Last month the Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW) published Surfacing, a compilation of the papers presented at the 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Reproductive Sexual Health and Rights (APCRSH) in Hyderabad last year. Surfacing discusses the impact of Roman Catholic, Hindu and Islamic fundamentalism on sexual and reproductive health and rights in a number of countries in the region. In many respects, the publication attempts to address the challenges of religious fundamentalism, whilst encouraging a more rights-based and gendered approach to practicing religion.  

Of particular interest is Zaitun Mohamed Kasim's contribution on Islamic fundamentalism. His contribution raises many concerning examples of how the differing interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence bear upon a range of reproductive health issues in Malaysia and Indonesia, two Muslim-Dominant countries in Southeast Asia, where 60.4 and 86.1 percent of the population respectively are Islamic. With no central doctrinal authority, fatwahs (religious edicts) serve as the "bridge" between Islamic principles and modern life. With thousands of fatwahs issued every month in Islamic countries around the globe, even religious and political leaders in the Muslim world admit that the number is excessive, causing confusion and potentially reflecting ideology more than learning. 

This divergence in Islamic thought is reflected in the varying levels of acknowledgment and acceptance of abortion. In most Muslim-majority countries, abortion is generally prohibited with exceptions usually made where the health of the mother is at risk. Malaysia's Abortion Act 1967 makes termination of pregnancy illegal, with minor exceptions. A pregnancy may be terminated if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the mother's life. Termination of pregnancy is also advised to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical and mental health of the mother. ARROW reports that many service providers and members of the public in Malaysia do not know the legal exceptions for abortion, partly due a lack of accurate information and partly because of the low priority accorded by the government to promoting women's reproductive rights. Dr Choong Sim Poey of the Reproductive Rights Advocacy Alliance in Malaysia similarly suggests that whilst abortion services are "widely available" in the private sector, information about public sector abortion services is "hush-hush," with the Ministry of Health refusing to provide abortion services in public hospitals based on the interpretation of the penal code.   

The Indonesian abortion law is based on a national health bill passed in 1992 that has been criticized for its vagueness. The law is generally interpreted as allowing abortion only if the woman provides confirmation from a doctor that her pregnancy is life-threatening, a letter of consent from her husband or a family member, a positive pregnancy test result and a statement guaranteeing that she will practice contraception afterwards. Like in Malaysia, Maria Ufar Ansor, head of the women's section of Indonesia's biggest Islamic Organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), has stated that dangerous abortion techniques are not uncommon, with the Guttmacher Institute reporting two million induced abortions in Indonesia every year.  

The study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute is particularly interesting for its survey of the attitude to abortion of 105 Muslim, Catholic and other Christian religious leaders in Indonesia. This survey revealed that 82% of the leaders surveyed agreed that abortion is acceptable if a woman's life is in danger, many reasoning that a woman's life should be prioritized over that of the fetus because a woman "is needed to look after the children and family she already has." The survey also concluded that Muslim leaders, though conservative, were more tolerant of abortion than their Christian counterparts, with a higher proportion of Muslim than Christian leaders supporting abortion if the pregnancy would interfere with a woman's schooling or impact her psychological health. 

Importantly, however, the Guttmacher report notes the differences in what is considered an acceptable gestational period according to sect. Followers of Imam Hanafi generally consider an abortion acceptable up to 120 days after conception. However, followers of Syafi'i consider abortion acceptable only within 40 days of conception. Indonesian Matters, an Indonesian website on the theme of culture and Islamization, refers to the head of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), Indonesia's Clerics' Council, Ma'ruf Amin, who espouses that the book recalling the words and deeds of Muhammad "says that at the fortieth day of pregnancy the unborn child receives its soul or spirit, and hence abortion after this time is forbidden." For this reason, back in 2004, when 13 Indonesian Muslim scholars proposed that an exception should be created for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, the MUI rejected the proposal, responding that such an exception would amount to the taking of a life, jinayah or murder.

Interpretations of what is haram (prohibited) or halal (permitted) in Islam similarly impact contraceptive use, attitudes towards family planning services for unmarried couples and people living with HIV/AIDS, which I will discuss in a future posting. Yet, the impact on abortion alone is sufficient to highlight the potential gravity of restrictive interpretations of Islamic tenets, with the World Health Organization reporting that in 2000 unsafe abortion accounted for 19 percent of maternal deaths in Southeast Asia. At the same time, the differences in the abortion laws in the two countries as well as the divergence of opinion within the Islamic religion itself, remind us about the necessity to distinguish between religion and religious fundamentalism. What we see here is the interpretation and application of religious principles in a way that encroaches on reproductive freedoms at the cost of women's lives.