	Thinking Points
	How would you define religious and political reform? Do you think reform and liberalisation are necessarily the same thing?

One can certainly see states that are more dynamic and interesting in terms of Islamic liberalism than others. Iran, Turkey, possibly Egypt and even Tunisia, although it is going through an undemocratic phase, are examples. We don't know what is happening with the Palestinian case. We'd have to see about that too.