Live dialogue around the call for a moratorium

Dialogue 13th of April around the moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World Dialogue 13th of April around the moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World Question posed by Mounim EL YACOUBI:

Dear Tariq, Thanks for your efforts to promote ethics and justice in the Islamic world and everywhere. I totally agree with your moratorium because the laws are currently applied in a way which is opposed to their very essence. And Islam is justice, and we, as Muslims cannot tolerate anymore the unjust applications of these laws. I want to draw your attention to some reactions that followed your call for the moratorium. An example is an article written by Yasser Azza3atira on the Moroccan journal Attajdid: http://www.attajdid.ma/. In this article, Yasser hinted (in one sentence) at the very beginning that you were talking about a moratorium. After that, and throughout the article, he kept saying that you were advocating and asking for removing these laws, not calling for a moratorium. Not only that, at one point, he stated that the analogy you gave between your call and Omar Ibn Al-Khattab moratorium is not correct because Omar only suspended the law in question for a period of time (sic) as if you weren’t actually calling for a moratorium with debates, but for a mere elimination of the laws right now. This drives me crazy. How can a journalist say this while your call is very clear? Is it lack of professionalism, dishonestly, incompetence? Anyway, I’m afraid your call can be misinterpreted in the Arab and Islamic world and I hope you will find a way to explain again and again (unfortunately) your proposal through Arab medias and especially Arab TV channels. Thanks Mounim

Answer by Tariq RAMADAN:

Dearest brother Mounim, Thank you for your message and comment. This is exactly what is happening. Scholars and people are "projecting" thoughts, intentions and objectives on my call that are not there. The text, the arguments and the objectives are perceived through the prism of "pro-Western approach" or "against Islam"… This is why I am saying that the reactions to this call are working as "indicators" or "revelations" as to the state of the debate in the Islamic world. We are here at the heart of our "internal crisis" unable to listen to a critical argument coming from within. Anyone criticising from within is perceived as working for outsiders or "the Other", not to say "The Enemy". These kinds of reactions are not coming only from the "ordinary Muslims" but from scholars and even ulamâ’ and this is why I am ready to continue this struggle in the name of Islam, in our name… I got so many contradictory reactions revealing exactly your point that this, in itself, is but a confirmation of the content of the Call. May Allah help us and guide us

Question posed by Samir:

Salam Alaykoum Tariq, I have pasted two statements that you probably have heard about. Can you please lay out your arguments ? (for full article http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewnews.php?newsID=4208) "Some may start calling for moratorium on the family law of Islam also, and some others on the business and finance laws of Islam, and some may ask for moratorium on the whole Shari`ah" “I do have a great respect and love for Dr. Tariq. [But] If we call today for an international moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty, then tomorrow I am so worried that they may ask Muslims to suspend their Friday Prayer,” These statements are coming from Ulema’s. I’m very disappointed about the methodology they chose to debate. I hope you’ll raise the debate at a serious level. Would you say that violence in the name of Allah requires an urgent and specific processing? Thanks Salam Alaykoum Samir

Answer of Tariq RAMADAN:

Dear brother Samir Thank you for your question. I am not so disappointed about the kind of responses I got for I was expecting such arguments. I can understand that Muslims are worried about where "innovations" and the ideas of a "progressive Islam" could lead us. These concerns are not understandable but are nonetheless legitimate. We have to be explicit as to our faithfulness to the fundamentals of Islam and the classical tradition. This is what I am advocating. It is in the name of this classical tradition and the requirements of the Islamic teachings that I am questioning the current application and the silence of the ulamâ’. We are dealing with the hudûd that are understood as the farthest limits (and the harshest) concerning the implementation of the penal code. To suspend their application does not mean that we should not think of a penal code in the meantime. What is meant is that we must stop the injustices and the irreversible sanction. If it is not possible to question the consistency of our legal practices with the scriptural sources it means that we have a real problem, a deep intellectual crisis. We, altogether, have to raise the debate to a more serious and deeper level. I think that we also have to open a debate about violence in the name of Islam… you are right. I have been speaking about that for the last 10 years and I am thinking of writing a book about the issue in shâ Allah.

Question posed by Samir:

Salam Alaykoum Tariq, I have already asked you the question on the French version of this dialog but I was not satisfied with your answer. Considering the tight links of all aspects of life in Islam (faith, social, politics,…). Would it be useful to address other Muslim decision makers and not only the Ulema’s. Otherwise I’m afraid that the call will find no convergence by the Ulema’s. They have showed heavy divergence in the past. The other question I have is related to some statistics. Your call will be well supported by providing a snapshot of the situation by means of figures so we understand the severity of the situation. Figures and their trends are important and we see them only from Amnesty International (at least some figures). So if you want a debate from the "inside" then we need also to assess the situation from "inside". Please also indicate the source of the figures you have so far. Thank you Samir Salam Alaykoum,

Answer by Tariq RAMADAN:

Salam my bilingual brother, 1. Yes I agree with you and this is mentioned in the text of the call. We need a multidimensional mobilisation. This is what we are trying to do. 2. I do not think that we have to rely solely on figures to say that if this is happening it is unacceptable. Nevertheless, I can tell you that we are dealing with hundreds of cases of corporal punishments in the Islamic world, few known cases of stoning and hundreds of death penalty cases. The latter are not always implemented in the name of the hudûd, that’s right, but the Muslims do not argue against them and the death penalty per se because they think that "death penalty" is Islamic. There is an intellectual distortion in our approach which we have to consider and to reform as well. Amnesty International is one source but we have also documents from many Human rights organisations based in the Islamic world or in the West. Many Islamic organisations do not dare to mention these treatments … it is sad and unacceptable Wa Allahu a’lam

Question posed by Nur:

May Allah reward you for your bold call and we hope that the scholars show similar courage by engaging in this debate. I have two main questions: 1)I read the Islamonline article that quoted leaders and scholars who think this call is a mistake and who question your motives for doing it. I would have liked to read opposing views who might see the point of your call. What kind of reactions are you getting from scholars and ordinary people? Are there scholars who agree with you on this? 2)Since it is the scholars who have to discuss this issue and only they have the authority to call for suspension, what can we ordinary people do? Jazak Allah khair br. Tariq for taking the time to respond to us, we pray for you and your family.

Answer By Tariq RAMADAN:

Dear Nur, Thank you for your question. 1. The leaders and the scholars who reacted on Islamonline seemed to respond to the questions of the journalists without having taken the time to read the text. At least I hope that this is the case for the difference between what I said and what they are reacting to is not only huge but we are in two different worlds speaking of two different things. 2. I have been speaking of this moratorium for the last 5 years and I met many scholars who understood and agreed on the approach and the proposal. As I said in the text, many are afraid to speak and remain silent in order to avoid being criticised for it is a very sensitive topic. In Indonesia, Marocco, Jordan, I got much support from the ulamâ’ but we need time to open the debate and to give space to the ulamâ’ to express themselves in a less passionate climate. The mufti of Egypt and Shaykh al-Qaradawi did not want to react immediately: I am sure they both will have reservations but at least they want to discuss seriously the issue. This is exactly the intention of this call. 3. We should know that today the ulamâ’ usually do not react but in two circumstances: 1. Under the pressure of the community 2. Under the pressure of the media. Now, we should know that the community does not react but under the pressure of the media. This is why this call has been launched in that way: First step, a media coverage throughout the world to make the Muslim communities aware of the problem and, as a second step, to mobilise the ordinary Muslims in order to put some pressure on the ulamâ’ to respond to the argument and to open the debate. So, what is needed now is a large awareness and Muslims to ask the ulamâ’ to tackle the issue and to say something serious about it. It is our responsibility and this is a personal commitment expected from every "ordinary Muslim" Wa Allahu a’lam

Question posed by Mounia:

dear mr Ramadan, i totally agree with the call for moratorium, but do you think there will be a time when the hudud can be implemented in a just way?

Answer by Tariq RAMADAN:

Salam ‘alaykum, I don’t know and in that field I follow in the footsteps of Imam Mâlik. Whenever someone came to him asking "What if…" He used to respond: "Has that situation happened?" If the answer was "No…" he responded “so let us deal with our reality, not with suppositions, for we have already too many problems to solve.” Looking at our reality I can say that the required conditions and the social and political environments of the Muslim majority societies do not allow us to apply the hudûd today. Let us stop, open the debate and establish what is needed to deal with the hudûd field. I want us to get rid of this mentality of "If we were in an ideal society?"… but, we are not! And "What is done is not really Islamic, this is not the genuine Islam!" … but we do not say what the true application is. Our sentences are full of "conditional" and "negative"… and we hide ourselves behind these statements helping us to avoid the fact that we lack a vision. Let us face the "reality as it exists" and say what "is" the right implementation of Islam. The "ifs" and the "nots" colonized our minds and turn us into victims, while lucidity compels us to reform our societies… Wa Allahu a’lam

Question posed by thinkwise:

Salam Aliekum. Brother This is subject is very important to discuss these things. The injustice and the bad culture that are going against women & poor people and that creates distortion on Islam . Yes your discussion about this matter is going towards direction the step to what a real Islam is. The Sharia must be justified in the core what it is in Quran & Sunnah and use it wise. But never will it be inflicted with bad culture in society and that in witch it also triggers injustice. My question is how should we reach to wider public so that they know that these bad culture have to be stopped because it is going against what is Islam stand for. .. …We are living in a modern Jayhiliah..

Answer by Tariq RAMADAN:

Salam ‘alaykum, I think that we have to think about two perspectives: 1. We need a large and public awareness and commitment: we need to involve the ordinary Muslims and the intellectuals in order to study our respective environments and to formulate the right questions to the ulamâ’. How could we move forward? What are the first steps of the required reforms and how can we remain faithful to the Islamic teachings? 2. We need to build a vision. What do we need? Far from the eternal responses based on an idealised past and a dreamed future… "we are no longer…"; "if we were…" A vision taking into account the real and building the future. Not more not less… We are alienated in the very meaning of the word… we blame "the other" and every criticism from inside is perceived as coming from "outside"… Is this not a kind of psychological pathology? Exactly the opposite of the state of "furqân" (spiritual discernment) mentioned in the Qur’an?

Question posed by Samir:


Salam Alaykoum Tariq, I have another question that is very basic, so I apologize if I’m too simple. Please assume that I’m a basic Muslim with low amount of education/conceptualisation/… Here is the question: Based on Coran, Sourate 24, Verse 1 and 2, what is the path from those verses to the call for a moratorium? I know that most of the Ulema’s will tell me it is too difficult for me but I’m a rebel and I take the opportunity to ask you. Please remain simple especially considering the nature of the first verse of that Sourate. Again I support your call. Thank you Salam Alaykoum Samir

Answer of Tariq RAMADAN:

Salam my dear brother, No it is not too difficult for you and your question is more than legitimate. The second verse of the sourâ 24 deals with "az-zânia wa zânî" (women and men engaging in illicit sexual relations) and the text is qat’î ath thubû and ad-dalala (definitive as to its authenticity and its meaning). This is the proof that such texts exist and there are no arguments or discussions about the fact that they are part of the Islamic corpus and teachings. We are dealing with a text, now, all the ulamâ’ have understood that to identify and to judge someone as being zânî or zânîa one needs specific proof, strict conditions and a specific moral environment. This is exactly the point of the call: the texts are here but what is required in our specific contexts to remain faithful to the spirit of justice that the whole Islamic message is carrying? It is not enough to quote the verses… to understand them is imperative and to be consistent when applying them is a moral obligation. This is the purpose of the call… This is the end of this session. Thank you for your questions. Continue to remain in touch in shâ ar-Rahmân and may Allah protect us, guide us and love us. SalamulLahi ‘alaykum jamî’an.