Jakarta – What could be more ironic than being opposed by fellow women when one intends to defend women's rights in matrimony? "May God lead her to the right path," scholar Nabilah Lubis said referring to Siti Musdah Mulia, the leader of the Ministry of Religious Affairs' committee on gender mainstreaming, which produced a white paper on the revision of the Islamic Law Code, as if Musdah had been what Muslims refer to as "misled".

Nabilah's comment was greeted by a chorus of Amens from the predominantly female audience during a discussion on marriage law organized by the country's largest Islamic organization, Nahdlatul Ulama.

Late last year, Musdah and her committee published a white paper for a new Islamic law code, which sparked acrimonious debate over such issues as allowing interfaith marriages, prohibiting polygamy and promoting gender equality.

The forum, however, raised fundamental questions as to whether prevailing interpretations of Islamic law are open to debate.

The white paper, which deals also with inheritance rights for non-Muslim children and a woman's right to divorce, was accused of being out of line with the Koran.

Minister of Religious Affairs M. Maftuh Basyuni shelved the controversial draft on Feb. 14 for fear it might generate conflict among Muslims. The majority of both the speakers and members of the audience attending the seminar insisted that there were some things in Islamic law that could not be questioned as they were clearly stated in the Koran.

"Some of the fiqh (generally accepted/official interpretations of the Koran and Sunnah) stated expressly in the Koran or Sunnah must be accepted as they are and cannot be changed under any circumstances," Nabilah said.

She stressed that the prohibition on interfaith marriage and the permitting of polygamy were clearly stated in the Koran, and to suggest otherwise was contrary to Islamic law.

Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) research and development unit head Huzaemah Tahido Yanggo supported Nabilah's comments and added that the white paper had the potential to mislead the public at large and should have not been published without prior consultation with more experienced ulema.

Despite the harsh criticism of the draft, a more enlightened and objective perspective was voiced by a male member of the audience, who said that Islamic law should also be interpreted equitably, rather than just literally. This would mean the need for a contextual, not literal, interpretation of Islamic law.

The committee started out on its work with the objective of responding to various social phenomena, such as domestic violence – which was reported by the National Commission on Violence Against Women to have increased from 7,787 reported cases in 2003 to 14,020 cases in 2004 – and child trafficking.

Musdah responded to both the criticism and support by underlining that Islam is not a religion that is black and white. There were also gray areas. "Even the Imams – religious leaders – whose teachings we use now – admitted that their views were not the absolute truth.

"Why should we, people living 14 centuries later, say that their teachings are absolute and cannot be interpreted contextually," she asked.

She admitted that the draft was still only at the proposal stage and had not yet been formalized as a bill, and was thus open to amendment following discourse and discussion.

"Understanding religious teachings should be done critically and rationally," she said. "Differences in viewpoints should not be a problem." However, the day's discussion ended by concluding that the reform-minded white paper had indeed confused the public, and that a larger and more comprehensive forum involving ulemas was required before any formal decision could be made.

When all was said and one, the only discourse that took place in reality during the forum revolved around who is eligible to question Islamic law.