Dr Amina Wadud was at the centre of controversy at last month's 2nd International Muslim leaders Consultation on HIV/Aids in Kuala Lumpur.

The Islamic scholar was forced to withdraw her paper, ' Vulnerabilities: Aids and HIV ' , after being accused of blasphemy by a handful of participants, who were outraged by her "attack" on Islam.

In her paper, Wadud said, "Islam and Muslims exacerbate the spread of Aids and a traditional Islamic theological response can never cure Aids."

She added that Muslim women are bound by Islam to comply with their husband's desire for sex, and can be punished if they do not. This includes women who know their husbands are HIV-positive.

Wadud is currently an Islamic studies professor in the department of philosophy and religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University in United States.

Task in progress

Wadud is the author of the ground-breaking book 'Qur'an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective', the first interpretive reading of the Qu'ran by a woman.

She is part of the group of Muslim progressives who argue that it is not the religion but the patriarchal interpretation and implementation of the Qur'an that have kept women oppressed. In the book, she seeks to validate the female voice in the Qur'an and bring it out of the shadows.

Following the controversy during the conference, she gives her side of the story in an interview.

Question: How were you invited to the conference?

Amina Wadud:

I have a long-standing relationship with Malaysia. I taught at the International Islamic University there from 1989 to 1992. During that time I was involved in various outreach activities related to gender and justice issues, including being a core member in Sisters in Islam. Since my teaching contract ended, I have returned to Malaysia eight times and continue to be active in Sisters in Islam.

I was one of eight women who started the group before it became an officially recognised NGO in Malaysia, and we work on various issues around gender justice. In the late 1990s, we organised a reproductive health conference, and that was when I first had an opportunity to interact with Marina Mahathir, the organiser of the HIV/Aids conference that just took place.

Did you have any idea that your presentation would get the reaction that it did?

I had no such expectation whatsoever. I had presented similar ideas many times before to diverse audiences, including to many Muslim ones, and I had never encountered anything like this. No one had called me blasphemous before.

So why do you think these people reacted this way?

You'd have to ask them. I don't spend my time trying to think up reasons for what they do. Instead, I try to work pro-actively toward gender and justice reform in the context of Muslim society. If I kept thinking about them, I'd be a basket case! They're not my main focus in life.

Traditionally, Islam has included a broad spectrum of ideas, from conservative to radical, and I've always seen my ideas as belonging within that tradition of legitimate Islamic responses.

I think the people who attacked me wanted to use my presentation as an excuse to attack the whole process. Many people who supported me wanted to call for the removal of the people who caused the disruption, but I opposed that and believed in their right to be there. But they were not as generous with me.

Would you have done things differently?

Yes, I would have. The paper was really a work in progress that is part of concepts I am developing regarding an ethic of care and a theology of compassion. I would have devoted less time to inquiring into possibilities and more to suggesting concrete steps for reform.

This presentation was meant as a process, not a product, and this needs an intellectual safety and integrity that some people are not willing to give.

When it comes to dealing with HIV and Aids, are Muslims or Islam the problem? And is there a difference?

The basic definition of Islam that I teach in my classes includes a negative definition, that Islam is not necessarily what Muslims do. So yes, there is a difference, but Islam can only be that which is a reflection of Muslims in the first place. And it's important to inquire into the connections between the Qur'an and Sunnah, Hadith and Sunnah, the Prophet and Allah, etc.

Islam is vital and dynamic, not static, and when we as Muslims, through our intellectual and spiritual strengths or shortcomings, fail to be vital and dynamic, then Islam has died. We can mess it up or do it justice.

Islam has the capacity to respond to a wide variety of things. There can be an Islamic response to HIV and Aids that is compassionate, tolerant, supportive, and inclusive. But what is considered an Islamic response now is unacceptable to me. Others are making more viable responses, and Muslims are sitting on the sideline. Meanwhile, Aids continues to grow in our community. We need to step up to the plate as Muslims.

Only a small minority caused the disruption, and the majority of speakers, audience members, and the organisers of the event were supportive. So why did you issue a retraction?

That's a good question. The truth is I was holed up in this hotel all day, and someone asked to interview me and offered to take me out. When I finally went outside, it was so liberating to get out of that oppressive environment. We had a wonderful conversation about nature and creation, and I realised how much I loved what I do.

When I returned, I was told by Marina that some people at Jakim (Islamic Development Department of Malaysia) wanted to talk to me about the paper. I said to myself, They still can't figure out what to do with it. So I just decided to withdraw the paper because I felt badly for Marina. I felt that, although she wanted to take a stand, her role as a diplomat would be compromised by antagonising these forces.

So I decided that I did not want to give an excuse to the extremists who wanted to use the paper to attack the whole process.

Has anyone apologised to you?

No one came to me and apologised in a sincere, personal, or direct way. Some just wanted to make a political show, even to the point of wanting to take pictures with me afterwards, but there was no genuine request for forgiveness.

Progressive Muslim academics and activists usually take one of two paths: "reclaiming" early Islamic texts and charging conservatives with corrupting the original intent and meaning, or calling for a new interpretation of Islam based on contemporary circumstances. Which of these approaches are more valid in your view?

I think both are equally necessary and mutually supportive.

The above interview first appeared in Muslim WakeUp! Online Magazine .