She comments further:
The prospect of prohibiting and punishing domestic violence depends, foremost, on the state?s willingness and capacity to reform criminal and family laws. But the issue?and possibility?of state-sponsored reforms is strongly affected by social beliefs and ideologies about gender and family relations.

Law reform strategies work best?when the social value base is in concordance with the desired new norms. As long as the old regime of values is in effect, the tasks of making the new norms operative, or activating the educative function of law to change values, will be difficult and require action on many fronts.[13]



When the administration of family relations is based upon or derived from religious texts and traditions, as is the case in Muslim societies where sharia constitutes the framework for family law, the possibility for reform is contingent on a serious and respectful engagement with religious beliefs and practices. But the challenges to reform law in order to promote and protect the rights of women are daunting; in many contexts, shari?a is interpreted to allow or tolerate certain forms of violence against women by male family members. This raises questions?and stimulates debates?about what religion "says" (or is believed to say) about the rights of women. It also raises questions about the willingness or ability of the state to prevent violence within families, especially when prevailing views or powerful constituencies regard curbs on male authority as a contravention of sharia.

She discusses some very interesting information at length and concludes:

Ultimately, the state is responsible for the regulation, restriction and punishment of violence. If sharia functions legally and/or socially as a basis for maintaining women as wards of "their men" rather than full legal subjects of the state, and if violence against women within the context of families is not regarded as violence but as a legitimate means of "social control", the harms women suffer go not only unpunished but unrecognized as harms. Thus, even if states commit themselves to the principle of women's rights (e.g., non-discriminatory clauses in national civil legislation, accession to international conventions), if they do not commit their resources to protect women from violence at home, they fail as states to assume their responsibility.

The authoritarian nature of many states in the Middle East, Africa and Asia bolsters patriarchal family relations, and fosters social and religious conservatism.

When the state is incapable or unwilling to represent the interests of members of society, the importance of family and kinship relations for social survival is inflated. Consequently, any challenges to patriarchal authority in the domestic sphere including but not limited to challenges to the use of violence can be construed as threats to the family as an institution.

Although sharia is administered, interpreted and used in a multitude of ways across Muslim societies, it provides justification for failures and refusals on the part of states to act responsibly to provide women the rights and protections that they are due as humans, as citizens, as women and as Muslims.