Carole Vann / Human Rights Tribune - Notorious for its ultra conservative Islamic laws, it may come as a surprise in the West that Sudan also embraces more modern interpretations of Islam. One of its representatives, Imam Sadiq al Mahdi, took part last week, with other reformist Muslims, in a seminar organised at the University of Bern by the Institute of Public Law, run by Walter Kalin, and the Geneva Institute for Human Rights. Delegates discussed the issue of compatibility between woman and Islam and human rights.

Imam Sadiq al Mahdi is the grandson of the founder of the religious movement Al Ansar in Sudan. At the end of the 18th century this movement stood out for its openess towards women and influenced, amongst others, muslims in Tunisia. A religious leader himself and head of one of the largest opposition parties in Sudan, the National Umma Party, Al Mahdi was prime minister in the coalition government between 1986 and 1989, right up to the coup d’etat led by the current President, Omar al-Bashir. An Oxford graduate and member of the board of the Madrid Club, he is a key figure in the modern Islamic movement in the world today.

Are human rights compatible with the status of women in Islam?

Yes, absolutely. You have to look in detail at the religious texts, putting them in a modern day context and not reading them as they were written a thousand years ago. There is no link between the opinions that were accepted then and now. But let’s be careful, it is not a question of introducing western secularisation. There is an Islam that is based on rationality, humanism, science, plurality. It is an Islam where the status of women has been improved. There is no reason that this status should be diminished today.

How do countries such as Saudia Arabia react to such opinions?

Today Islam is dominated by conservative forces. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the most extreme, wanting to link us to an idealised past. They want to subjugate women as inferior. Well known schools of law take ambivalent passages of the Koran or from other religious texts and interpret them literally. I think that there is room for a different approach.

Such as?

In the sacred texts, it is written that the testimony of two women is equal to that of one man. If this is taken out of context, you can become a prisoner of the past. At the time, most women were illiterate, so their testimony was based on memory (a reason why it was seen that two women were needed rather than one). Today the context is different and this passage should not be read literally. The testimony of a woman should be given the same value as that of a man.

Is wearing the veil enshrined in the Koran ?

This is also about a question of interpretation. The Koran requires that men and women dress decently. But I admit that here man is the weaker sex and it asks the woman to help him not to fail (laughter). Women and men are certainly not seen as equals there.

Two countries, Tunisia and Morocco have very progressive laws relating to women. Are they role models to follow ?

There is a fundamental difference in the two approaches. The Tunisian family code was drawn up with secular intent, outside of Islam, while the Moroccan code, the Moudawana, has based its laws on religious texts. The Moroccan approach is much more legitimate for a Muslim society than the Tunisian one.

How can these changes be concretely applied on the ground ?

In many countries, women sit on commitees that study laws. But the principle constraints are cultural. We have to work on laws but also change mentalities. In Sudan, for example, a woman has legal rights. The problem comes in applying them. There has to be political will. The changes in Morocco and Tunisia would not have happened without the agreement of the President or the King.

Do you think you are in danger because of your views ?

I don’t know. Some forces accuse us of a lack of religious respect. But important political players in Turkey, Malaysia, Morocco and Indonesia share our ideas. At the moment there is a lot of competition between the various interpretations of the Koran over the future of Islam.