ever, that the doctrines of particular schools remain
dominant in certain regions as the historic origin
from which departure to alternative doctrines took
place (for instance, Màlikìdoctrine in North Africa
and £anafìin Egypt and the Levant; An-Na≠im
2002, 5–6).
Transformation of the legal
treatise on the family
Modern treatises commenting on the modern
family code or statute clearly convey the supra-
madhhabconsciousness of their authors. Typically
in these treatises, the views of various premodern
schools on a particular doctrinal matter are dis-
cussed and the rule adopted by the legislature
through ijtihàd, ikhtiyàr, or talfìq is identified and
commented upon. In general, modern treatises
share with the reformers the project of transform-
ing the “household” into a “family.” Instead of a
male provider overseeing a household inhabited by
wives, concubines, slaves, children, and relatives,
the modern family constructed by these treatises
via commentary on the family code is a predomi-
nantly monogamous one in which marriage is a
matter of offer and acceptance between a man and
a woman with the goal of reproduction. Marriage
for reproduction in the modern Islamic treatise is a
novel construct diverging widely from marriage as
a contract between a man and a woman according
to which a woman provides sexual pleasure, as was
the case in the premodern juristic treatise (Sonbol
2003, 157). However, given that reforms have taken
place within the principle of gendered reciprocity
without eliminating it altogether, the modern codes
and treatises are notable for incorporating rules
associated with the premodern household as well
as those associated with the monogamous repro-
ductive family unit. The rule on wifely obedience
through provision of sexual pleasure to husband
(medieval household), as well as the norm of repro-
duction as the purpose of the marriage contract
(modern family) are both present, in tension with
each other and each pulling in a different concep-
tual direction (Badran 1976). A modern innovation
of these treatises is the presentation of obedience
for maintenance as an element of a long list of
reciprocal rights and duties exchanged by the
spouses.
Family courts in the modern
era
Judges in the contemporary family courts in the
various Arab countries, have, in general, used their
discretion in interpreting the law to further whittle
away at the most detrimental aspects of gendered
arab states 461reciprocity. This is of course not always the case,
and depends on how liberal or conservative the
judges interpreting the legislation might be. Liberal
rulings tend in the direction of increasing the hus-
band’s maintenance obligations and of contracting
women’s obedience obligations; conservative rul-
ings tend in the other direction. Family courts in
various states are notorious for delay in settling
cases, causing a great deal of hardship for litigants,
especially women, rendering their marital status
and financial rights uncertain for lengthy periods of
time (Hill 1979, 72–101, Sonbol 2003, 180–3).Debate of family law reform:
the second stage
The second stage of family law reform, starting
in the early 1980s, brought new actors to the scene
and triggered a fresh debate. Unlike the first stage,
where reforms took place through an alliance
between the secular nationalist elites controlling
the state, reforming feminists influenced by
Western enlightenment, and modernizing ≠ulamà±
(Muslim jurists) seeking to revive Islamic law to
challenge the transplantation of European law into
the Arab world (Abu-Odeh 2004), the political
forces that came to the fore in the second stage look
significantly different. The participants in this sec-
ond stage of debate comprise first, a new genera-
tion of Islamicists, including women Islamicists
who are offended by the reforms of the first stage
and who seek to revive a gendered reciprocity that
is unshackled by these reforms. It is noteworthy
that women Islamicists might differ from male
Islamicists over how to interpret gendered reci-
procity with the former seeking to use it to curb
male power and the latter seeking to reconsolidate
this power. The second party to the new debate is
the religious bureaucracy which has played the role
after the first stage of reforms of administering
Sharì≠a courts and adjudicating family law cases,
and which wants to preserve the reforms (reformed
gendered reciprocity) while being willing to either
minimally advance those reforms or alternatively
curb them, depending on its perception of how it is
faring in the eyes of the public (in its competition
for legitimacy with the new Islamicists). Third,
there is a reinvigorated feminism aligned with the
international human rights movement which wants
to abolish gendered reciprocity altogether in favor
of formal equality (both husband and wife share
duty of maintenance and treat each other well, no
wifely obedience). Fourth, there is a liberal femi-
nism which shares the basic convictions of the
human rights feminism but shuns secular discourse
and insists on packaging its liberal feminism in the