"But, to proceed. In the rulings of which the foregoing are representative the wife can survive by submitting herself completely to the whims and fancies, the commands and worse of the husband. The rulings thus entail subjugation, complete subjugation, but only subjugation. At least there is something the wife can do—namely, submit herself completely to the husband’s whims and wishes—to keep herself from being thrown out on the street. The next set of rulings entail much more—they reduce the woman to a condition of terror. For the husband may by his mere statement—a statement he may make in anger, a statement he may make just to emphasize a point, and of course a statement he may make when he in fact wants to plunge the wife into terror—the husband can make the continuance of the marriage contingent on events over which the wife has no control whatsoever. In the face of the hundreds of rulings to this effect which Islam’s canonical law books contain, to maintain, as the apologists do, ‘No religion has given a higher place to women than Islam’, is not just ludicrous, it is chicanery. Three reasons alone explain how such assertions continue to be made, and continue to be repeated in our newspapers: first, hardly anyone among us looks up, or even knows about these rulings—although they are the very stuff of the fundamental books of Islamic jurisprudence; second, echoing, and adopting as one’s own the assertions of Islam’s champions is the way to be secular in India; and third, there is the power of terror—to recall that these rulings are what constitute the truth about the position of Muslim women is to open oneself to the terrorism of Islam’s champions. While reading the rulings, one should assess whether this kind of jurisprudence leaves any room for the kinds of reform that some would like to bring about by relying on ‘the principles of Islamic jurisprudence’ themselves."