Response to the official statement of the Al-Azhar Legal Research Commission On the Call for a Moratorium published on March 30th, 2005.

5
5381

The Al-Azhar Legal Research Commission (lajna Al-buhûth Al-fiqhiyya) has published a statement to appear officially on Thursday 28 April which opposes the Call for a moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty.

The Al-Azhar Legal Research Commission (lajna Al-buhûth Al-fiqhiyya) has published a statement that officially appeared on Thursday 28 April which opposes the Call for a moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty.


 


The Commission primarily advances three arguments in its official statement:


 




  1. The statement raises the initial point : “Whoever denies the hudûd (Islamic penal code) recognized as revealed and confirmed or who demands that they be cancelled or suspended, despite final and indisputable evidence, is to be regarded as somebody who has forsaken a recognized element which forms the basis of the religion.” One of the Members of the Commission, Dr. Mustapha ash-Shuk’a affirms that “the hudûd are a part of the religion, they are Qu`ranic and they can be neither subject to debate nor discussion.”



  2. The point is then raised :”The hudûd are known and Tariq Ramadan is demanding that they be stopped because it is hurting the message of Islam : this is a refuted matter “



  3. Finally,  on the example of Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may peace be upon him), Dr. ash-Shuk’a affirms that “during given periods of time, the Caliph suspended the punishment in instances of war, and then it was re-applied. We are not today in a situation of war which would enable us to suspend these applications. One could suspend the application of hudûd in Iraq, because it is a country at war but this punishment cannot be suspended in Egypt or in other Islamic countries.”


 


To these three points, I would like to respond clearly and precisely : 


 




  1. In the Call which was published on March 30, 2005,  I have never denied the  texts exist (qati’yya ath-thubût wa dalala) concerning the hudûd. Nothing in the Call says or implies that. I do not dispute that these texts are authentic and determined as an essential part of the religion (mal’ ûm min ad-dîn bi-darûra). 



  2. The Call never stated that the hudûd is hurting Islam. It only reiterated that their application in the current social and political contexts is treason because the conditions for the application of these punishments are not met. The Commission itself requires this, as is stated in their official statement : “The authorities who apply the hudûd must supervise and guarantee that the conditions are strictly met.” 



  3. Dr. ash-Shuk’a affirms that Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may peace be upon him), suspended the application of the punishment with regards to theft because it was during a period of war. The scholars have effectively diverged as to whether the justifying cause (al-`illa) was because of the war or the famine, per se, or because the conditions required for the application of the punishment was impossible to meet.(`adam tawfîr ash-shurût). My humble opinion is that it was because the conditions required for the application of the punishment was impossible to meet. In fact, my questions  to the ulamâ’ (as one can find it, among a series of others, within the Call) are:


 


– Can the social, political, legal and economical conditions be recreated in any Muslim majority society so that this punishments can be applied ?


 


– Why is it always the poor and the women who are punished or that illiteracy is the situation for the majority being penalized?


 


– How can one accept these treatments when women and men do not have legal defence worthy of its name ?


 


– Can we not think of a step by step reform of the legal system which would make it possible to reform the behaviour of women and men by ensuring their basic rights, without hiding behind irreversible punishments which do not respect the required conditions ?


 


It is to these questions that I would like the Commission to respond. I never called into question the texts and their definitive character (qat’iyya). I question their interpretation (for stoning and the death penalty) and the conditions for application which, in my opinion cannot be met (for all punishment). 


 


To this end, the example of Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may peace be upon him) remains an example which we must contemplate : it  dealt with the content of an indisputable and authentic Qu`ranic text (qat’i ath-thubût wa ad-dalala) and suspended the application of it.  The factor “time” (a suspension of a few years or longer duration) is not in itself an argument. The only question is to know whether or not the conditions are or can be recreated in a given society. 


 


I hope I have clarified the content and the scope of this Call


 


Wa Allahu a’ lam wa a’ lâ wa ahkam.


 


Dr Tariq Ramadan


Geneva


April 28th, 2005


 


 

5 Commentaires

  1. Salam alaykum Brother,
    I think one was expecting such a response from some of our Muslim Scholars.If our community was not full of Scholars with such way of debating actual and significant issues your call woud have been useless! Anyway that is better than than those who are cowardly keeping silence as though that Call isn’t a significant one. So stay strong and keep discussing.Remember our Prophet’s saying:”Patience is a victory” !

  2. Mr. Ramadan,
    I applaud and agree with your conclusions about the imposition of hudud. Be sure that hudud has obviously always been a thorn in Islam. I think the European nations have struggled with a similar problem in history, in terms of who had the “right” to rule the people. From the Republics of Greece, of Rome, to Empires and Monarchies, and now, democracy, people have always argued over who gets to decide the laws in society. Muslims have had a more difficult time, I think, only because monarchy has almost always been the norm , even in today’s Muslim societies. If you were to affect the worldwide Muslim community in any way to nurture a culture of discussion about the issue of leadership among Muslims, I believe you would do much to perhaps resolve the differences between Sunna and Shi’a. Their only difference, I believe, is really based on that argument and everything else is strictly cultural.

    I know it sounds devious, but “democracy” among Muslims seems to be a big step in the right direction for ruling Muslims. Do you think that this problem of the interpretation of hudud could be resolved through some sort of system of referendums, where the people decided what shar’ia actually means, instead of listening to the mandates of the few, and often, tyranical?
    jason smith

  3. The Call never stated that the hudûd is hurting Islam. It only reiterated that their application in the current social and political contexts is treason because the conditions for the application of these punishments are not met.


    منتديات
      

    توبيكات
     

    The Commission itself requires this, as is stated in their official statement : “The authorities who apply the hudûd must supervise and guarantee that the conditions are strictly met.”

LAISSER UN COMMENTAIRE

S'il vous plaît entrez votre commentaire!
S'il vous plaît entrez votre nom ici